Mutiny within South Australian Labor Party if Weatherill sticks to his pro nuclear policy?
Daniel Wills: Serious questions being asked of Jay Weatherill’s future 
over nuke dump plan
, Analysis — Daniel Wills, The Advertiser, November 15, 2016 FOR the first time in Premier Jay Weatherill’s five years as Labor leader, serious questions are now being asked within the party about his political judgment.Nuclear dump plan dumped- but will be a South Australian election issue
Daniel Wills: Nuclear referendum won’t happen and Labor will continue to wear political fallout
, State Political Editor Daniel Wills, The Advertiser, November 14, 2016 IN every serious way, the nuclear dump has just been thrown on the scrap heap.An inside story from South Australia’s Nuclear Citizens Jury
Let’s move on.
Perhaps the Premier will now see that this is a non-starter. He could save face, claiming the government was prepared to tackle hard issues in the interest of the State. Unfortunately he seems determined to press ahead. But please, whatever the political outcome, can we stop undermining the honest hard work of the jurors by claiming they were ‘biased’. The jury reached a democratic decision despite attempts to manufacture consent for a cautious ‘go ahead. Was this was solely evidence-based or influenced by lack of trust in the government’s capacity to manage the project and the way the facilitation team managed the jury process? My sense it was a bit of both; but based on evidence and the experience, not just emotion and opinion. Let’s now move on and consider how we might invest the money that would have been needed for this nuclear waste project in creating sustainable jobs in South Australia – manufacturing and installing the technologies needed for low carbon energy future.
One small voice from inside the recent SA Nuclear Citizen’s Jury http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18669
By Tony Webb , 18 November 2016 Two thirds of the recent South Australian Citizen’s Jury  opposed the idea that South Australia could import, store and dispose of around a third of the world’s highly radioactive Nuclear wastes. Nuclear advocates have responded by suggesting bias in the jury. I’d like to share some of what happened inside the jury based on first hand experience rather than ill-informed opinions from outsiders.
Bias in the jury selection process?First the claim the jury was ‘biased’. Simply untrue. I was one of 25,000 people randomly selected via Austria Post listings who received an invitation to participate and was one of around 1200 who expressed interest. I was not chosen for the first 50 person jury in June but was one of the 350 selected to participate in the second jury in October. Was I biased? I freely admit to being an active critic of the nuclear industry for over 40 years. I’ve worked on public and worker-education over risks from radiation exposures in the UK USA Canada and here. Not always popular with anti-nuclear advocates, I’ve also argued that the world needs to find a long term solution to the problem of nuclear wastes. I’d prefer this be done by international agreement as a global-citizen responsibility. I’m sceptical it can be done responsibly as a commercial venture or as a solution to South Australia’s economic woes. Were others in the jury similarly inclined or approaching it from a predetermined position? Definitely not. The evidence from jurors’ early postings on the ‘Basecamp’ discussion board, and questions in the jury sessions indicated that most if not all approached the task of reviewing the evidence with an open mind; facing up to the challenge of producing reasoned advice to government on whether, and if so under what conditions, to pursue the opportunity outlined in the report of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. Further evidence of open minds was seen when, at the end of the second weekend, we formed an ‘opinion line’ on our thinking a that stage in the process. A continuous line across the room showed, while some had firmed up their opinion at both ends, most were still undecided. Reviewing the evidence Continue reading |
Cyclotron – a little ray of light in Premier Weatherill’s otherwise dreary nuclear spiel
From Jay Weatherill’s Response to Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Report
“I’m also excited about the many positive commercial opportunities that are on the table for South Australia in nuclear medicine around the SAHMRI cyclotron.”
This IS one positive outcome from this long drawn out process. ra ra http://nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au/news/get-to-know-nuclear-discover-discuss-decide-government-delivers-response-to-nuclear-fuel-cycle-royal-commission-report
No further investigation into high level nuclear waste dump – Jay Weatherill
16 Nov 16 On Monday, Premier Jay Weatherill announced that the absence of bipartisanship and broad social consent meant that the Government is unable to further progress investigations into a high level international waste disposal facility for South Australia.
