Antinuclear

Federal Labor is taking up powers to impose AUKUS N-sub nuclear wastes on communities across SA, WA and the NT:

 Democratic Rights and Public Safety are compromised by AUKUS Regulations Section.105, an untenable override of State & Territory laws that prohibit nuclear waste storage.

Public Submission by Mr David Noonan B.Sc., M.Env.St, -to AUKUS ‘Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations – public consultation’ 12 July 2025 https://nuclear.foe.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Noonan-AUKUS-N-sub-regulations-to-override-SA-laws-July-2025.pdf

Contents:
Overview p2
The public has a ‘Right to Know’ who is targeted for storage of High-Level nuclear wastes 3
Indigenous People have a UN recognised Human Right to Say No to nuclear wastes 4
Regulations Section 105 overrides SA, NT and WA prohibitions on nuclear waste storage 5
Port Adelaide Enfield Council opposes AUKUS N-sub waste storage at Osborne 6
Premier Rann passed Laws that prohibits the storage of nuclear reactor waste at Osborne 7
Recommendations, in public interest disclosures required by Defence 8
As to my Relevant Background 9

Re: Democratic Rights and Public Safety are compromised by AUKUS Regulations Sec.105,
an untenable override of State & Territory laws that prohibit nuclear waste storage.

An array of key Public Interests are at stake across SA, NT and WA as a consequence of draft
AUKUS Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations 2025 and in particular Section
105 State and Territory laws that do not apply in relation to a regulated activity.

I provide public input along with Recommendations as disclosures required by Defence (p.8) on
public interest matters pertaining to the Regulations, some of my relevant background to these
issues as a long-term environment, nuclear and public interest campaigner is cited (p.9).

Integrity, transparency, and accountability are key to public confidence in governance in
Australia. The AUKUS nuclear submarine (N-sub) agenda repeatedly fails these standards. The
AUKUS Regulations are the pointed end of an unfolding federal Labor agenda to take up powers
to impose unwelcome and illegal AUKUS N-sub nuclear wastes on our communities. AUKUS
Regulations Section 105 further undermines public confidence and trust in government.

The public has a ‘Right to Know’ who is targeted for storage of High-Level N-sub nuclear wastes.
Over three years into AUKUS: Why is there still not even an announced N-waste siting process?

An uncosted liability in AUKUS N-sub nuclear wastes is being imposed on all future generations
through the Regulations Section 105 over-ride of State and Territory Radiation Safety and
nuclear waste related laws. As a consequence, communities across SA, the NT and WA face a
future as primary targets for a federal imposed AUKUS High-Level nuclear waste storage site.

Community health and nuclear safety regards AUKUS N-subs is to be taken over by a nonindependent military nuclear regulator, set in ‘conflict of interest’ reporting to the Defence
Minister – to replace the independent civilian ARPANS Agency that reports to Health Minister.

Nuclear risks to community safety warrant full transparency, accountability and public interest
disclosures. The storage of N-sub so called ‘Low Level’ radioactive wastes at Osborne has been
rejected by the Port Adelaide Enfield Council (12 Nov 2024, p.213-218). It is an illegal act under
the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 as amended by Labor Premier Mike Rann.
These AUKUS Regulations are to override SA Law and to override the will of the people in SA.

The AUKUS Regulations place the Safety, Health and Welfare, and democratic Rights and
Interests of targeted Australian communities and Indigenous People at risk and unacceptably
compromise’s the protection of the Environment in which they live. The Regulations specifically
fail to recognise and respect Indigenous People’s UN recognised Human Right to Say No to
imposition of hazardous materials, re AUKUS N-sub nuclear wastes, on their lands.

Defence should realise civil society across SA, NT and WA will actively oppose an unacceptable
imposition of intractable nuclear wastes in Australia, what-ever the source. High-Level nuclear
waste is a dangerous and undemocratic imposition on all future generations.

The untenable state of AUKUS N-sub nuclear waste issues demonstrates why an AUKUS
military nuclear regulator can-not be trusted to protect the public interest.

The public has a ‘Right to Know’ who is targeted for storage of High-Level nuclear wastes:

Minister Richard Marles MP has still not made a promised ‘announcement’, said to be by early
2024, on a process to manage High-Level nuclear waste and to site a waste disposal facility, he
saying “obviously that facility will be remote from populations” (ABC News 15 March 2023).

Best safety practice requires a storage site to be identified before acquisition or generation of
High-Level nuclear wastes. AUKUS requires a site before purchase of a N-sub in early 2030’s.

