|Appears in Collections:||Law and Philosophy Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Commissions and inquiries into the nuclear fuel cycle: Public participation and attitudes to risk and process|
|Citation:||Marsden S (2017) Commissions and inquiries into the nuclear fuel cycle: Public participation and attitudes to risk and process. Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 34 (1), pp. 24-34. http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/journals/2016/12/29/environmental-and-planning-law-journal-update-vol-34-pt-1/.|
|Abstract:||This article evaluates Australian and overseas experiences of commissions and inquiries in connection with nuclear issues before analysing the 2016 South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission (NFCRC). Australian practice is contextualised with reference to the British and French nuclear tests that have shaped community opinion, and the United Kingdom and New Zealand experience with nuclear power generation that has impacted upon policy. The functions, characteristics and legislative basis of commissions and inquiries are briefly examined, and other Australian experience, including the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, is summarised. Public involvement, and concerns about risk and process regarding the South Australian NFCRC are reviewed in more detail. Conclusions are that commissions and inquiries are a useful tool to generate information and enable community debate, but that they remain constrained by their functions and characteristics in limiting potential for change, particularly where environmental effects may be significant, participation is inadequate, consent is not given, and there are issues of public trust|
|Rights:||The publisher has not responded to our queries therefore this work cannot be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.|
|EPLJ 2017 proofs.pdf||Fulltext - Accepted Version||355.43 kB||Adobe PDF||Under Embargo until 2999-12-01 Request a copy|
Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependent on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.