South Australian Premier Weatherill heckled by anti nuclear protestors
Adam Langenberg, Political reporter, The Advertiser October 29, 2016 PREMIER Jay Weatherill and ALP colleagues were heckled by anti-nuclear protesters as he headed into the Labor State Convention in Adelaide today.The Premier and Senator Penny Wong entered the venue amid cries of “nuclear waste, what a disgrace”, with a number of senior party ministers including Police Minister Peter Malinauskas also lobbied by protesters.
Eleven separate motions about a proposal to establish a nuclear waste dump in the state will be heard at the conference this afternoon, with many calling on Labor to immediately rule out establishing a dump.
……….More than 130 motions will be debated at the convention. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/jay-weatherill-colleagues-heckled-by-antinuclear-protesters-at-labor-state-convention-in-adelaide/news-story/93593b17164cba17c78cbaf6d856bb63
Delaying tactics on the nuclear waste agenda at South Australia’s Labor party Conference
Treasurer defends SA dump debate Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/10/28/12/18/treasurer-defends-sa-dump-debate#rpdClBGbUpWJ4umI.99 October 28, 2016 The Labor party is no different to a football club or a family barbecue when it comes to debating the merits of establishing a nuclear waste dump in South Australia, Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis says.
The issue will come under discussion at the party’s state convention on Saturday, with a number of motions to be debated, some calling for any plans for a dump to be scrapped and others buying the state government some time before having to make a decision. Mr Koutsantonis says the party is rightly engaged in the same discussion that mums and dads are having across South Australia, weighing up the pros and cons of taking high-level waste from overseas.
“People are just talking about what do we do next? Do we do this or don’t we do this? What are the risks, what are the rewards.
“So absolutely we should have this debate.”
Among motions to be debated at the convention, one calls for the government to hold a state referendum on the issue of a dump, others call for the government to delay any decision until after the issue is discussed at the next national ALP conference and one calls for a special state convention to be called.
There is also one that calls for the state government to “cease and desist” any further action to consider nuclear waste dumps of any kind.
Mr Koutsantonis acknowledged there were strong feelings within the party on the question of nuclear waste. “Our view, very simply is, we want to continue the debate,” he said. “The party is allowed to express its views, individuals are allowed to express their views.”
Also this weekend the second citizen’s jury will continue to deliberate on the dump proposal, which was raised as possibility by a royal commission conducted into SA’s future involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle.
The 350 people making up the jury will present their final report to Premier Jay Weatherill on Sunday.
The No Dump Alliance, which plans to stage a protest outside the convention on Saturday, said the ALP should “close the door on this deeply flawed and reckless plan”.
“Despite a huge amount of taxpayer-funded promotion, opposition to an international nuclear dump is growing within the Labor Party and the wider community,” spokesman Craig Wilkins said.
Will Australia become the global nuclear toilet? Events in Adelaide 29 October
Will Australia become the global nuclear toilet?, [corrected version] Noel Wauchope, 29 Oct 16 It’s not obvious to the 
rest of the nation, but this question is about to be advocated in two South Australian events, that will have repercussions for the whole of Australia. These are the second Nuclear Citizens’ Jury in Adelaide on October 29 and the South
Australian Labor Party Conference, also on October 29. The ALP conference is really the most important one, as Premier Weatherill will surely need the backing of his own party as he moves to the process of overturning South Australia’s law against nuclear waste importing.
Indeed, the Nuclear Citizens’ Jury is really irrelevant. Whatever decision it makes, is in no way binding on the government. And anyway, this so-called “Jury” of 350 persons cannot make a convincing decision. The brief given to them is worded, in terms that come straight from the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission South Australia’s (NFCRC) report that advocated nuclear waste importing:
Under what circumstances, if any, could South Australia pursue the opportunity to store and dispose of nuclear waste from other countries?
I understand that some jurors wanted a change from this question, but no change was allowed.
The previous Citizens’ Jury had some very dubious witness presentations, particularly on the health effects of ionising radiation. This was not entirely the fault of the organisers, DemocracyCo, as the 50 jury members themselves selected the witnesses to be invited.
One might expect this second Citizens’ jury to be better served by witnesses, but the new witness list is a curiously mixed bag. Of the 31 names, 16 are likely to be supporters of nuclear waste importing, 11 opposing it, and 4 appear to be neutral.