Yesterday, the Premier delivered the State Government’s full response to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, supporting 9 of 12 recommendations, a copy of the Government’s response is available here: nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au
Toxic nuclear debate in South Australian Parliament – Liberal MPs ejected
Liberal MPs ejected from SA parliament during debate over nuclear waste dump
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/liberal-mps-ejected-from-sa-parliament-during-debate-over-nuclear-waste-dump/news-story/552eb707f54fef48488b6cc0d4189d14Premier Weatherill wants expansion of uranium mining, and nuclear waste dumping
Premier Jay Weatherill backs expansion of uranium mining in South Australia, Daniel Wills State Political Editor, The Advertiser November 15, 2016 PREMIER Jay Weatherill has backed an expansion of uranium mining in the state, as recommended by a Royal Commission, while also continuing to explore the prospect of a nuclear dump.
A day after floating long-term plans for a referendum on a high-level nuclear waste dump, Mr Weatherill today addressed the Royal Commission findings in Parliament.
Mr Weatherill rejected recommendations urging he talk to the Federal Government about removing legal bans on uranium enrichment and nuclear power in Australia.
He also rejected a recommendation that the State Government remove state legislation stopping an “orderly, detailed and thorough analysis” of establishing nuclear waste storage in SA.
Recommendations accepted include simplifying mining approvals for uranium and backing more scientific studies of where ores can be uncovered…..
He said the Government will “not pursue policy or legislative change” to develop a nuclear dump, after the Opposition pulled support for the project…..” http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/premier-jay-weatherill-backs-expansion-of-uranium-mining-in-south-australia/news-story/28cc5b147ce446430ad812a5105f7662
Protestors in the streets of Adelaide call for “Dumping the Nuclear Waste Dump”
Protesters take to the streets to ‘Say No’ to an SA nuclear dump
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/protesters-take-to-the-streets-to-say-no-to-an-sa-nuclear-dump/news-story/c43353c797fe02ca6d79730b953f5f01 Mitch Mott, The Advertiser November 14, 2016 CHANTING “dump the dump”, Anti-Nuclear Coalition supporters took to the streets on Monday outside the University College London campus on Victoria Square.Protesting both the proposed nuclear waste storage facility and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Symposium, activists on Monday described Premier Jay Weatherill’s proposal as “ludicrous” and potentially a threat to the future of the state.
“If we had a repeat of this year’s storms, there is no guarantee there wouldn’t be an accident,” protester Janett Jackson said. “You can’t ever guarantee there won’t be a storm like that again.
“We had an earthquake south of Alice Springs this year which measured six on the Richter scale. We’re talking about building a dump and saying that there is never ever going to be another earthquake. It’s a ludicrous comment to make.” Activist Susan Brame wrote a song for the protest and asked the Government to consider the lasting harm to the indigenous communities, especially less than 60 years after nuclear tests were conducted in the north of the state.
“It is so insulting to the Aboriginal people, after everything they have been through with Maralinga,” Ms Brame said. “It is such a slap in the face to them to seriously consider bringing the world’s most toxic waste to this state. They have been in total despair about this.”
For the protesters, international examples of what can go wrong when nuclear storage facilities fail are hitting too close to home. Ms Jackson said the February 2014 fire at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico was evidence that human error can never be discounted,“That accident occurred in 2014 and cost more than $500m to repair and the dump is still closed down,” Ms Jackson said.
“If that happened to us our taxes would have to pay for it, which would eat into any profit Jay Weatherill thinks we’ll get. Economically it’s not viable”
South Australian Liberal Parry guru pushed for the nuclear industry and waste dump
Liberal policy guru urged SA to go nuclear Tom Richardson http://indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/11/15/liberal-policy-guru-urged-sa-to-go-nuclear/ The state Liberal Party’s new policy director is a long-time nuclear advocate who personally called for the establishment of a nuclear waste dump in a submission to the Scarce Royal Commission. Steven Marshall’s Opposition has staunchly rejected any further investigation of a potential high-level repository.
But Richard Yeeles, a former corporate affairs manager with BHP Billiton and Western Mining Corporation who has recently run his own advisory firm, struck a very different tone when the State Government sought submissions on its royal commission proposal early last year.
“I commend the South Australian Government for initiating this inquiry,” wrote Yeeles, who has also previously worked as a chief of staff for Liberal leaders Dale Baker, Dean Brown and John Olsen.
