Community discussion: consent

The Citizens’ Jury found that informed community consent is valued, including the need for all South Australians to be informed enough to make a decision around establishing a nuclear waste storage facility. Comment and share your thoughts on informed community consent and why this is important to you.

Comments closed

John Collins

30 Oct 2016

I note that the intro above states that “The Citizens’ Jury found … the need for ALL South Australians to be informed enough …” (capitalisation added). Should we not therefore ALL have the chance to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as to whether we import onto SA high level nuclear waste that will need to be managed for “at least 10 000 years and up to a million years” (p.85)?

John Collins

30 Oct 2016

I note that the intro above states that “The Citizens’ Jury found … the need for ALL South Australians to be informed enough …” (capitalisation added). Should we not therefore ALL have the chance to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as to whether we import onto SA high level nuclear waste that will need to be managed for “at least 10 000 years and up to a million years” (p.85)?

John Collins

30 Oct 2016

I note that the intro above states that “The Citizens’ Jury found … the need for ALL South Australians to be informed enough …” (capitalisation added). Should we not therefore ALL have the chance to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as to whether we import onto SA high level nuclear waste that will need to be managed for “at least 10 000 years and up to a million years” (p.85)?

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke

30 Oct 2016

Hi everyone, thank you for all your discussion on this board during the consultation program, we appreciate the time taken to provide your views and feedback. This board has now closed, all feedback submitted will be considered by the Citizens' Jury to help inform their recommendations and also assist the State Government in deciding the next steps.

Noel Wauchope

30 Oct 2016

How on earth can consent be given to the plan to import and store and dispose of nuclear wastes when nobody knows where they will be put? Do we have the majority of South Australians, and of course the majority of Australians, too.l consenting too have nuclear wastes dumped on the land where only a minority live?

The only way that I can imagine consent ever being given for this is if that happens - and the minority is outvoted. Or perhaps the Aboriginal people can be expected to accept massive financial bribes? We all know damn well that if it's to put not exactly on Aboriginal land, it will be put next door to Aboriginal land - with all the risks to land, groundwater, sacred sites involved in the transport of wastes etc. Well, bribing the Aborigines has been tried for over 20 years, for radioactive trash dumping on their land. It has never worked, and won't work this time.

Malgo Schmidt

29 Oct 2016

Archie Roach:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ_pb_48KYU

Malgo Schmidt

29 Oct 2016

Labor readies for tense nuclear showdown amid opposition at state meeting 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 2016

..."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"...

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke

28 Oct 2016

Please note that the four current discussion boards will close at 5pm on Sunday, 30 October 2016. All feedback submitted by Sunday, October 30 will be considered by the jury to help inform their recommendations and also assist the State Government in deciding the next steps.

Many thanks,
Brooke
Consultation Team

John Collins

28 Oct 2016

A Jury in a Court hears cross-examination of expert witnesses (from both ‘sides’) as well as impassioned, but argued, submissions from BOTH sides.
This has simply not been allowed to happen in the waste dump citizens’ jury process.

Claire Catt

27 Oct 2016

It is certainly against our NATIONAL INTERESTS. The proposal makes Australia a terror target and this threat will increase over time. Security costs will be forbidding.

On this argument alone our Governments, State and Federal, have a duty to put Australia first and deny the nuclear industry their long held plan for an international nuclear dump in our country.

Claudio Pompili > Claire Catt

28 Oct 2016

Spot on. Even blind freddy knows that when you become the 'defence state' with defence industries along with proposed nuclear industries you become a prime target. The Fed Defence boffins are onto to it and now I know why we had to have $50b subs and more for offensive fighter jets, see "Australian think tank outlines US plans for war against China" By Peter Symonds, 16 April 2013
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/04/16/aspi-a16.html

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Claire Catt

29 Oct 2016

Hi Claire, security is certainly an important consideration and something which South Australians should discuss. The Royal Commission found that further nuclear activities in SA would be subject to the current international and domestic regulatory regime concerned with nuclear proliferation and security. The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism place obligations on nations to have a regulatory structure in place that deters, resists and reprimands attempts to breach security at facilities, plus also during transport of materials. Chapter 8 of the Report will provide more context around security.

Malgo Schmidt

26 Oct 2016

Yes, Mary-Ann! The "Jury" has been invented to fake democracy, in order to fabricate public consent. This is a TREASON.
We DEMAND a vote!

