From Robyn Wood, of FOE South Australia: Here’s an article in the National Indigenous Times about the Roxby Indenture act passing and ignoring Traditional Owners. They note that the Conservation Council did not appear at the hearing – that was due to illness.
They also note that no Traditional Owners were invited to the hearing – I think that’s outrageous, and exactly the time they should have invited the newly established Aboriginal Voice to Parliament to give evidence.
I was also outraged by Chair of the Select Committee Tom Koutsantonis ignoring all the submissions and calling them irrelevant – even the Flinders and Upper North Voice to Parliament one.
A landmark update of a decades-old Indenture agreement guiding development at Olympic Dam and copper-rich Gawler Craton was ratified by the South Parliament on Tuesday despite serious concerns from affected Traditional Owner groups.
Key Points
• Three Traditional Owner groups left out of landmark deal
• Concerns at impact of 50 years of mining on Country
• New Indenture fast-tracks BHP’s Olympic Dam expansion plans
The agreement between the Malinauskas government and global miner BHP ensured long-term certainty for the region as a global copper powerhouse but left Traditional Owners concerned for their future and angry at the short time set for submissions over the deal.
Native Title bodies told a government-chosen Select Committee they had serious concerns at ongoing impacts another 50 years of BHP mining operations would have on their Country.
‘Destruction’ of Country
Kokatha Aboriginal Corporation, whose Traditional lands include the Olympic Dam region, told the Committee the previous Indenture Act – in place for more than 40 years – was insufficient already.
“The original Indenture is viewed by the Kokatha People as the authorisation of destruction of our land and a mechanism to drive our people off Country, without the involvement or consent of Kokatha People,” KAC wrote in its submission earlier this month.
Dieri Aboriginal Corporation said a BHP well field on Dieri Country would continue to pressure the Great Artesian Basin.
“Water is very important to us as Dieri People and the impact of water taken from Wellfield B impacts the health of our Country,” the board wrote in its submission.
Arabana Aboriginal Corporation urged the Committee to make recommendations on important matters that affected Arabana People and their land, outlining them in its submission.
“The damage to our springs and land, the closure of Wellfield A, ongoing water abstraction from Wellfield B, the absence of consultation with the AAC,” it wrote.
“The continued displacement of the Aboriginal Heritage Act for the Stuart’s Shelf on Arabana Country and how development of the bill can be reconciled with the state’s own commitments to Aboriginal people.”
The Committee heard evidence from SA’s departments of Energy and Mining, Energy and Water, BHP, the SA Conservation Council and SA Chamber of Mines and Energy.
The Conservation Council chose not to attend the hearing, while no Traditional Owners were on the Committee.
Changes pave way for more mining…………………………………………………
Conservation Council SA expresses deep concern at the proposed Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) (Amendment of Indenture) Amendment Bill 2026 (‘Roxby Bill’) currently before the South Australian Parliament. If passed, the Bill has a potential to irreversibly damage or destroy the Mound Springs of the Great Artesian Basin (GAB). These unique springs are in the far north of our state and are a South Australia environmental and cultural treasure.
Conservation SA has long called for the Mound Springs of the GAB to be permanently protected for the local Indigenous and South Australian communities.
“Up to three kilometres deep and lying beneath 23% of the Australian continent, the Great Artesian Basin is the largest and deepest artesian basin in the world. The water it contains is under high pressure and in places like Arabana Country, South Australia this forces water to rise to the surface as freshwater springs. Along with the rising warm water comes sediment which can pile up several metres high hence the name – mound springs.
In the hot dry landscape, the springs create an oasis for local wildlife and migratory birds. They’ve also been extremely important to Indigenous people for many thousands of years.”
