Get to Know Nuclear: Nuclear Fuel Cycle Engagement in South Australia
- Specific Topics
- Nuclear Energy
- Waste Disposal
- Economic Development
- Scope of Influence
- Get to Know Nuclear Engagement Process
- Nuclear Citizens Jury: From Local Deliberations to Transboundary and Transgenerational Legal Dilemmas (research article)
- Start Date
- End Date
- Time Limited or Repeated?
- A single, defined period of time
- Spectrum of Public Participation
- Total Number of Participants
- Open to All or Limited to Some?
- Limited to Only Some Groups or Individuals
- Recruitment Method for Limited Subset of Population
- Targeted Demographics
- Indigenous People
- General Types of Methods
- Deliberative and dialogic process
- General Types of Tools/Techniques
- Facilitate dialogue, discussion, and/or deliberation
- Collect, analyse and/or solicit feedback
- Facilitate decision-making
- Facilitator Training
- Professional Facilitators
- Face-to-Face, Online, or Both
- Types of Interaction Among Participants
- Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation
- Ask & Answer Questions
- Express Opinions/Preferences Only
- Information & Learning Resources
- Written Briefing Materials
- Expert Presentations
- Decision Methods
- General Agreement/Consensus
- Communication of Insights & Outcomes
- Public Report
- Public Hearings/Meetings
- New Media
- Primary Organizer/Manager
- newDemocracy Foundation
- Government of South Australia
- Type of Funder
- Regional Government
- Implementers of Change
- Elected Public Officials
A multi-component engagement initiative on the nuclear fuel cycle including two citizens' juries and a larger, state-wide initiative including open forums, town halls, and online surveys. The process was controversial, attracting protests both inside and outside the jury.
Problems and Purpose
In 2015 the South Australian government established a Royal Commission to investigate the implications for the state's involvement in the four stages of the nuclear fuel cycle (mining, enrichment, energy and storage). The final report was presented to the government in May 2016 and formed the starting point for a state-wide engagement process. The report concluded that is safe for South Australia to participate in nuclear-adjacent activities and made recommendations on costs and revenue.
The Royal Commission's findings provided a solid evidence base on which South Australians could evaluate their positions on the state's future role in nuclear fuel. The aims of the engagement process were two-fold: to inform the community of the findings and understand the evidence, and to consider the options available. The Royal Commission was independent from state government.
Background History and Context
The South Australian government has a strong record for implementing deliberative democratic processes and seeking community engagement in politics. This initiative is part of the SA government's Reforming Democracy agenda, announced in 2015 and intended to deliver 'four deliberative democracy projects' as well as a range of other engagement processes which "include a focus on the use of digital technologies and explore the application of crowd sourcing, collaborative working and resource sharing, and design thinking approaches to areas of government activity" (YourSAy 2016).
The impetus behind the Nuclear engagement was the presence of "a tradeoff worth exploring" (newDemocracy Foundation 2016). The Royal Commission Report concluded that nuclear fuel storage could add significantly to the SA economy. However, this is a controversial issue with strong feelings on either side. The engagement strategy for the initiative was prepared by newDemocracy and outlined two key problems that the process aims top counter: firstly, that no one really reads Royal Commission reports and secondly that most people assume that despite engaging with the community, government decision-makers have usually already made a decision either way. The process was designed with these two challenges in mind.
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
This process was instigated and funded by the government of South Australia. newDemocracy Foundation, an independent nonprofit organisation, designed an engagement strategy for the nuclear issue and designed the engagement process for the two citizens' juries. DemocracyCo facilitated the first jury in July 2016. Information about the jury as well as ongoing updates are published on the state's online community engagement platform YourSAy.
Participant Recruitment and Selection
The recruitment of participants for Citizens' Jury 1 was carried out by newDemocracy, independently from the government. Invitations were sent to a random sample of 25,000 households generated by software. Addresses were provided by Australia Post's database and invitations were sent by post. 1,121 people then registered their interest in taking part, and a random stratified sample was taken from this group to ensure that the final jury reflected the demographics of the South Australian population. The final jurors selected numbered 54 - with 4 of those as reserves in case of emergency (YourSAy 2016a).
Methods and Tools Used
This event used the Citizens' Jury method which involves various tools of engagement including surveys, information and question and answer periods, small group deliberation (such as thematic dialogue tables or future workshops) and plenary discussion.
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
Below are the details of the process up to August 2016. The YourSAy website has a number of videos and documents about the first Citizens' Jury .