Malgo Schmidt

26 Oct 2016

TO THE JURY and the Community:

I was made an Observer of the Jury 2 session in the afternoon of Oct 8. These are my observations.
1. Professional organizers, such as Gail Fairlamb, Director, Strategic Development in Dept of Premier & Cabinet, have the Jury on remote control of the gov.
2. Just like the Jury 1 (of 50), the Jury 2 (of 350) is being forced into chewing and re-chewing of the report by Kevin Scarce and his Royal Commission. The Jury is neither required nor expected to analyse public opinion.
3. Unlike the real jury this one is NOT a decision maker; the gov is.
4. The purpose of this staged pseudo-democracy, at $10 mil of taxpayers' money,
IS TO FABRICATE PUBLIC CONSENT, as it cannot be obtained by democratic means. The fabrication is carried out at the expense of time, good will and Sisyphean work of the Jury.
5. While the Holy Martyrs of the Jury were being used in the gov's treason, I was able to participate in the Adelaide Festival of Ideas (AFoI). I wish to report to the Jury what follows:

On Oct 22, 2016, American activist Erin Brockovich appealed to the full house at Bonython Hall to defeat the nuclear dump. At this point the head of the festival Greg Mackie addressed the audience: "Hands up if you want this project?" And he counted the hands: "Two...and a half". That was out of 1000.

I wish to extend my appreciation, gratitude and encouragement to the Jury. In order not to allow your sacrifice to be wasted by the gov:
Please MAKE SURE that YOUR FINAL REPORT SAYS NO, in the name of us all.
Thank you!

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Malgo Schmidt

29 Oct 2016

Hi Malgo, we have responded to your post about this in the safety discussion board, for your reference. Thank you.

Peter Roberts

25 Oct 2016

I decided to post my original feedback here because it boils down to a matter of CONSENT.

My Feedback on the Public Consultation
Regarding the Storage of Nuclear Waste in South Australia

1. My Position is as follows:

1.1 I strongly oppose the storage of High and Intermediate level nuclear waste from other countries.

1.2 I agree to storage of Australian Intermediate and Low Level wastes, but do not see why this waste cannot be stored in suitable deep repositories in the States that generate them.

2. My opinions are based upon the following considerations (not an exhaustive list) :

2.1 I would never have considered that the storage of nuclear waste from the world's nuclear power plants and industries would be a worthwhile activity for South Australia, and so have been caught by surprise that it is now even considered. I would hope that the Royal Commission's estimate of the financial rewards for the State, $120 Billion over 120 years, could be met by more productive means, including advanced manufacturing, generating advanced technologies, and investing heavily in renewable energy generation. We surely can - SA has some brilliant people in Defence, shipbuilding, agriculture, CSIRO, and formerly from the white goods, car and parts manufacture.

2.2 I remember Pangea Resources and its push for storage of international nuclear wastes in the Australian outback and the absolute rebuffing by legislation (c. 2000) of any attempt to store international wastes in South Australia and Western Australia. My opinion has not changed since then.
Is Pangea or the World Nuclear Association involved in any way with the renewed push for storage of nuclear waste here in Australia?
The most recent update of the website material of the World Nuclear Association quotes our Royal Commission very favourably, while expressing very clearly that the in-country disposal problems are not yet solved in the nuclear countries. The big appetite for sending any country's waste to South Australia seems worryingly clear.

2.3 Some Government Ministers have suggested that Australia has a moral responsibility to take back used fuel, since we have sold the uranium in the first place! (I recall J Frydenberg making such a suggestion).
I repudiate that most emphatically.
A corporation and its supporting government takes our uranium with eyes open to the full implications of the nuclear fuel cycle, and must handle the disposal accordingly.
On a related point, I find that the suggestion that we have a responsibility to take used fuel from countries that have no feasible disposal possibility is nonsensical. Those governments went down the nuclear path with eyes open, knowing that the populace would be burdened with the waste problem at some future time.
We are not morally bound in this regard.

2.4 Do not use arguments about reducing carbon footprints here. An existing nuclear power plant has been 10-20 years in the making, and embarked upon well before the current social realisation about global warming.

2.5 My alternative suggestion regarding nuclear waste disposal is that those countries who already have a big investment in nuclear reactors, and who have to dispose of their waste anyway, could be prevailed upon, for a price, to take and bury the waste of countries who do not have the possibility for deep geological disposal.
This would render South Australia's generosity unnecessary.

2.6 There are two scenarios regarding the financial incentives:
(a) The world's nuclear (power) countries have not solved the disposal problem and would like Australia to be generous and solve it for them, for a price,
or
(b) The major nuclear power countries would actually like to dispose of others' wastes, together with their own, for a price, to defray the establishment and maintenance costs. In this latter case South Australia might be bidding the lowest tender in a competitive market to dispose of High level radioactive waste.

The World Nuclear Association's web site material (updated 2016 and after the Royal Commission's report) noted disquiet with Pangea's proposals on these points, but forged on with its espousal of international solutions" anyway.