In December 2025, Conservation Council SA CEO Kirsty Bevan wrote to the South Australian Premier seeking the long-term protection of the Mound Springs (extract below):
Protect the Mound Springs and End Unsustainable Water Extraction from the Great Artesian Basin
Mound Springs are globally significant cultural, ecological and geological features, and are a listed EPBC Act “Endangered Ecological Community”. These unique and fragile little gems support rare species, deep cultural heritage and landscapes central to the identity of Traditional Owners. Community concern has escalated regarding BHP’s use of Great Artesian Basin water for mining and the cumulative impact on Springs.
We call for:
Recognition of the Mound Springs of the GAB as a high-value ecosystem requiring elevated protection.
Closure as soon as possible of BHP Wellfield A water extraction operations that have directlyimpactedthe Springs.
Transition of industrial scale BHP Wellfield B water extraction operations toward alternative water sources, such as desalination or recycled water, to protect the Basin.
Transparenttimelyreporting of extraction volumes, groundwater pressures and spring health and monitoring information.
Co-governance with Traditional Owners, with investment in cultural heritage protection and Indigenous Rangers on country.
Outcome Sought:
Long-term water security for communities, ecosystems of Great Artesian Basin—and a clear safeguard against irreversible damage.
The Bill is deeply problematic for several reasons. Firstly, given the complexity of the legislation and the lack of notice provided about the Bill has meant that interested parties have not been provided with a realistic opportunity to respond and raise the full suite of their concerns. Further, there are concerns that this rapid process may have been the deliberate intention of Government.
As noted by longtime campaigner Mr David Noonan in his submission to the Select Committee inquiry into the Bill, the key concern is that:
“…[the] Roxby Bill and new Indenture place an onus on the State to provide “commercial water” to BHP. If the State doesn’t deliver that water, the Roxby Bill and new Indenture provide for BHP Olympic Dam Wellfield / Borefield B to expand and extend operations for decades at an unacceptable environmental cost to the integrity of GAB water flows and the survival of the unique and fragile Mound Springs, little gems of our natural heritage and of ongoing fundamental cultural and spiritual importance to the Arabana People, the Native Title holders over the area. This is entirely unacceptable.”
The problems the Roxby Bill will create are further detailed in submissions to the short Select Committee into the legislation; attached below are the submissions to that Committee from Friends of Mound Springs and longtime campaigner, Mr David Noonan:
Alert: a bad Roxby Downs Bill and draconian new Indenture, impacting Aboriginal rights and interests, is being rushed to a Vote in SA Parliament expected on Tues 16 June to pass into Law by at least the end of the week. The SA State Labor Government has a lot to answer for.
see “BHP seek 50-year mining rights to expand Olympic Dam, as SA Labor Ministers indulge a farcical process and ignore public input”
Opinion by David Noonan B.Sc., M.Env.St., Independent Environment Campaigner (2-p attached)
BHP and the State Government have agreed on a Roxby Downs Bill and new Indenture to govern Olympic Dam and associated mining expansions for the next 50 years. This is a re-run of precedence to big mining vested interests that has typified SA from back in 1982 and sets in train up to a tripling of BHP demand for water in the dryest State.
State Labor decided to drop the highly complex Bill and new Indenture into Parliament without prior notice, with the Minister for Mining Hon Tom Koutsantonis MP saying he wants the Bill passed ‘unchanged and without delay’.
A short Select Committee was started up and “Parliamentary News” announced a six-working day public consultation period – apologies to many interested parties if they didn’t get this news in a timely way from such a well-read source.
For independent scrutiny, the proponent of the Bill the Minister for Mining was made the Committee Chairperson and two non-public Hearings were held: first with the Department for Mining and then with BHP and the Chamber of Mines as supportive compliant Witnesses.
To epitomise what a farce this process is, the Select Committee was set up to Report the day after public input was to close at COB on Monday 1st June, and that is what they did. The ‘Report’ was Tabled and the Chairperson and Members of Committee all gave uncritical Speeches on the Bill on the 2nd of June – the very morning after public input had closed.
This farce contradicts any claim by our SA State Labor Government to due process, to a fair hearing and to integrity in public consultation.
