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

Steve Charles

20 Sep 2016

The article in today's Australian demonstrates that the consultation process is a farce. Weatherill decided long ago that he wanted to turn SA into the world's nuclear waste dump, and the "consultation" that has been going on is all for show. We are all being led by the nose to a conclusion that he wants, and the taxpayer pays for it all. Weatherill should be treated with the contempt he deserves.
It would be a disaster for SA to have a nuclear waste dump here.

Claudio Pompili > Steve Charles

28 Oct 2016

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.

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.

Premier Weatherill has pushed hard and long at extravagant expense this sham of a Royal Commission. He has played his pro-nuke hand and banked 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.

Kay Dl

18 Sep 2016

Jay Weatherill will never get consent to go ahead from the South Austrlain public, to consent to a nuclear waste dump in South Australia. We know better despite what the media is reporting about the statistics. He must lose his position as Premier if the rest of the Labour Party has any sense.

Peter Lazic > Kay Dl

18 Sep 2016

I agree, but hot to get him kicked out before he takes the next step down the path of a nuclear waste dump.

Steve Charles > Kay Dl

20 Sep 2016

The decision was made long ago. We are all being led like lambs to the slaughter. Weatherill must be stopped.

Christopher Huckel

17 Sep 2016

The community are failing to swallow the Bull**** but the brainwashing continues unabated it's plainly obvious consent will not be given by the public so our corrupt government is going to try and push this filthy plan onto us without our consent bring on the state election so we can remove these idiots.

Zev Freeman

13 Sep 2016

So who are the pollys getting kick backs to push through a dump sight for nuclear waist in a country that doesn't have a nuclear power station??? This is international money talking, people are getting richhhhhh of this ***** while our country suffers. Dear australian people the government is paid for or its the odd sane person in a nut house full of children trying to run a country the simple solution is to just digital vote this. get your fancy phones out and swipe left or right for this dump to go ahead. hahahaha this is a mute topic in a forum that is designed to flip us off with a big shinny ****** forum to vent our problems. corruption runs through the core of our country just like it does the rest of the world. Our country is a 220 year old social experiment!!

Steve Ingham > Zev Freeman

14 Sep 2016

That should be spicy enough to elicit some response from ourgov. G'donya mate!

Steve Ingham

13 Sep 2016

Looks as though ourgov has lost interest in this discussion board. Ourgov's rep last commented on 15 Aug. Maybe we are being very dull and boring. Any suggestions on how to spice this board up a bit.

Mary-Ann Lovejoy > Steve Ingham

16 Sep 2016

They were too busy at the Royal Show, handing out pretty "Nuclear" balloons to little children. True! I've had several reports from unhappy grandparents and parents, who thought it was an outrageous piece of propaganda on the government's behalf. Every day, it seems that more people are being made aware, and they are not happy about this proposal.

Peter Lazic

12 Sep 2016

What consent does Jay Weatherill have to spend $600 million dollars of taxpayer money to plan a nuclear waste dump, when the proposed dump may never get approved. This and the money spent to date on the Royal Commission, the road show, now TV advertisements, etc, is obscene and immoral

Noel Wauchope > Peter Lazic

16 Sep 2016

Especially as the SA Law says:
13—No public money to be used to encourage or finance construction or
operation of nuclear waste storage facility Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/NUCLEAR%20WASTE%20STORAGE%20FACILITY%20(PROHIBITION)%20ACT%202000/CURRENT/2000.68.UN.PDF

Kay Dl

10 Sep 2016

I'm keen to know which aboriginal communities have given consent to a nuclear waste dump in SA. I understand there has been consultation and that without consent it can not go ahead. Please explain. And I'd like evidence.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Kay Dl

16 Sep 2016

Hi Kay, firstly, it is important to note that respect of the deep connection which Aboriginal people hold with the land is central to our consideration of the Royal Commission's report, and our consultation process.