2.7 I remember the major disasters like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima. There have also been many other worrying incidents, in Britain, and Japan, for example.
I do not have to remember and document all of these just to combat the Government's push to engage in the nuclear waste business - rather it is for the Government to list all of the cases that might give us pause for thought.
Professor Thomas (transcripts of proceedings) gave expert evidence that the health effects of radiation from Chernobyl and Fukushima were not as severe as expected. The implication is that in the event of an accident transporting waste, the health effects on the nearby population would not be unacceptably severe. However if that is the case then there is no case for South Australia taking waste at all - it is OK where it is.

2.8 We have a Federal Government funding NO and YES cases for a plebiscite on marriage, so I am dismayed that the State Government does not provide a NO case for the storage of international nuclear waste.

2.9 I cannot argue quantitatively against the analyses of the Royal Commission in matters of safety and reliability, and at my age I am not likely to try.
However I remind you of the very recent destruction of the State's electric power transmission infrastructure.
I remind you of the recent serious accidents between trucks, and trucks and cars.
Remember the serious rail accidents in the USA where fuels were being transported.
Think of all of the gas distribution breakdowns in the USA, not to mention all of the recent world aircraft tragedies. Chelyabinsk - stuff comes out of the sky and can lead to serious inconvenience. The sun emits high energy particles that can take out the North American grid - now fixed so that it can never happen again?
My point here is that human endeavours are subject to flaws, and sometimes a low probability event can lead to very high cost.
I am sure that the assumptions on which the Royal Commission's probability analyses were based seemed reasonable as far as known at the present time. But who can really tell how we are to be caught out by future events - cyclonic damage to power transmission lines being a recent example .
And the time scale over which we are to assume this validity is excruciatingly long.

2.10 Further, the Report assumes that future governments will honour commitments undertaken by this present Government even out to 120 years and more. It also glosses over, in my opinion, possible destructive geological or other environmental event which will disrupt the storage facility (above ground and buried).

2.11 We cannot plausibly foresee how the future will develop out to 120 years let alone 1000 years or 10000 years or more.
So, the point is this:
The proposal can only deal with a foreseeable future which is pretty short.
I feel that the possibility of accident transporting high level fuel rods is significant despite the Royal Commission's report. The probability of a single accident during the transport of fuel rods is very low, but the probability of accident increases as the number of transports increases - and the scale envisaged by the report is for a very large number of fuel rods to be transported.

2.12 I do have a problem with how the Royal Commission expressed the dangers of radiation.
The comforting values for exposure shown in Figure 7.1 for example do not tell us about the transient exposures encountered in Chernobyl or Fukushima, nor do they attempt to estimate the exposures should a truckload of fuel rods have a severe accident (nor is there any detail of a plan for recovery from an accident).

Figure 5.8 shows relative toxicity and looks comforting that the radioactivity is not much of a problem - for example after ONLY 1000 years the radiotoxicity is down to just 1.5% of the value just after removal from the reactor. However a 1.5% dose of 1000's of fuel rods having initial very high radiotoxicity is still very large - I think the Royal Commission should have tried to indicate the likely doses and corresponding additional half-life times for decay to some standard level of dose for the personnel burying the waste.

2.13 If the State proceeds with this, there is no possibility of a future generation undoing the deal. Client states will not take the waste back - the new generation is stuck with it.

2.14 I think that in a very few years the existing renewable technologies will be quite mature. Investment in more renewable energy and in solving the engineering problems associated with the generation and distribution will provide wealth and employment for many years. I prefer this to disposal of international high level nuclear waste.

2.15 I think also that in 100 years nuclear fusion will be a mature technology and we will no longer be burdened with the long lived heavy metal radioactive and toxic wastes.
If we persist with taking international nuclear waste our future generations will still be taking the used fuel rods from an old technology.

2.16 I agree with Professor David Karoly (transcripts of proceedings) that replacing the carbon dioxide waste problem where with no action it may take up to 10,000 years to reduce the concentration in the atmosphere back to pre-industrial levels, with a 100,000 year nuclear waste disposal problem is perhaps not a good idea.

3. Clearly I am opposed to the proposal.

3.1 I think that the Royal Commission acted reasonably but that the process was set up to be encouraging. I do not believe that other countries have been unambiguously successful in disposing of their own used nuclear fuel. And, I do not want us to be part of the international nuclear waste disposal problem.
I believe that there should be a NO case with the same resources as devoted to the Royal Commission, and that there should be a referendum on the proposal.

3.2 The almost certainty of nuclear fusion as a power source at some time in the next 100 years was not treated by the Royal Commission, and it should have been.

3.3 While I cannot show evidence other than the World Nuclear Association's continued advocacy for an "International Cooperation" to deal with the nuclear waste disposal problem, I cannot help feeling that we are being coerced somehow.