In his lengthy 270-plus page submission to the subsequent inquiry, he urged the Government to “offer to host a national facility for storage and disposal of Australia’s own low and intermediate-level radioactive waste with the ultimate aim of securing Federal Government support for hosting an international radioactive waste management facility in South Australia”. Continue reading
Jay Weatherill’s nuclear political suicide
Jim Green: Jay Weatherill willing to commit political suicide with push to turn South Australia into world’s nuclear waste dump, Jim Green, The Advertiser November 15, 2016 PREMIER Jay Weatherill previously said that “there’s no doubt that there’s a massive issue of trust in government … that’s why we started the whole citizen’s jury process” into the nuclear waste import proposal.
Yet the Premier has now overturned the SA Citizens’ Jury on Nuclear Waste’s verdict with his decision to continue to promote his plan to import high-level nuclear waste. His overturning of the jury’s verdict will worsen public distrust of government.
The citizen’s jury was emphatic in its rejection of the proposed nuclear dump – 70 per cent argued that it should not proceed “under any circumstances”.They clearly explained their reasons, including respect for Aboriginal traditional owners, scepticism about fanciful economic claims, concerns that the royal commission and the government downplayed environmental and public health risks, and distrust that the government could deliver the project on time and on budget.
The Premier justified his decision to overturn the jury’s verdict by referring to a ‘Community Views Report’ released on Sunday, reflecting the results of a statewide consultation process.
But his take on the report was extremely selective.
The Premier noted that 43 per cent of people questioned in surveys and focus groups supported further consideration of the nuclear waste dump proposal whereas 37 per cent were opposed.
He failed to note that many other people made their voice heard during the community consultation process.
Over three-quarters of Aboriginal respondents opposed the plan.
The community consultation process found that only 20 per cent of respondents were confident that nuclear waste could be transported and stored safely, while 70 percent were not confident.
The consultation process found that the number of people confident in the government’s ability to regulate any new nuclear industry activities in SA (2125 people) was barely half the number who were not confident (4190 people).
The consultation process found that 66 per cent of respondents were not confident that a nuclear waste import project would bring significant economic benefits to SA.
Nuclear Royal Commission Response – No policy, No legislation, Just more taxpayers’ money wasted.
The formal Government response to the Nuclear Royal Commission final report released today shows how little value was received from nearly $10 million of taxpayers’ money, according to Mark Parnell MLC, Parliamentary Leader, Greens SA.
“From Day One, it was clear that nuclear power was too expensive, nuclear fuel processing was unviable and uranium mining was already in the doldrums, with mines moth-balled because they were losing money.
“It was also clear from Day One that the real agenda was about establishing a nuclear waste dump. This is the same dump that was overwhelmingly dumped by the Premier’s own Citizens’ Jury. It’s also the same dump that was promoted in the 1990s by the Royal Commission’s own business consultants.
“Despite clear community opposition, clear Parliamentary opposition and even opposition in his own ranks, the Premier seems hell-bent on flogging the dead horse.
The Government response says it “won’t pursue policy change or legislative change at this time, but will continue to facilitate discussion”. The Premier is also wedded to an expensive and doomed-to-fail referendum.
“The Greens urge the Premier not to waste any more scarce public funds on this folly and to withdraw gracefully. The idea of keeping an entire administrative unit of Government busy talking about something that will never happen is just ludicrous”, concluded Mark Parnell.
BHP Billiton living in la la land on uranium: mining giant faces difficult questions at its Annual General Meeting
16th November 2016 Company Directors of BHP Billiton will face some difficult questions tomorrow at the mining giants Annual General Meeting in Brisbane. The operator of the Olympic Dam uranium mine in South Australia’s north has been receiving much attention over the past year after the tailings dam collapse at its jointly owned Samarco iron ore mine in Brazil in November 2015, causing what’s been described as the worst environmental disaster in Brazil’s history.
Anti-nuclear and social justice campaigner Adam Sharah is one of several delegates attending the meeting to challenge company directors on matters including the Samarco disaster and issues surrounding the Olympic Dam mine. Mr Sharah will question company directors about BHP Billiton’s position regarding nuclear regulation in Australia, new expansion plans for Olympic Dam, and plans to increase the height of the tailings dams at the mine.
