South Australia’s Nuclear Citizens Jury to have a ?scientific panel
A businessman, an environmentalist and an oncologist walked into a citizens’ jury…http://indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/06/23/a-businessman-and-environmentalist-and-an-oncologist-walked-into-a-citizens-jury/ Passionate advocates and fierce opponents of a state-based high-level nuclear waste dump will confront the first Citizens’ Jury debating the issue over the weekend.
Business SA chief Nigel McBride, who last week confirmed his organisation was now “advocating actively and positively for a high-level waste repository” will join a panel of prominent figures to debate the issues and field questions from the 50 jurors on Sunday.
McBride will butt heads with the likes of Conservation Council SA chief Craig Wilkins, who has strongly argued against increasing SA’s involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle.
They will join SA’s chief scientist Dr Leanna Read, SA Native Title Services CEO Keith Thomas and ethicist Simon Longstaff on the panel, along with mining lobbyist Jason Kuchel, Kelly-Anne Saffin from the Northern and Yorke Regional Development Australia and Michael Penniment, Director of Radiation Oncology at the Royal Adelaide Hospital.
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Consultation and Response Agency chief executive Madeline Richardson said in a statement the panel was “a dynamic way of exploring some of the big issues in an open and informative way”, with the discussion to be livestreamed to the public.
“It is about letting everyday South Australians frame what the community should focus on, rather than the Government, politicians or lobby groups setting the agenda,” she said.
The jury will meet for four days across two weekends to identify key issues that require further debate.
Jury convenor Emily Jenke, from DemocracyCo, said the panel discussion was “designed to stretch the jurors’ thinking, spark ideas and explore issues through presentations by speakers who can elevate the conversation”.
“We know jurors want to hear from people who have strong opinions, and also people who have specific expertise,” she said.
“The group is made up of a range of people – leaders, experts and people with a specific interest – and that’s the balance we are looking for.”
Topics such as health, Aboriginal heritage, environment, industry, ethics, community, business and potential reputational damage will be canvassed.
Taxpayers $100,000,000 to be spent up front BEFORE any decision on South Australia nuclear waste importing
Valdis Dunis Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia 24 June 16
Last night on Adelaide ABC TV News, The Royal Commission’s Jacob Engineering Manager Tim Johnson was interviewed after his submission to SA Parliament yesterday. He stated for the government to be certain that a waste dump would be feasible technically and financially would – like any large technical engineering program – require detailed analysis, and given the complexity Jacob’s estimate is about A$100M that the State Government would have to spent upfront BEFORE we could confirm a yes/no to make sure it will work and make money for us.
Should we spend $100M on more nuclear analysis, or spend the money instead on renewables and other services in our state?
http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/…/2016/02/JOHNSON-Tim-489-496.pdf
http://www.abc.net.au/news/sa/
Malcolm Turnbull backs importing foreign nuclear waste
Australia could store nuclear waste for other countries, Malcolm Turnbull says, Guardian, Daniel Hurst, 28 Oct 2015, PM tells Adelaide radio that he was sceptical Australia would ever build nuclear power stations, but a larger role in nuclear fuel industry was worth exploring Australia should “look closely” at expanding its role in the global nuclear energy industry, including leasing fuel rods to other countries and then storing the waste afterwards, Malcolm Turnbull has said…….Turnbull made the observations in a radio interview on Wednesday, a day after he named Dr Alan Finkel, a vocal advocate of nuclear power and the outgoing chancellor of Monash University, as Australia’s next chief scientist…..
“we’ve got the uranium [and] we mine it; why don’t we process it, turn it into the fuel rods, lease them to people overseas; when they’re done, bring them back – and we’ve got very stable geology in remote locations and a stable political environment – and store them?”
“That is a business that you could well imagine here.”…….
Turnbull is seeking to bolster the Liberal party’s popularity in South Australia, where the government suffered political difficulties after his predecessor, Tony Abbott, backed away from a pre-election promise to build 12 submarines locally……https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/28/australia-could-store-nuclear-waste-for-other-countries-malcolm-turnbull-says?CMP=share_btn_tw
Green preferences help Labor in the coming election: voting Green is not a waste
The Major Party Myth That Stops People Voting For The Greens https://newmatilda.com/2016/06/21/the-major-party-myth-that-stops-people-voting-for-the-greens/ By Lee Rhiannon on June 21, 2016There are hundreds of thousands of Australian voters who think the Greens have the better policies on issues such as climate change and refugees, but they end up voting for the Labor Party instead. They do this out of fears arising from a lack of understanding of the preference voting system used for the House of Representatives. This mindset also holds back the Greens’ Senate vote.