The national press (11 August 2023) reports the Woomera rocket range is understood to be a
‘favoured location’ for storage and disposal of nuclear sub wastes (“Woomera looms as
national nuclear waste dump site including for AUKUS submarine high-level waste afr.com).

Political leaders in WA, Qld and Vic have already rejected a High-Level nuclear waste disposal
site. SA’s Premier has so far only said it should go to a ‘remote’ location in the national interest.

A ‘Review’ of the Woomera Prohibited Area was announced by Minister Marles MP: “to ensure it
remains fit for purpose and meets Australia’s national security requirements” – to read also as
AUKUS requirements. Public input to that Review has opposed an AUKUS N-waste storage.

Federal Labor can-not claim to have a ‘social license’ for Defence to operate on AUKUS in SA,
NT and WA while failing to inform affected communities of the AUKUS nuclear risks, the
cultural, environmental & socio-economic impacts they face in siting for nuclear waste storage.

The public and Traditional Owners have rights to full disclosure of nuclear risks and impacts in
advance of this flawed Regulatory process that assumes a right to impose High-Level nuclear
waste storage in SA, NT or WA through override of democratic laws prohibiting such wastes.

Nuclear wastes are a threat to the democratic rights of a people to decide their own future.

Storage of nuclear wastes is known to compromise the Safety and Welfare of the people of SA,
that is why it is prohibited by the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000. The Objects
of this Act set out the fundamental public interests that are at stake:

“The Objects of this Act are to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of
South Australia and to protect the environment in which they live by prohibiting the
establishment of certain nuclear waste storage facilities in this State.“

This Defence regulatory process must declare in advance whether or not Defence will commit
to comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Article 29
provision of Indigenous People’s Rights to “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” over storage or
disposal of hazardous materials, including nuclear wastes, on their lands.

I refer this Defence process to consider “The Politics of Nuclear Waste Disposal: Lessons
from Australia”, a Report by Dr Jim Green and Dimity Hawkins AM, Published by the Asia-Pacific
Leadership Network (January 2024). Labor’s AUKUS agenda is failing to learn these lessons.
There is an onus on this Defence regulatory process to see that it doesn’t add to a sad history of
nuclear disrespect for Indigenous Human Rights and Interests across SA, the NT and WA.

Indigenous People have a UN recognised Human Right to Say No to nuclear wastes:

Traditional owners Human Right to Say No to imposition of nuclear wastes must be respected.

The AUKUS N-sub agenda triggers the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (UNDRIP, adopted by United Nations, Sept 2007) in Indigenous People’s Article 29
Rights to “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” over storage or disposal of hazardous materials
on their lands. AUKUS N-sub nuclear wastes absolutely are ‘hazardous materials’.

These Regulations should be framed in accordance with the Recommendations of the Federal
Inquiry Report (Nov 2023) into the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and
respect Chair of the Inquiry, Indigenous Labor Senator Patrick Dodson’s clear views, stating

“the Commonwealth Government ensure its approach to developing legislation and
policy on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people be consistent
with the Articles outlined in the UNDRIP”.

It is concerning Labor has so far failed to act on key Rec. No.6 of that UNDRIP Inquiry, stating:

“The Committee recommends that the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011
(Cth) be amended to include the UNDRIP in the definition of ‘human rights’, so that it be
formally considered when scrutinising legislation.”

Transparency is a minimum public interest standard to expect from a Federal Government.

The intensions of the Labor Federal Government AUKUS N-sub agenda, and of the Regulations in governing N-sub wastes, must be made clear: does Labor support or intend to override the
Rights of Indigenous Australians under the UNDRIP Article 29 to “Free, Prior and Informed
Consent” – as a Human Right to Say No – over Storage of AUKUS N-sub wastes on their lands?

Issues of Indigenous Rights verses imposition of AUKUS N-sub wastes have been repeatedly
raised without response. For instance, my public input to the 2023 Defence Review and to an
Inquiry into the AUKUS Bill that led to these Regulations called for needed transparency:

Defence should become transparent over proposed Navy High-Level nuclear waste
disposal, policy, siting process, rights and legal issues. Defence should commit to
respect and to comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples Article 29 provision of Indigenous People’s rights to “Free, Prior and Informed
Consent” over storage or disposal of hazardous materials on their lands.

The Labor Federal Government has long standing questions to answer, see “AUKUS nuclear
waste dump must be subject to Indigenous veto” (by Michelle Fahy, May 2023):

“Bipartisan secrecy and Defence’s poor record with Indigenous groups at Woomera are
red flags for consultations over an AUKUS nuclear waste dump. Human rights experts
say government must establish an Indigenous veto right.”