In its submission to the recent South Australian Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, BHP Billiton recommended that nuclear actions should not be regulated under the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the key piece of legislation for environmental protection in Australia, on the basis that uranium is just like any other mineral. The company claims that “there is no scientific basis for uranium mining to be defined as a Matter of Environmental Significance…”[1]
“BHP Billiton is in la la land if they still believe that uranium is just like any other metal – no other metal has such an enormous range of international treaties – uranium is fundamentally risky, and BHP Billiton should act accordingly,” said leading Environmental Engineering academic, Dr Gavin Mudd.
“What would have been the impact of the tailings dam collapse in Brazil if the tailings were radioactive?” asks Adam Sharah. “Uranium and the tailings produced by uranium mining are unique both in their health and long term environmental impacts.”
“In the wake of the tailings dam collapse in Brazil, there are concerns here in Australia about reports that BHP Billiton are seeking approval to increase the height of their tailings dams at the Olympic Dam mine,” continued Mr Sharah. “It is important that the company clarify this for the Australian public, Aboriginal custodians of the area, and its shareholders.”
Mr Sharah will also seek clarification on the progress of the company’s plans for an on-site heap leach trial at Olympic Dam as part of a cheaper expansion plan, after it shelved it’s grand expansion plans in 2012.
“It is always a concern when corporations start seeking cheaper, cost-cutting alternatives,” said Nectaria Calan, of BHP Billiton Watch. “These concerns are magnified by the fact that federal approval of the heap leach trial did not require any environmental assessment even though heap leach mining is not a method currently used on-site at the Olympic Dam mine.”
“Yet despite by-passing environmental assessment for the trial, and despite the legal privileges and exemptions BHP Billiton enjoy under the Indenture Act, which only applies to the Olympic Dam mine, the company is still lobbying through forums such as the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission to reduce regulation further. This type of regulatory race to the bottom, characteristic of third world nations competing for foreign capital, will only make disasters like Brazils more common.”
BHP Billiton’s AGM will be held on Thursday 17th November, 11 am, Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre
Pro nuclear Royal Commissioner Scarce still pushing the barrow for the industry
Nuclear discussion not finished yet, says ex Royal Commissioner, Chief Reporter Paul Starick, The Advertiser, November 14, 2016 SOUTH Australia has already invested money in investigating the significant opportunity posed by a high-level nuclear waste repository and should properly finish the discussion, former royal commissioner Kevin Scarce says.
Speaking just after Premier Jay Weatherill said the only way forward was through a referendum at an unnamed time, Rear Admiral Scarce issued veiled criticism of the citizens’ jury process.
Rear Admiral Scarce declared that the discussion had been rushed and the community needed more time to work through issues…..
“I think the next step would be for the government to satisfy itself that it’s got sufficient support to continue forward,” Rear Admiral Scarce said….
Rear Admiral Scarce said more analysis was needed of costs and revenue, but emphasised any agreement to accept waste would be made as a treaty between two nations, even if a private operator was contracted to run the facility. He rejected claims of blanket opposition from Aboriginal communities, saying some had privately said they were prepared to consider a proposal but stressed any final site had to have community approval. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/nuclear-discussion-not-finished-yet-says-ex-royal-commissioner/news-story/163094d541fe87bdbf67eea2d6358f70
South Australian Treasurer Koutsantonis sulking about “elites” influencing Nuclear Citizens Jury
Nuclear fuel cycle: ‘Silent majority’ over ‘elites’ telling people what to think about waste dump http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-16/’silent-majority’-want-sa-nuclear-dump-koutsantonis-says/8030816 A “silent majority” of South Australians want the investigation into a nuclear waste dump to continue, the State Treasurer says, citing a comparison with US voters who elected Donald Trump as their next president.
This week the SA Government announced the proposal for a high-level nuclear waste dump would only go ahead after a state-wide referendum, with bipartisanship and approval from the Indigenous community where the dump was planned.
Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis said there were South Australians who wanted further discussion on the proposal. Two thirds of a citizens’ jury concerning the project did not want the state to store waste “under any circumstances”. The Government’s own community consultation report found of those surveyed randomly, 37 per cent were against the idea, while 43 per cent wanted more discussion on the issue.
There’s a silent majority that want to talk about this a bit further,” Mr Koutsantonis said.
“We saw that now in the United States with Donald Trump, we’ve seen what happens when the elites tell the people how to think.
“I think a referendum is a great way of having South Australians actually talk about this, but in the end we can’t have a referendum without the consent of the Parliament.”