What we're currently doing at this stage in the process is consulting broadly with the South Australian community to inform of the facts about the Royal Commission's findings and recommendations, and allow people to provide feedback. This includes visits to 30 Aboriginal communities across the state to meet with and listen to the feedback of these people. The process is ongoing until next month; feedback from all communities will be provided to the Citizens' Jury in October and will be a key informer to the Government's decision at the end of the year.

If you are interested in reading more about consent, you can visit our Fact Sheet here: http://bit.ly/2cSAKHO (copy and paste).

Christopher Huckel > Kay Dl

17 Sep 2016

More Filthy Lies Brooke.

Kay Dl > Kay Dl

18 Sep 2016

Which of the 30 aboriginal communities across SA have given consent? I'm guessing zero. Nuclear will poison the land, the water, the air forever. It's disgraceful it is even being thought about, and wasting taxpayer money. Without consent a dump cannot go ahead.

Leon Ashton > Kay Dl

21 Sep 2016

I know for a fact that NO aboriginal community has given consent.

Noel Wauchope

05 Sep 2016

This survey is worded in such a way as to put off people from States other than South Australia.
That's part of the charade that this matter affects only that State. It should be open and welcoming to all Australians. Importing foreign radioactive trash is a National matter.
The radioactive trash is likely to travel through other States. There are Federal laws that will have to be amended or even overturned to make this scheme happen.

Leon Ashton > Noel Wauchope

21 Sep 2016

I agree.

Gary Fradd

04 Sep 2016

If 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, the government should fess up about the fallout (sic) / state of Maralinga and Emu Field test sites...then we should have a referendum.
It appears to me that the government and its Royal 'Omission' report have already made up their minds on this.

Sherard maine > Gary Fradd

08 Sep 2016

There's a significant difference between an atmospheric nuclear weapon test and a subterranean waste vault in terms of radiation, fallout and intent. Secondly we already move radioactive material around the country from olympic dam and lucas heights without batting an eyelid - why should this be any different?

Christopher Huckel > Gary Fradd

18 Sep 2016

Sherard Sherard Sherard you obviously have no concept of the difference between yellow cake uranium and the vastly increased toxic Filth that is created when it is enriched.

Sherard maine

03 Sep 2016

The main reason that a vote is so fraught in this case is that, according to the royal commission, a nuclear waste dump is in our best interest, even if the community remains so firmly against it. The Royal commission has a lot more evidence to hand than we do, so the government is left trying to convince us, which is nearly impossible.

As for me, i think they're selling it wrong. We should be saying this is our responsibility, as the people who dug it up in the first place (for profit), to make the world a safer place.

Do any of you travel? To europe perhaps, or Japan? Would you prefer that their nuclear waste stayed there, in lands covered by fresh flowing water, extremely densely populated, sitting atop fault lines? Yes there will be a leak one day, and in our magnanimity, we who sold the uranium would say "Sux2BU, good thing we didn't take the waste," while paris is evacuated, and none of us ever get to visit the eiffel tower ever again.

Honestly, its embarassingly provincial thinking. Saying you don't want it here is actually just saying you want it somewhere else, somewhere worse, somewhere where it will do more damage to more people and larger ecosystems.

So what's the government to do? With its industry collapsing and stimulus spending dwindling it rushes this through against community consent. Because if it doesn't, then the hospitals can't be staffed, and then people really will die.

Steve Ingham > Sherard maine

03 Sep 2016

A series of very good points. However the final one is maybe, stretching it a bit. Especially since, if ourgov does rush this through against community consent, it will not be ourgov for very much longer. Therein lies one mystery. Another is why is it you (no offence) who is telling us of the State's economic woes and not ourgov's rep? Surprisingly, we are not as stupid as some think and, with more info being supplied, we could become less so.

Sherard maine > Sherard maine

03 Sep 2016

I am shocked and gladdened by such constructive criticism. Thank you.
To respond to the extremely valid points you make in order:
Its me saying it because politics. They can't afford to be honest, they've too much skin in the game. If they admit to the obvious (burgeoning economic collapse) then their recent attempts to stimulate the economy through spending (New RAH, infrastructure spending) look pretty shakey politically - even if they were meant to boost growth and revenue, it hasn't been enough. Which answers your second point really - if they rush this through against consent they won't be our government much longer, but if they admit that we need it, they won't be in government much longer either. Which leads the number crunchers at high command to go with the 'lower risk' option, and try semi-uninformed partial-nonconsent.

