The people and environment of South Australia must be protected from Federal imposed storage of AUKUS High-Level nuclear waste:
by David Noonan Independent Environment Campaigner 10 Nov 2025.
South Australians have a Right to Say No to undemocratic Federal imposed storage of AUKUS
High Level nuclear waste in our State. All Federal MPs & Senators from SA, Members of the SA
Parliament and candidates for the SA State Election on 21st March should declare their position:
Q: Will you accept or reject Federal imposed storage of AUKUS nuclear waste in SA?
The Federal Government quietly took up new AUKUS Regulations (2 Oct) as powers to impose
AUKUS wastes by override of State laws that prohibit nuclear waste storage in SA, NT and WA.
AUKUS Regulation 111 “State and Territory laws that do not apply in relation to a regulated
activity” names and prescribes our SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000. The
Objects of this key SA Law set out what is at stake: “To protect the health, safety and welfare
of the people of SA, and the environment in which they live” from nuclear waste storage.
Federal Labor’s draconian powers to compromise public health, safety and welfare protections
in SA Law, lacks social licence, are an affront to civil society, and damages trust in governance.
This is also a threat to Indigenous People with a cultural responsibility to protect their country.
Community expects our State Labor Government to give a clear State Election commitment to
protect SA from the risks and impacts of untenable and illegal AUKUS High Level nuclear waste
storage, see “The lethal legacy of Aukus nuclear submarines will remain for millennia – and
there’s no plan to deal with it” (The Guardian, 10 August 2025, interview with Prof Ian Lowe).
Labor has a further key leadership test ahead of our Election: to commit to support Indigenous
People’s human rights, set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples Article 29 (UNDRIP 2007), to “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” over storage of
hazardous materials on their lands. AUKUS wastes absolutely are hazardous materials!
a Question for Premier Peter Malinauskas: Will you respect and support Indigenous Peoples
Rights to Say No to Federal siting of AUKUS nuclear waste storage on their country in SA?
Call for full disclosure on a N-waste siting process after Labor breaks its commitment:
The public has a Right to Know what regions are being targeted for storage of High-Level
nuclear wastes. A secretive ongoing Defence review “to identify potential nuclear waste
disposal sites” (ABC News March 2023) must be made public ahead of the SA State Election.
AUKUS Minister Marles has broken his commitment to announce a process by early 2024 to
identify a site to dispose of AUKUS High-Level nuclear wastes. The failure by Defence to set out
any process – other than to take up powers to impose nuclear wastes – is unacceptable.
REPORTER: Is a high-level nuclear waste dump the price that South Australia will have to pay
for the jobs that go to the state? (Minister Marles Press Conference 14 March 2023)
MARLES: Well, as I indicated there will be a process that we will determine within the next 12
months for how the site will be identified. You’ve made a leap there, which we’re not going to
make for some time. It will be a while before a site is ultimately identified. But we will within the
next 12 months establish a process for how we walk down that path.
It is now over 4 years since Federal Labor agreed with Morrison’s AUKUS nuclear sub agenda.
SA Labor to let ‘national security interests’ decide siting for AUKUS nuclear waste?
National press reported the Woomera Area to be a ‘favoured location’ for storage and disposal
of nuclear sub wastes back in August 2023 (“Woomera looms as national nuclear waste dump
site including for AUKUS submarine high-level waste afr.com). WA, Qld and Vic political leaders
have rejected a High-Level nuclear waste disposal site in their States, with WA suggesting the
Woomera Prohibited Area in SA: “would be one obvious location within the Defence estate,
however, we will await the outcomes of the federal review” (SMH 15 March 2023).
Premier Malinauskas has so far only said AUKUS nuclear waste should go to a ‘remote’ location
in the “national security interest” (see “Site for high-level nuclear waste dump under AUKUS
deal must be in national interest, SA premier says” ABC News 15 March 2023).
The Premier’s “Office for AUKUS” (Letter, 7 Oct 2025) accepts “safe and secure disposal” of
High-Level nuclear waste, including spent fuel, produced when subs are decommissioned. The
Office says no decision has been made on a location but declines to reveal what is underway,
expresses no concerns over unprecedented nuclear waste storage or ‘social license’, and
expects “community acceptance” (in SA?) for a nuclear ‘disposal solution’:
“I can confirm that no decision has been made on a location within Australia for the
disposal of intermediate, or high-level radioactive waste from nuclear-powered
submarines. Determining suitable locations and methods for safe and secure disposal
will take time, but Australia will do so in a manner that sets the highest standards … and
which builds community acceptance for a disposal solution.”
SA is left in the dark, without a say, as an ongoing target for an AUKUS nuclear waste dump.