The most worrying section in this Citizens’ Jury is the session on SAFETY, dealing with general safety, siting and transport. For this session, there are 7 witnesses. Of these, only one witness, Dean Summers , appears to be anti nuclear, and one a neutral expert. This is Professor Sandy Steacy who knows all about earthquakes.
The witnesses are:
- Professor David Giles, of Minerals & Resources Engineering Future Industries Institute has all too strong a background in the mining industry.
- Dr John Loy: his theme is all about medical waste(an almost negligible component of Australia’s own Lucas Heights nuclear waste), and over-confidence on the safety of nuclear waste facilities. He has a background in promoting nuclear power to United Arab Emirates.
- Frank Boulton, General Manager WMC (Olympic Dam Marketing) Pty Ltd
- Dr AndrewHerczeg, formerly of the International Atomic Energy Agency
- Ian Hore-Lacy formerly of the Uranium Institute in Australia-he now works for the World Nuclear Association. Mr Hore-Lacy is unusual: he sees support for nuclear power as areligious and moral duty (He is also very critical of Pope Francis’ ideas on environment)
These pro nuclear experts have had much to say on storage of nuclear wastes. But none seems to have taken much interest in the issues around transporting highly radioactive wastes over thousands of kilometres across oceans and land. With the increasing volatility of weather events, as climate change progresses, and with the also growing concerns about terrorism, this omission is one of the greatest weaknesses of the case for importing nuclear wastes. The subject just glossed over in a few brief paragraphs in the NFCRC Report.
On the subject of SAFETY, focussing on the aspect of human health, one witness, Tony Hooker is a bit of a worry. He worked with Professor Pamela Sykes on her mouse studies, at Flinders University? Funded by America’s Department of Energy, Syke’s research purported to show that low dose radiation is actually good for you.
The 6 witnesss for this section are not evenly matched, with Dr Margaret Beavis and Dr Robert Hall opposing nuclear waste importing, and Dr Paul Degman, Dr Sami Hautakangas , Dr Stephan Bayer and Dr Tony Hooker likely to support it.
The vital section could well turn out to be ECONOMICS. And here, there IS a surprise, with an apparent bias towards the negative camp. Speakers Adjunct Professor Richard Blandy,Richard Dennis, Professor Barbara Pocock and Assoc. Professor Mark Diesendorf (via Skype) all have views opposing waste importation. The remaining speaker, Tim Johnson, from Jacobs, is supportive of the plan, but only cautiously so.
If economics were the only consideration, the waste import plan might conceivably die a quiet death, following this Citizens’ Jury, and a possibly negative report from a Parliamentary Inquiry. However, there are other considerations, such as underlying connections with the defence industry.
The South Australian Labor government, led by Premier Jay Weatherill, is enthusiastically backing the nuclear lobby’s campaign for setting up South Australia as the first place in the world to invite in the world’s nuclear waste, as a profit-making enterprise.
In practical terms, you can forget this government’s extravagant public relations promotion of the nuclear industry, culminating in these “Citizens’ Juries”. They really matter very little, in comparison with the actual steps to be taken for the pro nuclear campaign to succeed.
Step One is to overturn a South Australian law – the NuclearWaste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000. It includes:
8 Prohibition against construction or operation of nuclear waste storage facility
9 Prohibition against importation or transportation of nuclear waste for delivery to nuclear waste storage facility (The Act does have exemptions for the nuclear waste generated within Australia, e.g from Australia’s research reactor at Lucas Heights).
The government has already weakened this Act (In April 2016) by amending this provision:
13—No public money to be used to encourage or finance construction or operation of nuclear waste storage facility
(1) Despite any other Act or law to the contrary, no public money may be appropriated, expended or advanced to any person for the purpose of encouraging or financing any activity associated with the construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility in this State.
They had to change it quickly – to allow for financing community consultation or debate on the desirability or otherwise of constructing or operating a nuclear waste storage facility in this State. – seeing that they had already spent $7.2 million promoting nuclear waste storage, in the NFCRC
Anyway, prior to overturning this Act, Premier Weatherill is surely going to need to have the Labor Party onside. At last year’s ALP Conference, He and State Labor president Peter Malinauskas made a big push for South Australia going nuclear As the national ALP policy remains clearly opposed to all nuclear industry further development, we can expect that Weatherill will meet with some opposition to his nuclear plan from Labor members at the conference.