Citizens' Jury 1
The first stage in the nuclear engagement was a citizens' jury of 50 South Australians that took place over four days (two weekends) in June - July 2016. The purpose of this jury was to examine the Royal Commission's report and produce some key issues that should be discussed during the state-wide consultation. The jury's task was essentially to set the agenda for wider community consultation: identifying key issues from the report that the whole community needs to consider. This involves balancing and processing a large amount of complex information, but also having to write a report in accessible terms for the whole community who have not participated in the jury. The SA Premier Jay Weatherill emphasised that the aim of Jury 1 was not to say yes or no to nuclear fuel storage, but to "assist us [the gov't] to make the best possible decision" (Weatherill 2016).
Day 1 of Jury 1 focussed on explaining the jury process and extending welcomes and introductions to fellow jurors. Welcomes were given by the Premier and a representative of the Kaurna people whose country it is.The key objective for the day was to explain the Royal Commission in terms of its process and outcome. In particular, there was a panel discussion with members of the Royal Commission and scrutiny over its independence from government. The jury also worked towards identifying which experts they were like to hear from, and the parts of the Royal Commission report that they wanted to explore in more depth. Jurors worked together in small groups and in plenary to do this and settled on the areas of consent, safety, trust and economics. This work also involved preparing for Day 2, where jurors would hear from expert witnesses.
Day 2 of Jury 1 was dedicated to expert witness presentations. There were 8 presentations in total, given in two panels of four, with Q&As. The jury heard from a variety of perspectives including aboriginal views, scientist, business, tourism and agriculture. Videos of the jury reflected positively on the day, with jurors commenting that their views were being challenged, and they enjoyed hearing a range of perspectives (YourSAy 2016b).
The Day 3, Jury 1 program focussed deliberation on four key areas: consent, safety, trust and economics. These were areas that the jury had selected in previous deliberations as areas of importance. Jurors could join what group they were particularly interested in. Group deliberations on the four areas took place in three rounds of discussion. In the first two rounds that took place in the morning session, expert witnesses were available for the jury to provide extra infromation and answer questions in the form of panels on each topic. After lunch for the third round, the jury could deliberate by themselves on the topic. Facilitators split the room into four with tape on the floor to indicate the different groups. Day 3 paved the way for the jury to begin planning the report they would need to write and present to the Premier on Day 4. The final part of Day 3 enabled nominated jurors from each group to feed back to the whole group on their deliberations from the four areas. Central to this exercise was the jury working towards consensus - not on the question of fuel storage itself but on what should go in their report.
Jurors commented that they felt everybody had the opportunity to participate in some way in the jury. They felt that they were making progress, but some felt that they still needed additional information, or were grappling with the complexity of the issue. Some people felt that they were still at the beginning of the process - which is true given that Jury 1 is the first stage in a state-wide engagement (YourSAy 2016c).
The final day of Jury 1 was dedicated to the jury writing the report for the Premier which would identify the agenda for wider community consultation. Jurors worked in small groups on the different sections of the report, then came together to finalise the overall report. Towards the end of the day the jury presented their report in person to the Premier. Several jurors were nominated/volunteered to give informal presentations and summaries of the report, including outlining the jury process itself. The jury also came up with some principles for decision-making to encourage people to think about the issue in a thoughtful way. These principles included transparency, inclusivity, accountability and ongoing consultation.
The jury's final report aims to answer the question "What are the parts of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission'’s Report that everyone needs to discuss?" It focuses on the four key areas mentioned above. The document is intended to set the agenda and kick-start discussions on nuclear fuel storage in the state-wide engagement that followed Jury 1.
Between August and October 2016, around 100 events will take place across South Australia. These are informal, drop-in sessions in various locations, where people are encouraged to come in and talk about the issue. There is not much information available on the format or content of these sessions. Venues range from local shopping centres to aboriginal communities and town halls and sessions are generally open from 11am - 7pm.
Alongside the face-to-face meetings around the state, online forums on each of the four areas are open for discussion through YourSAy. There are a fairly high number of comments on each thread, but they are made by a smaller group of commenters. The same individuals also comment on multiple threads. Notably, the tone of the online discussions is predominantly anti-nuclear, with a few dissenting. Whilst the discussions do delve into some of the more complex technical issues, the comments are at times vitriolic. Several posts are re-posted in different threads, somewhat blurring the four key areas as outlined by the original jury. There is also a feedback survey to comment on the Royal Commission and social media pages; the majority of the comments there are also predominantly anti-nuclear as well as anti-government and in some cases, anti-citizens' jury.
Citizens' Jury 2
The second citizens' jury brought together the original 50 jurors from the first jury, along with an additional 300 South Australians.
"This jury is to review all the community feedback from the state-wide consultation program, in addition to finalising their own perspectives from examining the Royal Commission’s Report. The Jury will capture their deliberations in a report that will be provided to the Premier, Jay Weatherill, as a key input to the Government’s decision-making process" (YourSAy 2016d)
The sheer size of the second jury and the existing polarisation on the issue at hand presented a significant challenge for organisers and facilitators. Commentators have noted that with a much larger number of jurors than usual, factions formed more easily than with a standard jury size of 12-20. Wendy Russell, a deliberative practioner involved in the process, provides a fascinating commentary of these challenges, which also included a breakdown in the usual collaborative commitment of a jury to the task at hand.