AUKUS is to store US origin nuclear wastes from 2nd hand Virginia Class subs in Australia:
AUKUS aims Australia take on second-hand US Virginia Class nuclear powered subs in the early
2030’s loaded with up to a dozen years of US origin military High-Level nuclear waste and fissile
Atomic-Bomb fuel accrued in operations of US Navy High Enriched Uranium nuclear reactors.
Swapping an Australian flag onto this US military nuclear reactor waste places an untenable ‘for
ever’ burden on all future generations to have to cope these US nuclear wastes.
Scenario: an AUKUS nuclear dump imposed on SA, High-Level military waste shipped into
Whyalla Port to go north, nuclear subs to be ‘decommissioned’ at Osborne Port Adelaide.
Whyalla Port is back on a nuclear waste target range. How else could AUKUS nuclear waste get
to a storage site in north SA? The Woomera Area is expected to be on a regional short list for an
AUKUS dump, requiring nuclear waste transport routes across SA. Port Adelaide community has
a Right to Say No to nuclear decommissioning plans for expanded Osborne submarine yards.
SA politicians must protect SA and rule out both an untenable AUKUS nuclear dump and
decommissioning nuclear subs and nuclear reactors at Osborne or else-where in SA.
SA must respect Traditional Owners Human Rights to Say No to imposition of nuclear wastes.
The SA public have Rights to full disclosure and for politicians to have to declare their positions,
We need an informed public debate ahead of our State Election. Silence by our political leaders, while a path is paved toward nuclear decisions, makes a nuclear waste dump future more likely.
Info: see Rex Patrick & “AUKUS waste in perpetuity”, and David Noonan in Pearls and Irritations
South Australia averages 100 pct wind and solar over week, 90 pct over last 28 days
South Australia – the country’s most advanced renewables grid – has
average more than 100 per cent net renewables (compared to state demand)
over the past week, and more than 90 per cent renewables over the last 28
days. It is not the first time that South Australia has reached 100 per
cent renewables – it has done so previously over the Christmas/New Year
period – but it marks a significant milestone, given that its mix of
renewables is made up entirely of variable wind and solar, and with no
hydro or even biomass to speak of.
Renew Economy 2nd Dec 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-averages-100-pct-wind-and-solar-over-week-90-pct-over-last-28-days/
Australia’s most advanced renewable grid is its most secure, but NSW must scramble as it nears “no coal” scenario.
South Australia, the most advanced renewable grid in the country and even
the world – thanks to its unrivalled near 75 per cent share of wind and
solar – is also the most secure, according to a major new report on the
state of the energy transition.
The Transition Plan for System Security,
published on Monday by the Australian Energy Market Operator, identifies
South Australia as the only state grid which is not facing a system
strength deficit in coming years.
That’s largely because South Australia
went first, and it went hard and fast. Its last coal fired power station
closed in 2016, and because it has such a high percentage of wind and
solar, as well as rooftop PV, it has had to deal with the issues around
frequency control, inertia and system strength before other states. South
Australia, the most advanced renewable grid in the country and even the
world – thanks to its unrivalled near 75 per cent share of wind and solar
– is also the most secure, according to a major new report on the state
of the energy transition.
When the new transmission link to NSW is complete in 2027, South Australia will
be the first in the world to be able to run its gigawatt scale grid at
times with “engines off” – i.e. no gas plant required for bulk power
or system security – as it nears or even achieves its target of reaching
100 per cent net renewables.
Renew Economy 1st Dec 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/australias-most-advanced-renewable-grid-is-its-most-secure-but-nsw-must-scramble-as-it-nears-no-coal-scenario/
The people and environment of South Australia must be protected from Federal imposed storage of AUKUS High-Level nuclear waste
Brief by David Noonan Independent Environment Campaigner 10 Nov 2025. https://nuclear.foe.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Noonan-AUKUS-nuclear-wastes-target-SA-Briefer-9-Nov-2025.pdf
South Australians have a Right to Say No to undemocratic Federal imposed storage of AUKUS
High Level nuclear waste in our State. All Federal MPs & Senators from SA, Members of the SA
Parliament and candidates for the SA State Election on 21st March should declare their position:
Q: Will you accept or reject Federal imposed storage of AUKUS nuclear waste in SA?
The Federal Government quietly took up new AUKUS Regulations (2 Oct) as powers to impose
AUKUS wastes by override of State laws that prohibit nuclear waste storage in SA, NT and WA.
AUKUS Regulation 111 “State and Territory laws that do not apply in relation to a regulated
activity” names and prescribes our SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000. The
Objects of this key SA Law set out what is at stake: “To protect the health, safety and welfare
of the people of SA, and the environment in which they live” from nuclear waste storage.
