The Commission’s whole aim is to further the drive to make South Australia the World’s nuclear toilet. So, the Submissions on this topic of importing nuclear wastes are especially important.
NGOPPON TOGETHER INC sent in a top Submissions on all 4 Issues papers
Excerpts from NGOPPON TOGETHER INC – Submission on Issues Paper 4 – Management, Storage and Disposal of Wastes.
“…..Ngoppon Together’s answer [to Australia’s Lucas Heights wastes] – leave it where it is, where the expertise is, in Lucas Heights where it won’t be out of sight, out of mind; so that we avoid the hope of the pro-nuclear lobby and the consequent burgeoning of high and intermediate level waste in having finally established a repository, nuclear power will be far more possible (and the pressure to establish a nuclear power reactor thus increase.)
Measured by radioactivity, spent nuclear fuel reprocessing waste from Lucas Heights reactors accounts for over 90% of the waste the Government wants to dump … Although the volume of this waste is relatively small – some tens of cubic metres – it is by far the most radioactive material “ANSTO is capable of handling and storing wastes for long periods of time. There is no difficulty with that.” Dr Ron Cameron, ANSTO.(Lucas Heights (quoted in ‘Nuclear Freeways ‘)…….
Of course other countries would be delighted to know that some other country would be both so foolish and foolhardy to be prepared to accept their radioactive waste – dangerous for 100,000 years or more!
BUT What price could the receivers possibly put on the likely and irreversible damage to their country
and waters, its people, its children? In such a vast country to discount the potential high level dangers of transport? Do we have no responsibility towards the future generations of South Australian and indeed Australian children?
One can envisage future court cases which will be fought in the future for damages incurred by citizens – similar to those fought regarding asbestos – with the difference being that all the evidence for not going ahead with such a clearly dangerous scheme was indeed well known at the time. And with a far more widespread, serious and totally irreversible situation at stake…….
Ngoppon Together strongly refutes the muddled, quite fallacious so-called ‘ethics’ argument – We export and so are ethically bound to receive waste. This argument fails, as the people do not choose to export uranium but Governments and companies do. Aboriginal people oppose digging up uranium on their land in the first place and then to compound the burden, in the past at least are faced with the waste being imposed on them and their lands, waste that is up to one million times more reactive after enrichment. Our members point out the obvious realityif any government imports uranium then they import the responsibility for dealing with the implications of the purchase. Fewer than 1 in 6 South Australians are inclined towards reactors or waste dumps in S.A. We remind the Commission of their duties – to inform clearly and fully the SA Community of the facts and implications , rather than to persuade and cajole………
August 17, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. |
Leave a comment
From Submission to Royal Commission on Nuclear Fuel Chain NGGOPPON TOGETHER INC, Michele Madigan“……….A nuclear industry particularly a radioactive storage facility for high or intermediate level waste in South Australia would undermine and even destroy the state’s vital fishing, agricultural, world famous wine and also the tourism sectors. If such a facility is established the State’s largely clean, green image will be impossible to sustain.
Tourist destinations obviously lose appeal when travel arrangements are considered – a possibility of sharing the road or railtrack with highly toxic radioactive waste, whether marked or not: not every SA tourist place is accessible by plane (ANSTO has acknowledged that there are 1-2 accidents or ‘incidents’ every year involving the transportation of radioactive materials to and from the Lucas Heights reactor plant.
The NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into radioactive waste found there “is no doubt that the transportation of radioactive waste increases the risk of accident or incident – including some form of terrorist intervention”.) If South Australia has sometimes been in danger of being known as a ‘cinderella ‘ state, any former such thought will be multiplied enormously. Action – withdrawal, loss of population, loss of industries especially food industries.
The positive alternative is still possible as SA presently is the leading state in renewable energy and has the opportunity if taken by government to go down this positive healthy path to maintain a clean, safe country and waters, safe and healthy employment opportunities and for the safety, health and well being of all of its citizens. ……
August 17, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. |
Leave a comment
CLAIRE CATT: SUBMISSION TO THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION
To the Commissioners, This submission pertains to Issue Paper No 4 Management, Storage and Disposal ofNuclear and Radioactive Waste
The following views and comments are sole my own as a citizen of the State of South Australia. My interest in nuclear issues is longstanding and my concerns are shared by many of my family and friends, here in Australia and overseas.
Issue Paper Question No. 4./ Clean and sufficient water resources are becoming a serious and difficult issue for countries all over the world. Australia is a very dry continent with limited and dwindling water resources. South Australia is its driest state. The nuclear industry requires huge and ongoing water resources which Australia cannot spare, let alone South Australia.