The crux of the unfounded fear for many progressive voters is the false belief that voting for the Greens ahead of Labor may somehow help the Liberal/National parties win the lower house seat and government.
Of course, if the Greens dropped out of the count and it came down to a contest between the Labor and Coalition candidates as it usually does, any voter who had given the Greens their number 1 vote and placed the Labor candidate ahead of the Coalition, would have their vote allocated to the Labor candidate at full value when Greens’ preferences were distributed.
There is no wasted vote in that. It is a safe way to send a message to Labor and help stop the Coalition candidate being elected. Continue reading
Clean Energy Finance Corporation now being used as Coalition election slush fund
How the Coalition is using clean energy financing as an election slush
fund
Some in the sector fear the government is trying to defund the Clean Energy Finance Corporation by stealth. The truth may be a little more mundane, Guardian, Michael Slezak, 20 June 16
After trying in vain to dismantle the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Coalition is now using Labor’s $10bn financing scheme as an election slush fund, throwing its money at the Great Barrier Reef, at “smart cities” and even at the steel industry in South Australia.
These announcements left some clean energy sector experts crying foul, saying the government was trying to squeeze the CEFC for every last drop, and defund it by stealth.
That might be the case but the truth could be more mundane. The announcements probably amount to little, leaving the spending pledges bereft of substance – but equally doing little to harm the CEFC.
By anyone’s reckoning, the CEFC has been a success. According to its 2015 annual report, it invested $1.4bn, financing projects worth a total of $3.5bn, which would reduce 4.2m tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions annually. And it did all that while making a profit.
But under the Tony Abbott, who called the CEFC “Bob Brown’s bank”, the Coalition tried unsuccessfully to abolish it, tried unlawfully to stop it operating, and tried – also possibly unlawfully – to stop it investing in windfarms and small-scale solar.
When Turnbull became prime minister he conceded the government had failed to abolish the CEFC but stopped short of giving it his backing……
But now it is certainly playing a crucial role in Turnbull’s re-election campaign. Continue reading
Nuclear Citizens Jury South Australia Saturday, June 25 and Sunday, June 26
The first Jury of 50 South Australians has now been randomly selected with representatives from far and wide across the state ranging in age from 18 to over 65. The jurors will meet for the first time in Adelaide next Saturday, June 25 and Sunday, June 26 for a weekend of deliberations.
South Australians will have the chance to sit in and watch first-hand the deliberations and workings of a Citizens’ Jury. Ten randomly selected people will be able to attend selected sessions of over both upcoming Jury weekends.
To register for your chance to be offered an observer place at one of the Jury sessions, you must first be logged in or registered on the YourSAy Nuclear website, before filling out the application form.
The observers will be able to sit in during a morning or afternoon session. Each day there are between three and four sessions available. All open sessions will be streamed live on the YourSAy Nuclear website
Registration for the first two days of the Citizens’ Jury (Saturday 25 June and Sunday 26 June) will close at 5pm Wednesday 22 June, 2016.
Registrations for the last two days (Saturday 9 July and Sunday 10 July) will close at 5pm on Wednesday 6th July. All applicants’ names will be sorted into a random stratification process which will be
facilitated independently by newDemocracy Foundation. To allocate seats, a random number draw will be conducted.
Does the South Australian plan meet the BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR CITIZENS’ JURY ?
BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR CITIZENS’ JURY - Assurance that the participants are randomly selected from as wide a range as possible.
- Honorarium payment, crèche facilities, and easy-access jury locations, etc, every effort made not to exclude any person because of their situation.
- The selection of a truly neutral Advisory body, with equal representation from pro and anti nuclear witnesses.
- Moderators for the hearings also selected to be neutral.
