Nuclear Citizens' Jury Report

The second Citizens’ Jury presented its report to Premier Jay Weatherill on Sunday, 6 November. Comment and share your views on which parts of the jury’s report are most important to you.

This discussion board will be open for comments until 5pm Friday, 18 November 2016.

Comments closed

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke

18 Nov 2016

Hi everyone, thank you for making your comments. This discussion board will close at 5pm on Friday 18th November, we welcome any final comments to be made before then.

John Collins

17 Nov 2016

So ... "The State Government has decided that discussion should continue on a proposed nuclear waste facility in South Australia" (this website, 14 November).
Why? What was the point of the CJ?

By the way, 'thanks' CJ Members - YOU did a great job. Pity you weren't listened to.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > John Collins

18 Nov 2016

Thanks for your comments, John. Premier Weatherill talked about the Citizens' Jury process and the importance of it at the 21 minute mark of his press conference (http://bit.ly/2g2rB3B), pointing to the important lessons learnt through the process, if you are interested in watching.

Tim Bickmore

17 Nov 2016

Another great production from CJ2. Does any legislation really need to be changed?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzGxGaq45dRNdXBHUTZKdmFkQk0

Tim Bickmore

17 Nov 2016

The CJ2 also produced this Greater SA directions document but little has been said about it:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzGxGaq45dRNWld2ZmRkcUV6TlU

Victor Dickens

16 Nov 2016

Wow, a heap of activists on here trying to totally mispresent the second jury report. 75% of the items in that report called for more investigation and information. The 10 items that were opposed where great examples of greenie extremism - they stated opinion as if it was fact, there was a complete lack of evidence and they falsely claimed to be the views of the whole jury. The fact is the second jury was disrupted and destroyed by greenies on the jury. (think employees of Friends of the Earth who don't even live in South Australia). The outcome from the second jury is compromised. The government has rescued the valid information. It is completely correct to ignore the ideological propaganda in that report.

Steve Charles

15 Nov 2016

Thankfully, sense prevailed and the Citizens' Jury report said what had to be said. Weatherill described the whole process as democracy in action, but when when he did not agree with the outcome and recommendations, dismissed it and announced there will now be a referendum. This will give Weatherill yet another chance to try to bias the outcome and get his way. This is not democracy in action, but dictatorship. Weatherill is delusional and must go.

R N

14 Nov 2016

Why have a Citizens' Jury if its recommendations are to be ignored? Now there's talk of a referendum? How much more money is to be wasted?

The following concerns are raised in the report that I share:
(1) A lack of confidence of jurors in the Royal Commission report’s validity
(2) the traditional landowners not giving their consent
(3) the Citizen's Jury finding it "impossible to provide an informed response to the issue of Economics because the findings in the RCR [Royal Commission Report] are based on unsubstantiated assumptions. This has caused the forecast estimates to provide inaccurate, optimistic, unrealistic economic projections
(4) concerns around security of the waste whilst stored above ground, the duration of above ground storage, and What happens if the deep geological storage never gets constructed?

Steve Coombe

14 Nov 2016

How many times and from how many people does the Premier have to hear "No" before he gets the message?

kat whyatt

14 Nov 2016

NO means NO. End of story. Time for Jay to go.

Grahame Lang

11 Nov 2016

You have skewed the process as much as you thought you could get away with, and that has provided you with a residual taint of dissent and ambivalence; when really none exists. Two thirds is a compelling majority under the circumstances, and they unequivocally did NOT. want to pursue the "opportunity" UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES"
Cleary the expression of the result was modulated via pro forma structures provided to the jury, including the need for that rather pointless "minority report".

But now the weasel words begin:

Jay Weatherill:

"In a deep way what this whole process is about is about trying to restore trust in the political process by thinking of new ways of engaging with citizens"

Nicely framed piece of damage control. But no. It wasn't "about" that. It was "about" whether they would ratify your pie in the sky (or ground) folly, and they did not.

Jay Weatherill:

"The Citizens Jury have presented a very clear position about their view of the proposal. Their PRESENT view is that the proposal IN ITS CURRENT FORM shouldn't proceed and that is something we will now take and consider as part of the decision making process."

It looks to me like a contrived and sadly transparent "work around" is already in play. Please prove me wrong

Zac Eagle

11 Nov 2016

NO MEANS NO, we're not going to turn our state into nuclear wasteland. We're not gonna stoop that low as to become manure for the nuclear industry to survive. We're not gonna become World's outcasts. Just stop wasting our money now.

shelley rowett

08 Nov 2016

So if you think the jury got some things wrong or have stated them incorrectly, how do you provide comment? For example Marathon left some exploration sample bags out which needed collecting - this is framed in the report as some sort of 'nuclear waste spill', which is not the case at all. Issues that have been blown out of proportion should have brought back to the facts by the Jury not used as media rhetoric not relevant to reality.

Tim Bickmore > shelley rowett

11 Nov 2016

True. A 'nuclear waste spill' can be understood as happening by accident: but the Marathon event was deliberate dumping which demonstrates a cavalier attitude by the nuclear industry. There would be more such carefree breaches of regulations, cutting of corners, & acts of convenience by other companies at other places in other times which remain unreported.

Victor Dickens > shelley rowett

16 Nov 2016

Indeed. Marathon Resources dumped garbage. The problem was dumping plastic bags. Not nuclear waste.

Tim Bickmore > shelley rowett

17 Nov 2016

VD - those 'plastic bags' were not MT -
"In 2007, Adelaide-based mining company Marathon Resources had its exploration licence suspended after illegally dumping 22,800 bags of radioactive waste in Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary and stealing Fluorite from a site classified as a geological monument." - See more at: https://www.wilderness.org.au/community-action-against-mining-arkaroola#sthash.JdY8QLmF.dpuf