Premier Jay Weatherill released a statement this afternoon stating the Liberal Party was holding back the nuclear debate by “engaging in a series of pathetic stunts” and questioning the binding nature of of a referendum.
“Without bipartisanship, there is no way can meaningfully progress this discussion,” Mr Weatherill said.
“The Liberal Party wants to shut down this debate entirely, they think they know better than the South Australian people.
“We trust the South Australian people to make the right choices in the state’s best interests.”
Economic modelling described as optimistic
Meanwhile, the Opposition has seized on a report which questioned the royal commission’s economic modelling showing there would be a $257-billion windfall for the state from a nuclear storage facility.
In the independent report provided to Parliament, the modelling was described as optimistic.
Opposition spokesman Rob Lucas said the modelling was based on “vague” assumptions.
“There are very significant questions and concerns being raised by these international experts, independent international experts, about the financial assumptions which underpin the project,” Mr Lucas said.
“They mirror the concerns, some of the concerns that we have expressed in the past.”
South Australian Premier Weatherill – apolitical martyr for the nuclear lobby
Stubborn Weatherill risks fallout from nuclear referendum, Crikey, 15 Nov 16
Significant opposition from all sides hasn’t been enough to deter the Premier, write InDaily journalists Tom Richardson and Bension Siebert. South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill has dramatically stared down his cabinet waverers and laid down the gauntlet to the Liberal opposition, vowing to continue down the nuclear path — with the question to be determined by a referendum……..
“I believe continued public debate about SA’s role in the nuclear fuel cycle is important and ultimately it is a matter that the people should decide, not political parties,” Weatherill said…….
The move effectively returns serve to Marshall, whose Liberals expected Labor to be backed into a corner by the public reaction to the divisive waste dump proposal.
However, it also means Weatherill will now become a key advocate, having resisted the overwhelming pressure to remove the issue from the political agenda altogether.
Crucially, Weatherill said local indigenous groups would be given a “right of veto” over any proposed dump “if a proposed facility would impact upon their lands” — a key factor in the citizens’ jury’s rejection……
The Premier said he had “reached out to the Liberal Party” to re-establish a bipartisan approach, saying: “There’s no point in promoting a referendum that has no chance of success.”
[Citizens’ jury decision spells nuclear disaster for Weatherill]
However, Marshall poured cold water over the prospect at a late afternoon media conference, saying: “Jay Weatherill is a desperate man trying to cling to some tiny shred of an economic framework.”
“Jay Weatherill’s entire leadership is on its last legs … I think we’re seeing the last weeks, the last months of [his premiership],” Marshall said.
“The people of SA don’t want this project, the Liberal party room in SA is against this.” Marshall emphasised that despite his unilateral move last week to “dump the dump”, the position was “passed without dissent” at yesterday’s party room meeting.
“The Liberal Party is 100% behind me,” he said.
“We do not support a referendum … if Jay Weatherill is so wedded to this, he can take it to the next election.”
The referendum proposal will need crossbench, if not opposition, support to pass Parliament, but Weatherill has indicated it can only proceed as a jointly sponsored proposal — a move that will now ramp up the political brinkmanship ahead of the state election in March 2018.
The Premier’s gambit will be met with incredulity from conservation campaigners who had all but declared the dump a dead issue.
“Most of state Parliament have said ‘no’, the Citizens’ Jury have said ‘no’, economists have said ‘no’, ordinary South Australians have said ‘no’, and most importantly, traditional owners have very clearly said ‘no’,” Conservation SA chief Craig Wilkins said today.
“There is clearly no support or consent for this investigation to continue.”
Greens MLC Mark Parnell said the “remarkable announcement … defies belief and shows a government completely out of touch with the public”.
“What the experience of the last few months shows is that if you give citizens more facts and allow them access to all sides of the debate — they vote no … that’s what the citizens’ jury delivered,” he said.
“With almost every other political party in state parliament declaring they are opposed to a nuclear waste dump, it is hard to see how the necessary legislation for a referendum would get through both houses of Parliament … a statewide referendum would be throwing good money after bad.
“The government has already wasted more than $10 million on this project and a referendum would cost tens of millions more … if the Premier wants this to be an issue for all South Australians, then he should go to the March 2018 state election with a nuclear waste dump as part of Labor’s platform — that would test public opinion.” https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/11/15/weatherill-referendum-on-sa-nuclear-dump/
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 