Issue Paper Question No. 4.6 Maintaining security at nuclear installations, both reactors and storage facilities, is becoming increasingly difficult due to geo-political developments. Security and defence issues are causing major concerns in the US and Europe. This heightened threat is relatively new and rising. Costs associated with maintaining security may become prohibitive, especially for a small community like South Australia. Provision of security by profit driven corporations poses its own inherent risks.
Issue Paper Question No. 4.8 Despite many years of research and experimentation, disposal/storage methods remain unsatisfactory, expensive and in terms of safety largely speculative, certainly in the (very) long term.
Issue Paper No. 4.10 It is important for each nation to responsibly address the problems caused by their own nuclear industries. The transportation and shipping of these dangerous material around the world exposes people and environments to unacceptable risks which are greatly reduced when local solutions are in place. Auslralia also needs 10 dispose of its own relatively small amount of medical nuclear waste as safely as possible in the most suitable location, away from large population centres. For this purpose we do require a small storage facility. The solution of this problem wilhin Australia is inthe interest of all Austral ans.
In conclusion I would like to voice my long held view that Australia has been very lucky and wise to avoid the significant problems posed by the nuclear industry all over the world. It would be an extraordinary decision to embark au this high risk venture at a time when much of the population here and overseas is focussing on clean renewable energy solutions which will benefit all including future generations.
August 15, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. |
Leave a comment
So far the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission has published 44 Submissions about Issues Paper 4 – Management, Storage and Disposal of Waste
Surprise surprise! They haven’t published Dr Helen Caldicott’s submission. They haven’t published mine, (written under my full name Noel Christina Wauchope)
Well, as the import of radioactive trash is the main purpose of this shonky Royal Commission, we can expect that they will give priority to the pro nuclear ones.
The tally for the published submissions? – 29 in favour of South Australia importing radioactive trash, 15 against.
Of the 29 in favour- well – they ALL have a vested or very obvious commercial or career interest in the radioactive-trash-import project.
- 9 are actually companies or nuclear associations.
- 2 are government agencies, – ANSTO and the Commonwealth Government.
- 14 Individuals – all with either direct connection to a nuclear /uranium company, or with a political/career motive
- Australian Workers Union – a sad standout? I guess they have bought the nuclear lobby mantra of “jobs jobs jobs”
August 14, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. |
Leave a comment
Three leading environmental organisations – Conservation SA, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Friends of the Earth, Australia – have submitted a detailed joint submission to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission which forensically details an extensive series of nuclear myths and false assumptions.
“South Australia’s future lies in renewable energy, not nuclear. It’s cheaper, safer and quicker to roll out,” said Conservation SA Chief Executive Craig Wilkins.
“This week’s axing of hundreds of jobs from Olympic Dam should raise huge questions about growth potential in the nuclear industry.
“With renewables, we can be in charge of our own destiny, not dependent on decisions made in corporate boardrooms on the other side of the world,” he said.
“Much of the nuclear promotion in SA is premised on the idea of a global nuclear ‘renaissance’, said lead submission author Dr Jim Green. “In fact, the nuclear renaissance is stone cold dead.
“There are fewer reactors now than there were a decade ago. Nuclear fuel cycle markets for enrichment, conversion and fuel fabrication are oversupplied. And as the continuing job losses at Olympic Dam demonstrate, the uranium market is extremely weak and will remain so for years,” he said.
As well as highlighting the contested and constrained status of the current nuclear sector the 248 page report makes a compelling case that the industry’s future will be no brighter.
“So-called Generation 3 reactors projects such as the French EPR and Westinghouse AP1000 are in trouble, with multi-year delays and multi-billion dollar cost blowouts,” said Dr Green. “So-called Generation 4 reactors are decades away and, as a recent report by the French government concludes, safety claims made by Generation 4 advocates do not stand up to scrutiny.”
Many environment, public health and Aboriginal groups have expressed concern that the Royal Commission is being used by the nuclear industry as a Trojan Horse in an attempt to open national and international radioactive waste dumps in SA.
“Australia has yet to find a lasting, responsible solution to domestic radioactive waste so it beggars belief that some are promoting Australia as the solution to the world’s nuclear waste problems.
“Proponents of a deep underground nuclear waste dump in Australia have been coy about the fact that the world’s only deep underground nuclear dump – in the US state of New Mexico – has been shut down following a February 2014 explosion,” Dr Green concluded.