Federal Labor’s draconian powers to compromise public health, safety and welfare protections. n SA Law, lacks social licence, are an affront to civil society, and damages trust in governance.
This is also a threat to Indigenous People with a cultural responsibility to protect their country.
Community expects our State Labor Government to give a clear State Election commitment to
protect SA from the risks and impacts of untenable and illegal AUKUS High Level nuclear waste
storage, see “The lethal legacy of Aukus nuclear submarines will remain for millennia – and
there’s no plan to deal with it” (The Guardian, 10 August 2025, interview with Prof Ian Lowe).
Labor has a further key leadership test ahead of our Election: to commit to support Indigenous
People’s human rights, set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples Article 29 (UNDRIP 2007), to “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” over storage of
hazardous materials on their lands. AUKUS wastes absolutely are hazardous materials!
a Question for Premier Peter Malinauskas: Will you respect and support Indigenous Peoples
Rights to Say No to Federal siting of AUKUS nuclear waste storage on their country in SA?
Call for full disclosure on a N-waste siting process after Labor breaks its commitment:
The public has a Right to Know what regions are being targeted for storage of High-Level
nuclear wastes. A secretive ongoing Defence review “to identify potential nuclear waste
disposal sites” (ABC News March 2023) must be made public ahead of the SA State Election.
AUKUS Minister Marles has broken his commitment to announce a process by early 2024 to
identify a site to dispose of AUKUS High-Level nuclear wastes. The failure by Defence to set out
any process – other than to take up powers to impose nuclear wastes – is unacceptable.
REPORTER: Is a high-level nuclear waste dump the price that South Australia will have to pay
for the jobs that go to the state? (Minister Marles Press Conference 14 March 2023)
MARLES: Well, as I indicated there will be a process that we will determine within the next 12
months for how the site will be identified. You’ve made a leap there, which we’re not going to
make for some time. It will be a while before a site is ultimately identified. But we will within the
next 12 months establish a process for how we walk down that path.
It is now over 4 years since Federal Labor agreed with Morrison’s AUKUS nuclear sub agenda.
SA Labor to let ‘national security interests’ decide siting for AUKUS nuclear waste?
National press reported the Woomera Area to be a ‘favoured location’ for storage and disposal
of nuclear sub wastes back in August 2023 (“Woomera looms as national nuclear waste dump
site including for AUKUS submarine high-level waste afr.com). WA, Qld and Vic political leaders
have rejected a High-Level nuclear waste disposal site in their States, with WA suggesting the
Woomera Prohibited Area in SA: “would be one obvious location within the Defence estate,
however, we will await the outcomes of the federal review” (SMH 15 March 2023).
Premier Malinauskas has so far only said AUKUS nuclear waste should go to a ‘remote’ location
in the “national security interest” (see “Site for high-level nuclear waste dump under AUKUS
deal must be in national interest, SA premier says” ABC News 15 March 2023).
The Premier’s “Office for AUKUS” (Letter, 7 Oct 2025) accepts “safe and secure disposal” of
High-Level nuclear waste, including spent fuel, produced when subs are decommissioned. The
Office says no decision has been made on a location but declines to reveal what is underway,
expresses no concerns over unprecedented nuclear waste storage or‘social license’, and
expects “community acceptance” (in SA?) for a nuclear ‘disposal solution’:
“I can confirm that no decision has been made on a location within Australia for the
disposal of intermediate, or high-level radioactive waste from nuclear-powered
submarines. Determining suitable locations and methods for safe and secure disposal
will take time, but Australia will do so in a manner that sets the highest standards … and
which builds community acceptance for a disposal solution.”
SA is left in the dark, without a say, as an ongoing target for an AUKUS nuclear waste dump.
AUKUS is to store US origin nuclear wastes from 2nd hand Virginia Class subs in Australia:
AUKUS aims Australia take on second-hand US Virginia Class nuclear powered subs in the early
2030’s loaded with up to a dozen years of US origin military High-Level nuclear waste and fissile
Atomic-Bomb fuel accrued in operations of US Navy High Enriched Uranium nuclear reactors.
Swapping an Australian flag onto this US military nuclear reactor waste places an untenable ‘for
ever’ burden on all future generations to have to cope these US nuclear wastes.
Scenario: an AUKUS nuclear dump imposed on SA, High-Level military waste shipped into
Whyalla Port to go north, nuclear subs to be ‘decommissioned’ at Osborne Port Adelaide.
