2026 June 18 « Antinuclear

Wong and Marles were left waiting in the wings in London – it’s further proof Aukus was never anything more than a political stunt

Allan Behm, 16 June 26, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/16/uk-defence-minister-john-healey-resignation-wong-marles-aukus-exposed-political-stunt

All the flimflam and palaver amount to nothing in the face of domestic realities. Perhaps the UK’s John Healey has done us all a good turn.

The resignation of the UK defence minister John Healey, along with the armed forces minister Al Carns, has driven another nail into the coffin of Keir Starmer’s prime ministership. This was no inadvertent injury to the prime minister but a signal on Healey’s part that he’s a leadership candidate – or at least a deserving member of any new prime minister’s cabinet. It’s very calculated: Healey is too smart to do anything by accident.

No less inadvertent is the damage he has inflicted on the prospects of the increasingly ill-fated Aukus nuclear submarine proposal. By leaving the Australian defence minister, Richard Marles, and the foreign affairs minister, Penny Wong, waiting in the wings while he got on with the business of domestic politicking, he demonstrated once again what had been clear from the outset: Aukus was never anything more than a political stunt, expendable once it had served its political purpose.

Let’s unpack that.

Conceived in secret and launched by the then prime minister Scott Morrison with maximum political fanfare in September 2021, Aukus was a hurried attempt to meet the quite divergent political objectives of three very distant countries.

For Australia, it was about creating yet another security blanket to wrap us in the arms of great and powerful friends. It was a sad attempt to address the pathological insecurity of occupiers of a vast and distant continent. At the same time, it had the added political benefit of wedging Labor on the grounds that it was perceived as “weak” on national security. Labor met that challenge head-on by accepting the idea lock, stock and barrel – a curious example of the reverse wedge.

For Britain, it was about restoring some of its strategic credibility after its feckless Brexit decision, parading its imagined role as a European player with a global footprint. It was also about grabbing a flow of cash from gormless antipodeans to pay for the Band-Aids needed to treat the gaping holes in its national submarine construction capacity, now so disabled that it will take tens of billions to restore the UK’s submarine deterrence capability – if that’s even possible.

And for the hapless former US president Joe Biden it was about demonstrating America’s ability to lock its allies into strategic dependency while retaining both the UK and Australia as critical logistic and support partners in its efforts to maintain its ability to intervene militarily on a global scale. It was cynical and self-serving and for that reason alone easily survived the transition to the Trump administration.

So when two closely allied ministers are left cooling their heels in London wondering why on earth they’re there, the political fragility and the policy inadequacy of Aukus is exposed once again. When the retention of national political power in the face of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party is at stake, flimsy international agreements are simply cast off. All the flimflam and palaver about shared values, enduring friendship and the international rules-based order amount to nothing in the face of hard domestic political realities. Just ask Donald Trump.

From the outset, the politics of Aukus have been totally unsupported by policy – an “emperor’s clothes” situation where a single event can expose the intrinsic flimsiness of the entire enterprise. Here we are, five years on, still waiting for the fundamental policy principles on which Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-propelled submarines might be justified. This is not to suggest that they can’t be justified: simply that they haven’t been.

Where are the answers to the basic questions? Why? What are the options? How? At what cost? Are there alternatives? Are there complementary actions? What are the downstream effects?

Australia has a long and dismal history of political initiatives that lacked robust policy structures to support them. Aukus is yet another symptom of a rush of blood to the head. We know that the US under secretary of war for policy, Elbridge Colby, entertains serious doubts about the policy viability of Aukus submarines. The Congressional Research Service clearly shares his concerns, noting as it does the inability of the US naval construction industry to meet the demands of the US Navy, not to mention the expansion needed to provide additional builds for the Royal Australian Navy. Fobbing Australia off with second-hand older Virginia-class submarines is hardly an advertisement for Marles’s vaunted “optimal pathway”.

So perhaps Healey has done us all a good turn by showing, once again, that Aukus is not about policy at all but just an act of large-scale political theatre. As all wise politicians know only too well, once the political purpose has disappeared, the show’s over.

Allan Behm advises on international and security affairs at the Australia Institute in Canberra

June 18, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Concerns over Great Artesian Basin water impacts in new BHP agreement

By Kathryn Bermingham, By Thomas Kelsall, 17 June 26

In short:

The South Australian government has been accused of rushing through a new mining agreement with BHP that does not do enough to end water extraction from the Great Artesian Basin.

Mining Minister Tom Koutsantonis says the updated indenture imposes stricter environmental regulation.

What’s next?

The bill is expected to pass parliament this week, ahead of a decision on the Northern Water project in the second half of 2027.

Environmentalists and First Nations groups say a new agreement between the South Australian government and BHP, set to be passed by state parliament this week, does not do enough to end water extraction from the Great Artesian Basin.

They also say their concerns have not been taken seriously and that they have been shut out of the consultation process.

The government announced last month it would introduce a bill to “modernise” the Olympic Dam indenture — a legislated contract with BHP that governs mining operation

The updated indenture broadens BHP’s mining lease and removes caps on copper production, paving the way for a potential major expansion. (Supplied: BHP Billiton)

The updated indenture broadens BHP’s mining lease and removes caps on copper production, paving the way for a potential major expansion.

It also addresses water access, stipulating that BHP must stop drawing water from its Great Artesian Basin Wellfield A by 2036.

But it allows continued access to BHP’s other wellfield, despite the concerns of traditional owners and environmentalists that extraction is damaging the local mound springs.

