SUBMISSION: AUKUS PUBLIC INQUIRY – Friends of Port River

Many in our community feel that too much is being asked of our small Peninsula and that local residents will bear the costs with few benefits. I’d encourage you to highlight the current
environmental harms and further risks, with these heightened by the declaration of the
Osborne SDA.

Friends of Port River (FPR), and its predecessor the Estuary Care Foundation (ECF), have been
concerned about the fate of the Port River and Barker Inlet Estuary and advocating for its care
for ten years. Our concerns have included the surrounding area and community, given

The significant demands on land, the River and services, from industrial development
especially the AUKUS development
The Estuary is home to the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary, is the southern end of the Adelaide
International Bird Sanctuary, is crucial as breeding grounds for prawns and fish, contributes
carbon abatement via blue carbon and provides numerous other ecosystem services.
The nature of the SA planning system which deals individually with each new project,
without due regard for the cumulative impact.
The well documented risks of sea level rise, storm surges and flooding commencing with
the 2005 Port Adelaide Seawater Stormwater Flooding Study1
The low levels of stormwater protection on the Peninsula, including vulnerable areas east
of Victoria Road opposite AdBri, and heavy reliance on pumping stormwater to the Port
River, which could be more challenging as we experience more ‘unprecedented’ weather
events
The lack of open space in many areas of the Peninsula, which limits community amenity
and the potential to divert stormwater
State Government’s urban infill strategy which seems to pay no regard to risks such as
stormwater protection and exposure to AdBri’s emissions, nor to the quality of life for new
and existing residents. The most recent residential developments facilitated by Renewal SA
around the Port River have very limited open space and almost no community facilities for
thousands of new residents.

Current environmental harm
Over the last ten years ECF/FPR have witnessed significant environmental harm, and/or failure
to minimise harm in the Estuary and Peninsula, by the SA Government including

Poor regulation of the Dry Creek Saltfields and failure to prevent the operator pumping
hypersaline brine into some cracked ponds, leading to the loss of over 24 hectares of vegetation (mangroves and saltmarsh) and with the catastrophic impact continuing
unchecked.
Failure to maintain the seawall at Mutton Cove, (now situated within the AUKUS footprint),
which led to the seawall failing in May 2016 and the banks progressively eroding. Mutton
Cove abuts the northern end of the ASC, Mersey Road, and the southern end of the
extended AUKUS development. Despite ANI, Flinders Ports, the City of Port Adelaide
Enfield, and the Department of Environment, contributing $20K each towards an analysis of
coastal risks and identification of adaptation options, the 2021 report of that study has not
been provided to the funding partners and the State Government has continued to allow
the seawall and banks to fail.
Failure to remove from the Peninsula, on both sides of the Port River, extensive areas of
Penrice waste, which the State Government allowed Penrice to dump on Government land
prior to the company’s liquidation in 2014.
Failure to develop strategies to protect the community from harm from sea level rise, storm
surges and flooding, despite numerous studies and apparently ongoing work, by the City of
Port Adelaide Enfield and the Coast Protection Board.
Loss of TEC saltmarsh and risks to wetlands at Gillman from a recent State Government
development at Gillman. Compounding the risks Renewal SA has faulty tidal gates, that
cannot be shut to limit high tide impacts from the Estuary to the wetlands, or impede
stormwater discharges.
Trucks will take spoil 24×7 from the Torrens to Darlington road works to Gillman from Q3,
2026 to 2031 and while this is currently impacting local roads there’s been no known notice
to local residents.
Contact with Commonwealth and State agencies
About eight years ago ANI reached out to Port Adelaide Residents Environment Protection
Group (PAREPG) and FPR, as part of their efforts to secure their social licence in the
community, and we met regularly with them around their infrastructure plans, the future of
Mutton Cove etc.
From December 2023, we met with ASA representatives and from May 2024 those meetings
became monthly with ANI and ASA reps.
In February 2025, representatives of the Office of AUKUS, Department of Premier and Cabinet
joined the meetings, and we were advised of State Government planned to develop a Lefevre
Masterplan, with consultants engaged to develop the Plan. So that the community could be
consulted we arranged for the consultants to address a Port Adelaide Environment Forum
meeting and feedback was submitted from the Forum to the DP&C. We understood that the
draft Lefevre Masterplan would be presented at another Forum meeting this year, but that has
now been superseded by the Osborne State Development Area process (see below).

