Where to now, for Premier Weatherill's nuclear dream?

On November 6th, to the surprise of all, South Australia's Nuclear Citizens Jury came up with a report that overwhelmingly rejected the government's plan for importing and storing high level nuclear waste. Over four days of witness hearings, and deliberations, the 350 members of the jury were tasked with producing an answer to this question:

Under what circumstances, if any, could South Australia pursue the opportunity to store and dispose of nuclear waste from other countries?

The jury's answer:

Under no circumstances should South Australia pursue opportunity to store and dispose of nuclear waste from other countries for reasons of consent, economics, trust and safety.

An over-riding consideration was the lack of Aboriginal consent:

We believe that the government should accept that the Elders have said NO and stop ignoring their opinions. The Aboriginal people of South Australia (and Australia) continue to be neglected and ignored by all levels of government instead of respected and treated as equals.

An equally strong consideration was Economics:

It is impossible to provide an informed response to the issue of Economics because the findings in the Royal Commission Report are based on unsubstantiated assumptions. This has caused the forecast estimates to provide inaccurate, optimistic, unrealistic economic projections. We remain unconvinced by estimates relating to the cost of infrastructure. South Australia.

Their 48 page report explained the jury's processes, and went into detail on their reasons. They also reported on the proposal to change South Australia's nuclear law, concluding that:

The Jury strongly recommends that there be no further amendment to the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act at this time.

Many in the Jury felt strongly that if the nuclear waste proposal is to go ahead no further public money should be spent at this time. Any further analysis should be conducted and funded by key players within the industry.

Weakening or repealing this law is the first goal in the nuclear lobby's plan set out in the report by Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission South Australia.

The jury was critical of the "Perceived lack of objectivity of Royal Commission Report".

The various organisations opposed to the nuclear waste plan were expecting a very different result. One of the witnesses to the jury, Dr Benito Cao, had set out reasons why we might expect a neutral response from the jury. In a remarkably outspoken presentation, Cao outlined the pro nuclear background and biases in the organisations running the meetings, in loaded questions given to the jury, and in the subtle pressure on them to choose a "neutral " answer - an "amber light" to signify: 'Proceed with Caution'.

That "amber light" would have been the best result for Premier Weatherill. It would allow the whole proposition to simmer along quietly in South Australia, moving towards a political bilateral agreement to develop a nuclear waste import industry, while keeping the matter off the national agenda.

A "yes" result might have been problematic, drawing national attention to this extraordinary plan to make Australia be the first country on the planet to invite in the world's radioactive trash.

But a "No" vote - nobody expected that, and you could see by Weatherill's rather fixed and strained smile on receiving the report, that it is causing some angst in the government. And no doubt, in the nuclear camp in general.

However, one can be sure that they will quickly regroup, and refresh their campaign. Premier Weatherill made it clear that the discussion will continue. The Advertiser quotes Weatherill saying that the government had several other sources of feedback to consider, and that the jury's rejection of the plan was just one aspect of the process. He might be regretting his previous enthusiasm for "trusting ordinary, everyday citizens to look at complex issues and come up with wise judgments."

Already, some nuclear proponents are downplaying the Citizens Jury report, or downright rubbishing it. SA Chamber of Mines and Energy acting chief executive Nigel Long urges the government to continue to develop the plan. Business SA chief executive Nigel McBride said the jury were "influenced by fear-leveraging naysayers".

On the surface, it might appear that it's "game over' for the nuclear waste hosting plan. But I doubt that. The government has spent at least $13 million on it, according to according to MP Mark Parnell When one considers all the heavy duty lobbying that went on for at least two years before Weatherill instigated the Royal Commission (RC) , then the yearlong RC itself, the politicians' overseas jaunts, the State-blanketed promotion - is it likely that they'd just give up now?

My bet is that the push for the nuclear waste dump will continue with renewed vigour. If the embarrassing Citizens' Jury report doesn't just fade away, well, it will probably be severely criticised by both the Right and the Left, and with any luck for Premier Weatherill, will appear to lose credibility as time goes by.

All the same, everyone seems to agree that the Jury's report is at least a "setback" for the nuclear waste plan, as the Financial Review describes it. It also raises questions about Premier Weatherill's political future. Weatherill has been praised as an example of political courage. Weatherill prides himself on taking risks.

He could decide to cut the losses to the State, and pull out from the plan now. Perhaps Weatherill has invested too much energy and involvement with the nuclear lobby, to take such a step. As Macbeth said, when considering stopping his ambitious but dangerous cause - ""I am in blood stepped in so far that should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o'er,"