The Arabana people say mound springs at the Great Artesian Basin are culturally significant. (ABC News: Lincoln Rothall)

BHP extracts more than 4 million litres of water a day from Wellfield A and 29 million litres a day from Wellfield B.

The second wellfield has less impact on the pressure of the mound springs, according to officials from the Department for Environment and Water and BHP.

Bill could be ‘locking in’ BHP’s extraction rights, environmentalist says

To reduce reliance on the basin in the future, the state government has proposed the $5 billion Northern Water project — a desalination plant on the Spencer Gulf that would connect to a pipeline stretching into the mining region

A concept map shows the Northern Water project pipeline from the desalination plant site near Mullaquana Station to Olympic Dam. (northernwater.sa.gov.au)

The project is currently subject to a $200 million feasibility study.

If it goes ahead, BHP says it will “significantly reduce” extraction from Wellfield B and instead use desalinated water for its mining operations.

If Northern Water is scrapped, Wellfield B can remain a water source for BHP, although the government says this would be under stricter environmental conditions and require the company to build in water efficiencies over time.

Environmentalist David Noonan said he was concerned by the long-term implications of the bill.

“It’s locking in rights to BHP to extract water from the Great Artesian Basin, that’s having impact on the unique and fragile mound springs,” he said.

“Wellfield A … it should be closed down as soon as possible, and the bill is allowing BHP to continue that water extraction for another decade.

“Even if South Australia does provide commercial water to BHP, BHP are still allowed to extract water from the far larger Wellfield B potentially for decades to come, and that would be locking in a long-term adverse impact on the survival of the springs.”

David Noonan says the bill could allow BHP to extract water from the Great Artesian Basin for a longer term. (ABC News: Daniel Taylor)

Arabana woman Janette Milera said she was concerned about the bill’s impact on the culturally significant mound springs.

“For us as Arabana people, they hold stories, they hold ancestors,”

she said.

“We are very concerned about what is happening with the water and country and where this [bill] might lead to with our mound springs.”

She said she was not against the bill but would like to see “a better consultation process about how they manage extraction from the Artesian Basin”.

Arabana woman Janette Milera is concerned about how the BHP agreement would impact the mound springs. (ABC News: Ashlin Blieschke)

Energy and Mining Minister Tom Koutsantonis said that under the new indenture, the Department for Environment and Water and the Environment Protection Authority would need to sign off on BHP’s water licence renewals.

“BHP will be subject to the environmental health of the wellsprings … that is a fundamental difference to what was in there previously,” he said.

Mr Koutsantonis also said closing Wellfield A by 2036 would lead to recovery of mound springs and, if Northern Water goes ahead, Wellfield B would only be a “backup” for BHP.

“I am very confident this is a good environmental outcome, not only for Indigenous groups but the basin itself,” he said.

BHP said it remained committed to “constructive engagement” with traditional owners and has provided regular updates on the indenture.

The company also highlighted that it was not seeking to renew Wellfield A, and said future growth at Olympic Dam will require additional water sources beyond the basin.

Committee process criticised

The bill was introduced to parliament last month and a committee of MPs was appointed to undertake an inquiry, but the process has drawn criticism from some individuals and groups who tried to voice their concerns.

Water is under pressure in the Great Artesian Basin

The Great Artesian Basin covers a fifth of Australia and contains water that has been there for millions of years. Now, decades of extraction are taking their toll and traditional owners are fighting a mining giant for compensation.

The committee, chaired by Mr Koutsantonis, allowed a 10-day window for public submissions and received more than 20.

Submitters included Mr Noonan and several environmental groups, as well as the First Nations Voice to Parliament and traditional owners of the Great Artesian Basin and Olympic Dam mine site.

Among the issues raised were the long-term impact of the new indenture, protection of the environment, native title concerns and consultation that was viewed as inadequate.

But none of the concerns were directly addressed in the committee’s final report, which was tabled in parliament the morning after the public deadline.

Melanie Selwood has criticised the committee process. (ABC News)

“I think this committee’s a bit of a sham to be honest,” said Greens MLC Melanie Selwood, who was not a member of the committee.

“People rushed to get submissions in the two-week period that was given to them, but they weren’t given time to come before the committee and really have their questions answered and have their concerns raised.”

Mr Koutsantonis said the submissions received by the committee were considered but not included in the final report because “they weren’t relevant”.

“We get to a point, in this saga of BHP, where there are some people who will not be satisfied until all mining ends,” he said.

“The concerns that they were making, for example, about native title and agreements for Indigenous groups, weren’t part of the indenture.

“Native title is assigned by the Commonwealth parliament, not by the state parliament.”

Tom Koutsantonis rejected the suggestion that the bill had been rushed through parliament. (ABC News: Ashlin Blieschke)

He said native title holders had already given their approval for expansion of the mining lease, and the government expects BHP to do a “full negotiation” with native title holders “before any further steps go forward under the indenture”.

BHP said many of the matters raised in the submissions were already being addressed, or would be addressed, through agreement-making processes.

Mr Koutsantonis rejected that the bill had been rushed through parliament but acknowledged the government had treated it with urgency.

“We’re heading into the winter [parliamentary] recess and we are in a contest for capital,” he said.

BHP has fast-tracked early works on an Argentinian copper project, while a decision on Olympic Dam — and consequently the Northern Water project — has been delayed until the second half of 2027.

June 18, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | environment | Leave a comment