Some of the key themes that were raised at the Forum consultation included:

Locals’ aspirations for the Peninsula including holistic approach, greening, restoration of
and access to the River, fostering social connections
Opposition to AUKUS and/or reservations about its impact on our community
Negative impacts already on environment and community including Harmful Algal Bloom,
poor canopy cover, AdBri and traffic emissions,
How the local community might benefit since for example only a small proportion of
residents (17.2%) both live and work2
locally
Lack of infrastructure including water, stormwater, electricity
Major problems currently with transport and lack of infrastructure to deal with the
proposed workforce growth and other demands
Suggestions for social infrastructure and housing developments
Suggestions for environmental improvements including protection of Biodiversity Park and
implementation of the ECF Vision for the Estuary.

Assessment of the AUKUS development
The Friends of Port River was able to directly compare the application of Commonwealth and
State development assessment processes when ANI submitted an EIS to the State
Government for the AUKUS development and ASA provided a Strategic Impact Assessment
Report (SIAR) to the Commonwealth Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment
and Water (DCCEEW). (Radiation matters were separate to this process).
As outlined in this blog FPR made written submissions to both. The experience confirmed
FPR’s perception of the many weaknesses in State development assessment processes,
including the failure to include mitigation or best practice measures, proposed by
environmental consultants, to address identified potential risks and the lack of public
reporting e.g. as to whether environmental monitoring has occurred, whether any required
safeguards are applied.

Commonwealth approvals confirm that the community will lose public access to Mutton
Cove, which after losing Falie Reserve, means “a reduction of approximately 50 percent of
accessible public open space within the northern end of the Lefevre Peninsula”. Three and a
half (3.5) hectares of seagrass will be removed.
FPR acknowledges that the Commonwealth approval processes (unlike the State) set
Environmental Outcomes that are to be met throughout the life of the Sub Yard.
There is also much greater visibility and accountability through Commonwealth requirements.
ASA must, within 3 months, develop an Assurance Plan (including as to how the Outcomes will
be met). Biennial reports to DCEEW and independent audits are to be conducted, and
submitted, to DCEEW every six years. Importantly the Assurance Plan, biennial reports and
independent audits are to be made publicly available.

State use of special legislation
Community concern about the State Government’s lack of regard for the natural world, and
our environmental assets, has been heightened by its recent actions in the Adelaide Parklands
and by the declaration of the State’s first State Development Area (SDA) across the Peninsula
and Gillman. In both instances, special legislation has been passed to expedite development.
In the Adelaide Parklands this has meant hundreds of trees being removed, for LIV golf, with
more at risk for a motorcycle grand prix circuit, the State Government ignoring its own
‘significant tree’ safeguards and not referring its proposed actions to the Commonwealth re
EPBC provisions. Adelaide City Council and community concerns have been ignored, despite
more than 50,00 signatures on a public petition.
The Osborne SDA is the first SDA in SA under the State Development Coordination and
Facilitation Act 2025 (SDCF Act). While the Coordinator General explained at a recent
workshop for City of Port Adelaide Enfield Councillors, that his office wouldn’t necessarily step
into the decision making-role of other agencies, the threat is clearly there that he could do so if
presumably time frames for decisions, or the decisions themselves, do not meet political
imperatives. This could be disastrous for the Estuary in relation to the roles of the EPA, the
Coast Protection Board and the Department of Environment (as landowner and guardian of the
Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary).
While community consultation is ‘open’ about the proposed boundaries for the Osborne SDA,
the Coordinator-General (CG) advised that the SDA would look at all the State’s existing land
holdings and seek their most productive use.
Since the proposed boundaries include Mutton Cove, Biodiversity Park, the local golf club, the
Royal SA Yacht Squadron, the Port Adelaide Rowing Club, the Girl Guides etc the CG’s
statements are naturally alarming community members about the fate of Biodiversity Park and
Mutton Cove and troubling organisations that lease State land.

Given the State’s focus is on “Shaping the future of one of South Australia’s premier industrial
regions” and there are no stated Objectives for the SDA, the community want to know what
regard will be given to public safety (e.g. access to and from the Peninsula) and quality of life
and health and well-being of residents (e.g. traffic pollution, loss of further open space) and
the prevention of further degradation of the natural environment.
Many in our community feel that too much is being asked of our small Peninsula and that local
residents will bear the costs with few benefits. I’d encourage you to highlight the current
environmental harms and further risks, with these heightened by the declaration of the
Osborne SDA.

Catherine McMahon
Convenor
Friends of Port River