Liberal Party united in opposition to a nuclear waste import industry
Steven Marshall: The Liberals are united in our decision to oppose a nuclear waste industry but the Weatherill Labor Government is not
Steven Marshall, The AdvertiserEurope’s new rules about exporting nuclear waste are RELEVANT TO AUSTRALIA
Under the new law, export to countries outside the EU will be allowed but only under strict and binding conditions.
The third country must have a final deep geological repository in operation when the waste is shipped.
At present, such deep geological repositories do not exist anywhere in the world nor is a repository in construction outside of the EU.
Europe Adopts Long-Term Nuclear Waste Storage Law http://ens-newswire.com/2011/07/19/europe-adopts-long-term-nuclear-waste-storage-law/ BRUSSELS, Belgium, July 19, 2011 For the first time, the European Union has committed itself to the final disposal of its nuclear waste. Heads of government today adopted the radioactive waste and spent fuel management directive, “in order to avoid imposing undue burdens on future generations.”…..
The directive will enter into force at the latest in September of this year. Member States will have two years to transpose its provisions into their national laws.
By 2015, governments must submit their first national programs to the European Commission, the EU’s executive branch, which will examine them and can require changes……
Some 7,000 cubic meters of high-level nuclear waste are produced across the EU each year. Most Member States store spent fuel and other highly radioactive wastes in above-ground storage facilities that need continuous maintenance and oversight and are at risk of accidents, such as airplane crashes, fires or earthquakes. Hungary and Bulgaria currently ship nuclear waste to Russia.
In its most controversial provision, the new law allows export of nuclear waste to countries outside the EU. In its initial proposal, the Commission had advocated a complete export ban.
On June 23, 2011, the European Parliament in its plenary session voted in favor of a complete export ban as proposed by the Commission. In a close vote, MEPs backed a ban on exports of nuclear waste to non-EU countries, with 311 votes in favor, 328 against and seven abstentions.
However, the European Council today approved a version of the directive that allows export. 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.
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/
South Aust Premier Weatherill wants a nuclear referendum – but no-one else does
Karina Lester from the No Dump Alliance said Aboriginal people simply did not support the proposal and it was time the Premier stopped wasting time and money on an idea that most people were opposed to.
“I will certainly stand my ground and really say to our Premier that you are not listening to what Aboriginal people are saying and you need to be aware of this,” she said.
“Why continue to pursue this crazy idea?”.
SA nuclear referendum won’t happen before 2018 election, Premier Jay Weatherill says 891 ABC Adelaide , 15 Nov 16
Premier Jay Weatherill yesterday announced he wanted a referendum, with bipartisan support, held on the issue.
Last week Opposition Leader Steven Marshall said the Liberal Party would not support a waste facility, and earlier this month a citizen’s jury voted against the state pursuing a future in nuclear waste storage.
Its report outlined concerns with economics, along with issues of trust, safety and a lack of consent, particularly from Aboriginal elders.
Mr Weatherill said a referendum would give people a final say, which could be trusted.
Democracy is messy, especially when you take the time and effort to ask ordinary everyday citizens to get involved in these big decisions,” he said.
“I think what most people do want is greater say over the decisions that affect their lives and that’s what we’re trying to do, but we’ve never said that we’re abdicating our responsibility for making decisions.”
But Mr Weatherill told 891 ABC Adelaide a referendum would not be called before the next election.
“Obviously you wouldn’t promote a referendum unless you believed it had some prospects of success so as things presently stand you would not be presenting a referendum anytime soon,” Mr Weatherill said.
“Well, not in the life of this Parliament.”
Mr Weatherill has also pledged that if the referendum goes ahead and is successful, Aboriginal communities will have the right to veto the selected site. Continue reading
South Australia’s ‘Community Views Report’ reinforces a resounding “NO” to nuclear waste storage
Regarding plans to import nuclear waste to South Australia, Friends of the Earth Australia notes that the Community Views Report released today is overwhelmingly negative and calls on SA Premier Jay Weatherill to abandon the proposal.
The Community Views Report follows major developments over the past week:
- Two-thirds of the members of the Citizens’ Jury concluded that the proposal should not be pursued “under any circumstances”.
- SA Liberal Leader Steven Marshall has clearly stated his opposition to the proposal and said it will be the “defining issue for the 2018 state election” if the Premier refuses to dump the dump.
- Business SA chief Nigel McBride acknowledges that the proposal is “dead”.