Attachment 1: Two page submission briefing.
Attachment 2: Joint submission to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission by Conservation SA, Australian Conservation Foundation, and Friend¬¬s of the Earth, Australia.
August 14, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. |
Leave a comment
Australia Institute rejects nuclear option for South Australia, International Business Times, By Vittorio Hernandez @ibtimesau on August ![]()
13 2015 The global debate on the safety of nuclear power continues, with South Australia joining the debate.
A plan by the state to set up either a nuclear waste dump or a nuclear power station was rejected by the Australia Institute due to major flaw in economic and technical assumptions for a domestic nuclear power industry. Richard Denniss, chief economist of the institute, points to lack of commercial scale of the technology being proposed as the most extreme assumption……..
Even nuclear power is not an option for the state, Denniss said, adding “Even if you totally dismiss issues like security, proliferation, safety, insurance and public opposition, nuclear energy is Australia is a very expensive and very slow option to implement.”
In its submission to the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, the the institute said that if there was a way for other countries to profit from nuclear waste, it would have done so. It said the proposal would only “create a high level waste problem for ourselves in the hopes that we would be able to not merely solve it, but profit from it.”
The submission also cited experience of other countries that use nuclear power, such as France, which sources 80 percent of its electricity for nuclear plants. However, the 2014 net loss reported by Areva, the state-controlled nuclear power company, of 4.9 billion euro was even bigger than Areva’s stock market value of 3.7 billion euro.
The institute instead pushed for renewables such as solar and wind power, although Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott is also cold to the idea of wind power, particularly windmills which he considers ugly……. http://www.ibtimes.com.au/australia-institute-rejects-nuclear-option-south-australia-1460187
August 14, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. |
Leave a comment
SA told prioritise renewables, not nuclear 9 News, AAP , 13 Aug 15, Renewable energy should be prioritised over nuclear power, the Conservation Council of SA says.
Detailing its submission to South Australia’s royal commission into the nuclear fuel cycle, the council says the state’s future lies in renewable energy.
“It’s cheaper, safer and quicker to roll out,” the council’s chief executive Craig Wilkins said on Thursday.
The council’s submission came after the Australia Institute said renewables would make nuclear energy redundant. “Solar and wind power, right now, is cheaper than nuclear power. And unlike nuclear, renewables are getting cheaper,” the institute said.
“In the time it would take to develop an Australian nuclear power industry, it will be made utterly redundant by renewables.”…..http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/08/13/10/09/renewable-energy-makes-nuclear-redundant
August 14, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. |
Leave a comment
suggestions for the Terms of Reference 16 Feb 2015 by Brett Burnard Stokes
I suggest that the Commission investigate the following propositions:
Proposition A
That the Commission has come about because of a complex ongoing fraud, with
1- false pretences including:
(a) false statements used in promotion of uranium mining
(b) false statements used in promotion of nuclear power
(c) false statements issued with the authority of Adelaide University
(d) false statements issued with the authority of the Government of South Australia
2- financial aspects including:
(a) theft from future generations
(b) spending of money by Government of South Australia
(c) collection of “crowd funding” by Ben Heard
(d) manipulation of share prices in BHP Billiton and other uranium miners
(e) benefits to BHP Billiton and other uranium miners
(f) benefits to Adelaide University
(g) benefits to individuals including Barry Brook, Corey Bradshaw and Ben Heard.
(h) liability for harms caused by radioactive poisons
(i) liability for harms caused by false assurances of safety
3- associated malfeasance including:
(a) manufacture of radioactive poisons
(b) transport of radioactive poisons
(c) administration of radioactive poisons to children
(d) administration of radioactive poisons to pregnant women
(e) administration of radioactive poisons to future generations
(f) pollution of environment with radioactive poisons
(g) false assurances of “nuclear safety”
(h) false assurances of safety from exposure to radioactive poisons.
Proposition B
That the Commission has a duty to find that
1- uranium mining is a crime against humanity.
2- the South Australia government needs to wind down and stop uranium mining activities, for both moral and financial reasons.
3- corrective actions (including criminal proceedings) need be instituted.
4- radioactive poisons are a real threat to life, human and dolphins especially – our young, our unborn, are particularly vulnerable to radioactive poisons.
5- the Royal Commission on Nuclear needs to be wound up and replaced by a Royal Commission Into Cetacean Deaths, to include Port River Dolphins and Sperm Whales and all the recent cetacean deaths in South Australian waters.