The Report and Speeches inexplicably failed to discuss any of the important content of public input across 22 Submissions received – they had left no time to even consider it properly. The ‘Report’ has a couple of pages on the non-public Hearings but provides no discussion or even a summary of the public input. The public Submissions were not released until after the Speeches and Parliamentary week had concluded.
People have a right to be heard in SA. Aboriginal Native title representative bodies and individuals have sought to be heard on the Roxby Bill – including to give evidence in public Hearings, as the Bill affects their rights and interests and their country and culture. However, they have so far been denied that right and respect.
To be fair, the Department for Environment and Water was a Witness at second non-public Hearing: with the CEO stating that closure of BHP Olympic Dam Wellfield A “will produce significant benefits” to the unique and fragile Mound Springs that are dependent on natural flows of Great Artesian Basin (GAB) ground water. However, the Bill intends to keep Wellfield A operating for a further decade till 2036.
Asked about the benefits of replacing BHP’s far larger scale Wellfield B extraction of GAB water for mining with an alternative desalinated marine water supply, the CEO said: “Yes definitely, both the environment and cultural values”. However, the Bill grants rights to BHP to keep pumping water from Wellfield B for decades.
A ‘Key Ask’ to the Premier by the State peak body Conservation SA (19 Dec) was conveyed to the Roxby Committee in David Noonan and Friends of Mound Springs (see FOMS) public input:
Protect the Mound Springs and End Unsustainable Water Extraction from the Great Artesian Basin Mound Springs are globally significant cultural, ecological and geological features, and are a listed EPBC Act “Endangered Ecological Community”. These unique and fragile little gems support rare species, deep cultural heritage and landscapes central to the identity of Traditional Owners. Community concern has escalated regarding BHP’s use of Great Artesian Basin water for mining and the cumulative impact on Springs.
We call for:
a. Recognition of the Mound Springs of the GAB as a high-value ecosystem requiring elevated protection. b. Closure as soon as possible of BHP Wellfield A water extraction operations that have directly impacted the Springs. c. Transition of industrial scale BHP Wellfield B water extraction operations toward alternative water sources, such as desalination or recycled water, to protect the Basin. d. Transparent timely reporting of extraction volumes, groundwater pressures and spring health and monitoring information. e. Co-governance with Traditional Owners, with investment in cultural heritage protection and Indigenous Rangers on country
Conservation SA has sought “a clear safeguard against irreversible damage” in needed closure of Wellfield A and a phase out Wellfield B, but this Bill fails to do so.
Deputy Premier the Hon Kyam Maher MLC spoke glowingly to the Bill in a Legislative Council 2nd Reading Speech on 3rd June. Surely, he would have first read the public input from Aboriginal Native Title bodies, objections from the State Local Voice, and others calling to be heard on the Bill. As Min for Aboriginal Affairs Mr Maher must hold this Bill off and respect and deliver on the right to be heard in Public Hearings (e-mail at AttorneyGeneral@sa.gov.au Ph: (08) 7322 7050).
As Treasurer the Hon Tom Koutsantonis MP has finally put monies in the SA Budget for ‘Truth- Telling’ – this bad Roxby Bill and draconian new Indenture means there is a lot more truth to tell.
Integrity in public office depends a lot on what the State Labor does next on the Roxby Downs Bill and new Indenture. This bad Bill must not be rushed unchanged through Parliament by the end of this June sitting. Public Hearings are necessary so people can be heard and respected in our society and precious water and Springs must now be protected in this the dryest State.
Further info, see “Roxby Bill rides roughshod over environmental and Indigenous concerns”
BHP and the State Government have agreed on a Roxby Downs Bill and new Indenture to govern Olympic Dam and associated mining expansions for the next 50 years. This is a re-run of precedence to big mining vested interests that has typified SA from back in 1982 and sets in train up to a tripling of BHP demand for water in the dryest State.