- Aboriginal communities across the state have repeatedly voiced their strong opposition to the proposed nuclear dump and their views are clearly reflected both in the Citizens’ Jury report and in the Community Views Report released today.
Dr Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia, said: “The Community Views report reinforces the deep scepticism and opposition revealed by the Citizens’ Jury process. The 53 percent opposed to importing nuclear waste far outnumber the 31 percent supportive of the proposal. Far more people oppose further consideration of the proposal than support further consideration. Opposition from Aboriginal people is overwhelming. Only 20 percent are confident that nuclear waste can be transported and stored safely. An overwhelming majority of people lack confidence in the SA government’s ability to regulate any new nuclear industry activities. Sixty-six percent are not confident that a nuclear waste dump would bring significant economic benefits to SA.”
“The people of South Australia have spoken. Aboriginal Traditional Owners ‒ who have always borne the brunt of the nuclear industry ‒ have spoken. Opposition Leader Steven Marshall has spoken. The Citizens’ Jury has spoken. Jay Weatherill must listen. It is time to dump the dump,” Dr Green concluded.
Community Views Report released by Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Consultation and Response Agency
Key Findings of the ‘Community Views Report’.
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Consultation and Response Agency, November 2016, ‘Community Views Report’.
Jim Green, 13 Nov 16 Page 19: The report states: “Over thirty per cent (31%) of South Australians interviewed in the three rounds of telephone surveys supported the storage and disposal of nuclear waste from other countries in the state, while 53% opposed the proposal and 16% were unsure or didn’t know enough.”
Page 18: The report distinguishes ‘representative feedback’ (participation in telephone surveys and focus groups by random selection) from self-selected feedback (feedback forms, online survey, conversation kit). In the representative feedback (4016 people), 43% of people supported or strongly supported continuing to explore the nuclear waste dump proposal, while 37% were opposed or strongly opposed. In the self-selected feedback (4499 people), 64% of people opposed or strongly opposed continuation, more than double the 29% who supported or strongly supported continuation.
Adding the figures together (which the report does not do):
1727 + 1305= 3032 people support continuing to explore the proposal
1486 + 2879 = 4365 people oppose continuing to explore the proposal
Page 34: Within the structured channels of feedback forms and telephone and online surveys, 198 people who identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander provided feedback. In terms of support for continuing to explore the establishment of a nuclear storage facility for international waste in SA, 34% of Aboriginal people in the representative sample (total 56 people) were supportive and 50% were opposed, compared to 16% supportive and 73% opposed in the self-selected feedback (total 138 people).
Combining the figures (which the report does not do):
Support continuing to explore the proposal: 19 + 22 = 41 people
Oppose continuing to explore the proposal: 28 + 101 = 129 people
The report states (page 9): “Many [Aboriginal] participants expressed concern about the potential negative impacts on their culture and the long-term, generational consequences of increasing the state’s participation in the nuclear fuel cycle. There was a significant lack of support for the government to continue pursuing any form of nuclear storage and disposal facilities. Some Aboriginal people indicated that they are interested in learning more and continuing the conversation, but these were few in number.”
Page 22: How confident are you that nuclear waste can be transported and stored safely?
Confident or very confident 20%
Not confident or not at all confident 70%
In four places the report produces survey results regarding what the next steps should be. In all cases the most common response was that the nuclear waste dump proposal should be stopped. In three of the four cases, stopping the proposal was vastly more popular than the second most common response:
p.23: 28% stop the proposal vs next most common response 7%
p.26: 18% stop the proposal vs next most common response 17%
p.29: 25% stop the proposal vs next most common response 8%
p.31: 28% stop the proposal vs next most common response 8%
Page 24: Self-selected feedback channels showed that confidence that the government would consider community views in its decision was low at 20%, with 70% not confident.
Page 28: Asked about confidence in government’s ability to regulate any new nuclear industry activities in South Australia, 43% of the representative sample (total 4016 people) said they were not confident, compared with 38% who were confident. Of the self-selected feedback (total 3330 people), 74% were not confident and 18% were confident.
Combining the figures (which the report does not do):
Confident: 1526 + 599 = 2125
Not confident: 1726 + 2464 = 4190
Page 30: On the question of confidence that a nuclear waste disposal facility would bring significant economic benefits to SA, 66% of the people who submitted online surveys, feedback forms and conversation kits (self-selected feedback) were not confident.
Now, focus on the unnecessarily large, and unnecessary, Flinders nuclear dump proposal.