Whyalla Port is back on a nuclear waste target range. How else could AUKUS nuclear waste get
to a storage site in north SA? The Woomera Area is expected to be on a regional short list for an
AUKUS dump, requiring nuclear waste transport routes across SA. Port Adelaide community has
a Right to Say No to nuclear decommissioning plans for expanded Osborne submarine yards.
SA politicians must protect SA and rule out both an untenable AUKUS nuclear dump and
decommissioning nuclear subs and nuclear reactors at Osborne or else-where in SA.
SA must respect Traditional Owners Human Rights to Say No to imposition of nuclear wastes.
The SA public have Rights to full disclosure and for politicians to have to declare their positions,
We need an informed public debate ahead of our State Election. Silence by our political leaders,
while a path is paved toward nuclear decisions, makes a nuclear waste dump future more likely.
Info: see Rex Patrick & “AUKUS waste in perpetuity”, and David Noonan in Pearls and Irritations.
South Australia unveils first auction as world’s most advanced renewables grid seeks long duration storage
The South Australia state government has appointed ASL to run its first
auction for long duration storage, as the world’s most advanced wind and
solar grid seeks around 700 MW of new firm capacity over the next six
years.
South Australia leads the world in the uptake of wind and solar –
which together accounted for 75 per cent of its local electricity demand
over the last 12 months – and has set a world-leading target of reaching
100 per cent “net” renewables by the end of 2027. It already has seven
big battery projects operating in the state, and another dozen under
construction or contracted, but it is now seeking longer duration storage
through the Firm Energy Reliability Mechanism (FERM) that it announced
earlier this year.
Renew Economy 8th Oct 2025,
https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-unveils-first-auction-as-worlds-most-advanced-renewables-grid-seeks-long-duration-storage/
Nuclear future off the agenda in Port Augusta, as locals turn to renewables and mining
ABC News, By Kathryn Bermingham, Stateline, 15 May 25
In short:
Port Augusta was thrust into the spotlight when it was announced as one of several sites earmarked, under a Coalition election pledge, to host a nuclear reactor.
While the Coalition has not formally abandoned the plan, its resounding defeat at the recent federal election suggested voters did not embrace the idea.
What’s next?
As Port Augusta looks ahead, locals say its future could lie in several directions, including renewables and mining…………………………………………………………………………………………….
Nuclear off the agenda
Port Augusta was thrust into the national spotlight last year when it was announced as one of the sites earmarked to host a nuclear reactor under a Coalition election pledge.
While the Coalition has not formally abandoned the plan, its resounding defeat at the recent federal election suggested voters did not embrace the idea……………………….
………………………. A future in power generation
Greg Bannon felt the region had scarcely settled one nuclear debate — the now-scrapped proposal to build a low-level nuclear waste dump near Kimba — when the Coalition’s plan was put forward.
“It was really like a punch in the guts,” he said.
Mr Bannon, who lives 40 kilometres from Port Augusta at Quorn and had campaigned against the dump, said Port Augusta has had to reinvent itself in the past and could do so again.
“We also had a very big railway workshop here, it was a huge employer with lots of apprenticeships,” he said.
“Railways built everything. So that was a big loss when that was taken away and of course the most recent large employer has been the coal-fired power station.”
He said the transition to renewables had been more economically beneficial than some gave it credit for — and maintained that Port Augusta’s future was still in energy generation.
“Renewables have provided jobs,” he said.
“We’ve got Sundrop Farm down there, which … grows tomatoes from gulf water that’s been desalinated and solar mirrors.”………………………………………………….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-15/nuclear-off-the-table-for-port-augusta/105285976
South Australia Liberals who first pushed 100 pct renewables – then went nuclear – now reverse course after poll wipeout
ReNewEconomy, May 5, 2025, Joshua S Hill
The South Australian Liberal party, which set the state’s first 100 per cent renewables target when in government six years ago, before embracing nuclear while in opposition, has reversed course again after the federal poll wipeout and the loss of a long time Liberal seat in Adelaide.
South Australia leads the world in the uptake of variable renewables, with a 72 per cent share of local demand over the last 12 months.
The then Liberal state government in 2019 set a target of reaching 100 per cent “net” renewables by 2030, before the current Labor government accelerated that target to 2027, and enshrined it into law, based on the planning for new wind and solar projects, battery storage and transmission.
New state Liberal leader Vincent Tarzia reversed course on renewables last year, supporting the federal Coalition’s plan to build nuclear power at seven sites across Australia, including at Port Augusta in South Australia, the site of the coal fired power stations that closed nearly a decade ago.
However, speaking to ABC Radio Adelaide, Tarzia has now backed away from his party’s election commitment to hold a Royal Commission into nuclear energy, saying it was clear that the technology has been “comprehensively rejected” by the electorate.