State Labor decided to drop the highly complex Bill and new Indenture into Parliament without prior notice, with the Minister for Mining Hon Tom Koutsantonis MP saying he wants the Bill passed ‘unchanged and without delay’.
A short Select Committee was started up and “Parliamentary News” announced a six-working day public consultation period – apologies to many interested parties if they didn’t get this news in a timely way from such a well-read source.
For independent scrutiny, the proponent of the Bill the Minister for Mining was made the Committee Chairperson and two non-public Hearings were held: first with the Department for Mining and then with BHP and the Chamber of Mines as supportive compliant Witnesses.
To epitomise what a farce this process is, the Select Committee was set up to Report the day after public input was to close at COB on Monday 1st June, and that is what they did. The ‘Report’ was Tabled and the Chairperson and Members of Committee all gave uncritical Speeches on the Bill on the 2nd of June – the very morning after public input had closed.
This farce contradicts any claim by our SA State Labor Government to due process, to a fair hearing and to integrity in public consultation.
The Report and Speeches inexplicably failed to discuss any of the important content of public input across 22 Submissions received – they had left no time to even consider it properly. The ‘Report’ has a couple of pages on the non-public Hearings but provides no discussion or even a summary of the public input. The public Submissions were not released until after the Speeches and Parliamentary week had concluded.
People have a right to be heard in SA. Aboriginal Native title representative bodies and individuals have sought to be heard on the Roxby Bill – including to give evidence in public Hearings, as the Bill affects their rights and interests and their country and culture. However, they have so far been denied that right and respect.
To be fair, the Department for Environment and Water was a Witness at second non-public Hearing: with the CEO stating that closure of BHP Olympic Dam Wellfield A “will produce significant benefits” to the unique and fragile Mound Springs that are dependent on natural flows of Great Artesian Basin (GAB) ground water. However, the Bill intends to keep Wellfield A operating for a further decade till 2036.
Asked about the benefits of replacing BHP’s far larger scale Wellfield B extraction of GAB water for mining with an alternative desalinated marine water supply, the CEO said: “Yes definitely, both the environment and cultural values”. However, the Bill grants rights to BHP to keep pumping water from Wellfield B for decades.
A ‘Key Ask’ to the Premier by the State peak body Conservation SA (19 Dec) was conveyed to the Roxby Committee in David Noonan and Friends of Mound Springs (see FOMS) public input:
Protect the Mound Springs and End Unsustainable Water Extraction from the Great Artesian Basin
Mound Springs are globally significant cultural, ecological and geological features, and are a listed EPBC Act “Endangered Ecological Community”. These unique and fragile little gems support rare species, deep cultural heritage and landscapes central to the identity of Traditional Owners. Community concern has escalated regarding BHP’s use of Great Artesian Basin water for mining and the cumulative impact on Springs.
We call for: a. Recognition of the Mound Springs of the GAB as a high-value ecosystem requiring elevated protection. b. Closure as soon as possible of BHP Wellfield A water extraction operations that have directly impacted the Springs. c. Transition of industrial scale BHP Wellfield B water extraction operations toward alternative water sources, such as desalination or recycled water, to protect the Basin. d. Transparent timely reporting of extraction volumes, groundwater pressures and spring health and monitoring information. e. Co-governance with Traditional Owners, with investment in cultural heritage protection and Indigenous Rangers on country.
Conservation SA has sought “a clear safeguard against irreversible damage” in needed closure of Wellfield A and a phase out Wellfield B, but this Bill fails to do so.
Deputy Premier the Hon Kyam Maher MLC spoke glowingly to the Bill in a Legislative Council 2nd Reading Speech on 3rd June. Surely, he would have first read the public input from Aboriginal Native Title bodies, objections from the State Local Voice, and others calling to be heard on the Bill. As Min for Aboriginal Affairs Mr Maher must hold this Bill off and respect and deliver on the right to be heard in Public Hearings (e-mail at AttorneyGeneral@sa.gov.au Ph: (08) 7322 7050).