3.4 I also think that the idea of Citizens' Jury is silly and too susceptible to being steered. If the Jury is carefully controlled it subverts a democratic vote. I read the proceedings of the first Citizens' Jury and feel that the material was very carefully steered and avoided issues that I have raised above.
If a Citizens Jury is to work at all it must have both NO and YES cases, or, be left entirely alone to generate its own cases.

Why not a referendum

Claire Catt > Peter Roberts

25 Oct 2016

Thank you Peter for your excellent write up. It all makes so much sense. It's incomprehensible we are continuing to spend taxpayers' money on a a discussion which would only ever benefit the nuclear industry.
It would be nice to move on to brighter healthier options for South Australia.

Peter Roberts > Peter Roberts

25 Oct 2016

Thank you claire.
This proposal is so serious that I hope that many more people will realise that we must make our opinions clear to the Government - my opinion obviously being NO!

Steven McColl > Peter Roberts

25 Oct 2016

Hi Peter thank-you for your comments.

I agree with some of your concerns, yes and from your post you may not yet had a chance to read chapter five of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Report (same as Dez).
.
[Please note the graph on page 82 in chapter five to see the difference between the long-lived mostly 'beta' emitting transuranics and the short-lived dangerous mostly 'gamma' emitting fission products].
.
So how are fission products managed in Arctic Russian Ice breakers?
And the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers (ten of them)?
And all UK and US Submarines?
.
How are fission products managed in proprietary waste fuel modules such as by Holtec?
How is the decay heat managed?

Kind regards CDR McColl

Peter Roberts > Peter Roberts

27 Oct 2016

Hallo Steven,
thanks for your comment, which I enjoyed on a number of different levels.
My response might not do justice to my position on all of those aspects.

First: I started reading the RC report from chapter 5 - as one does when safety is a concern.
(And that is why I missed, on my first reading, the Royal Commission's extraordinary claim (some might say arrogant?) that a vote was unnecessary on this subject. The People you see cannot be relied upon to decide such serious questions! It becomes worrying that someone else might take on a deity like role and decide for us.)
Did you agree with my wish for a referendum on the proposal and will you advise your people that this is the best way to go?

Second: I hope that participants will understand my position from my submission, and that is that I am against the proposal to store international nuclear waste in Australia. That being the case I don’t care about the details of this or that nuclear facility - land or marine or satellite based. Neither will I be persuaded by all of the enthusiastic and optimistic predictions as to the safety and practicability of international nuclear waste disposal in Australia.
I accept that you might consider me to be ill-informed, and unreasonable. If we had a vote, you and I would be on opposite sides.
On that point, the reason that I engage in this discussion is that I hope to persuade not you, but other, uncommitted participants, to adopt a NO position.
But I am an interested observer with an engineering background (not nuclear), admiring the advances in technology around the world, and even understanding why and how the nuclear technologies were developed at the time for both defence and civilian purposes. I was not against it but perhaps naively I thought such great technological giants as the US would sort it all out. But one thing I knew was that sooner or later the waste would mount up and then there would be a nuclear waste disposal problem. This is now the case, and I am pleased that Australia does not have to deal with the scale of the problems of the Nuclear Power countries (I know that we have waste and I agree that we should dispose of it). Meanwhile time passes, our scientific knowledge and engineering know-how increases, and other better options present themselves.

If you think carefully about my submission you will see that I think that there is a great contradiction at the heart of your (and the royal Commission’s) position, viz;

If high level radioactive waste disposal is so practicable, then there is no case for Australia to engage in it - the nuclear countries are capable of dealing with it themselves. Further, if there is a dollar to be made from disposal then I believe that these countries can see that as well as our state Government.
Every enthusiastic assertion made by the pro nuclear dump people immediately undermines their own case.

Third: The above is so earnest, so in a lighter vein:
Did you not read my submission carefully. The figure you referred to was in fact Figure 5.8 which I criticised for being RELATIVE Toxicity. A simple sum of exponential decays normalised to unity (100%) at the origin does not cut it for absolute exposures - THAT was my complaint.

You know, I don't know how the Arctic ice-breakers, Nimitz class aircraft carriers etc. handle their radioactive waste. I assume since you ask that like any power reactor they refresh their fuel by disposing of their old fuel rods and bringing in new ones. They do have waste I presume, and I infer from your comment that it is disposed of very satisfactorily, and is something that South Australia need not worry about.
What happens to the fuel and reactors when the ships pay-off? I am sort of academically interested provided that again South Australia does not have to worry about that.

I'm going to leave it at that Steven. I apologise for the verbosity, but I will probably leave the discussion now because I have added another NO statistic, and I hope that others will take note and add their NO voices.
What I hope for the future is that there will be a referendum (I might be on the losing side but that's our democracy).
If the Government bypasses the people, I expect that at the next election the issue will become live again, and the NO case may prevail.