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
The second jury presented their final report to the State Premier Jay Weatherill in November 2016, concluding with two thirds of the jury opposing any further pursuance of nuclear fuel storage and one third in support of further investigation of the issue, subject to certain conditions. The government response sparked further controversy when the Premier announced that the government would continue discussion about the possibility of a nuclear waste storage facility. Initially, a state-wide referendum on the final decision was floated, but more recently it has been reported that the storage facility proposal has been dropped altogether.
The beginning of the Citizens' Jury process received a good deal of media and public attention. Anti-nuclear protesters gathered outside the jury venue and "mobbed" the Premier as he arrived on the first day. The first jury took place two days after the UK voted to leave the EU, and this was also discussed in the news in relation to the media. Advocates of deliberative approaches pointed to Brexit as an example of what happens when meaningful political engagement is not possible or facilitated by government. This purportedly leaves concerned citizens with only more radical means of getting their voices heard such as protest.
Analysis and Lessons Learned
Since the process has concluded, deliberative practitioners who were involved in the process have taken the opportunity to reflect on the challenges encountered with this process. In particular, Lyn Carson of nDF notes that the format of having the first jury set the agenda for the second jury worked particularly well, with the first jury working cohesively. One major benefit of having a larger jury was the greater legitimacy it garnered in the eyes of a broader public, although of course the size also led to increased challenges in terms of the actual deliberation. These challenges were ameliorated in part by rotating small group memberships to avoid 'echo chamber behaviour'.
The final outcome of the jury - a no to establishment of a storage facility - is also evidence of the process's independence from government. Given that the government supported the nuclear proposal, the 'no' outcome demonstrated that the jury process was not amenable to being steered in the direction they wanted.
Things that didn't work so well were some jurors' protests by wearing red stickers that indicated their anti-nuclear stance. Carson argues that this protest contravened deliberative principles because many other jurors were intimidated by this action and it demonstrated a lack of respect for alternative viewpoints and an attempt to assert influence over others:
One possible explanation for the factionalisation that occurred in the second jury is that invitations to participate in the jury were sent out after the question under consideration had been made public. This increased the likelihood that those with an interest in the issue such as activists would respond positively to the random invitations . The process for selecting expert witnesses has also been criticised for allowing jurors to choose who they wanted to hear from - if the jury themselves were already biased, this would logically lead to a biased witness selection, preventing the jury from hearing a range of balanced opinions and evidence.
Acknowledging the challenges of this process, what went and what went wrong can yield important lessons for deliberative practice and theory. Reflecting on such challenges provides insight for future processes, particularly working with controversial issues and large groups.
 South Australia Citizens' Jury on Nuclear Waste (2016) Final Report. Page 47. Available at: http://assets.yoursay.sa.gov.au/production/2016/11/06/07/20/56/26b5d85c-5e33-48a9-8eea-4c860386024f/final%20jury%20report.pdf
Carson, L (2017) Learnings from South Australia's Nuclear fuel cycle jury, research note for newDemocracy Foundation, available at: https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/research/research-notes/432-learnings-nu...
newDemocracy Foundation (2016) Nuclear fuel cycle engagement - South Australia's department of premier and cabinet, available at: http://www.newdemocracy.com.au/ndf-work/316-sa-cj-nuclear-fuel-cycle
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission (2016) Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission - tentative findings [pdf], available at: http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2016/02/NFCRC-Tentative-Findings.pdf
Russell, W. (2017) Citizens' Jury fuel for SA government decision on nuclear, The Mandarin, 6 February, available at: https://www.themandarin.com.au/74956-citizens-jury-fuel-for-sa-governmen...
Weatherill, J (2016) Interview with Channel 9 News [YouTube], 25 June, available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BhAIO5tQmE&feature=youtu.be
YourSAy (2016) Reforming Democracy: Deciding, Designing and Delivering Together, Government of South Australia, available at: http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/reforming-democracy
YourSAy (2016a) Background of the jury, Government of South Australia, available at: http://nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au/background-of-the-jury
YourSAy (2016b) Citizens' Jury Day 2: thoughts from the jury [YouTube] available at: https://youtu.be/9RA-4VKFcf0
YourSAy (2016c) Day 3 update: thoughts from the jurors [YouTube], available at: https://youtu.be/jCZQflKgBf0
YourSAy (2016d) The Engagement Process, Government of South Australia, available at: http://nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au/know-nuclear/engagement-process
Citizens Jury (method)
Royal Commission on Nuclear Fuel Cycle: http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/