Perhaps the nuclear lobby, their captive South Australian Premier, and subservient national media, will not be able to press on with their plan without an unpleasant fracas.
Nuclear showdown for South Australia’s Labor Party Conference – perhaps
Steve Dale , Nuclear Fuel Watch South Australia Watch out, there is also a group trying to delay decision making about the dump for a few months. They say they are anti-dump but the agenda is probably to defuse maritime/transport/fire/.. unions anger over this crazy plan. These unions who will have to handle this poisonous muck are rightfully angry. They should kill this plan off on Saturday unless they want their workers killed by this cancer causing poison years later.https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/permalink/1342858522412468/?comment_id=1342893619075625
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/labor-readies-for-tense-nuclear-showdown-amid-opposition-at-state-meeting/news-story/94b465193620d74f489a1f0cd3fc6e40 Political Reporter Sheradyn Holderhead, The Advertiser October 27 2016PREMIER Jay Weatherill faces a tense showdown over his Government’s nuclear strategy at a state Labor meeting this weekend.
Three motions have been listed for a vote that essentially call on the Government to abandon the proposed nuclear waste dump while others call for further consultation or a referendum. A joint motion from the Maritime and Rail, Tram and Bus unions demands the State Government “immediately cease and desist any further action or consideration” of any type of nuclear dump.
Among its concerns are a weak economic case, high upfront cost, political damage to Labor, safety risks to workers and the public, and ignoring the rights of Aboriginal people.
The moves make good on threats of a heated fight from powerful union figures who have publicly backed anti-dump campaigners. The Advertiser revealed last month that some within Labor were talking about a repeat of the union campaign against Mike Rann, which boiled over in 2010 when he needed a police escort through protesters at Labor’s state convention.
Anti-dump protesters are expected at the West Adelaide Football Club, which is the venue for Saturday’s meeting. Mr Weatherill declined to comment on the meeting.
The Government is pinning its hopes on an alternative motion that would buy time on a vote to overturn the longstanding party policy to oppose nuclear reactors and imported waste storage.
It instead calls for a Special State ALP Convention on the matter to be held at the conclusion of community consultation but before a decision was made on whether to develop a dump.
Labor MP Tom Kenyon said he hoped the convention would show there was support within the party to continue investigating the $445 billion project, which he called a “tremendous opportunity” for SA.
Mr Kenyon, also a member of a parliamentary committee considering the project, said making it easier for other countries to have nuclear power could potentially do more to address climate change than efforts toward renewables.
He said while the party always “finds something to be excited about” at conventions this issue was unique.
“This is unusual because since the ‘70s, the Labor Party has had a very strong anti-nuclear position. It’s almost an article of faith,” Mr Kenyon said.
“At some point the party will have to grapple with this deeply and consider its position at the state and federal level.”
Health Services Union state secretary Jorge Navas, who also put forward a motion to reaffirm the existing policy of opposition to a dump said safety risks remained a significant concern.
He likened pursuit of the nuclear industry to asbestos.
“It was profitable but the consequences are devastating,” he said.
Port Augusta is attracting solar energy developers
Solar energy developers attracted to Port Augusta after power station’s closure, ABC, The World Today 25 Oct 16 By Khama Reid Solar energy developers are honing their attention on the South Australian city of Port Augusta after the community’s economy took a hit when its largest employer, Alinta Energy, closed its coal-fired power station.
For the past five years, the community has been pushing for a transition from coal to renewable energy, which is now steps closer to becoming reality.
Residents and those in the neighbouring city of Whyalla brag the region gets “300 days of sunshine” a year.
Port Augusta Mayor Sam Johnson said the tagline had become more than just a tourism slogan with solar companies getting serious about development in the region.
“Reach Solar have made an application to the State Government as recent as only a few weeks ago for a very real project here at Port Augusta using solar PV [photovoltaic],” Mr Johnson said.
“We know there’s Solastor and Solar Reserve both looking at large scale solar thermal technology, both in the vicinity of $1 billion projects.”