Peter Roberts

25 Oct 2016

In my first feedback effort which I sent in hard copy to the Nuclear Consultation Team I made some assumptions about the sincerity of the pursuit of social and community consent that have turned out to be incorrect - I terminated my feedback with the question "Why not a referendum?"

I have since found that the Royal Commission, referring to shifts in public opinion, has made the staggering statement that
"Because of these shifts, a public vote on a proposal is not a reliable indicator of ongoing social consent. A vote for or against a proposal one day may not result in the same level of social consent a month later."
Commission Report Chapter 6, Page 121
This apparently is the excuse for the government not having a referendum on such a serious matter as the importation and storage of international used nuclear fuel.

What then is a reliable indicator of ongoing social consent? The Royal Commission gives some emphasis to obtaining such ongoing consent.
Is a Citizens Jury supposed to replace the population as the valid source of ongoing (down through the generations) consent. Who ordained this could be so? What evidence is there for such reliability?

I think that while the Citizens' Jury might initially represent the community at large in a statistical sense, prior to being informed by the Jury process, afterwards, if the Jury has been denied a NO case having the same resources as the Royal Commission, I am sure the members will not represent the whole community.

On such a serious matter I will only accept a referendum with widely published YES and NO cases.

Des Menz

25 Oct 2016

If it is CONSENT that is a key matter, then this becomes a subject of public trust, the national interest (not just the state interest), and the law. Here is what I discovered on my own journey of fact-finding.

1 The Royal Commission’s activity was unlawful under the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000.
2 The South Australian Parliament changed the Act to accommodate the cost of the “community consultation” phase of the findings in the Royal Commission’s Report; this action is an admission that the Royal Commission itself was unlawful.
3 There has been a breach of the public trust, but the public has yet to realise it. There has been negligible focus on public trust about the nuclear waste storage issue.
4 The concept of a high-level international nuclear waste operation in Australia has been on the agenda for many years, at least for the past 18 years.
5 Former Prime Minister Howard was hatching a plan with former President George Bush for Australia to receive US high-level nuclear waste in 2006, under the “Global Nuclear Energy Partnership”.
6 Many connected business leaders in SA have been pushing for importation of high-level nuclear waste for years, predominantly because of the so-called (and fallacious) economic benefits.
7 Nuclear “fuel leasing” has also been on the lips of politicians and business people for many years, and the people involved as “expert witnesses” to the Royal Commission are behind such businesses.
8 I learnt about World Nuclear Industry Status Reports, and discovered that the global nuclear electricity generation industry is in decline in terms of global energy production.
9 Nuclear power generation is too expensive and too risky and is unable to be constructed without huge government subsidies.
10 China and India, those two countries so often referred to during debates about coal, produce far greater amounts of wind energy than from nuclear.
11 Kazakhstan is by far the world’s dominant supplier of uranium, and has been since 2009. It dwarfs SA's uranium oxide production by a factor of more than 7.
12 The federal government is complicit in expanding the nuclear industry.
13 Uranium oxide mining in Australia, and indeed in South Australia, has declined by 34% since 2007. During the past 10 years SA has received an average of just $12.8 million per year from uranium oxide royalties.
14 The Royal Commission’s consultant Jacobs MCM report on the economic feasibility has been denounced by other economists, none more so than Emeritus Professor of economics, Professor Richard Blandy.
15 South Australia has sponsored by way of it’s own taxpayers, a federal government responsibility in the form of the Royal Commission, and the subsequent “community consultation” phase. The cost at the time of writing has exceeded $10 million, and is rising.
16 The issue of national interest has not been considered by the Royal Commission, nor during the “consultation” phase, and likely not by the Citizens’ Juries.
17 The state government has not sought the views of the rest of the nation and of other states in the Federation, particularly as the concept is about importing extremely dangerous nuclear waste into the country via national maritime boundaries, and subsequently to leave it on the Australian continent forever.
18 It is the federal government that has sole power to approve any nuclear activity in Australia, and yet it has allowed a state of the Federation to assume federal responsibilities as a proxy.
19 The federal government has displayed no appetite to become involved in the process of the Royal Commission and the subsequent “community consultation”, except in presenting a weak submission. It has sidestepped its national responsibility, but of much greater concern it has ignored its responsibility to the general public.
20 Confined to just 7% of the Australian population (i.e. SA’s population), the “community consultation” and Citizens’ Juries only provide a snapshot of public opinion about high-level nuclear waste importation and storage in Australia; the true public interest can only be revealed by national referendum. This has not been countenanced by the state or federal government.
21 The Commission Report has largely avoided the issue of nuclear fuel reprocessing and recycling, and the present-day research that exists.
Nuclear spent fuel reprocessing has the potential to limit high-level nuclear waste to one-fifth current levels, results in a much reduced attenuation period, and would almost eliminate uranium mining.
22 The state government has many acute environmental issues and documented risks - such as climate change, biodiversity loss and decline, water security, energy security, rural and regional decline, natural resources decline - from which there is a deliberate absence of action. Why should another high risk nuclear waste storage venture be accommodated when existing problems continue to increase?
23 South Australia’s Environment Protection Act 1993 states that committing environmental harm contravenes the Act and is prosecutable. “Environmental harm is any harm, or potential harm, to the environment (of whatever degree or duration)”, and “potential harm includes risk of harm and future harm”. The Act then states that …
“environmental harm is to be treated as serious environmental harm if it involves actual or potential harm to the health or safety of human beings that is of a high impact or on a wide scale, or other actual or potential environmental harm (not being merely an environmental nuisance) that is of a high impact or on a wide scale”
A careful reading and interpretation of the Act implies that a nuclear waste storage operation could never comply with the law.
No pollutant - and in our case, imported nuclear waste - can be brought into the state. The Environment Protection Act 1993 again … Section 9 states;
 “Where a person causes a pollutant to come within the State or causes environmental harm within the State, by conduct engaged in outside the State; and the conduct would, if engaged in within the State, 
constitute a contravention of this Act, the person is liable to a penalty in respect of the contravention 
as if the conduct were engaged in by the person within the State.”
24 The whole concept about importing nuclear waste from overseas is totally contrary to the most important object of the Environment Protection Act 1993 … ecologically sustainable development (ESD).
25 A nuclear waste storage operation would result in an abrogation of long-standing agreements about ecologically sustainable development with the international community.