August 13, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 |
1 Comment
CONSTRUCTION FORESTRY MINING ENERGY UNION excerpt…
”The fact that the Commission has made the process of making a submission so complex and
bureaucratic, indicates that the views that they consider relevant are extremely limited. For example Aboriginal representatives, who have stated that the difficulty in translating the papers alone is going to prevent many of their communities from participating in this process at all.
In addition, each and every question posed in the Issues Papers is fundamentally biased in favour of what the government is proposing. Not only that, but parties wishing to make a submission are limited to the questions given – and if any further comment is to be made, it is only allowed to be annexed to answers to the questions. It must also be noted that most (if not all) of the questions posed in these Papers have already been answered in various research papers, submissions and inquiries into these issues over the last decade or so…..
URANIUM FREE NSW ISSUES PAPER ONE: EXPLORATION, EXTRACTION AND MILLING The first 6 questions seemed to be aimed at industry to easily to enable their argument for expansion. They are akin to the Royal Commission/Government asking “how can we facilitate the expansion of the industry?” UFNSW is opposed to the expansion or the nuclear industry in SA or anywhere, hence has not answered these questions………
1.13 Would an increase in extraction activities give rise to negative impacts on other sectors of the economy? Have such impacts been demonstrated elsewhere in Australia or in other economies similar to Australia?
• It would undoubtedly have a negative impact on tourism.
• It would mitigate against the movement of families/residents choosing to stay or move into the area…….
APPENDIX ISSUES
- Only deals with economic viability, but even then ignore issues of reparations, compensation, or insurance costs in the event of exposure, spills, accidents, or even routine emissions.
- The paper quotes the International Energy Agency (IEA) as saying that the expansion of the nuclear industry “depends on listening to, and addressing public concerns, about the technology.”
- Doesn’t address fundamental question of should uranium be mined at all. The entire process is underpinned by an assumption that uranium mining is good and looks at the supposed best ways to go about it.
- Nothing regarding keeping profits in Australia
- Environmental impacts are minimised to native vegetation, water is not separate. Scope very narrow • Minimisation of environmental impacts is not a good enough aim given time of radioactivity, it is unmanageable and difficult or impossible to remediate or rehabilitate sufficiently • This Issues Paper does not provide information regarding direct or indirect Government funding of the nuclear industry, in the past, present or potential future.
- No mention made of the social or environmental costs of Radium Hill, Roxby Downs, Honeymoon, Beverley and Four Mile. Traded price of uranium is provided in a graph, but not costs
- Paper states that international demand for uranium is primarily driven by its use in electricity generation, however it is undoubtedly influenced by the supply and demand for uranium to be used in weapons. Market is influenced by uranium from dismantled nuclear weapons is released onto the uranium market, which is presumably harder to predict
- The issues papers seem to ignore the impacts of radiation on health • No mention of ionising radiation
- The issues papers questions ask about economic and some environmental impact, but completely ignore any cultural or social impacts • No mention on the length of time materials are radioactive and need to be managed for
- Seems to treat uranium like coal or iron, materials that have far lesser risks The questions seem to be written in such a way as to set up opposition to nuclear expansion as emotional and hence discredit it.
August 10, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. |
Leave a comment
ANNIE MCGOVERN Excerpt …
this writer has witnessed a declaration by on station owner to the North declare that their borefloqw had been significantly depleted by Roxby’s misuse and phenomienal extraction rate of Great Artesian Basin (G.A.B.) water. The people of the Marree region where this extraction occurrs, have been actively engaged in objecting to the Borefield activities for the past 32 years.
1.10 Any further developments to mine and mill Uranium would further compromise both the environment and the people of S.A. Roxby is already depleting the G.A.B. to the detriment of all in the vicinity, plus those dependant on its waters in both Queensland (Qld.) and New South Wales (N.S.W.). The draw-down effects of the 42 million litres/day licence has depleted the basin to its furthest extremities with little thought given as to why places like Longreach (Qld.) are in almost permanent drought despite rainfalls recorded in recent years that should have been able to sustain some productivity. This is the single largest body of water in S.A. and is no longer sustainable…..where is there water for any expansion?
1.11 The flow of water beneath the mine at Roxby Downs is part of an underground river system which flows to the top of Lake Torrens and empties into the underground sytem of Lake Torrens….to where does this highly contamminated water ultimately flow? The answer is unknown. Mining activities at every level contamminate the surrounds. Underground blasting, mining and fracturing destabilises fault zones that are prominently featured in this landscape. 10% of S.A.’s available electricity is designated for the production of the industry. Where is the room for more?,
August 10, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. |
Leave a comment
PAUL HARRIS – EXCELLENT OVERALL submission covering all 4 Issues Papers and ULRIKE HECK Also very good overall
GLADSTONE UNITING CHURCH SA Response to Issues Paper One…Exploration, Extraction & Milling ” Excerpt..….