Either way though, you still need the waste dump, because the new hospital needs staff and coffers are dry, no matter which party leader sits in the premiers chair - and the world still still needs it because there is still no less-bad place.

Christopher Huckel > Sherard maine

04 Sep 2016

Let's put it to a vote Sherard because that's what you do in a democracy.

Sherard maine > Sherard maine

04 Sep 2016

That's fine, its what they did in Brexit, successfully voted against own best interests but done so with a sense of legitimacy - fair call. I'm just saying they're selling it wrong. Ask not what this state can do for you, but what we together can do for the world, to make the world a better, safer place. Much better messaging.
Democracy is supposed to be an effective way of delivering good policy - good policy is the aim, democracy is the system. Seen any good policy (state or federal) recently? As transnationalism deepened over the last 25-40 yrs, states have less control than ever before. They are force to react to conditions, and cannot shape their futures without the consent of other state and non state actors. We are global now, our problems are global and our solutions must be global too.
How many people will be laffected by our decision to take or not take waste?
How many people will you give a vote to?

Christopher Huckel > Sherard maine

07 Sep 2016

Using your logic Sherard why doesn't the world give this great economic boon to a poor third world nation so that poor nation can grow and collectively hold their radioactive heads up and say look what we have done for the world, yes let's give this great opportunity to those more unfortunate than ourselves Sherard lol

Sherard maine > Sherard maine

08 Sep 2016

The problem with a third world nation taking this is the security risk/terrorism concern. Also, there is still a geological consideration - we're still the best suited to take it, because we'll keep it safer than anyone else. Say you won't have it here then find somewhere better, where it will be less exposed to ecosystems, water and human populations.
If you can find a better place, I'm all ears. If you can't, then you're using an environmental argument about radiation spill danger to justify creating a greater risk of a more dangerous radiation spill.
Its NIMBYism at its most short sighted and ungracious, seeing as we sold it in the first place.

Christopher Huckel > Sherard maine

12 Sep 2016

So we should just accept the waste even as it's far more deadlier than when it left our shores no I think not let the Australian public Vote and we can put this to rest once and for all.

Leon Ashton > Sherard maine

21 Sep 2016

Sherare Maine. Please do some more research on your subject.

Steve Ingham

02 Sep 2016

It appears that ourgov has lost interest in the public's concerns over nuclear matters, for the moment at least. This does not create an up-welling of confidence in it's dealings with us on this matter. Would it be possible for ourgov's rep to provide us with their reasoning on why a referendum is not a good idea in their eyes, at least for now. Thanks.

Mary-Ann Lovejoy

27 Aug 2016

I DEMAND a vote. The tedious repeated response that "a vote doesn't give a true picture" rhetoric being spouted by the RC via moderators on this board is trite, specious and autocratic. How DARE Jay Weatherill presume to take this decision alone, without our consent? As for the process maybe taking decades to discuss, that s NOT what I heard Jay Weatherill say on TV recently. He said he wanted it cleared up hopefully by the end of the year, and that government alone would make the final decision - those opposed would just have to accept the government's decision. Well, I don't. And I won't. Not until there is a VOTE. And I would expect the NO case to receive the same amount of money to publicise their reasons for opposition. I have written to my (Labor) state MP to find out if he supports the proposal. I've had no response at all. I call that rude, irresponsible and high-handed. I've looked at Steven Marshall's view - no opposition there. I've contacted Nick Xenophon, and received a courteous and prompt response that stated he thought the potential risks outweighed the (alleged) benefits. I've contacted The Greens, who say they are opposed but they don't get much coverage of their concerns. It was Liberal Senator Sean Edwards, I believe, who began this saga, with tales of free power for all South Australians. Jay Weatherill seems to have accepted the ball and run off with it. He had NO RIGHT to commit so much public money - OUR money - without even seeing if our community wanted to have the conversation at all. Then Scarce was chosen to head the RC, with his well-publicised advocacy and support of the nuclear industry. Impartial? NO. If you were serious Premier, you would have chosen a truly impartial Commissioner. This is a whitewash of the biggest decision facing SA, since mining uranium - on which we were also not given a vote. I don't understand why Weatherill would commit ALP electoral suicide in this manner - unless he has imminent plans to retire from politics.
I DO NOT & WILL NOT GIVE MY CONSENT WITHOUT A FULL VOTE.