These are just some of the conclusions I made; others I have placed on separate discussion boards.
I have examined the law and there is no way that the state government could proceed with a high-level nuclear waste storage operation. There can not be CONSENT. The people and organisations advocating for a nuclear waste storage industry in this state have ignored the law. If the law is to be broken, as it already has by use of the instrument of a Royal Commission, or if laws are to be changed just to accommodate a single highly dangerous industry, then that is the end of democracy as we know it.

Claudio Pompili > Des Menz

28 Oct 2016

Hear hear

Malgo Schmidt

18 Oct 2016

"Weatherill, aware of most people's instinctive and rightful mistrust of anything nuclear, has launched a meticulous, expensive PR campaign."

Jack Crawford, https://redflag.org.au/node/5521

Claire Catt > Malgo Schmidt

19 Oct 2016

Why is Weatherill so hell bent on this proposal?

Surely it can't be money since it is abundantly clear there will be no riches but more likely unspecified huge costs long into the future.
It can't be a handful of jobs considering how many other economic opportunities will be lost with a reputation as the world's nuclear dump.

So why, what is Weatherill getting out of it? Votes? I think not.

One could speculate on rather sinister motivations, considering the nuclear industry is desperate to find a dumping ground for its toxic waste and deeply involved in this discussion.

Noel Wauchope > Malgo Schmidt

24 Oct 2016

Can't help wondering how much the nuclear lobby might be contributing to Weatherill's 2018 election campaign - I'm sure that they could find ways - under the radar

Claudio Pompili > Malgo Schmidt

28 Oct 2016

I was shocked to read in 26 October's InDaily:
Jay spruiks nuclear expansion as an agent of economic change

Jay Weatherill has told a nuclear industry forum in Adelaide he is personally convinced of the potential for an expansion of South Australia’s role in the fuel cycle, framing the push as part of his ambition to forge a “new economy”.

It appears that Premiere Weatherill has at last come out and played his pro-nuke card. So much for his publicly-avowed position that he would make up his mind when the whole process of the RC has been undertaken. It’s patently clear that he’s been captured by the nuclear industry and foisted an expensive sham of a royal commission onto the SA public, which overwhelmingly has repeatedly been opposed to expansion of nuclear in this state.

The Royal Commission process and the biased ‘findings’ of its subsequent Report are deeply flawed on a range of issues from the dubious economics right through to the non-existent risk assessment. No project of this magnitude, scope, cost and risks into the far-distant future, should be entertained without a comprehensive Risk Assessment Plan. The Report does not meet the criterion in the Terms of Reference to present "the risks and opportunities associated with establishing and operating those facilities” It does present the supposed opportunities but dismisses the risks and assures us that risk assessments will be done in due course.