- As responsible Australians we request an explanation as to why our government did not advertise more widely about the Nuclear Royal Commission as many people were unaware of this very serious issue.
- The safety of uranium exploration hasn’t been proven to be 100% safe in the world.
- Will SA Emergency Services be supported adequately by our government for the events of accidents, spillages or radioactive fall out similar to Marralinga?
- How would the finished product be transported?
- Major concerns are…underground water/soil contamination which will effect farmers etc & our environment…therefore touching every person’s life & for every generation to come in our area.
- Huge concerns also for our native wild life as well as farm animals. This can also contaminate the animals making them unsafe for human consumption.
NGOPPON TOGETHER INC Excerpt – …. Mining uranium has caused immense suffering and displacement of Aboriginal communities. in SA as well as elsewhere in Australia. Some of our members recall the Kokatha in the sandhills of Roxby Downs in the 1980s in the desperate hope of stopping the Roxby uranium mine before such a mine wreaked havoc on Kokatha country and on the ancient waters of the Arabunna. Regarding the proposed expansion of Olympic Dam we know that the Traditional Owners were not even consulted. BHP Billiton held all the cards and merely had to say that they wanted to continue the (exremely favourable to them) previous conditions. ….
August 10, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. |
Leave a comment
South Australia’s future role in the nuclear industry, The Saturday Paper, 8 Aug 15 PHILIP DORLING“……..Perhaps the most interesting twist in these proceedings, however, has been the role of South Australian Liberal senator Sean Edwards, who in April outlined a radical plan for an integrated nuclear industry embracing nuclear waste storage and recycling, fuel fabrication and power production.
Edwards has demonstrated a sustained interest in nuclear issues since he entered federal parliament in 2011.
He argues that East Asian countries could pay up to $1 million a tonne to send used fuel rods to South Australia for storage. By using a new form of reactor, an integral fast reactor (specifically the power reactor innovative small module – PRISM – design proposed by GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy), 95 per cent of the energy could be extracted from the rods, with electricity generation as a byproduct.
“We could end up with zero or low-cost power,’’ Edwards told The Sydney Institute in April. “It could revitalise the industrial sector in South Australia. The more you reprocess, the more electricity you have to get rid of.”
After consultation with a group of pro-nuclear advocates and technical experts, Edwards has submitted an as-yet-unpublished 213-page submission to the royal commission, arguing that South Australia can take advantage of the “under-serviced market for the management of used nuclear fuel. Several nations are holding quarantined budgets in the tens of billions of dollars with no satisfactory pathway to discharge responsibility for this material”.
Edwards’ submission proposes the establishment of a multinational spent fuel storage installation, an industrial pilot-scale fuel recycling and fabrication facility, a new “fourth generation” fast-breeder reactor, and deep borehole disposal of short-lived waste products.
Substantially funded by foreign investment, Edwards estimates the project could deliver $28 billion to South Australia, including very low-cost, even free, electricity for the state.
During the past 18 months, Edwards has also engaged in discussions with the nuclear industries in several Asian countries, which he says have expressed “considerable interest”. He is currently not prepared to identify the countries involved, but The Saturday Paper has established they include South Korea and Japan.
Edwards has also briefed Abbott, Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane and Trade Minister Andrew Robb.
It remains to be seen whether Edwards’ scheme stands critical scrutiny from the royal commission and wider debate. There are already plenty of critics. The Australian Greens have expressed strong opposition to the entire royal commission process, so too has veteran anti-nuclear campaigner Helen Caldicott. Nuclear researcher Richard Leaver, formerly of Flinders University, points out that no so-called fourth-generation reactors have been built and they are not expected to be available for commercial construction before 2030-40. ……..https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2015/08/08/south-australias-future-role-the-nuclear-industry/14389560002222
August 7, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
MAPW & PHAA make joint submission to the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission http://www.mapw.org.au/news/mapw-phaa-make-joint-submission-sa-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission05/08/2015
MAPW in partnership with the Public Health Association of Australia have lodged a joint submission addressing the terms of reference of the South Australia Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.
MAPW would like to thank everyone who contributed to the submission and would welcome the opportunity to provide evidence in person to the commission if required.
