What a joke. If the SA government cannot decide the issue on the information they have from an expensive enquiry, they are not a government at all. What would a minority, called a 'citizens' jury' know about such things?

Certainly the Citizens' Jury from the far flung corners of South Australia and surrounding States (who share the water table) would require travel, accommodation and sitting fees.

And therein lies a financial inducement for a Democratic People's Parliament, in Adelaide, on all matters Nuclear, Health, Waste Dump Planning, Commercial Matters and Associated Infrastructure.

Naturally indigenous interests should be fully represented with full consensus required. The Tribal Upper House should have complete veto power over said Democratic People's Parliamentary deliberations.

As quick and simple (really) as the Government's nuclear power reactor, Uranium Enrichment and Plutonium-Uranium Reprocessing Initiative.

I see, when you need expertise and knowledge you gather about you twelve citizens, who in all likelihood have neither or none!

But a good idea if you want to waste increasingly critical time.

We have had an expensive royal commission which has assembled the facts for consideration, and that process needs to be allowed to continue, to enable fully informed and empowered decision makers to decide on just the merits of the case!
Alan B.

I agree what a joke,

Total waste of money, you have had the royal commission, now build the storage facility. Millions of dollars for the SA economy and Labor can't decide what to do. Pathetic.

Give me millions each year and you can gladly put it all in my back yard.
At least it will be in one place rather than in filing cabinets in crowded hospitals scattered around Australia.

I'm sure some terrorist/nutter would love to get some radioactive waste and put it in our drinking water.

Every politician knows that , when something is too hard to handle, you pass the buck. Pathetic. For what are governments elected?

Hi Alan B

One shouldn't be negative.

Gravy trains await for Adelaide Uni Trannie Trots on Citizen's Juries.

And wrecking noble nuclear intentions will provide excellent training for yet more Bright Young Things who populate South Australian Greens posts in Federal Parliament.

This bloke needs to stick to emptying bed-pans.
This would be hijacked if labour did not install it as such to an anti nuclear group. After millions wasted jury would say no.
I suppose I should thank Noel as I feel so superior after reading his drivel.
Thank you Noel!

hi Pete and a little off topic. If I were managing the Labor campaign, I'd issue how to vote cards that in tit for tat behavior, preference the coalition and everybody else ahead of the greens!

And a good strategy where green preferences have already flowed to the coalition?

And teach them a valuable lesson for the foreseeable future only moribund morons, would ever forget!?

About what can happen if they just manipulate and betray trust to maximise the seats they might gain (or lose) at the expense of the any other party other than their own!?

And to be clear, never ever forget about (champions of social justice) policies that attract enough support for them not to need (dirty deals done in the dead of night) socially perverse preferences?

Clearly, they are a party of intellectually challenged dream castle dwellers who've taken up permanent residence; and think all we need is printing presses go flat out to pay for their highly impractical wish list?

Labor need a message that unmistakably communicates, thus far and no farther you manipulating mongrels?

And to be equally clear and return to topic, their hopelessly outdated knowledge has got a use by date if the intention is to continue the moronic anti nuclear economically harmful campaign!
Alan B.

Too true Alan B.

South Australia shouldn't stop with a Waste Dump. A thriving power reactor within Adelaide's city limits will generate untold numbers of jobs. What could go wrong? The odd spill could make life more interesting for the sleepy City of Critters.

_______________________________________

Hi JBowyer

That bloke Noel should cease being a traitor to his macho gender. If Noel were a real blke, and sometimes I wonder, he'd fess up and admit that nukes provide a warm glow to the unsuspecting.

Actually Noel may need a bit of surgical tucking and snipping, here and there, to be a Real Man http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=6099

I don't know why we need to pay somebody to consult on a dumb idea.

"We're thinking about throwing some money away on a really dumb idea, and we can't decide so we thought we'd throw some more money away to see if laypeople can help us with the decision."

If you've got that much money to throw away just be content with Centrelink and forget it.

But seriously, you want to turn OUR COUNTRY in to a nuclear waste dump for the rest of the planet to dump their crap here in?
Have you all lost your minds?
Why don't we get the entire planet to export their feces here as well?
We can store it for them in our homes.

We could've built nuclear reactors ourselves, and had Australian consumers paying a pittance of what we pay now for electricity and given our industries a profitability boost and saved Aussie Jobs (and exported our crap elsewhere), that would've been a much smarter idea than seeing a nuclear waste dump as South Oz's saving grace.

You people are insane considering this, I could say we have the blind leading the blind, but really I need to emphasize more, so its the dumb leading the dumb.

I'm happy to dispose of our own limited waste here.
I'd also be happy to do so if we had our own reactors.
(I believe in personal responsibility)
But I'd also be happy to export it all elsewhere if some other nation is both stupid and desperate enough to let me.
Then I can say "Not my problem, EVER."

Take the reactors not the waste.
This is seriously as dumb as not selling china the resources but selling the whole mine.
As dumb as not selling China the cows, but selling the whole farm and buying back the cows.