Steve Ingham > Mary-Ann Lovejoy

31 Aug 2016

Very well put. It is indeed a mystery. If ourgov has a referendum, anything nuclear will be voted out. If it it goes ahead with anything nuclear it will be voted out. If it decides against nuclear, this whole process was a waste of time and money. Maybe one of ourgov's reps could explain this so that we may all be better informed and so that ournextgov may avoid the same mistakes.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Mary-Ann Lovejoy

16 Sep 2016

Hi Mary-Anne, thank you for your feedback on this important issue.

In relation to a vote, you will note that chapter 6 of the Royal Commission Report looks at the need for social and community consent for any specific facility proposal to proceed. This includes addressing the importance of "ongoing" social consent through the many stages and gateways if this process was to go forward​. In this context, it identifies that because of shifts in community attitudes, standards and expectations, a public vote (at any one point in time) is not a reliable indicator of ongoing social consent.

In relation to your comments about Kevin Scarce - Mr. Scarce has been forthcoming in stating that he held no views on nuclear going into the Commission - in his own words, because he didn't have the appropriate knowledge on the topic to form an opinion. His views today have been formed through the learnings of the Royal Commission's process.

We hope this information helps clarify a few points for you, please let us know if you have any questions.

Christopher Huckel > Mary-Ann Lovejoy

18 Sep 2016

Mr Kevin Scarce heading up the Royal Commission is the whole reason this entire process has been corrupted from day one and later we will end up having a Royal Commission into this entire process.

Selina Ayles

22 Aug 2016

How can the government pass a bill based on public consent when we are not presented with all the real facts about nuclear waste? The government doesn't seem to care about educating its citizens on the importance of Indigenous lives, knowledge systems, child protection within Families SA or reconciliation but they are asking for a community consent? Whose opinion is valued more in the community consent and whose is dismissed? How about consent over land rights? Did the government ask the First Nations land owners for consent to colonise Australia? No... And the battles are still ongoing. The only reason this community consent program exists is so that the government can pass a bill that is based on false representations. Of coarse people of Australia are going to be supportive of job growth and money but where is that going to be going? The facts are not accurately represented to the public. And it will take at least 10years for this to happen so why are you asking consent from people that will be older when this takes affect? How about the future generations of Australians? How will it affect them? The community consent doesn't represent all views and opinions for the reason that not everyone is being asked about the issue, only the ones who choose to educate themselves on the topic will be heard and even then, the research presented is designed to make nuclear waste seem like a good idea when really if you did research on failed nucear waste sites in countries such as Mexico and USA people would have a better idea of the negative affect this will have to our country.

Christopher Huckel > Selina Ayles

22 Aug 2016

Thankyou Selina

Leon Ashton > Selina Ayles

21 Sep 2016

Agree Selina. Did you also know that Finland spent 30 years in community discussion before deciding on their facility which would never have been needed if they didn't have a nuclear reactor. Australia doesn't have a nuclear reactor but if we get the facility, it is sure as eggs we'll end up with one too. Why aren't we looking at renewable energy. From what I can gather, renewable energy is the way of the future.

Steve Ingham

21 Aug 2016

A possible way of finding out what the people of SA think about ourgov's nuclear thinking is to survey the 300 new jurors twice. Once before they become involved and again after the have heard the facts and other people's opinions. Since these jurors are selected arbitrarily, their opinions will be valuable. Doing the survey twice will give ourgov a clue as to how much education is necessary is order to persuade people that ourgov's proposals could be accepted.