Mr Johnson said one of the further progressed proposals was for the DP Energy Renewable Energy Park to the south of the city.
“DP Energy actually has planning approval and will be the largest wind and solar PV farm in Australia and actually the first to have not just wind but solar PV technology as well.”
Queensland and SA ‘real hot markets’ for solar
Renew Economy editor Giles Parkinson said the spike in interest was not surprising. “There’s two real hot markets for solar at the moment, that’s Queensland and South Australia and in South Australia around the Port Augusta/Whyalla area and that comes from two things,” Mr Parkinson said.
“One is the excellent sunshine, but also the high wholesale electricity prices.
“They rely so much on gas to set the price of generation, and the price of gas has gone up, so the wholesale price has gone up as well.”
Mr Parkinson said solar was becoming a more affordable investment option.
“I guess the overwhelming driver is the reduction in costs of solar PV, it’s actually falling to a point where it can actually compete with wind energy.”
He said the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) previously funded wind farm developments, but in its latest round awarded more than $91 million to solar photovoltaic projects across the country……http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-25/solar-energy-developers-flock-to-port-augusta/7962306
Could there EVER be an ethical argument for Australia to import nuclear wastes?
If indeed, the waste importing idea were conditional on a Japanese plan to close down the industry, and help Japan overcome its very serious dilemma, this could be one big move towards halting the global nuclear industry juggernaut, with its undoubted connection to nuclear weapons. Japan could pay a reasonable amount to the waste host country, without being ripped off, without that country expecting to become mega wealthy. That would be one circumstance in which it would be an ethical choice for South Australia to import and dispose of nuclear waste.
“Pie in the sky!” I hear your cry.
Yes, sadly so. Is there any chance that such an ethical decision would ever be made? I doubt it. The Nuclear Citizens’ Jury is left with the question of whether or not to support the NFCRC’s plan for a nuclear waste bonanza, or to risk possible State bankruptcy in the event of it all going wrong. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18603
Nuclear Citizens’ Jury: an ethical case for importing nuclear wastes, Online Opinion, Noel Wauchope, 25 Oct 16 The South Australian government will call another Nuclear Citizens’ Jury, on October 29 – 30. This time the jury must answer this question:
Under what circumstances, if any, could South Australia pursue the opportunity to store and dispose of nuclear waste from other countries?
That set me thinking. The main “circumstance” for recommending this “opportunity” is the State Government’s plan to eventually bring in a pot of gold for the State. There really is no other argument for this project in the Report. In the 320 page report any arguments about Aboriginal issues, safety, environment, health, are aimed at rebutting criticism of the plan. They provide no argument on the plan actually improving health or environment, and are in fact quite defensive about Aboriginal impacts. Continue reading
Confusion in the wording of the South Australia Nuclear Citizens’ Jury question
The question has been worded in two different ways in the Juror’s materials. The two versions were:
(1) Under what circumstances, if any, should SA pursue the storage and disposal of high level nuclear waste from other countries?
(2) Under what circumstances, if any, should South Australia pursue the opportunity to store and dispose of nuclear waste from other countries?
Differences are (1) inclusion of the word “opportunity” in second version and (2) removal of the words “high level” in the second version.
Lack of balance in the Witness List for Nuclear Citizens’ Jury South Australia October 29-30 ?
The Witness list for the 29 -30 Nuclear Citizens’ Jury in Adelaide is posted here on Antinuclear . This list is shown with indications of which witnesses are pro nuclear waste import and which are not.
It is interesting to observe that the pronuke and nuclear free witnesses are not always balanced evenly.
On “ECONOMICS” there is, oddly, a clear majority of nuclear-free opinions. It looks as if no-one in the nuclear lobby was game to face questioning on this topic! DemocracyCo was forced to step in and find a pro nuclear speaker!
On “SAFETY” (includes general safety, siting and transport) there are just two witnesses who appear to be neutral. The remaining four including the facilitator are pro nuclear.
“CONSENT” is a dodgy one, with only one nuclear-free opinion – three pro nuclear (including the facilitator, and two neutral.