- Questions well selected so as not to influence the response (this was one of the major failings of the Royal Commission)
- Complete video and audio of the hearings available to the public, (though not the private discussions of the participants)
The public availability of complete audio or video recordings of all jury hearings, (though not of “jury room” deliberations if participants would prefer privacy) is an important aid to transparency. Multiple sources of funding help to ensure that the jury’s organisers are not seen as having a financial interest in producing a verdict that supports the interests of a single funding body. To maximise the scrutiny they provide, the two or more funders should have somewhat opposing interests regarding the subject likely to be under discussion.
The moment in a citizens jury that is most important for its participants is the point at which they deliver their recommendations to those in power. A jury in which jurors are not only allowed to present their conclusions themselves at a press conference, but also undertake work towards ensuring that some of their conclusions are implemented, is a far more empowering process than one in which their verdict is merely extracted by researchers and written up without further input from the jurors. http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU37.html
| Iain Walker <iain.walker@newdemocracy.com.au |
but sub-contracted out to South Australia’s DemocracyCo
- – CEOs are Emma Lawson and Emily Jenke.
Principal Advisor is Ilka Walkley
- CONTACTS:
- 0421 098 355
- 0427 834 062
- Ilka Walkley
- 0409 961 902
- Vivienne Lambert
- 0417 084 475
- Note how the poisoned chalice is always given to women. They can then be blamed when it all stuffs up
For women, climate change is an election priority
Election 2016: Climate change – an election priority for women, ABC News, 19 June 16 By Erin Stewart Women care more about addressing climate change than men, doubtless because they suffer more from its effects, writes Erin Stewart. So why are the Coalition and Labor not prioritising it in their election campaigns?
In his capacity as the former minister for women, Tony Abbott claimed the best thing he did was repeal the carbon tax.
“As many of us know,” he said in December 2014, “women are particularly focused on the household budget, and the repeal of the carbon tax means a $550-a-year benefit for the average family”.
Aside from overstating his figures, Mr Abbott expressed the absurdly inaccurate view that women were more interested in domestic arithmetic than the world around them. In actuality, women care a great deal about climate change, and are more likely to suffer as a result of it.
Eighty-two per cent of female respondents to the ABC’s Vote Compass felt the Federal Government should do “much” or “somewhat more” to tackle climate change, compared with just 67 per cent of men.
These findings are in line with data from the Pew Research Centre which found 83 per cent of Australian women see climate change as a serious problem, compared with just 71 per cent of men.
Part of the reason for the climate gap is doubtless because women would be disproportionately affected if climate change was not effectively addressed. Chair of Population Health at Western Sydney University Professor Hilary Bambrick said extreme weather events killed more women than men globally because they were less likely to have the resources to survive.
They were also more likely to experience poverty and social restrictions, were less likely to be part of decision-making processes, and were also more likely to be exposed to mosquito-borne diseases in performing household tasks such as collecting water and harvesting food.
The reasons climate change was especially bad for women, Professor Bambrick wrote recently at the Conversation, was “largely because they are overrepresented among the world’s poor and are thus more exposed to these dangers”.
Australian women ‘financially vulnerable’ to climate change The threats are seen in Australia, too. Greens Senator Larissa Waters said she believed women were particularly financially vulnerable to climate change due to structural disadvantage and discrimination.
“With lesser financial means, it will be harder for women to recover from damage to their homes from extreme weather events driven by global warming, such as flooding, droughts or bushfires,” Senator Waters told ABC News…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-18/election-2016:-climate-change-and-women/7489354
Policy of Australian Liberal Party on nuclear issues
Jobs and growth?
Why we should question the Liberal Party on nuclear waste importing
Well, of course the Liberals don’t have a policy on any nuclear issues.
So you have to look back on their record – in Wikipedia, or better still, in this fine article by Independent Australia’s intrepid investigative journalist Sandi Keane – The Liberal Party’s nuclear dreams: The strange case of Dr John White and Ignite -display/the-liberal-partys-nuclear-dreams-the-strange-case-of-dr-john-white-and-ignite,6270
It might be a waste of time questioning Labor Party politicians and candidates on what they think about importing nuclear waste – Labor policy is strongly anti nuclear.
It’s probably good to question Nick Xenophon Team – as they are still making up their minds about this.
Waste of time questioning Greens – their opposition to the Nuclear Fuel Chain is rock solid.
But the Liberals? I wonder what their politicians and members really think? Or perhaps – do they think at all?