Do you really need to throw money away before you can accept an idea being stupid?
On the other hand I suppose we already sold off all the nations assets, lost all the jobs and this is now what its come down to.

Idiots.

Noel, probably pronounced No-el, is actually a female, according to HER bio.

"If the SA government cannot decide the issue on the information they have from an expensive enquiry, they are not a government at all. What would a minority, called a 'citizens' jury' know about such things"

Juries are representative of the population. they have one great advantage over judges and politicians, they no hidden agenda like politicians have.

its difficult to lobby, put pressure on, juries so its less likely they are brought off. Sure, they can be threatened and intimidated as can politicians but those doing it to a jury have to come out into the open much more and therefore take a much bigger risk.

Politicians, government, claims they are elected to make decisions but they also claim they govern only with the consent of the governed, no consent - no government.

How then, do they ensure any decision they make in relation to making South Australia a nuke dump, has the support of the governed unless they put to a referendum?

The only other alternative is for the decision to be made by a representative sample, a jury, drawn from the population they are part of, i,e South Australia.

What I find very odd is that some people dont seem to want more democracy and rule of the people, by the people when given an opportunity to support something that is likely to result in more rule of the people, by the people.

from Noel Wauchope

Thanks, Referendumdrivensociety

I was very surprised that people, who are apparently supporters of nuclear power, took umbrage at my article in favour of the nuclear proponents' next step towards nuclear waste dump importing.

So it was a relief to see, at last, a comment that recognises the importance of finding out community attitudes, and making democratic decisions.

A referendum is indeed the clearest way to do this. Citizens' Juries, Deliberative Polls, are a step in the right direction, but not enough on their own.

As to relying on nuclear industry experts, for opinion on the whole picture, we might recall the words of Upton Sinclair:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Of course the plebs have their own agendas, politics, fears and phobias. They are ones who elect the politicians after all! There is no guarantee of an unbiased representation of the rest of us. Picked from a hat, nobody knows what they think, or what they will do. Look at rubbish that came from the talkfests organised by Rudd, and by Hawke. South Australians have paid for an intense enquiry, chaired by Rear Admiral Scarce, last governor of the state, peopled by scientists and experts. What more does a government need to make a decision! Citizens, including me, have nothing in the way of knowledge or experience to be involved in the matter at all. They can approve or protest as much as they like, but in the end, if we have not elected people who can make a decision based on professional knowledge and fact, then there is no point in electing governments; we might as well have mob rule. Now that "Noel" as revealed herself as a notorious activist, she is one of the 'ordinary people' we could have in a farcical 'jury' that we should certainly take no notice of. It should also be remembered that the climate scare-mongers, costing us billions, are also the same people who are tell us that we we should listen to scientist and experts. That same doesn't go for them, it appears, when it comes nuclear waste storage, which is just as much a fact of life as climate change.

This sounds like a hugely expensive way to avoid making a decision.

I have to agree this is a copout. I say that as one who both supports nuclear power and also believes SA is probably politically and geologically better than other parts of the world for such a facility. However there are no customers signed up yet and they may yet decide to keep the stuff at home. Since the estimated setup cost is $41 bn the citizen juries might also pose the question "are you prepared to pay higher taxes for a number of years?". Instant death I suggest.

SA is now about 40% wind and solar, 15% imported coal power and 45% gas fired with AEMO (see the newsletter on their homepage) telling us that eastern Australia should expect hefty gas price rises after 2019. Combine that with the SA-Vic connector doing a Basslink or Hazelwood throwing a spanner then perhaps the scene will be set for SA based nuclear. That will change public perceptions from money making to necessity. Until then the citizen panels are irrelevant.

This concept is used often. You get a diverse bunch of people in a room, and gauge their reaction to an concept or an idea.

This is not generally known as a citizen jury, but as a focus group, and its purpose is to determine public opinion, not science.

SM,

Looks as though we won't be getting anything new to talk about today, so, how are individuals chosen for these groups? I don't see how it is possible to screen people with various views. The for as well as those against, and people who have no firm ideas until to pros and cons are discussed. With a proper jury, lawyers are able to question prospective jurors to get what they think will be best for their purpose; but anyone can lie. People with their minds already made up are going to pretend they are open-minded. If this bizarre cop out proposed by the SA government goes ahead, it will turn into a contest that will not reveal the wishes of the 'silent majority' - silent only because everybody cannot be realisticall consulted, and 25-50 people certainly cannot speak for the rest of us. What do you think about that?

From Noel Wauchope

The Citizens Jury process has been used with some success in UK, USA and Germany.It does not produce any kind of binding decision, but still, a good guide to public opinion.

As the participants are selected randomly from the electoral roll, there is a very good chance that they will not include fiercely opinionated people in either side of the argument. And, such people can be excluded from the "jury", as is done in the case of a legal jury.

As I say in the article, the process does require both an independent and capable moderator, and a well informed Advisory Panel that includes equal numbers of experts of opposing views.

Such a group, in a truly fair and independent process can be expected to produce a more representative view, than a group such as the recent Royal Commission, with its predominantly pro nuclear experts.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”