Meanwhile – this Citizens Jury will probably go on under the media radar, as the South Australian Labor Party National Conference is happening at the same time – where the ALP will be debating changing their nuclear policy, and overturning or weakening the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility Prohibition Act 2000
Menzies, Australia’s Maralinga shame, Aboriginal impacts – and can it happen again?
One wonders if the interests of a ‘handful of natives’ might on some future occasion again be deemed subordinate to those of the dominant culture.
Each of these explosions generated considerable radioactivity, by means of the initial nuclear reaction and the through dispersion of radioactive particulate colloquially known as ‘fallout’. In addition to British scientific and military personnel, thousands of Australians were exposed to radiation produced by the tests. These included not only those involved in supporting the British testing program, but also Aboriginal people living downwind of the test sites, and other Australians more distant who came into contact with airborne radioactivity.
While less spectacular than the major detonations, the minor trials were more numerous. They also contributed to the lasting contamination of the Maralinga area. As a result of the nearly 600 minor trials, some 830 tons of debris contaminated by about 20 kg of plutonium were deposited in pits which graced the South Australian landscape. An additional 2 kg of plutonium was dispersed over the area. Such an outcome was unfortunate indeed, as plutonium is one of the most toxic substances known; it dissipates more slowly than most radioactive elements. The half-life of plutonium is 24,000 years. At this rate of decay, the Maralinga lands would be contaminated for the next half-million years.
Perhaps most significant was the secrecy surrounding the testing program. The decision to make the Monte Bello Islands available to the British for their first nuclear test appears to have been made by the Prime Minister alone, without reference to Cabinet, much less Parliament or the Australian public.
Chapter 16: A toxic legacy : British nuclear weapons testing in Australia Published in: Wayward governance : illegality and its control in the public sector / P N Grabosky Canberra : Australian Institute of Criminology, 1989 ISBN 0 642 14605 5(Australian studies in law, crime and justice series); pp. 235-253 “……..In 1950, Labor Prime Minister Clement Atlee sent a top secret personal message to Australian Prime Minister Menzies asking if the Australian government might agree to the testing of a British nuclear weapon at the Monte Bello Islands off Western Australia. Menzies agreed in principle, immediately; there is no record of his having consulted any of his Cabinet colleagues on the matter. A preliminary assessment of the suitability of the proposed test site was conducted in October-November 1950.
The Monte Bello site was deemed suitable by British authorities, and in a message to Menzies dated 26 March 1951 Atlee sought formal agreement to conduct the test. Atlee’s letter did not discuss the nature of the proposed test in minute detail. He did, however, see fit to mention the risk of radiation hazards:
6. There is one further aspect which I should mention. The effect of exploding an atomic weapon in the Monte Bello Islands will be to contaminate with radio activity the north-east group and this contamination may spread to others of the islands. The area is not likely to be entirely free from contamination for about three years and we would hope for continuing Australian help in investigating the decay of contamination. During this time the area will be unsafe for human occupation or even for visits by e.g. pearl fishermen who, we understand, at present go there from time to time and suitable measures will need to be taken to keep them away. We should not like the Australian Government to take a decision on the matter without having this aspect of it in their minds (quoted in Australia 1985, p. 13).
Menzies was only too pleased to assist the ‘motherland’, but deferred a response until after the 195 1 federal elections. With the return of his government, preparations for the test, code-named ‘Hurricane’, proceeded. Yet it was not until 19 February 1952 that the Australian public was informed that atomic weapons were to be tested on Australian soil.
One Aboriginal family – devastated by Maralinga nuclear bomb testing
Chapter 16: A toxic legacy : British nuclear weapons testing in Australia Published in: Wayward governance : illegality and its control in the public sector / P N Grabosky Canberra : Australian Institute of Criminology, 1989 ISBN 0 642 14605 5(Australian studies in law, crime and justice series); pp. 235-253 “…….The security measures taken to restrict access to the testing site were not without flaws. One morning in May 1957, four Aboriginal people, the Milpuddie family, were found by range authorities near the crater formed by the ‘Buffalo 2’ explosion the previous October. ‘Me man, woman, two children and two dogs had set out on foot from the Everard Ranges in the northwest of South Australia, and were unaware that the Aboriginal inhabitants of the Maralinga area had been removed. When authorities discovered them, the family was immediately taken to a decontamination centre at the site, and were required to shower. After this experience, which must have been frightening enough, the family was driven to Yalata.