A potential nuclear future had been a top priority for the South Australian Liberal Party, promising in June last year to hold yet another Royal Commission into the technology. This was followed in August by the appointment of Stephen Patterson, the state MP for Morphett, as spokesman for Nuclear Readiness.
Tarzia’s comments came after the Liberals lost the last of their Adelaide based federal seats, including the once safe seat of Sturt, in last weekend’s federal election campaign…………………………………. https://reneweconomy.com.au/s-a-liberals-who-first-pushed-100-pct-renewables-then-went-nuclear-reverse-course-after-poll-wipeout/
Greens fear AUKUS overreach as State Development Coordination and Facilitation Bill 2025 passes SA parliament
A new $4m planning office will be granted unprecedented powers, sparking calls to temper the power of the four bureaucrats set to wield them.
Sweeping new powers will be invested in a $4m office to fast track “significant” SA projects including housing and AUKUS – raising fears they could avoid tougher planning checks.
The State Government is planning to appoint four staff to the office, including an AUKUS expert, with unprecedented powers to “case manage” projects.
Premier Peter Malinauskas has flagged this would allow faster approvals in designated “go zones” for projects like the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines, housing and renewable energy projects.
The move flared concerns about existing heritage, environment, coastal protection and pastoral land act processes being downgraded after the State Development Coordination and Facilitation Bill 2025 passed this week.
Mr Malinauskas previously said the law meant the State Government could designate “state development areas” as “go-zones”.
Regulatory work in these zones would be completed before developers moved in “allowing for quicker approvals within them once an application is made”.
This was meant to save time in passing “urgent and significant projects”.
A government spokesperson assured provisions meant the new office must perform any assessment independently and it could not be directed “by any Minister to either approve or reject any application.”
The office could not deal with nuclear waste projects.
And the Adelaide Parklands was protected by the Adelaide Parklands Act and the new bill states it “may never be designated as a state development area”.
But SA Greens party co-leader Robert Simms was still concerned.
He feared the inclusion of an AUKUS expert meant approvals for the project would bypass usual safety guards.
“SA parliament has just given the Malinauskas Government the biggest blank cheque in South Australian history,” he said.
“This bill gives an unelected office the power to override South Australian laws to enable controversial projects, including AUKUS, yet it passed the Upper House in the blink of an eye.”
“This bill isn’t about facilitating housing developments, it’s about giving the state government the power to ride roughshod over the community. It’s a power grab of epic proportions that should have been given much more scrutiny.”
It was confirmed in the senate the office would cost $4m a year to operate.
State Liberals nuke nuclear promise
The SA Liberals have broken a key election promise with just 10 months to go until the state poll, with Liberal leader Vincent Tarzia dumping his party’s only energy policy.
5 May 25,https://www.premier.sa.gov.au/media-releases/news-items/state-liberals-nuke-nuclear-promise
In a stunning backdown, Mr Tarzia admitted on ABC Radio Adelaide that the Liberals’ election commitment to hold a Royal Commission into nuclear energy would be dumped in the wake of the federal election:
Rory McClaren: That’s what I was going to ask you… should nuclear from a Liberal Party policy perspective now be parked?
Vincent Tarzia: Yes, at the moment it’s been comprehensively rejected and we know the thing is with the energy transition, in three years’ time we will be in another position again.
The State Liberals made the pursuit of nuclear power their top priority, announcing their pursuit of a Royal Commission as their key commitment in their Budget Reply speech in June.
In August, Liberal Leader Vincent Tarzia appointed Stephen Patterson as Shadow Minister for Nuclear Readiness.
Now, just eight months later, the promise has been abandoned.
The 2016 Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission found nuclear power was not commercially viable in South Australia.
Quotes
Attributable to Tom Koutsantonis
What do the South Australian Liberals stand for?
They’re breaking election promises even before they’ve got to an election.
Only a few months ago, they were making the pursuit of nuclear energy their sole energy policy focus. Now, they’ve dumped it.
Vincent Tarzia must now dump his Shadow Minister for Nuclear Readiness, who has absolutely no policy offering other than the pursuit of an energy source that evidence shows will drive up bills for South Australians.
At a time when the Opposition should be outlining its policy platform ahead of the 2026 State Election, the State Liberals are instead ditching their only energy policy.
Election Lesson: Coalition Must Dump Nuclear Policy
Friends of the Earth Adelaide Federal Election Campaign, Philip White May 5, 2025
Friends of the Earth Adelaide ran a targeted campaign in two marginal seats leading up to the federal election. We created an election leaflet advising voters about the dangers of nuclear power and asking them to “vote nuclear free”.