For further information please contact Phyllis Campbell-McRae on 03 9023 1958
Click here to read the executive summary
Click here to read the full submission
If you would like any further information about the submission please contact Phyllis Campbell-McRae 03 9023 7958
http://www.mapw.org.au/news/mapw-phaa-make-joint-submission-sa-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission
(This must-read 77-page submission and the 3-page Executive Summary can be downloaded here or via links on the MAPW Resources webpage at: http://www.mapw.org.au/resources)
August 7, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. |
Leave a comment
Kynard 3 August 15
Yes, people understand that the outcome of commission is a foregone conclusion meant to placate those who are given the impression of having a say.
The only thing that would stop it now is incompetence or the simple fact that in the end the dollars may not add up. Or both.
Particularly the idea of a dump is making certain personality-types swoon the kind of greed which indicates that they’ve already counted the profits and discounted the risks.
Future generations don’t get a say. I’m sure that that far down the track, the countries who’ve dumped their waste on us won’t be paying us to babysit it anymore. The overall trend as all resources decline is continued economic contraction. The only sane growth is degrowth. One way or another we’ll be forced to embrace it. And that’s what people and particularly politicians don’t want to talk about. http://m.indaily.com.au/opinion/2015/08/03/sas-nuclear-debate-lost-in-translation/
August 3, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 |
Leave a comment
A couple of weeks ago, the Nuclear Royal Commission held a forum at the Marion Cultural Centre as one of a series aimed at engaging the South Australian people in the commission’s work.
The problem is, not one person came. Nobody.
Whether this raises alarm bells for the commission and the Weatherill Government depends on whether they genuinely want to create a community debate, or if they are just going through the motions.
SA’s nuclear debate lost in translation http://m.indaily.com.au/opinion/2015/08/03/sas-nuclear-debate-lost-in-translation/ CRAIG WILKINS | 3 AUGUST 2015 The nuclear fuel cycle royal commission is so bureaucratic that it has failed to engage South Australians in the debate, argues the Conservation Council’s Craig Wilkins.
What if an expensive, high profile inquiry held a public meeting and no-one turned up?
In early February this year, while most of us were slowly emerging out of South Australia’s long, lazy summer break, Premier Weatherill made a surprise announcement. South Australia would hold a first for Australia: a royal commission into the future role our state should play in the nuclear industry.
This came as a bolt from the blue, especially from a Government that had campaigned successfully a decade ago to stop a similar federal push to establish a nuclear waste dump in Woomera. Then Premier Mike Rann was so determined to stop a nuclear dump he enshrined it in state law.
And the timing was strange, with our state strongly embracing renewable energy, and the nuclear industry languishing in a post Fukushima downturn.
So while a typical royal commission is created by a government under pressure to respond to a major issue dominating talkback and dinner table discussions, the task given to ex-Governor Kevin Scarce was both challenging and unusual.
Not only would Scarce have to explore the huge technical and economic challenges of an expensive, divisive energy source with big waste and security issues, he would need to get the South Australian community interested enough to pay attention in the first place.
A couple of weeks ago, the Nuclear Royal Commission held a forum at the Marion Cultural Centre as one of a series aimed at engaging the South Australian people in the commission’s work.
The problem is, not one person came. Nobody.
Whether this raises alarm bells for the commission and the Weatherill Government depends on whether they genuinely want to create a community debate, or if they are just going through the motions.
As a fierce advocate for public involvement in decision-making, I believe the problem lies in the way the commission is going about its task.
The Issues Papers released to stimulate public submissions are an eye-watering challenge – dry, technical and full of assumptions. They appear aimed at industry players, not the general public. They have not been translated into other languages, despite non-English speaking Aboriginal communities being ground zero for any debate over a toxic dump.
Until far too late in the process, no-one with any expertise in engaging with Aboriginal communities was employed to work in the north of the state.
To put in a submission is an exercise in acrobatic hoop jumping including the requirement to appear in person before a Justice of the Peace – a huge challenge for anybody in rural or remote SA, and a totally unnecessary step not required for other similar inquiries.The ‘Community Forums’ that have been held so far have missed the mark, focusing on imparting information on the process, rather than an opportunity to debate issues in detail.
Also, Scarce in all his public statements has strongly emphasised that he is seeking “evidence” and “facts”, leaving little room for traditional cultural knowledge, or the perspective of a grandmother who doesn’t want to leave a toxic legacy for her grandchildren. Continue reading →
August 3, 2015
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 |
1 Comment
Antinuclear 