Labor and Liberal united in disregard for indigenous people, over nuclear waste dumping
7 shady things Labor & Liberals have in common Progressive Reflection JUNE 1, 2016 CHRIS JENSEN “……..5. Dumping Nuclear waste on Indigenous Australians
Labor and Liberal politicians united earlier this year to profit from turning South Australia into a dumping ground for nuclear waste. But where do you put the most hazardous waste you can think of? Who’s backyard would our political leaders dump a hot radioactive mess in and feel guilt free about it? Who else but Indigenous Australians?.
Fukushima was an unfortunate reminder of how badly nuclear can go wrong, and many countries have since reconsidered nuclear plans. Nuclear is unlikely to ever be the energy of the future it was once thought to be. So why think of poisoning any Australian land with nuclear waste at all?
Because free money!
It’s a dream come true for some Australian politicians – rather than grapple with the politically difficult tasks of ending corporate welfare, or tax loopholes, or paying for essential services the Government could rake in a tidy $6 billion a year for at least 70 years.
All they’d have to do is screw over an indigenous community.
It’s practically business as usual.
And when Labor and Liberal come together to make something happen, they sure can be brazen about their disregard for indigenous people.
Wallerberdina Station near the Flinders Ranges is the only shortlisted site for the nuclear waste dump. Back in November last year, the indigenous community nearby demanded the government reject the proposal.
The dump threatens a local heritage site.
Federal Resources Minister Josh Frydenberg has creatively interpreted their concerns as “a broad level of community support“.
Frydenberg has said that consultation with traditional owners would be undertaken as part of the next phase of the project. That seems nice of him, except that the number of proposed sites for the dump is: 1. Just that site. What do you think the likelihood is the consultation will result in the only site planned being scrapped?
The consultation is there to serve the purpose of pretending to have listened, so that when the site goes ahead and indigenous Australian’s are outraged, they can be patronisingly told they had their chance to have their say………http://www.chrisjensen.info/blog/2016/06/7-shady-things-labor-liberals-agree/
Environmental policy threatened by Trans Pacific Partnership: this election could decide
TPP: This Election Could Decide If Companies Can Sue Australia Over Environmental Policy, New Matilda, By Thom Mitchell on June 17, 2016 Experts are warning that the Trans Pacific Partnership could get in the way of effective action on climate change, and Australia’s international obligations, at a symposium being hosted by the Queensland University of Technology.
The apprehension comes as political players take different positions on the controversial Pacific Rim trade deal, ahead of the July 2 poll which could prove critical to Australia’s involvement. The Labor Party has taken a dim view of aspects of the deal, but is yet to rule out voting for it.
Central to widespread concerns about the deal is what’s known as an Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clause, which would allow foreign companies to sue the Australian government in offshore tribunals that sit outside the judicial system. Continue reading
View South Australia Nuclear Citizens Juries Saturday 25 June and Sunday 26 June
Citizens’ Jury Viewing Your Say Nuclear Register to be an “Observer” for the first upcoming nuclear Citizens’ Jury
There are a number of sessions in which 10 randomly selected South Australians will be able to sit in and watch proceedings, hear what the Jury hears and observe how democracy works in this important discussion.
While sessions will be broadcast publicly via media organisations and live streaming on the YourSAy website, at any time the jury reserves the right to deliberate privately and can ask for the jury room to be cleared.
Please note that photographers will be present to take photographs and capture film at this event. This material will be published in both printed and electronic (including Internet-based) media used by the South Australian Government to promote the consultation process on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission report. In some cases, the media in which this material is published may be administered by a third party……
Registration for the first two days of the Citizens’ Jury (Saturday 25 June and Sunday 26 June) will close at 5pm Wednesday 22 June, 2016. Registrations for the last two days (Saturday 9 July and Sunday 10 July) will close at 5pm on Wednesday 6th July. All applicants’ names will be sorted into a random stratification process which will be facilitated independently by newDemocracy Foundation. To allocate seats, a random number draw will be conducted.
Successfully drawn applicants for the first weekend of the Citizens’ Jury will be notified by telephone or email on Thursday 23 June. Successfully drawn applicants for the second weekend will be notified by telephone on Thursday 7 July.