We are pleased that the Australian people rejected the nuclear option. We hope the Coalition gets the message and dumps its nuclear energy policy and becomes a constructive supporter of real climate action. Let this election mark an end to the climate wars.
Boothby
We delivered 50,000 of our leaflets to the letterboxes of voters in Boothby, a marginal seat in southern Adelaide held by Labor on a 3.3% margin prior to the election. Our aim was to prevent Boothby falling to a pro-nuclear candidate. We are very grateful to a grant from FOE Australia which paid for much of the printing and distribution of 45,000 of the leaflets by Australia Post. The remaining 5,000 leaflets were delivered by hand by our volunteers, who we are also very grateful to. We considered that a good reach of the 80,000 letterboxes in Boothby.
We are very pleased that Boothby was retained by an anti-nuclear candidate (Louise Miller-Frost for Labor, with Joanna Wells of the Greens also doing well). That’s one more seat to keep Australia free from nuclear power. We hope that the large loss the Coalition received means they will drop nuclear power as a policy.
Sturt
In late April a bus load of Traditional Owners from Port Augusta came to the city for a meeting in the marginal eastern Adelaide suburb of Sturt, held by the Liberals on a 0.5% margin prior to the election. Their aim was to appeal to Sturt voters for their support in keeping Port Augusta nuclear free. Friends of the Earth Adelaide co-hosted the meeting along with Don’t Nuke Port Augusta, with financial help from CANA. Traditional Owners spoke strongly of their lives and love for Port Augusta’s land and waterways, and of the tragic intergenerational consequences for their families of the nuclear testing in SA in the 1950s. The meeting was videoed and can be seen at https://www.youtube.com/live/lJ1tpcfkZIU and many great photos are on the Don’t Nuke Port Augusta Facebook page.
The Port Augusta contingent were prominent at the May Day Worker’s Right’s rally the following day. They got a great shoutout from the MC, the SA Unions Secretary, and huge applause and appreciation from the crowd of unionists. Also, that evening, they staged a demonstration at the Arkaba Hotel where Peter Dutton was promoting the Liberal candidate for Sturt. They said, “If Dutton won’t visit us, we’ll come to him.”
Response to Submarine Construction Yard Environmental Impact Statement
Friends of the Earth Adelaide 31 Mar 2025
Our submission raised questions about assumptions made about the nuclear submarine agreements:
“The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is premised on the assumption that the proposed AUKUS nuclear submarines are in Australia’s strategic interest (pp. 9-10) and South Australia’s economic interests (pp. 12-13). Both these premises are false.
Many highly qualified defence experts argue that nuclear submarines are not in Australia’s strategic interest. [1]
Along with these experts, and retired senior politicians like Paul Keating, Gareth Evans and Malcolm Turnbull, we believe that Australia will be less safe if it acquires nuclear powered submarines. Although it is the federal government that has made this strategic blunder, the EIS should not lend it any credence (as in section 1.5.4).…
AUKUS submarines will also be prejudicial to our economic interest. Some of the abovementioned analysts don’t think Australia will actually ever get the promised nuclear submarines, certainly not in a reasonable time frame. This is a view not restricted to left-leaning people. Conservative commentator Greg Sheridan has criticised AUKUS for this reason.[2]”
[1] Hugh White, “From the submarine to the ridiculous”, The Saturday Paper, 18 September 2021 https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/2021/09/18/the-submarine-the-ridiculous/163188720012499#mtr
Major General Michael G Smith AO (Ret’d), ‘How should Australia defend itself in the 21st century? Silencing the drums and dogs of war’, The New Daily, May 26, 2023 https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2023/05/26/how-should-australia-defend-itself-in-the-21st-century-silencingthe-drums-and-dogs-of-war/
Sam Roggeveen, ‘Spiky questions remain for AUKUS proponents’, Inside Story, 19 March 2024 https://insidestory.org.au/spiky-questions-remain-for-aukus-proponents/[2] Greg Sheridan, ‘Our nuclear subs fantasy adds up to military net zero’, The Australian, 6 October 2021. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/our-nuclear-subs-fantasy-adds-up-to-military-net-zero/newsstory/cec3b5e94c5bacac405a5eb535b3a628
Read our full submission: 250314AUKUS EIS – FoEAdelaide
Response to Osborne Submarine Construction Yard Strategic Assessment
Friends of the Earth Adelaide 1 April 25
Our recommendations:
1. Correct the factual errors regarding the effects of radiation.
2. Include active commissioning in the assessment.
3. Include the disposal of radioactive waste in the assessment and publish plans for management, storage and disposal of all streams of radioactive waste, including intermediate and high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel.
4. Include a proper analysis of the risks and consequences of incidents and accidents that could lead to a release of radioactive material into the environment.