As one of the site personnel described the experience:
It was a shocking trip down as they had never ridden in a vehicle before and vomited everywhere (Australia 1985, p. 320).
On instructions from the Secretary of the Commonwealth Department of Supply, the dogs were shot. ‘ne woman was pregnant at the time the family was taken into custody; subsequently, her baby was born dead. Australian authorities went to great lengths to keep the incident secret, but they appear to have been less concerned with the family’s subsequent health. Commenting upon the fact that no-one appears to have taken the time to explain the experience to which the hapless Aborigines were subjected, a team of anthropologists was to comment:
[T]he three remaining members of the family have been subjected to a high degree of stress and unhappiness about the events of twenty-eight years ago (Australia 1985, p. 323)…….http://aic.gov.au/publications/previous%20series/lcj/1-20/wayward/ch16.html
Electric car charging stations for Adelaide in 2017 – says Mayor
Adelaide City Council ‘leads the way’ with rollout of 40 electric car charging stations in 2017, ABC News, 23 Oct 16 By Candice Prosser Electric cars are the way of the future and Adelaide will lead the nation in developing infrastructure to encourage more of them, Adelaide’s Lord Mayor says.
The Adelaide City Council has announced it will roll out 40 electric charging stations throughout the city in 2017 in addition to the four charging points it currently has in two CBD car parks.
Speaking at the Electric Vehicle Expo at Elder Park, Lord Mayor Martin Haese said the infrastructure would be free to all users. “At this point in time the council needs to show leadership — we are very much in a changing environment whereby we’re forecasting the growth and sales of electric vehicles over the next few years is just going to grow exponentially,” he said. “Adelaide has a goal to become the world’s first carbon neutral city by 2025 and electric vehicles are an important part of that story.
“We want to be a smart city, we want to send a very clear signal to everyone that technology and the knowledge economy is important to our future. “We believe electric vehicles do both.”
The Lord Mayor said he expected electric vehicles to become increasingly more popular.
“Electric vehicles are very important, they are going to become incredibly commonplace much sooner than what we think,” he said.
“We’ve currently got about 700 electric vehicles registered in South Australia, we’ve got some 22,000 hybrid vehicles registered in South Australia and those numbers are going to grow exponentially.”
The council is also offering residents and businesses $5,000 to install their own charging points and will consider installing faster super chargers around the city in the future……..http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-23/adelaide-city-council-rollout-40-electric-car-charging-stations/7958074
Witness list for next Nuclear Citizens’ Jury 29 October South Australia
Pro nuclear waste import witnesses in RED. Probably Leaning to pro – orange Neutral (or I don’t know) in Yellow Leaning to nuclear free – light green Nuclear free -GREEN
It is not clear exactly which individuals are to be the facilitators.
| Safety (1)
(includes overview and focus on impact on human health)
Location: |
Dr Paul Degman
Dr Sami Hautakangas (alternate for Timo Äikäs) |
| Dr Margaret Beavis | |
| Dr Robert Hall (alternate for Professor Tilman Ruff) | |
| Dr Stephan Bayer (alternate for John Carlson) | |
| Dr Tony Hooker (added by democracyCo from Fact Check queries) | |
| Dr Jim Green | |
| Safety (2)
(includes general safety, siting and transport)
Location: |
Dean Summers (alternate for Paddy Crumlin)
Dr John Loy (alternate for Carl-Magnus Larsson) |
| Frank Boulton | |
| Dr Andrew Herczeg | |
| Ian Hore-Lacy | |
| Professor David Giles | |
| Dr Dirk Mallants (alternate for Dr Ian Chessell) | |
| Professor Sandy Steacy | |
| Trust
(includes role of Government, legislation, regulation, trust in Government)
Location |
Steve McIntosh |
| Hon. Mark Parnell, MLC | |
| Dr Benito Cao | |
| Keith Baldry (added by democracyCo from Fact Check queries) | |
| Professor Haydon Manning | |
| Judy Hughes Attorney General/Crown Solicitors Office | |
| Economics
Location |
Richard Dennis |
| Adjunct Professor Richard Blandy | |
| Professor Barbara Pocock | |
| Assoc. Professor Mark Diesendorf (via Skype) | |
| Tim Johnson (added by democracyCo from Fact Check queries) | |
| Consent
Location |
Dan Spencer |
| Professor Bob Watts (via Skype) | |
| Gerald Ouzounian | |
| Ross Womersley | |
| Dr Simon Longstaff | |
| Cathy O’Loughlin (alternate Gill McFadyen)
Dave Sweeney |
Premier Jay Weatherill’s Nuclear Waste Decisions in November South Australia
David Noonan, 22 Oct 16 In mid-late November Premier Weatherill intends to announce his SA gov decision and go to the SA Parliament to amend the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility Prohibition Act 2000 – at a minimum: to repeal the prohibition on spending public monies on nuclear waste plans (as per the likely ‘amber light’ Citizen Jury outcome over the first weekend in Nov).