As Treasurer the Hon Tom Koutsantonis MP has finally put monies in the SA Budget for ‘TruthTelling’ – this bad Roxby Bill and draconian new Indenture means there is a lot more truth to tell.
Integrity in public office depends a lot on what the State Labor does next on the Roxby Downs Bill and new Indenture. This bad Bill must not be rushed unchanged through Parliament by the end of this June sitting. Public Hearings are necessary so people can be heard and respected in our society and precious water and Springs must now be protected in this the dryest State.
Public Submissions to the Roxby Downs Select Committee were belatedly released, see at: parliament.sa.gov.au/en/Committees/Committees-Detail and scroll to: Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) (Amendment of Ratification) Amendment Bill SELECT
Summary: This brief submission covers Community concern over the Bill’s rushed inadequate process, extended legal privileges to BHP interests, toxic mining waste, and continued threats to Mound Springs & Great Artesian Basin waters.
Dear Sir/Madam Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Bill.
There is considerable community concern about the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) (Amendment of Indenture) Amendment Bill 2026’s rushed and inadequate process, the extension of legal privileges to the mine owner BHP Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd’s interests, the increase of mining leading to more toxic & radioactive waste, and the continued threats to the Mound Springs and Great Artesian Basin waters.
This submission is very brief, because the time allowed for review and submission was ridiculously short from 22 May to 1 June 2026 on such matters that are intended to last 50 years. It almost appears like the committee are anti-democratic and don’t really want to hear from the residents of South Australia on this topic. We also find it unbelievable that the Committee will report on 2 June which is the day straight after submissions are due. How can the committee possibly read and digest the contents of submissions in that short time?
Our particular concerns include:
1, The shortness of the timeframe for submissions and reporting of the committee should be rectified by the Select Committee recommending a Public Inquiry with wide public interest Terms of Reference and facilitate public hearings into the Bill, and the House of Assembly should require this Inquiry. Such a Public Inquiry could be commenced in June and run for three months to September 2026.
2 The Bill should be amended to comply with Article 29 section of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:
Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment and the productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources. States shall establish and implement assistance programmes for indigenous peoples for such conservation and protection, without discrimination.
States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.
According to the United Nations Declaration, mining and hazardous waste resulting from mining (including radioactive waste) should not be imposed upon Aboriginal Traditional Owner’s land without the free, prior and informed consent of all members of the affected community, rather than a select token few community members.
Regarding the water supply to the mine, the Bill should be amended to require the immediate closing of Wellfield A and the closing as soon as possible of Wellfield B. Any expansion of the Olympic Dam mine should be conditional on successful implementation of the Northern Waters Project, which should be funded 100% by the mine owner BHP Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd and not the taxpayers of SA. Any further use of bore water from the Great Artesian Basin and the River Murray should not be permitted in order to protect the Mound Springs and Great Artesian Basin, and water taken from these sources should cease well before the planned date of 8 May 2036.
Yours sincerely Robyn Wood Friends of the Earth Adelaide
The decision by Adelaide University to withdraw a venue booking for an event featuring a leading United Nations human rights expert has ignited a fierce debate about academic freedom and censorship in South Australia.
The controversy surrounds a panel discussion titled “Settler Colonialism: What It Can Tell Us About the Conflict in Israel/Palestine,” which was scheduled to be held at the university’s Elder Hall. The event is part of the Constellations: Not Writers Week, a breakout festival created in response to the recent cancellation of the official Adelaide Writers’ Week.
The panel features Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, who was to appear via video link, alongside esteemed historian Henry Reynolds and UNSW academic Lana Tatour.
According to event moderator Chris Sidoti, Elder Hall had been booked a month in advance. However, on Tuesday, the university informed organisers that the booking was being revoked, citing “health and safety” concerns.
In a statement, an Adelaide University spokesperson defended the decision, stating they were only made aware of the external event the previous Friday. The university claimed it could not accept the booking because it:
“… did not go through the required review and approval process in accordance with the required policy and procedure.”