The draft AUKUS Regulations unacceptably disregard Indigenous Peoples UN recognised
Right to Say No to the imposed storage of AUKUS N-sub nuclear waste on their land.

Regulations Section 105 overrides SA, NT and WA prohibitions on nuclear waste storage:

Federal Labor is taking powers to impose AUKUS nuclear waste on SA, or on the NT, or on WA.

The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations 2025 sets out Section 105 State and
Territory laws that do not apply in relation to a regulated activity to override State & Ter Laws.

The Draft Explanatory Statement (DOCX, 145.38 KB (p.73) explains Section 105 as (extract):

Subsection 105(1) prescribes, for the purposes of section 135 of the Act, the
subsections of the provision which prescribes the laws of States and Territories that do
not apply in relation to a regulated activity. …

Subsection 105(3) provides that any provision of any other State or Territory law that
regulates nuclear activities is prescribed and do not apply in relation to a regulated
activity. This means that the laws prescribed in subsection 105(2) are expressly
excluded and do not apply in relation to regulated activities; and that any parts of any
other laws of States or Territories that also regulate nuclear activities do not apply to
regulated activities, as defined by the Act.

The note under subsection 105(3) clarifies that such provision of a law includes
provisions regulating the disposal of nuclear waste, the handling or storage of nuclear
material or material contaminated with radiation, or the design, construction, operation,
decommissioning or disposal of nuclear facilities.

Subsection 105(4) clarifies that subsection 105(3) does not apply to a provision of a law
that is predominately for the purposes of regulating work or occupational health and
safety, or protecting the environment.

The Parliamentary Report “Current prohibitions on nuclear activities in Australia: a quick
guide” (May 2024) provides an overview of current prohibitions on nuclear activities under SA,
NT and WA laws that protect community from the risks and impacts of nuclear wastes:

The Nuclear Waste Transport, Storage and Disposal (Prohibition) Act 2004 (NT) prohibits the
construction and operation of nuclear waste storage facilities, as well as the transportation of
nuclear waste for storage at a nuclear waste storage facility in the NT (Sec.6 & 7). Nuclear waste
is defined as including waste material from nuclear plants or the conditioning or reprocessing of
spent nuclear fuel (Sec.2). …

The Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 (SA) prohibits the construction or
operation of a nuclear waste storage facility, and the import to SA or transport within SA of
nuclear waste for delivery to a nuclear waste storage facility (Sec.8 & 9).

The Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act prohibits the SA Government from
expending public funds to encourage or finance the construction or operation of nuclear waste
storage facilities (Sec.13). The Act would also require the SA Parliament to hold an inquiry into
the proposed construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility in SA authorised
under a Commonwealth law (Sec.14). …

The Nuclear Waste Storage and Transportation (Prohibition) Act 1999 (WA) also prohibits the
storage, disposal or transportation in Western Australia of certain nuclear waste, including
waste from a nuclear plant or nuclear weapons (Sec.7 & 7 A, nuclear waste is defined in Sec.3).

Port Adelaide Enfield Council opposes AUKUS N-sub waste storage at Osborne:

Federal and State Labor Governments failed to engage the Port Adelaide Enfield Council (PAE)
on their plan for decades of ongoing storage of AUKUS N-sub nuclear reactor radioactive
wastes at Osborne, see Minutes of an PAE Ordinary Council Meeting 12 Nov 2024 (p.5-6).

11.1 Questions on Notice – Cr. den Hartog – Nuclear Waste Storage

Question 1. Has there been any correspondence or other communication between
Council staff and or any elected member(s) and the Federal or State Government or
Federal or State Government department regarding a dedicated nuclear waste facility at
Osborne under the AUKUS Law?

Answer To the best of our knowledge there has been no correspondence or
communication of this specific nature.

… Question 3. If a nuclear waste facility is established at Osborne, what is the
legislative responsibility of the Council regarding community safety and well-being?

Answer Given the regulations under the Bill have yet to be publicly released, it is still
unclear what legislative responsibilities under the new legislation would rest with
council, if any.

However, councils are charged with many aspects of the health, safety and well-being
of people under existing legislation. The Local Government Act, Public and
Environmental Health Act and Environment Protection Act are examples of legislation
that prescribe Council’s role and responsibilities about community safety and wellbeing. Local Government’s legislated powers in areas related to nuclear power weapons and defence are limited, but under existing legislation councils can advocate on issues relevant to their communities needs and concerns. This is one of the central premises of the draft PAE Decision Making Framework for AUKUS, which is being considered as part of tonight’s Council agenda.