— Steve Dale Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia, Good news …., but don’t lose the momentum. People need to focus the blow torch on the Flinder’s dump proposal. It is much bigger than needed for just Lucas Height’s waste and will be used as a Trojan Horse for any future international dump attempt. Lucas Heights should be able to store the small amount of waste it produces on it’s own site or somewhere in NSW. Citizens’ Jury effectively exploded South Australian Labor govt’s nuclear plans
South Australian ‘citizens’ jury’ rejects nuclear dump, Green Left RENFREY CLARKE. Adelaide, November 11, 2016 To the fury of business spokespeople, South Australia’s “Citizens’ Jury on Nuclear Waste” has effectively exploded plans by the state Labor government to host the world’s largest nuclear waste dump.
The jury was intended by Premier Jay Weatherill to lend his scheme a garnish of popular consent. But in their final report on November 6, the jurors instead concluded that the dump plan should not go ahead “under any circumstances”. The vote was overwhelming, with two-thirds of jury members opposing the government’s projections.
Both as science and public policy, the jury’s finding made superb sense. But the verdict was more than that.
From the ordinary working people of South Australia, it was a message to their “betters”: “Be damned. We don’t trust you to defend our interests. Given the chance, we’d send you to hell.”
It was like Brexit. Or the street parties held when Margaret Thatcher died.
To reach their verdict, the jurors — initially numbering 350 and chosen as a representative slice of society — defied an intensive propaganda campaign mounted by the state authorities over several years at a reported cost of $10 million.
The government, Weatherill insisted from the outset, would never go ahead with its dump scheme unless the population, including indigenous people, was shown to be solidly behind the plan. To make the case for the proposal, a Royal Commission on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle was held, headed by former South Australian Governor Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce. The commission’s final report, key sections of it drafted by nuclear industry consultants, was delivered in May.
As anticipated, the commission urged constructing a “deep repository” to house as much as a third of the world’s current stock of high-level reactor wastes. Most of the immense cost, South Australians were promised, would be borne by client countries anxious to rid themselves of a growing mountain of spent nuclear fuel. The eventual net flow of revenues to the South Australian government was put at a dazzling $51 billion.
Nuclear spruikers
Following the royal commission was a “consultation” program dubbed by critics the “nuclear roadshow”. For months, teams of pro-nuclear spruikers toured the state’s urban centres. Supposedly seeking the views of the population on nuclear issues, program staffers mounted slick presentations uncritically promoting the commission’s findings.
Pounding still broader numbers of South Australians into line was a drum-beat of pro-nuclear articles in the Murdoch-owned Adelaide Advertiser.
Within the government’s strategy the role of the Citizens’ Jury, which met for the first time in June, was to produce a report voicing at least conditional assent to the dump plans. Weatherill and his cabinet would then have claimed public support for beginning the process, predicted eventually to cost taxpayers $300–600 million, that would see the sites for interim and final dumps chosen, the location selected for a dedicated port, and prospective clients scouted.
Though strong on the rhetoric of “consultative leadership” and “deliberative democracy”, the Weatherill government clearly did not mean to let in-depth debate get in the way of a suitable jury verdict. Control over the jury process was handed to a team of “facilitators” put together by the firm DemocracyCo. The latter compiled a list of 160 “expert witnesses”, skewed strongly towards nuclear advocates, to address the jurors.
A script drawn up by the facilitators would rush the jurors through hurried workshops, many held simultaneously. Jurors would have little chance to question witnesses at length, or to gain a feel for the broad progress of the discussion.
The government’s ploys seemed watertight. But on November 6, they were shown to have failed completely.
“Multiple threads of concern are present that undermine the confidence of jurors in the Royal Commission report’s validity,” the jury’s final report stated. “These concerns collectively combine to affect a powerful NO response.”
“Green activists kill inquiry”
What had gone wrong? In the view of Nigel McBride, chief executive of the peak association Business SA, the jurors had been got at by “green activists determined to kill further inquiry”.
“They ran an absolutely undiluted campaign of fear and misinformation,” McBride was quoted by the Advertiseras saying: “The people who were going to die in a ditch over this were the naysayers, the rest of us were calling for an informed investigation … It’s disappointing. An extraordinary amount of effort and resources and time has gone into it.”
The truth is less sinister. Chief Executive of the Conservation Council of SA Craig Wilkins pinpointed it in a press release:
“The nuclear industry likes to push a myth that the more people get to understand nuclear issues, the more supportive they are. Well, 350 South Australians have spent over 40 hours hearing about a nuclear dump for SA and the more they heard about it, the less they liked [it].”