TOR, Management, Storage and Disposal of Waste

4. The feasibility of establishing facilities in South Australia for the management, storage and disposal of nuclear and radioactive waste from the use of nuclear and radioactive materials in power generation, industry, research and medicine (but not from military uses), the circumstances necessary for those facilities \0 be established and to be viable, the risks and opportunities associated with establishing and operating those facilities

Further, to base this project on the cost-benefit analysis of a single assessor, Jacobs MCM, that has ties to the nuclear industry, and consequently makes predictions based on the fictitious cost of a barrel of nuclear toxic waste, for which is there is no existing market price, is risible at best and unconscionable and criminally negligent at worst.

There is a vast range of well-founded criticisms from expert economists, scientists and engineers, academics, independent media, environmental groups such as Conservation Council of SA, Friends of the Earth etc, and most First Nation communities.

The Government’s Know Nuclear propaganda unit hysterically pushes the one-sided agenda of Premiere Weatherill and his RC across all media channels and exhorts the people of SA to appraise ourselves of the facts. However, the overwhelming majority of South Australians understand the facts and do not support the findings of the RC and the proposed high-toxic nuclear dump or expanding the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, as evidenced across a range of media, including these forums.

The sentiments expressed are summed up by the questions on:

the false economics, “If the proposal is so good, why is it that no other country, especially the great nuclear super-powers, have embraced this wonderful ‘opportunity’? and,

on the viability of technology of long-term high-toxic nuclear dump, “If the technology is available and safe, why is it that not one other country has such a high-toxic dump as the one being proposed?”

In short, it doesn't pass the 'sniff' test. And no amount of exhortation by the pro-nukers to 'know the facts' aka red-herring obfuscation arguments about nuclear physics and engineering, crystal-ball gazing of cure-all waste technologies in the future, and hysterical rants about 'greenies', NIMBYS etc, has convinced the SA public of this credibility of the snow-job RC and its Report.

There is ample damning evidence about the global nuclear industry and the catastrophic consequences of its operations at places such as Sellafield (UK), La Hague (France), Gorleben (Germany, and the Yucca Mountains (USA).(1)

Premier Weatherill has pushed hard and long at extragavent expense this sham of a Royal Commission. He has played his pro-nuke hand and placed his political career on this process. So be it; the people of SA have been played for fools by Jay and his nuclear mates. Undoubtedly, with typical hubris, he will push this RC sham-democratic process to its inexorable outcome and approve the proposal. We, the people of SA, however, will have the final say and consign Weatherill and his pro-nuke supporters to the waste-bin of history. It will be his 'Bannon/State Bank' moment. Bring it on.

Footnote: (1) see for example, the new book by Andrew Blowers, The Legacy of Nuclear Power (Taylor & Francis, UK, 2016)

Peter Mahoney

17 Oct 2016

It is difficult to believe that a citizens jury will be presented with anything other than a highly controlled version of the arguments for and against these proposals. This is truly a cynically manufactured form of consent of the most Orwellian nature. Citizens are also more likely to respond favourably to the government's proposals when they are given special treatment in this way. I doubt that the citizens jury have heard presentations from the Australia Institute, Mark Parnell (Greens MLC) or Ian Lowe, or images and stories of accidents happenning monthly around the world. The cooperation of the Murdoch press in this one-newspaper town makes it also very difficult for citizens to remain untouched by a sense of momentum and support that doesn't actually exist. Governments are becoming masters of "consultation", which are basically exercises to keep the masses busy while they get on with the planning and the deals in the background.

Noel Wauchope > Peter Mahoney

18 Oct 2016

There are essential serious flaws in these Nuclear Citizens' Juries:

1. They should not be called "juries". The number of members is all wrong, and the conditions for interrogating witnesses are all wrong. Lawyers would not let witnesses like Jason Kuchel or Dr Michael Penniment get away with the nonsense they peddled at the first Citizens' Jury.

2. The briefs given are not appropriate for a "jury". They are specifically not allowed to give a judgement -oriented answer - a "yes" or "no", "good or bad" answer. The questions are framed so as to promote the agenda of the shonky Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission Southy Australia (NFCRC) .

Having said that, I do believe that the meeting organisers, DemocracyCo, have made real efforts, at least for this recent Citizens' Jury, to get material and some witnesses available to the members on the negative point of view.

In the first Citizens' Jury, the members asked intelligent questions, and clearly were not completely taken in by the nuclear lobby. I do think that the outcome of this present Citizens' Jury might present some nasty surprises for Weatherill and his nuclear lobby backers. I think that DemocracyCo deserves some acknowledgment of their management of the groups - a pity that DemCo had to kowtow to the NFCRC's agenda, and let nuke spruikers like Greg Ward and Chad Jacobi have such an influence .