The spokesperson added that the university could not “ensure the safety, respect and comfort of those attending” and suggested an alternative venue – the National Wine Centre – at a significantly higher cost of $23,500, compared to the $750 fee for the university hall.
This explanation has done little to quell the criticism. Mr. Sidoti described the move as a “sad reflection on the state of Adelaide University today,” arguing that the institution’s core role is precisely “to provide forums for these kinds of discussions – and it’s failing in that.”
The cancellation has drawn sharp rebukes from political figures, who see it as part of a worrying trend of silencing dissenting voices.
Democracy education resources
Greens Senator for South Australia, Sarah Hanson-Young, demanded the university explain its actions, calling the reports “concerning.” She linked the decision to the earlier controversies surrounding Writers’ Week, suggesting a broader “culture of fear infecting our institutions.”
“You cannot cancel curiosity, you cannot cancel compassion, and you cannot silence a city that believes in the exchange of ideas and freedom of expression,” Senator Hanson-Young said. She accused the university of capitulating to external pressure, stating that “seeking to silence a distinguished international human rights expert undermines academic freedom, weakens intellectual integrity, and contradicts the very principles universities are meant to uphold.”
The event is part of the Constellations festival, which was formed after the official Adelaide Writers’ Week was cancelled this year. That decision followed the withdrawal of hundreds of authors protesting the treatment of Palestinian-Australian writer Randa Abdel-Fattah, who was controversially uninvited from the original lineup.
When questioned directly about whether concerns regarding Ms. Albanese’s appearance – particularly in light of past criticism and US sanctions – influenced the decision, the university spokesperson did not provide a direct answer. They reiterated that the institution prides itself on being a place for the free exchange of ideas.
Event to Proceed at New Venue
Despite the university’s withdrawal, the discussion will go ahead. Organisers have secured the Norwood Concert Hall in Adelaide’s eastern suburbs for Thursday evening, where a sold-out crowd is expected to attend.
Senator Hanson-Young highlighted the public response as a rebuke to the university’s decision:
“Thankfully the event will go ahead… showing that South Australian audiences aren’t as fearful as these institutions,” she said.
Friends of the Earth Adelaide has lodged a submission to a Commonwealth Government environmental review into the proposed desalination plant at Mullaquana Station near Whyalla. The submission related to the referral of the ‘Northern Water Desalination Plant and Water Transfer System Infrastructure Project’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Number: 2025/10397, closing date for submissions 21/01/2026).
“This would be achieved by constructing a seawater desalination plant and a transfer pipeline to supply industry in the Upper Spencer Gulf and Far North.”
“Northern Water aims to deliver a secure, climate-resilient water source to meet the growing needs of existing and emerging industries in South Australia’s Upper Spencer Gulf and Far North. It will unlock the economic growth potential of the region … and will reduce reliance on precious water resources including the Great Artesian Basin and the River Murray.
We certainly support reducing reliance on precious water resources of the Great Artesian Basin (GAB) and the River Murray, but we want stronger assurances that the mound springs (formed by pressurised water from the GAB forcing its way to the surface) will be protected. The vast quantities of water drawn from the GAB by BHP to mine copper, uranium, etc. have caused many mound springs to dry up and threaten those that remain.
We also question whether the Giant Australian Cuttlefish will be adequately protected and wonder why Mullaquana Station was chosen over Cape Hardy, which is further south and was originally the preferred site.
Our submission focused on two issues:
1. Giant Australian Cuttlefish, and 2. Mound Springs (Great Artesian Basin).
We made the following three recommendations:
An independent comparative environmental analysis of the Mullaquana Station and Cape Hardy sites should be published before a final decision is made.
The positive and negative impacts of the project on the Great Artesian Basin, the Mound Springs and the River Murray should be included in the assessment.
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 – 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.
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.
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.
SALabor 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.
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.
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…………………………………………………………………………………………….
“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.
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.
Antinuclear 