Katrina Kytka

15 Aug 2016

Can someone please tell me what consent looks like? How is it decided? What constitutes social license ? What criteria will be used? According to the Finns and the experts, social license is absolutely essential to progress a nuclear project. What's the measuring stick ?

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Katrina Kytka

16 Aug 2016

Hi Kartina, thanks for your question. 'Consent' is that the community is comfortable for the Government to consider the next steps; through to the next gateway and to the possible next choice we should consider as a state. There are two steps in this process – and it is something that may take decades; social consent from the broader South Australian population to consider any possible further steps, and then community consent (from a location/site) should they wish to proceed further along the discussions, into possible site selection and facility planning. The findings of the Royal Commission that relate to social and community consent focus on a specific proposal. We are not at that point yet - what we are currently doing is consulting with the South Australian community to allow people to understand the facts and provide feedback in relation to the Royal Commission's report - this feedback will be captured and provided to the Citizens' Jury to inform the Government's response to the report and decision on any next steps.

Peter Lazic > Katrina Kytka

16 Aug 2016

Brooke,
Clearly the majority of respondents - with the exception of perhaps two pro-nuclear respondents in Aaron Morley and Steven McColl - are clearly against a nuclear waste dump. It seems these two are pseudonyms for the pro-nuclear industry whose sole aim is to provide the rebuttal of each and every comment.

I would like to know just how much of tax payers' money has been wasted to date on a Royal Commission, the citizens jury, the road show etc, etc.

So many unsuccessful projects in Adelaide are wasting so much money and somehow Jay W thinks he has found a potential pot of gold if he can create a nuclear waste dump. The only waste that should be buried is Jay W!

Steve Ingham > Katrina Kytka

21 Aug 2016

2/3 majority in favor of ourgov's proposals in a referendum would do the job.

Steve Ingham > Katrina Kytka

25 Aug 2016

Maybe ourgov's team should have made it clearer, sooner, that these processes could take decades of consultation and persuasion to complete (or not). What I sense is that a significant number of people fear that ourgov is planning to shove this whole nuclear waste disposal affair (and maybe the whole nuclear cycle business) down our throats with one stroke of their legislative pen.

Malgo Schmidt

08 Aug 2016

There is no consent of the First Nations who have experienced previous Australian nuclear activities and whose land had been stolen to be now converted into the only globaly accessible nuclear dump. There is no consent of the Future Generations who would need to deal with the effects of this crime. There has been no consent of the previous and current majority of Australians. NO PUBLIC CONSENT!

Claire Catt > Malgo Schmidt

14 Aug 2016

Quite right Malgo Schmidt - no generation has the right to impose such an enormous burden on future generations.
The Weatherill Government will try to make us believe there is some sort of consent but the process so far, including the Royal Commission, has been devious, undemocratic and blatantly deceptive.
I don't believe any well informed responsible person can seriously consent to this proposal.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Malgo Schmidt

15 Aug 2016

Hi Malgo, as part of the state-wide consultation process, we are visiting 30 Aboriginal communities around the state to understand their thoughts on this topic and listen to their feedback. This is such an important process; Aboriginal people's deep connection to the land is central to our consideration of the Royal Commission's report.

Christopher Huckel > Malgo Schmidt

22 Aug 2016

Brooke in all honesty do you believe the government are genuine and if so what makes you believe that they have turned over a new leaf based on the last 200 plus years of data that shows this hasn't been the case Brooke.

Claire Catt

07 Aug 2016

This in the Advertiser commenting on the role of Royal Commissions (5.8.2016) 'The power of a Royal Commission is that it makes findings which almost border on the realm of sacred. While they will be subjective judgments, they come from esteemed individuals of high standing who have no allegiance to anything other than finding the uncomfortable truth'.
Read NO ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Scarce has a long known association with the nuclear industry and it is no secret he is very supportive of expanding this dirty form of energy generation. How could he ever be chosen to head this Royal Commission. It is bringing the whole concept of Royal Commissions into disrepute.

