South Australia's push to formalise a new long-term agreement with mining giant BHP has angered Traditional Owner groups.

Key points:

• SA government set a six-working-day submission window
• Bill formalises indenture governing Olympic Dam for 50 years
• Kokatha Aboriginal Corporation and other TO groups raise concerns

Indigenous groups condemned a six-working-day review of legislation formalising BHP's Olympic Dam Indenture.

Kokatha representatives and other Traditional Owner groups criticised the consultation process on the legislation, set to shape the future of Olympic Dam for the next half century.

South Australia's Parliament is expected to pass legislation on Tuesday afternoon, formalising a new Indenture with BHP that will govern Olympic Dam and associated mining expansions for the next 50 years.

While the State Government has positioned the agreement as a landmark economic development opportunity, Indigenous groups are flabbergasted at how Traditional Owners were engaged.

The agreement, signed in May, is intended to modernise the 40-year-old framework governing Olympic Dam.

SA Premier Peter Malinauskas said the Indenture would "enable better integration of the existing copper production ... while establishing a clearer pathway for negotiations for further expansions".

Changes include commitments to transitioning to the current Aboriginal Heritage Act, water extraction, maximising local jobs and business opportunities, financial assurances and royalties.

However, submissions to a parliamentary Select Committee highlighted concerns about the impact of the legislation on the Kokatha people, whose traditional lands include the Olympic Dam region.

"The original Indenture Act 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," the KAC submission read.

The criticism comes amid concerns over the consultation process itself. Following the announcement of the agreement, a Select Committee was established and parties were given six working days to make submissions on legislation that could shape mining operations for the next 50 years.

Other Native Title bodies also raised concerns over the impact of future mining operations on Country.

In a submission to the select committee earlier this month, Dieri Aboriginal Corporation said BHP's Wellfield B was on Dieri Country and TOs we concerned water abstracted would impact pressure on the Great Artesian Basin.

"Water is very important to us as Dieri People and the impact of the water taken from Wellfield B impacts the health of our Country," the board's submission said.

"We have a deep spiritual connection to our land and are responsible for protecting it."

The Arabana Aboriginal Corporation raised similar concerns in its submission to the committee earlier this month.

"The AAC ... asks the Committee to make a number of recommendations about these important matters that affect the Arabana People and our land," it wrote.

"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 as the determined native title. holders; the continued displacement of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (SA) for the Stuart's Shelf on Arabana Country; and how the development of the Bill can be reconciled with the state's own commitments to Aboriginal people."

Environmental and community groups described the timeframe as insufficient, with Friends of the Earth Adelaide saying the process was "ridiculously short" in a submission to the committee.

"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," it said.

"We also find it unbelievable that the committee will report on June 2, which is the day straight after submissions are due."

Environmental campaigner David Noonan was damning of the process.

"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," Mr Noonan said.

"This farce contradicts any claim to due process, to a fair hearing and to integrity in public consultation by our state government."

The committee heard evidence from the Department of Energy and Mining, BHP, the Department of Energy and Water, the Conservation Council of South Australia and the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy, although the Conservation Council chose not to attend the hearing.

The SA government has defended the process and agreement, arguing the updated Indenture would provide certainty for future investment and also support SA's role in supplying copper needed for global electrification and energy transition projects.

South Australian Minister for Energy and Mining, Tom Koutsantonis, said the Indenture was "unanimously approved by a cross-party committee, including representatives from the Liberal Party and One Nation".

"The proposed amendments modernise the regulatory framework and provide investment certainty that enable investments to expand copper mining and production at Olympic Dam," he said.

"BHP has forecast capital expenditure up to $25 billion in South Australia over the next 10 years, the majority to significantly increase copper production at the Olympic Dam mine site.

"There are some critics who do not want to see mining under any circumstances, and who will attempt to hijack this standard parliamentary process as a means to delay and eventually thwart this investment.

"The Indenture legislation is separate to any future assessment processes that would be required by the state government. If or when BHP puts forward a proposal following the passage of the amended Indenture agreement, those assessment processes would include stakeholder consultation."

National Indigenous Times has contacted BHP for comment.