Commendably, PAE decided to advocate on their communities needs & concerns over AUKUS
and decided to oppose storage of low-level radioactive waste at Osborne, see the PAE Council
Recommendations passed at the Ordinary Council Meeting – 12 Nov 2024 (Agenda p.213-218):

Recommendations:
The nuclear safety component of AUKUS in particular demands community
engagement. It is therefore recommended that Council write to the relevant local State
and Federal MPs and Ministers advising them of Council’s

• position that any applications for licencing for the management, storage or disposal of
  radioactive waste ‘facilities’ and ‘activities’ at the AUKUS operations at the Osborne
  Naval Shipyard should be subject to full community engagement; and,
• opposition to the permanent storage or disposal of low-level radioactive waste and,
  any temporary or permanent storage or disposal of medium and high-level radioactive
  waste in the AUKUS facilities at Osborne Naval Shipyard. (p.217-218)

However, the AUKUS Regulations disrespects PAE’s opposition by taking up powers to
impose radioactive waste storage at Osborne regardless of the will of the local community.

Premier Rann passed Laws that prohibits the storage of nuclear reactor waste at Osborne:

Hon Mike Rann AC CNZM, Premier of SA from March 2002 through to 2011, passed Labor
amendments to expand public interest protections in nuclear reactor waste prohibitions in SA.

Federal Labor’s intended decades of storage of AUKUS N-sub reactor radioactive wastes at
Osborne, promoted by current SA Labor State Government, is illegal – against the Law – in SA.

Following years of silence and secrecy from federal and state Labor over the illegality of their
plans for N-sub waste storage at Osborne, the AUKUS Regulations 2025 are to override our legal
protections in SA and take up powers to impose N-sub waste storage at Osborne by decree.

AUKUS Minister Richard Marles, Defence, local federal MP the Hon Mark Butler the Minister for
Health (also responsible for the ARPANS Agency) and local state MP the Hon Susan Close the
Minister for Environment & Water and Deputy Premier in SA, should explain this to community.

They all have an onus to explain the legal context and consequences of passage of the AUKUS
Regulations 2025 in a federal override of long-standing public interest protections in SA Law.

In 2000 the SA Liberal Premier John Olsen showed leadership in legislating to prohibit the
import, transport, storage and disposal of ‘nuclear waste’ derived from nuclear reactor
operations, using a definition prohibiting High-Level and Intermediate Level radioactive wastes.
This was a response to PM Howard targeting SA for storage of ANSTO nuclear fuel wastes.

This SA Law, the will of the Parliament and the people, still stands and applies to legally prohibit
the storage of AUKUS N-sub nuclear reactor High-Level and Intermediate Level wastes that
Minister Marles may seek to target SA with, with a reported focus on the Woomera Area.

In 2002 the incoming SA Labor Premier Mike Rann showed leadership in legislating to expand
the range of prohibitions on ‘nuclear waste’ derived from nuclear reactor operations to also
cover ‘Low Level’ radioactive wastes (that can require isolation for up to 300 years).

Storage of N-sub nuclear reactor ‘Low Level’ radioactive wastes at Osborne is illegal in SA Law.

Minister Marles AUKUS Regulations 2025 Section 105 is intended to override and set aside
these key public interest SA Laws passed under the leadership of Liberal & Labor Premiers.

In the near term, Minister Marles wants to use the proposed draft AUKUS Regulations 2025 to
impose storage of so called ‘Low Level’ radioactive waste at Osborne, and in the long-term
Minister Marles wants the option to impose storage of AUKUS High-Level wastes onto SA.

Q: where is the political leadership today from the State Labor Government in response to this?

It is undemocratic of a Federal Labor Government to seek to override State and Territory laws,
that protect the Health, Safety and Welfare of the People and the Environment in which they
live, so as to impose the hazards, risks and impacts in storage of AUKUS N-sub nuclear wastes.

Recommendation:

The undemocratic AUKUS Regulations “Section 105 (3) State and Territory laws that do not
apply in relation to a regulated activity” that is intended to take up powers to impose N-sub
nuclear reactor wastes which are currently illegal in SA, in the NT, and in WA, must be
withdrawn by the AUKUS Minister Richard Marles MP and by Defence.

Recommendations:

 Recommendations by David Noonan comprise public interest disclosures that are required by Defence for an informed, transparent and accountable process on AUKUS Regulations 2025. 

1. Civil Society faces federal imposition of untenable AUKUS N-sub nuclear waste storage.

Defence must respect affected Australian communities and Indigenous People’s ‘Right to Know’ the nuclear risks they face in imposed AUKUS nuclear waste storage facilities:

 1.1 Defence must declare its intention to over-ride the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 to impose AUKUS N-sub reactor nuclear waste storage at Osborne, Port Adelaide.