Claire Catt

07 Aug 2016

I have visited the Governments display in the Mall recently. I have witnessed an extraordinary display. There was a pretty picture of a young family walking in the sunset enjoying a dose of radiation. There was a picture of bananas emitting radiation according to the text.
Boards were addressing uranium mining which is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Overseas attempts at coping with this toxic waste were represented as controlled successful projects.
I felt the trivialisation of this terrifying threat to the future of our state was blatantly obvious and the interests of the nuclear industry written all over it.
Nowhere in the world is this serious waste problem successfully dealt with and where attempts are necessary due to existing domestic waste, it is costing huge amounts of money with costs expanding long long into future.
We're one lucky corner on this planet where only relatively small amounts of nuclear waste needs to be dealt with and our citizens have had the benefit of the medical treatments which created this waste. We all need to say NO!

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Claire Catt

15 Aug 2016

Hi Claire, thank you for taking the time to pass on your feedback and get involved in the discussion. What we are trying to do through this consultation process is present the facts from the Royal Commission's report to the community to allow people to discuss with family and friend, and decide where they stand. The displays are designed to consult with the people of SA about what radiation is, what radioactive waste is, and how it's managed, along with examples from other countries to provide context. If you haven't already, we encourage you to take the survey to let the Government know your thoughts - http://bit.ly/2azrSZe. Thanks again.

Christopher Huckel > Claire Catt

22 Aug 2016

Brooke we know what you are trying to do that's why so many people are speaking up about the governments disingenuous consultation process let's call it for what it is a sales pitch to turn Australia into the WORLDS NUCLEAR DUMP.

Leon Ashton > Claire Catt

21 Sep 2016

Claire may we all band together in unity to say yes to our beautiful land free from nuclear waste.

Jade Hunter

07 Aug 2016

My biggest concern regarding consent is something that few seem to have recognised and that is that whether or not the government thinks that the land belongs to them and that they can do what they like with it, the Aboriginal communities in the area would likely disagree. They have claimed to involve several Aboriginal communities in this process but I can't see any of them agreeing with this proposal, and I can't see the government giving a damn either. The fact is, white men invaded these lands and they just want to continue pillaging as they see fit with little to no regard for the original inhabitants (and no I'm not Aboriginal, I'm as white as the majority of the population). But of course we all know this is about money and the government is not going to spend money on a campaign to allow people to "have a say" and then not follow through. I wish I could trust the government to do this properly and fairly and hold a referendum.

Christopher Huckel

06 Aug 2016

If our inept Government were interested in the concept of consent a Referendum would be held tomorrow but instead they try to get it in the back door knowing consent would never be given for this Filthy Toxic Proposal.

Colleen Roberts

05 Aug 2016

It appears the SA Liberal Party are possibly 'in principle' supportive of this waste facility. I recently read an article (unfortunately I cannot recall exactly where), that a SA Liberal Senator (male) was the first SA parliament member to push for this Nuclear debate and facility as a way forward in the future. Jay Weatherill then ran with it.

So, as I see it, the Liberal Party both State and Federal are essentially in favour of a Nuclear future. Which backs up why Steven Marshall is publicly sitting on the fence with an each way bet - at least to the public anyway. I would like to know what his personal view is but I guess he wont tell us that hmmm?

It is concerning that various forums and opinions 'around the traps' indicate that possibly as many as 85-90% of people are opposed to this, instead being infavour of developing more 'Green' energy technologies yet, the Advertiser state that a poll they conducted showed most people were in favour of a Nuclear waste dump. How can this be so conflicting?

Trust. Where and how can there be Trust? When the next SA Election comes we hope that there are many candidates to vote for who are not Labor or Liberal.

