Inside Story - March 1999

Sandra Kanck, Democrats spokesperson for Waste Management, has moved to refer the issue of the closure of the Wingfield dump to SA Parliament’s Environment, Resources and Development (ERD) Committee. The dump is now 15 metres high, the Adelaide City Council proposes to close it at 35 metres, the Port Adelaide & Enfield Council wants it closed at 25.5 metres and the State Government has proposed a snug compromise. The eventual height of the dump isn’t a matter for political compromise. Because the dump was foolishly located on mangrove swamps it is essential it closes at the optimum height and shape to minimise poisonous leachate flowing into the Port River and adjacent wetlands. A wrong decision will have profound environmental and economic implications for future generations.
Given the existing reports, each recommending a different closure height, could be tainted by the whiff of political and economic opportunism, an independent assessment is necessary. The ERD Committee’s multi-party composition and experience in dealing with waste issues makes it the logical choice. Meanwhile, calls for SA to be the dumping ground for the world’s nuclear waste have no such logic. Proponents argue Australia’s stable political and geological systems make it an ideal location.	Democrats’ Waste Management spokesperson Sandra Kanck (left) joins members of the Dublin Ratepayers and Residents Association Wendy Pfeiffer, Steve Jones and Kevin Lawrence at the Dublin anti-dump protest site.
Presumably these people can see 250,000 years into the future. The fact expensive public relations exercises are underway and both the SA and Commonwealth Governments have sent out mixed messages should put everyone on alert. More news on Waste Management.

The old political parties have combined in State Parliament to prevent the public finding out about any irregularities, problems or deficiencies in juries. Labor and Liberal MLCs voted together in favour of a Bill which prevents the media ever publishing anything said in a jury room, no matter how long after a trial, or how irrelevant such publication may be to the carriage of justice in the particular case.
Democrats spokesperson for Legal Affairs, Ian Gilfillan, believes the new law will now undermine the jury system. "It will effectively silence any juror who feels marginalised, intimidated, or ill-equipped for their task. It will prevent the public from ever learning about it, or discussing those sort of experiences. In addition, it will prevent any jury from defending itself against attacks on its decision-making process.

"Institutions which cannot be discussed publicly cannot be expected to attract and maintain widespread community support. If the jury system cannot be openly discussed, using real-life examples of jurors' experiences, the system will not survive as a valued institution. Mr Gilfillan sought changes which would have permitted disclosure of "statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast" in a jury room, but: only three months or more after proceedings end, only if a juror’s identity is not disclosed without his/her consent, only if no material inducement is offered or sought for the purpose. "This would have protected jurors’ confidentiality, while still allowing their concerns to be discussed," Mr Gilfillan said. More news on Legal Affairs