Malgo Schmidt

16 Oct 2016

Msg received at the Anti-Nuclear Rally at Parliament House, Oct 15
From: Adnyamathanha Traditional Land Association RNTBC Aboriginal Regional Authority
“I am sorry I cannot be with you all today but I would like to thank you all for being here on behalf of the Adnyamathanha people.
The Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA) is totally opposed to the nuclear waste dump at Wallaberdina in the Flinders Ranges – in our yarta!
But this is bigger than just the Adnyamathanha people this will affect us all! Radiation is NOT racist.
We do not have the right to leave poisoned land for our future generations.
I don’t want to leave toxic land for my great grandchildren or yours. Thank you for standing with us today to stop this dump in Adnyamathanha Yarta.”
Vince Coulthard ATLA CEO
ceo@atla.com.au Ph 0429900222; PO Box 4014 Port Augusta 5700

Claire Catt

10 Oct 2016

This weekend I have been an observer to Jay Weatherill's 'Citizens Jury) considering the question: 'Under what Circumstances, if any, could South Australia pursue the opportunity to store and dispose of nuclear waste from other countries?'

With his wily analogy of a traffic light, Mr Weatherill has ensured he will get what he wants. He would know very well a group of this size (334 people) will not reach a unanimous recommendation. Thus no red light (stop the process immediately) no green light (go ahead without delay) but by default a yellow light (proceed with caution).
This will be enough for Mr. Weatherill to go ahead and spend more taxpayers' money on his quest to turn SA into the world's nuclear waste dump.
What a legacy to leave our children!

Steve Charles > Claire Catt

10 Oct 2016

Absolutely agree. The people of SA are being played like a violin.

Simon George

06 Oct 2016

We don't have a say. We elect people to make decisions and trust that they go through a rigorous consultative process. A thorough process will tell us precisely which stakeholders are affected. My vote, even though I don't get one, is with whatever position the local Aboriginal people hold.

Steve Charles > Simon George

10 Oct 2016

Yes, we don't have a say, yet Weatherill is trumpeting this process as an example of democracy.

Claire Catt

03 Oct 2016

No Mr. Weatherill, going to regional centre with your 'road show' does not equate with obtaining consent. Your organised expensive visits are achieving very little and most certainly not consent by anyone.

Claire Catt

28 Sep 2016

On QndA Premier Jay Weatherill has all but admitted he will try to bribe Aboriginal landholders to get consent.
Why he should be so desperate to go into the history books as the Premier who wrecked South Australia's reputation, economy and future I cannot fathom.
Our Premier is way out of line with his unconscionable push for this dangerous proposal. He is way out of line spending Millions of taxpayer's money to advance the interests of the nuclear industry over the longterm welfare of his people>

Steve Charles > Claire Catt

10 Oct 2016

I propose we arrange crowd funding for a monument to record what is going on right now and how Weatherill and his cronies are manipulating the people of SA to get what he wants at our expense and that of future generations. The monument needs to last for at least 100,000 years.

Claudio Pompili > Claire Catt

28 Oct 2016

Cui bono....who benefits, not South Australians but a select few including Jay. Must have been promised a cosy sinecure whether he wins or loses this sham RC. We get the final say at the next election. It'll be his Bannon/State Bank moment. Bring it on!

Noel Wauchope

22 Sep 2016

That is a ridiculous idea. The Citizens' Lury is no jury at all. A true jury would have no more than 10 -20 members. The witnesses would really be experts. For example there's be no chance of having a businessman pontificate about radiation and health. There would be rigourous cross-examining of witnesses. The Jury's brief would be to arrive a t a verdict - yes or no. There would be the opportunity for alegal appeal. Instead, this wrongly named group is really a forum, given the brief to merely "summarise" the report of the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission.

Steve Charles > Noel Wauchope

10 Oct 2016

Well said. We are being played like fools.

Claudio Pompili > Noel Wauchope

28 Oct 2016

Hear hear

Tony Glasson

21 Sep 2016

Leave the citizens jury as a permanent body to have power to override or veto the decisions made by parliament. Then the public have control, not the political party in power....

Steve Charles > Tony Glasson

10 Oct 2016

Interesting idea. That would be democratic unlike the current process.

Leon Ashton

21 Sep 2016

The government has the last say on the decision so as most people before me have said, no matter how many people are against it, the whole nuclear consultation process is a farce. The Know Nuclear displays tell half truths and make nuclear storage sound incredibly safe without adding any of the negatives. For a state which is struggling economically there seems to have been a helluva lot of money already spent in the name of nuclear. I don't trust the government. We only need to look at the bungled RAH project and our useless desalination project to realize how inept the state government is. If SA becomes the world nuclear dumping ground, it will be the WORST decision an Australian government has ever made.

Steve Charles > Leon Ashton

10 Oct 2016

Well said, but guess what! The dump will go ahead anyway.