Mary-Ann Lovejoy > Colleen Roberts

27 Aug 2016

It was SA Liberal Senator Sean Edwards, I believe. I read an article wherein he spoke in glowing terms (no pun intended!) of the free power that could be generated from the nuclear waste, enough to supply all of SA. Perhaps you could contact him C Roberts, and see if he will supply the info.

Mark Pawelek

03 Aug 2016

So many people are not strongly against it. Many people think it an excellent idea. Money for nothing. Even better than that - the waste is not really waste. It can be recycled to make new nuclear fuel with. We have the technology to recycle it today if we wanted to.

Christopher Huckel > Mark Pawelek

04 Aug 2016

Contact your local member Mark and Demand it be put to a vote let's see how things pan out.

Aaron Morley > Mark Pawelek

05 Aug 2016

I think you might actually lose 'the vote' Christopher, I saw some polling today that showed 60% support, 18% against, 22% undecided. Even if you could convince all of the 'undecideds' to follow you Christoper, you'd still be short of numbers.

Aaron Morley > Mark Pawelek

06 Aug 2016

Sorry, 22% against, 18% undecided, mixed them up.

Peter Lazic > Mark Pawelek

06 Aug 2016

Consent for the dump should be a formality with those numbers Aaron. All we need is the referendum to see if you are right. Then you may be able to have a well earned rest,as it must be very tiring working in the rarified air of the high moral ground.
Have you actually made any comments in your own right to support the pro-nuclear case, or is your role in this forum simply to criticise every anti-nuclear comment?
Then we have your mate Steven McColl with his standard criticism "are you an engineer? Do you the difference between a proton and a neutron", etc, etc.

How about letting people make a comment without constantly trying to degrade it.

Aaron Morley > Mark Pawelek

06 Aug 2016

I answer lots of posts and questions, it probably the most effective way of getting the information into the domain. Anti nuclear people won'r read a well written pro post no matter what, far more effective to highlight the errors in anti thought.

Steven McColl is no mate of mine as such, never seen the bloke, never met him.

Do you know the difference between a proton and neutron? I think it's remarkably dangerous to comment if you don't, fear without cognition is always irrational. I keep my life strictly in the world of rational behaviours.

I know many think that Steven isn't particularly gentle, maybe I am not either, I am an engineer, and I think Steven might be too, if you think the attitudes expressed towards the anti opinion here are harsh you should step into the real world of science and engineering. The statements made about here questioning knowledge are tame, (see my description of Xenophon's error) when a debate occurs between groups of scientists or engineers things get positively brutal.

Speaking for myself, when I ask questions like 'are you an engineer?' etc, it's usually a hint that I can tell that the person isn't. Opinion is fine, but everyone has one, and contrary to some opinion, I do not believe all opinions ought to be voiced, for example there are people out there that deny the holocaust occurred, deny vaccines are a good thing, doesn't mean they should be heard and allowed unchecked.

I think only informed opinion ought be listened to, so you will have to continue to accept my (and hopefully others) highlighting the lack of information in some opinions.

Comment for comment's sake only makes for a meaningless discussion, this is not primary school where we should award prizes for mere participation, or for trying. "How dare you not let me be wrong" is never going to be the right answer.

Peter Lazic > Mark Pawelek

06 Aug 2016

OK, you are an engineer, so what, so am I.
I find it annoying that both you and Steven take this know-all patronising 'pose' to try and ridicule every anti-nuclear position, viz. "do you know the difference between a proton and a neutron" as if only you two know and understand the issues.

If someone does not want a nuclear dump, then we should both accept that opinion, like it or not, who are you to say that that they do not have the right to express that opinion just because they do not have a BE.
I am not fussed that you are pro nuclear, just increasingly annoyed that you think that only you and Steven are "right" because you think you may know a little more about nuclear science than the others. It may surprise you to know that there are many more people than both you and me who have a degree in 'life' who may just know a bit more than you. Jam interested in reading their opinions, including the pro nuclear comments and it would be nice to be able to read more of these comments without you two clowns always trying to ridicule others' opinions.

