Empowering citizen’s voices: lessons from inside a citizen’s jury

Honouring the jury process?

Despite this, 48 hours later facilitators announced they had included additional witnesses with views heavily biased towards the pro-dump case. These were to be invited ahead of about twenty others in their field who had received higher dot 'votes'. This was 'justified' by claiming the 'info gap cards' had requested these witnesses. After several requests I was eventually allowed to view these cards. Some 40 cards indicated gaps in the economic modelling case. Not one indicated jurors wanted evidence from a Dr Tim Johnston (Jacobs MRM consultancy) who facilitators claimed 20 cards wanted as witness. Eighteen cards requested information from other witnesses critical of the evidence already presented by Dr Johnson's consultancy. Only ten could be interpreted as seeking further information relating to the Jacobs case. The following day the facilitators released a revised witness list still including Dr Johnston but changing their justification from the 'info gap cards' to unreviewed evidence from a 'the fact check wall'.

Detailed analysis of the 'fact check' and 'info gap' data was only released to the jury as 21 pages of data placed on the jury's information table on the morning of the next session. A week earlier, members of the Stakeholder Reference Group had insisted the jury be advised that they had "…concerns that the view of the jury was not honoured in the way additional witnesses were added". This statement was buried in a general information post on the internet discussion board at 9.30 pm on the Friday night before jurors attended the session at 8.30am Saturday morning. Facilitators did not advise the jury of the Stakeholder Reference Group concerns at the start of this session and shut down jurors' attempts to raise it from the floor.

Further concerns over the facilitation process followed. The jury was advised of a debate between added witness Dr Johnston and Dr Richard Denniss who had published a critical review of the Jacobs MRM economic modelling. Dr Johnston pulled out of this debate leaving another witness to speak in his place but jurors at the subsequent witness panel session were told Dr Dennis would only be allowed to answer questions not make further presentations. This was overturned by the jurors who heard details of how the business case was: based on dubious assumptions about benefits and costs; relied on advanced contracts to take and store wastes long before an underground disposal facility would be built; that South Australia would need to commit $600 million over six years before the first contract was signed; that the project relied for profit on contracting a third of the world's nuclear rubbish at a price 50% higher than any country was considering spending; and that no other country would be competing with us. Assumption on assumption with little evidence and divorced from common-sense.

Whatever the merits of arguments for 'balance' the facilitators chose not to consult with the jurors, chose not to make their case for change in the process and share the evidence they believed justified this. They chose not to seek agreement of the jury – which could easily have been done in the three-week gap between the jury sessions and which I think most jurors would have agreed to. They chose to conceal the concerns growing both inside and outside the jury that all was not being handled with openness and integrity essential for trust in the jury process to be maintained.

Answering the core question?

A number of other manoeuvres seemed designed to fragment and dilute the growing concerns over the project. Discussions were restricted to small groups focussed on specific aspects of the proposal. There was undermining of the near unanimous voice of the Aboriginal community witnesses who were not merely saying no but asking pointedly which part of the word 'no 'did government not understand. There was an ongoing struggle over the form of the core question and the way this was framed in terms of three (traffic light) options. Yes – go ahead (green). Yes – go ahead under these conditions (amber). No – don't go ahead (red). There was ongoing argument over whether the question should address whether the project 'could' go ahead (anything can be done given enough time and money) or whether it 'should' – under the circumstances proposed and with the evidence provided.

Despite this, two thirds of jurors decided the project should not proceed. Attempts to provide wriggle room for this ended with solid votes showing that jurors did not believe more information was needed and that it should not proceed 'under any circumstances.' A small group of 20 jurors presented a minority report advocating: (unnecessary) legislation changes to permit further work, suggesting jury bias, and questioning the evidence from Aboriginal Community witnesses.

The government response was to consider the jury report as part of other public consent initiatives. Six weeks of intense Jury work was set against community responses to a wholly one-sided presentation based on: a flawed and inadequate Royal Commission report and the government's 'Know Nuclear' website, travelling roadshow, on-line questionnaire and focus group discussions. These attempts to undermine the jury decision failed. Over 50% of the people who responded said no. Parliament received a 35,000 resident petition saying no. The pro-nuclear Business Council declared the proposal 'dead'. With all other political parties opposed, and significant opposition within his own party, the Premier realised it was a non-starter, at least for the time being. As he said on the first day to the jury, there was perhaps no harder issue than this - one that could only proceed with community support which was clearly not there in SA in 2016. Following retirement from politics the former Premier accepted a position with the New Democracy Foundation.

Where next?

Given the experience outlined here the decision to involve New Democracy in the upcoming NSW citizens jury suggests there will need for very close scrutiny of the process by which this jury arrives at its conclusions.

Let me be clear, as someone with experience of citizen democracy processes in other countries that are truly 'independent' and empowering of citizen's voices to government like the Danish 'Consensus Conference' process, I think that well-run Citizen's Juries and other deliberative processes that involve communities affected have a significant role to play informing hard decisions. I look forward to a 'voice' for input into legislation being exercised by the Aboriginal Community in the near future. Important will be informed and considered voices from communities affected by 'unprecedented' civic and environmental climate damage this year and how we mitigate the role of carbon pollution. But for these processes to have broad support – and be accepted as valid whatever the outcome or political fallout – we need openness, transparency and integrity from those who are entrusted with guiding and facilitating them.