The real problem that brought the nuclear dumpsters undone was simple: before a demanding audience that had other sources of information, the pro-nuclear side was incapable of putting forward convincing arguments.
Dissatisfied with the witnesses on offer, the jurors invited experts of their own choice, to talk to them, including Friends of the Earth anti-nuclear campaigner Jim Green, Australia Institute Chief Economist Richard Denniss, and University of South Australia Adjunct Professor Richard Blandy, all incisive public critics of the dump scheme.
The jury’s final report is not a polished document. Those who worked on it, however, obviously took their task with enormous seriousness. Their rejection of the pro-dump case, it is fair to say, rested on two main grounds: the refusal by the dump’s proponents to address the objections of traditional indigenous landowners and the gross flaws in the economic case for the dump as put forward by the royal commission.
As related by the Adelaide Independent, Weatherill in the past had “told a national television audience that a dump would ‘require essentially the explicit consent of traditional owners’ and that ‘if it did not exist, it wouldn’t happen’.”
In a two-hour session before the whole Citizens’ Jury, more than a dozen well-known Indigenous elders made it plain that no consent was being given or ever would be.
“Indigenous, community and social consent is absolutely required,” the jury’s report notes. “Currently not provided and a resounding ‘No’…”
The economic case for the dump, prepared for the royal commission by the nuclear industry consulting firm Jacobs MCM, is savaged in the report. “Many (jurors) have no confidence in the economics of the project. … The assumptions made (as) to potential income are based on assumptions with little support.”
Eighty-two per cent of the jurors, the report notes, were inclined to view the economic risks of the scheme as too great. https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/south-australian-%E2%80%98citizens%E2%80%99-jury%E2%80%99-rejects-nuclear-dump
Nuclear lobby loses support of its top business stooge, Nigel McBride
DUMPED: Nuclear repository “dead” as Marshall draws election battleline, InDaily, Tom Richardson, 11 Nov 16 Jay Weatherill has lost his fiercest advocate for a nuclear waste dump, a proposal that appears to have no hope of proceeding, with Business SA chief Nigel McBride telling InDaily today the plan was now “dead”. As Liberal leader Steven Marshall this morning intensified his position against proceeding any further with planning for a future high-level repository, and days after a citizens’ jury flatly rejected the proposal, McBride said: “Between the Liberals and the citizens’ jury, the thing is dead.”
His resignation that “realpolitik” would not allow any further investigation of the plan – which a royal commission had estimated would pump billions of dollars into the state’s economy – followed the Opposition Leader unilaterally withdrawing his party’s support ahead of a partyroom meeting on Monday……..
[Labor Premier Jay Weatherill] refused to concede the project was doomed, reiterating that the Government would assess the fruits of a broader community consultation before deciding a path forward – prompting Marshall to declare the issue a key election battleground…….
Crucially, Marshall today stamped his authority on the partyroom decision, saying: “We’ll have our discussion on Monday [but] I’m quite confident we’ll make a decision that we won’t support any further investigation of this proposal.”
“I’ve been out talking to the people of SA, and my parliamentary colleagues have been out talking to people of SA… the people of SA do not support this proposal, there’s too much economic risk…….
Marshall’s manoeuvre today appears to have imposed an insurmountable one, though he was clear the “death knell” was sounded by the decision of the citizens’ jury – a process he has consistently derided…..
[Nigel McBride said] between the Liberals and the citizens’ jury, the thing is dead. “I’m not happy about it, but we’ll have to live with it.”McBride said that “having put it in the hands of the jurors, the realpolitik of this is the only way it would have got up was with the absolute support of both sides of politics”. “It was always a long shot,” he said……http://indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/11/11/dumped-nuclear-repository-dead-as-marshall-draws-election-battleline/
South Australian nuclear waste plan – “dead and buried” say Liberals
Premier fails to garner support from SA public for nuclear waste dump claims Opposition leader Marshall Sheradyn Holderhead Political Reporter, The Advertiser November 10, 2016 THE push to establish a nuclear waste dump in South Australia is “all but dead and buried”, Opposition Leader Steven Marshall has declared.
Before returning from visiting the world’s most advanced nuclear disposal facility, Mr Marshall told The Advertiser it was clear from Finland’s experience that the public had to be on board.
“Personally, I have a much greater ambition for SA than becoming the world’s nuclear dump,” he said.