Senator Nick Xenophon not keen on nuclear waste importing
Xenophon “can’t see benefits” of nuke dump, InDaily, Tom Richardson, 17 June 16 Influential senator Nick Xenophon has come down against the establishment of an international nuclear repository in South Australia, arguing “I can’t see the benefits are there that outweigh the risks”.
It comes as the state’s chamber of commerce, Business SA, nailed its own colours firmly to the mast, with chief Nigel McBride saying the organisation was now “advocating actively and positively for a high-level waste repository here in SA”.
InDaily revealed in March that McBride would be joining a business delegation organised by the 
Committee for Adelaide to tour nuclear sites in Europe, but at the time he insisted he was there to observe and learn, not to advocate…… with a public information campaign gearing up in the wake of the Scarce Royal Commission’s bullish final report, McBride says he is now prepared to take a lead in pushing for the repository to become a reality.
He said “thought leaders” in the community, rather than politicians, should step up to play a prominent role in the debate.
“We’re absolute advocates,” he said of Business SA…….
Business SA is overtly advocating for a high-level nuclear waste facility in SA, subject to an educational process that will get social consent.”
But the influential lobby group’s enthusiasm was not reciprocated by Xenophon at an election forum, co-hosted last night by a range of interest groups including the Wilderness Society and Conservation SA in the marginal electorate of Hindmarsh.
In a packed Glenelg Football clubroom, Karina Lester from the Yankunytjatjara Native Title Aboriginal Corporation pressed Xenophon on where his fledgling party stood on high-level nuclear waste imports.
“Would your party listen to us and support the overwhelming majority of traditional owners who continue to speak out against establishing an international nuclear waste dump?” Lester asked.
Xenophon said: “The short answer is yes, I don’t support importation of high-level waste.”
He has previously endorsed a referendum on the issue, explaining last night that “it seems to me you might get a consensus between the two major parties here in SA and it might be seen as a a done deal [so] it’s important to get the consent of the community”.
However, he added, “if a referendum were held tomorrow I can’t see myself supporting it”.
“I can’t see the benefits are there that outweigh the risks,” he said.
The debate is set to dominate the state political scene in the latter half of the year, with two Citizens’ Juries headlining a broader community consultation………http://indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/06/17/xenophon-cant-see-benefits-of-nuke-dump/
Australian Greens plan for a solar South Australia
Australian Greens announce plan to fund solar panels for 48,000 SA homes 
June 16, 2016 http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/federal-election/australian-greens-announce-plan-to-fund-solar-panels-for-48000-sa-homes/news-story/fd62f39d9131861e539f9a674 Political Editor Tory Shepherd, Advertiser MORE than 48,000 South Australian homes would get solar panels and energy efficient measures under an Australian Greens plan to reduce electricity costs and reduce emissions.
Deputy Leader Larissa Waters and SA Senator Robert Simms has announced in Adelaide today a plan to spend $2000 on each public and community housing home, which they say could save renters as much as $1075 a year.
The plan would cost $60 million a year, and would not be finished until 2030. By that point homes would be retrofitted with energy-saving and water efficient devices, with solar on every roof.
Senator Simms said it would also boost jobs, employing thousands of South Australians.
“This initiative would not only provide South Australians with more jobs in the renewable energy and green housing sector, but it would save the average household $780 per year in electricity bills from installing solar alone,” he said.
Senator Waters said nationally it would help about 800,000 people. More than 2400 deaths a year are associated with cold weather, she said.
“We have an unequal system where our lowest earners are paying the highest price for power, many in ageing houses that are inefficient to run, hot in summer and freezing in winter,” she said.
The Greens will not be able to form Government but they may share the balance of power in the Senate after the July 2 election, which could give them leverage over the major parties.
1 This month
7 April – WEBINAR – Australia and the Doomsday Clock – Preventing nuclear war through NoFirstUse and other policies
Online | Tuesday April 7, 4:00-5:30pm, Australian Eastern Time / 8:00-9:30am Central Europe Time
– Access the registration link
15 April – Zoom –Nuclear Power is Not the Solution
Apr 15, 2026 01:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
Join the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) on Tuesday, April 14th for a timely webinar exploring the risks associated with nuclear power and challenging the myth that it offers a simple, safe, carbon-free solution to the climate crisis
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 