5. Inform the public about the potential for exposure to radiation and the levels of radiation they could be exposed to.
6. The Commonwealth Government should consult with other levels of government, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, emergency services and with the general public to develop a response plan for radiological emergencies.
7. Publish the Strategic Assessment Plan before finalizing the Strategic Impact Assessment Report.
Read our full submission: https://adelaidefoe.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/250314AUKUS-SIA-FoEAdelaide.pdf
Nuclear energy inquiry draws emotional response in Port Augusta
By Annabel Francis and Arj Ganesan, ABC North and West SA, 7 Dec 24
In short:
The select committee conducting an inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia has triggered strong opinions from both sides of the fence.
Aboriginal leaders, resident representatives, and leaders from the mining and energy sector have spoken during a hearing at Port Augusta.
What’s next?
Should the opposition win the next election, it has promised to hold a two-and-a-half year consultation period over its nuclear plans.
The federal government’s select committee inquiry into nuclear power generation at Port Augusta has stirred strong emotions among those making a submission.
For anti-nuclear activist and Yankunytjatjara Anangu woman Karina Lester, it is a debate she is tired of having.
“Governments change, committee members change … organisations, company members, CEOs of companies change,” Ms Lester said.
“Those of us that are in the frontline are constantly needing to remind governments of the impacts of nuclear in our communities.
“Aboriginal people of South Australia have always said no to nuclear.”
Ms Lester, who gave evidence at a select committee hearing in Adelaide, describes herself as a survivor of the Emu Field nuclear tests.
She said Indigenous people had seen the impacts of nuclear technology first-hand.
Her father, Yami Lester, went blind at the age of 16 following British weapons testing in Maralinga in South Australia in the 1950s.
Ms Lester said she feared Indigenous groups would suffer if the federal opposition’s nuclear plans went ahead.
“Aboriginal communities are always the solution or pressured to be the solution for the waste issues,” she said.
“The history shows us that locations identified are locations that are First Nations or Aboriginal people’s traditional lands.”
Port Augusta’s former coal power station was one of seven sites that was earmarked as a possible location for the opposition’s nuclear energy plan.
The Nukunu Wapma Thura Aboriginal Corporation, which holds native title over the proposed site, has voiced strong opposition to any nuclear proposal.
“Aboriginal people throughout the region and state of South Australia have historically and overwhelmingly opposed nuclear energy, and the storage of its waste,” a spokesperson said.
Greg Bannon from the Flinders Local Action Group gave evidence at the public hearing in Port Augusta about the potential risk of a nuclear accident.
He has opposed nuclear technology for decades and said the time to switch to nuclear energy had passed. “I think it’s old technology, and I don’t think we need it,” he said.
Mr Bannon said any accident or error would not only have a devastating impact on the local community but also on vulnerable marine ecologies, such as the giant Australian cuttlefish that aggregates about 50 kilometres away from Port Augusta……………………………https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-06/nuclear-energy-hearing-emotional-port-augusta/104694596
Plan to dispose of nuclear waste from Aukus submarines unanimously rejected by Adelaide council
City of Port Adelaide Enfield’s mayor says she hadn’t received correspondence about storage or disposal before or after bill passed federal parliament
Guardian Petra Stock, 18 Nov 24
Plans to dispose of low-level nuclear waste from Aukus submarines at an Adelaide naval facility have been unanimously opposed by the local council for the area, who say they weren’t consulted.
The Osborne naval shipyard, 25km north of Adelaide CBD, and HMAS Stirling at Garden Island 50km south of Perth in Western Australia, have both been designated as “radioactive waste management facilities” for nuclear waste from Aukus submarines under the Australian naval nuclear power safety bill, which passed parliament in October.
Last week, the City of Port Adelaide Enfield – responsible for the area surrounding the Osborne shipyard – voted to unanimously oppose the storage and disposal of radioactive waste at the site.
Its mayor, Claire Boan, said council had been briefed on aspects of the Aukus project but it had not received any correspondence or communication about management and disposal of nuclear waste at the site.
“While the decision-making regarding this is out of the control of the council, we will continue to advocate for our community and lobby for community consultation throughout the process,” she said.
Rex Patrick, a former independent senator for South Australia, said the situation highlighted the lack of consultation and transparency regarding Aukus nuclear waste.
“Albanese called for Dutton to disclose where he was going to put his nuclear power reactors, and yet there’s been complete secrecy around the entire process associated with where they’ll put the high-level waste from naval reactors,” he said.