Mr Marshall said the decision that two-thirds of the citizen’s jury did not want the proposal pursued under any circumstance was “a complete failure to get the public onside”.
“Finland is the world leader in creating a permanent repository for nuclear waste. They have spent 40 years getting to this point. And that’s just for their own waste,” Mr Marshall said.
“The clear message here is that this policy from (Premier) Jay Weatherill — that he could receive a Royal Commission report and then make a decision within a matter of months — was ill-conceived. The things they (Finland) have achieved took decades, not months.
“The Citizen’s Jury result showed that Jay Weatherill could not be trusted to deliver on such a significant project. He couldn’t even get Gillman right.”
Today, a group of environmentalists will hand Mr Weatherill a petition with 35,000 signatures calling on the Government to abandon plans for a nuclear waste dump.
The group includes indigenous leaders Enice Marsh, Lesley Coulthard, Regina and Vivianne McKenzie, Tony Clark, Karina and Rose Lester and representatives from conservation groups.
Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney said burying nuclear waste in SA would leave an “unwelcome toxic legacy for hundreds of thousands of years”.
Mr Marshall said Finland’s Onkalo nuclear waste disposal facility was “impressive”.
He said that while he was not worried about the safety of such a facility, he had “serious concerns” about economic return. “The longer we look at this issue, the more questions are raised about the viability of this project,” he said. “Nothing I saw in Finland waylaid those concerns.”
A Liberal joint party room meeting would be held on Monday to discuss Mr Marshall’s report from Finland and to hear from Liberal MPs Rob Lucas and Dan van Holst Pellekaan, who were members of the parliamentary committee investigating the proposal.
Earlier this week, Mr Weatherill said the Government would wait for a community views report that includes results from 30,000 online surveys and in-person feedback provided by 16,000 people, before making a decision on how to proceed.
He said the jury decision would be given “substantial weight” in the final government position to be announced to Parliament before the end of the year.
The Government expects to receive the community views report, compiled by consultants, early next week.
Labor Party pressure on South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill to dump nuclear plan
Jay Weatherill will be forced to abandon nuclear waste storage plan, Labor sources say
The SA Government should now dump its plans for a nuclear waste dump.
The Australia Institute team, 8 Nov 16 Yesterday, 350 ordinary citizens handed the SA Government a “stunning and overwhelming rejection” of its plans to build nuclear waste dump in South Australia.
The citizens’ jury’s task was to consider whether South Australia should import high level nuclear waste from other countries and bury it for money. After hearing about the proposal from various experts, more than two thirds of them said no, not “under any circumstances”.
The Australia Institute’s involvement focused on an area that no one else was challenging: the dodgy economic modelling and heroic estimates of how much money the dump would deliver to the state.
Richard Denniss addressed the citizens’ jury last weekend, highlighting a few key points:
- The economic modelling supporting the claims of hundreds of billion dollars in benefits was deeply flawed.
- The project was risky, involving high level waste being stored in above-ground ‘temporary’ storage for over 100 years.
- That parts of the Nuclear Royal Commission’s report had actually been written by nuclear industry lobbyists.
Richard’s appearance was just the latest part of our involvement in the SA nuclear debate. In July, Rod Campbell had addressed an earlier citizens’ jury, leading to the headline in The Australian: Citizens’ jury questions economics of SA nuclear dump.
Our earlier submission on the economics of the dump and headline appearance on Today Tonightmade a big impact, with the Royal Commissioner, Kevin Scarce, saying he would take our submission “apart piece by piece.” We have also had a number of opinion pieces published on the subject.
Commissioner Scarce never did find anything wrong with our submission. But the citizens of South Australia have taken his work apart, piece by flawed piece. The Citizen’s Jury final report outlined concerns about the lack of consent from Traditional Owners, and showed that while 70% opposed the nuclear waste dump, 82% thought the economic case made was weak. Here’s a quote from the jury’s final report:
“It is impossible to provide an informed response to the issue of Economics because the findings in the RCR are based on unsubstantiated assumptions. This has caused the forecast estimates to provide inaccurate, optimistic, unrealistic economic projections.”
The SA Government should now dump its plans for a nuclear waste dump.
The Australia Institute aims to produce research that matters, and this is a case where we can see how lots of hard work over a long period changes minds. The Citizens’ Jury is to be congratulated for delivering a big win for the South Australian taxpayer, Traditional Owners, the environment, and common sense.
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 