​ 1.2 Defence must publicly disclose which Australian regions and Indigenous Peoples are currently under consideration for imposed siting and compulsory land acquisition for an AUKUS High-Level nuclear waste storage, and which – if any – existing Defence lands are included in the regional short list that is currently being prepared across SA, the NT and WA. 

1.3 Defence must become accountable over the future and fate of the Woomera Area, understood in national media to be a ‘favoured location’ for storage and disposal of AUKUS Nsub nuclear waste (“Woomera looms as national nuclear waste dump site including for AUKUS submarine high-level waste afr.com AFR 11 August 2023).

1.4 Defence must declare its reserved right to override the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 through powers in the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Act 2024 Section.135 “Operation of State and Territory laws” to impose an AUKUS nuclear waste dump on outback lands and unwilling community in SA, by decree through these AUKUS Regulations.

2. Indigenous People have a UN recognised Human Right to Say No to nuclear wastes.

 Defence should respect the clear views of Indigenous Labor Senator Patrick Dodson and act to make the AUKUS Regulations consistent with the Recommendations of a Federal Inquiry Report (Nov 2023) into the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, stating:

 “the Commonwealth Government ensure its approach to developing legislation and policy on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people be consistent with the Articles outlined in the UNDRIP”. 

2.1 Defence must provide a clear disclosure as to whether or not they will commit to respect and comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Article 29 provision of Indigenous Peoples Rights to “Free, Prior and Informed Consent”, as a Right to Say No, over storage or disposal of hazardous materials on their lands – in this case AUKUS HighLevel & Intermediate Level nuclear waste storage.  

 3. The undemocratic AUKUS Regulations “Section 105 (3) State and Territory laws that do not apply in relation to a regulated activity” that is intended to take up powers to impose Nsub nuclear reactor wastes which are currently illegal in SA, in the NT, and in WA, must be withdrawn by the AUKUS Minister Richard Marles MP and by Defence.  

As to my Relevant Background:

In 30 years’ experience scrutinising environment & nuclear public interest issues and providing
public input and Recommendations on nuclear waste matters pertinent to these Regulations:

• The JSCT Inquiry into the AUKUS Agreement, public input 2 Sept 2024, Rec’s p.10-12;
• The Inquiry into the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023, by the Senate Foreign
  Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Submission No.8 Jan 2024, Rec’s at p.11;
• The Reforming Defence Legislation Review, Submission No.34, Recommendations 6-7 at p.3 and
  discussion at p.7, 20 April 2023;
• An earlier AUKUS Inquiry by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee
  held on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023 [Provisions],
  see Submission No.46, Recommendations 1-5 at p.2, 26 May 2023;
• The Defence Strategic Review, my public input is recorded but was not released by that process;
• The “Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information Agreement” (ENNPIA) Inquiry by the
  Treaties Committee, Submission No.40 (27 p), Recommendations at p.12, 25 Nov 2021.

I served for sixteen years as an Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) environment
campaigner based in Adelaide (1996-2011) with primary roles on public interest nuclear issues.

Roles as an ACF campaigner included over 5 years on a prior federal attempt to impose a
nuclear waste dump in SA (1998 through 2004), another flawed process that had to be
abandoned by then PM Howard Government, and as lead author of the ACF public submission
to the PM Howard Government’s Switkowski Nuclear Power Inquiry.

I was an invited Witness as an individual on nuclear waste issues at a 2016 Hearing of the SA
Parliament Joint Committee Inquiry on the Findings of the SA Nuclear Royal Commission.

As an Independent Environment Campaigner, I provided public Submissions and Briefing
Papers throughout the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility process 2015-23.

For instance see a Brief “Nuclear Waste Store siting at Napandee also targets the Port of
Whyalla” (Feb 2020, 2 p), and a formal Public Comment: “Input to the CEO of ARPANSA on
Alternative Storage of ANSTO ILW at Lucas Heights” (Nov 2021, 26 p).

Illustrative of some of the public interest issues in nuclear waste siting processes I refer you to
my public input to the Federal Environment Department on Guidelines for an Environmental
Impact Statement process on the proposed nuclear waste facility at Kimba (March 2023, 11 p).

I have a role in media comment on public interest nuclear issues, for instance see an
article: “Alarm on nuclear waste transport” (SA Sunday Mail Rural Edition, 31 July 2022).

Yours sincerely,
Mr David J Noonan B.Sc., M.Env.St.
Independent Environment Campaigner

Seaview Downs SA

July 13, 2025 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, wastes