This has to follow on from release of the SA Parliamentary Inquiry Report, likely in the week of Parliamentary sittings 15th to 17th Nov. The SA Liberals have privately said they will not give their position while the Citizen’s Jury is on, and will not do so until after this Inquiry reports.
The Premier will likely go to Parliament in the final scheduled sitting week of 29th Nov to 1st Dec (with an ‘optional sitting week’ in early Dec – which is very rarely ever used). The Premier requires the SA Liberals to agree to his proposed changes.
Appears unlikely the SA Liberals will agree to repeal the key prohibitions on import, transport, storage and disposal of International nuclear waste (at this time) BUT likely agree to repeal the prohibition on spending public funds – in a ‘further information’ style approach.
The Premier will then formally ask the Federal government to jointly work up the Inter dump plan along-side the SA gov through-out 2017 and in the lead up to the March 2018 State election. The Premier would then have to return to Parliament to repeal the key prohibitions on import, transport, storage and disposal of nuclear waste – potentially late in 2017 OR after the State Election.
Note: Shadow Treasurer Rob Lucas MLC (the lead Liberal on the Parliamentary Inquiry) has made media statements (as an individual) that the extent of public funds required to be spent before SA knows if this plan could go ahead – “is a potential deal breaker”;
And has also cast doubt on the potential economic benefits: warning it was not possible to verify “some of the financial estimates in terms of what the state might earn from this facility”.
see:“SA nuclear dump dreams just fool’s gold: senior Lib” The Australian 29 Sept 2016:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/sa-nuclear-dump-dreams-just-fools-gold-senior-lib/news-story/a595649777c14703159a462c5d9cb34f
see: “SA would have to spend up to $600 million to plan a nuclear waste repository” The Advertiser 11 September 2016:http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/subscribe/news/1/index.html?sourceCode=AAWEB_WRE170_a&mode=premium&dest=http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/sa-would-have-to-spend-up-to-600-million-to-plan-a-nuclear-waste-repository/news-story/9287ad32b2717574afdeb29e0cf90f5c&memtype=registered
|
|
Top nuclear shill, James Voss, imported to lecture South Australians on the benefits of nuclear
Trisha Dee Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia, 22 Oct 16 Leading international nuclear industry executives have descended on Adelaide. James Voss has global links in the nuclear industry at the highest level. Through UCL he is lecturing South Australians on the glories of nuclear. Voss is the ex-MD of Pangea Resources – a failed joint venture attempt to bring High Level nuclear waste to Australia in the late 1990s. We need community driven, not industry driven initatives.
Confusing report by Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) Update Report on the state-wide blackout.
Dennis Matthews, 21 Oct 16 I have just read the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) Update Report on the state-wide blackout.
The collapse of more than twenty transmission line towers initiated a sequence of domino-like events that ended with the loss of grid-power to the entire state. When I came to the end of the report I was mystified by the lack of attention to the first domino to fall – the transmission-line towers. The final chapter of the report, Next Steps, makes no mention of the towers, including the fact that they have been replaced by temporary structures.
I went back to the beginning of the report and was amazed to find the transmission line faults (caused by the tower collapses) classed as “pre event”.
What on earth is AEMO doing? Do we have to wait six months to find out whether the transmission-line towers are strong enough? Will there be another disruption to the electricity transmission system in the meantime? Your guess is as good as mine.
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 