So what about putting your case forward as to why you think a nuclear waste dump is what our state needs, instead of continually bagging everyone else. Your own 'comments for comments sake' seem to have the purpose to only try and stop others who may want to comment from adding a comment for fear of being attacked by you and your mate.

I think the case for not having a waste dump is far more compelling than the pro case, so if you disagree with my opinion, why don't you put your case?

Franca Vasileff > Mark Pawelek

11 Aug 2016

If the technology is really available to recycle waste then why on earth would they pay to ship it over the seas and dump in in our backyard for us to supposedly make so much money?

Franca Vasileff > Mark Pawelek

11 Aug 2016

4th generation reactors are still 20-30 years away (if they succeed).

Renae Schmidt

03 Aug 2016

If we are so ignorant, and don't know anything, then why are so many people strongly against this. I think at least 80% of the population should agree to this, as it will affect so many. I think High School kids should get a say. I think a Referendum should be done to see if any more money should even be wasted. who requested this to even start, government or the people.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Renae Schmidt

15 Aug 2016

Hi Renae, thanks for your discussion on this thread. In regards to a referendum, Chapter 6 of the Royal Commission Report looks at the need for social and community consent for any specific facility proposal to proceed. This includes addressing the importance of "ongoing" social consent through the many stages and gateways if this process was to go forward​. In this context, it identifies that a public vote on a proposal (at any one point in time) is not a reliable indicator of ongoing consent.

Christopher Huckel > Renae Schmidt

22 Aug 2016

Hi Renae the government talks about consent but refuses to allow the public to vote because that would put a stop to the wasting of tax-payers dollars on this Filthy Toxic Proposal and the government doesn't want this Filthy Toxic Proposal stopped.

Si Coulls

03 Aug 2016

No other process than a REFERENDUM is appropriate. This is a whitewash process because you KNOW you won't get consent from the wider community. Just accept it now and stop wasting our money. You are closing hospitals and downgrading health services, failing to invest in our public schools to ensure that all children can be accepted from within their local area, failing to maintain country roads etc etc. If you just focussed your attention and money on the basics, then at least we could say you got that right.

Aaron Morley > Si Coulls

05 Aug 2016

School funding is not strictly within the purview of State governments.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Si Coulls

15 Aug 2016

Hi Si, thanks for providing your feedback. In regards to a referendum, Chapter 6 of the Royal Commission Report looks at the need for social and community consent for any specific facility proposal to proceed. This includes addressing the importance of "ongoing" social consent through the many stages and gateways if this process was to go forward​. In this context, it identifies that a public vote on a proposal (at any one point in time) is not a reliable indicator of ongoing consent.

Christopher Huckel > Si Coulls

22 Aug 2016

Thankyou Si please keep up the good work.

Deb Downes

01 Aug 2016

Who selected the Citizen's Jury? I don't recall any kind of democratic process being enacted. This is a decision that should be the subject of a referendum, where ALL the people of SA get to exercise their democratic right.

Where are the Moderators on this site? Every discussion about this issue is full of trolling from a select few individuals. There's no "discussion" happening in any of the topic areas, because people's opinions are being shouted down by 2 or 3 apparently pro-nuclear individuals. What a joke.

Aaron Morley > Deb Downes

02 Aug 2016

How was the jury selected? By random process.

"Invitations are randomly sent to 25,000 South Australians seeking an expression of interest. Respondents are verified and stratified (grouped) by age, location and gender. A second random selection process is then undertaken (within each stratified group) to ensure the jury is representative of the South Australian population. The newDemocracy Foundation, an independent organisation, will undertake jury selection."

Christopher Huckel > Deb Downes

02 Aug 2016

Your spot on Deb

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Deb Downes

15 Aug 2016

Hi Deb, thanks for your comments. You can find out more information about the Citizens' Jury selection process in the Citizens' Jury background page on our website (http://bit.ly/2b8qkVf). As a discussion board, we encourage all views and perspectives - if you'd prefer to provide us your feedback in more of a closed forum, we welcome you to pass along your thoughts by completing the state-wide survey: http://bit.ly/2azrSZe