No public announcements have been made about the site selection or consultation process for dealing with the high-level nuclear waste associated with the Aukus submarines, which the government agreed Australia would dispose of in March last year……………………….. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/18/plan-to-dispose-of-nuclear-waste-from-aukus-submarines-unanimously-rejected-by-adelaide-council
Adelaide residents blindsided by decision to store AUKUS nuclear waste at submarine shipyards
The act allows radioactive waste to be stored at both sites but does not define what level
the legislation was also ambiguous about the disposal of nuclear material from UK and US nuclear submarines.
By Angelique Donnellan 7.30 ABC
In short:
Federal parliament has passed legislation that allows for nuclear waste to be stored and disposed of at a shipping yard in Adelaide.
Residents said they were not consulted or told of the plan.
What’s next?
Construction of nuclear submarines is expected to start in Adelaide by the end of the decade.
The $368 billion AUKUS pact is promising thousands of jobs and the return of submarine construction to South Australia.
But residents have just learned the deal also means nuclear waste will be stored on their doorstep.
“It’s madness. It’s not only close to a residential area, but it’s right on a waterway,” Adelaide resident Eileen Darley told 7.30.
Last month legislation quietly passed the federal parliament that will allow for the storage and disposal of nuclear waste at the Adelaide shipyard in Osborne, which is 25 kilometres north-west of the city’s CBD and near the popular seaside suburb of Semaphore and historic Port Adelaide.
Residents said it was the first time they heard about plans for the waste facility.
Nuclear submarine construction at Osborne is expected to start by the end of the decade.
“There’s 30,000 people that live in this area,” Ms Darley, who runs the local action group Port Adelaide Community Opposing AUKUS, said.
“All the childcare centres, all the schools and the families that live in this area, but also waterways that feed the mangroves, that is a dolphin sanctuary, and so forth.
“None of us in this area have been consulted about it at all.”
The Osborne shipyard is in federal Health Minister Mark Butler’s safe Labor electorate of Hindmarsh.
In an interview with 7.30, he said residents would be consulted closer to when the facility would be established but stated the waste facility would go ahead even if residents did not want it.
“This is going to happen,” he said.
“The government and parliament have decided that the future defence strategy of the country will involve nuclear-propelled submarines.”
Indigenous elder criticises government’s ‘sly and conniving’ moves
The state Labor government is in lock-step with the Commonwealth on AUKUS but community concerns are growing.
The Port Adelaide Enfield Council has resolved to oppose any nuclear waste storage or disposal at Osborne and is calling for widespread community engagement.
Local resident and Indigenous elder Margaret Brodie said she was disappointed the government legislated the facility without people having a say. The shipyard is on the traditional lands of the Kaurna people.
“It’s sly and conniving. That’s how I feel about it,” she told 7.30.
“As an Indigenous woman I think I get used to it, government being underhanded, not telling us anything, or not asking.
“If you talk about closing the gap, they’re not going to close the gap by doing things like this.”
The legislation declares the Osborne Shipyard as well as the HMAS Stirling naval base near Perth as designated naval nuclear propulsion facilities.
The act allows radioactive waste to be stored at both sites but does not define what level……………………………………………………………………………
Ms Darley was sceptical.
“It does not allay our concerns to hear that the government is saying that it’s temporary and it’s low level,” she said.
“We’re the people who are most affected if something goes wrong.”
The Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator, which reports to the defence minister, would grant the licence for the operation of the waste facilities.
Waste from UK and US subs
Greens senator David Shoebridge told 7.30 the legislation was also ambiguous about the disposal of nuclear material from UK and US nuclear submarines.
“One of the key amendments we wanted was to prohibit the storage of high-level nuclear waste from any foreign country, the United Kingdom or the United States, and that was aggressively resisted by both the government and the opposition,” he said.
“Neither the UK or the US have any permanent solution for their nuclear waste, and the UK is the one that’s in the most trouble … and they have seen with AUKUS a potential sucker down here in Australia who’s literally put their hand up and said, ‘Yeah, we’ll take some of that. We’ll help out.'”
There is also opposition to the waste facility at Perth’s naval base, which needs to be up and running as early as 2027 when one UK nuclear submarine and up to four US boats start regular rotations.
But Mr Butler stated it would also only hold low-level nuclear waste taken from UK or US submarines which came to Australia.
“Intermediate and high-level waste [from overseas] will not be stored in Australia,” he said.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. In South Australia, the Port Adelaide Community Opposing AUKUS said it was prepared for a fight ahead of next year’s federal election.
“How far are we prepared to go? Well, I think we’re in it for the long haul. That’s for sure,” Ms Darley said.
“We don’t want our children, our grandchildren, to have to deal with this in the long run.
“We’ll definitely be making this an election issue.” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-18/aukus-nuclear-waste-to-be-stored-adelaide-suburbs/104605640
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 