Topic analysis

Secret documents reveal preferred Australian nuclear submarine base – and warn it could be a military target

Port Kembla residents will likely resist base due to risk of nuclear accident and potential as target for ‘military adversaries’, documents state Get our breaking news email , free app or daily news podcast A proposed nuclear submarine base in Port Kembla “could be a target for Australian military adversaries”, previously secret New South Wales government documents have revealed. The documents, prepared by the NSW cabinet office and premier’s department, identify Port Kembla – 75km south of Sydney – as the preferred east coast base for Australia’s proposed nuclear submarine fleet. No site has been announced, but speculation has focused on Brisbane, Newcastle and Port Kembla. But a Port Kembla base is likely to face fierce public resistance, the documents, tabled in the NSW parliament under an order to produce from Greens MLC Abigail Boyd, state. “Residents are likely to perceive the east coast nuclear base as a source of risk due to there being nuclear reactors on board the submarines and the military base being a potential military target,” the NSW government analysis says. “The East Coast Base (ECNB) will harbour submarines that have nuclear reactors fuelled by highly enriched uranium on board. In the event of a military conflict the ECNB could be a target for Australian military adversaries. “For these reasons NSW residents may perceive the ECNB similarly to a nuclear power station as a source of environmental disaster risk.” A significant proportion of the Port Kembla population have already expressed opposition to the proposed base. In September, more than 40 organisations signed the Port Kembla Declaration, insisting their community should not be the site of a nuclear base, arguing it would endanger their community. The federal government announced in March 2022 it intended to build an east coast nuclear base to station the nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines it intends to buy and then build as part of the Aukus agreement with the UK and US. Currently, those proposed submarines – if they arrive under Australian command, as scheduled, from 2032 – will be stationed in South Australia and Western Australia, but the federal government has consistently maintained an east coast base is vital to Australia’s strategic interests. The federal government has previously said a decision on where to site the east coast nuclear base would be taken “later in the decade”, but the NSW government documents state the commonwealth has “committed to ensuring a decision on the location of the base is undertaken by the end of 2023, to be operational by 2040”. A preliminary cost-benefit analysis by NSW government officials identified Port Kembla as the best site for an east coast nuclear base. It said a base in Port Kembla for nuclear powered submarines, as well as surface naval vessels, would bring an economic benefit of $426m to the state through improved infrastructure, community services and facilities, and increased economic activity such as “growth in highly technical and high-paying jobs”. The NSW government documents state Port Kembla’s outer harbour “presents a viable alternative as a naval base, with the capacity to accommodate increased berthing, a dry dock and a submarine facility”. But the NSW government concedes some residents will have to leave their homes, local business could be negatively affected, and rail and road travel worsened. A nuclear submarine base “is likely to have negative impact on the amenity of the local area”, the documents state. Those closest to the base will be most impacted. “Residents in proximity will perceive the ECNB as a risk to their community’s health and the local environment.” The NSW government documents consider the perception of risk of a nuclear accident. “The probability of a nuclear accident at a submarine base is also reduced by the fact submarines are only sometimes harbouring at the base,” they state. “On the other hand, a nuclear submarine base is more likely to be a military target – and could be perceived riskier for that reason.” The documents argue that the public’s “risk perception” of a nuclear submarine base compared to a nuclear power plant is unknown without more detailed research. “Nuclear submarines may be less risky because their nuclear reactors are much smaller than the nuclear reactors at nuclear power stations. “However, nuclear submarines may be far riskier because they use a highly enriched uranium that is more like the uranium used in nuclear warheads than the uranium used in nuclear reactors and they store enough uranium to operate the nuclear submarine for over 30 years.” The east coast nuclear base is expected to be at least twice the size of the Western Sydney International Airport project, the NSW government documents state. It is expected to be operational by 2040. “The department of defence estimates that more than $10 billion will be needed for facility and infrastructure requirements to transition from Collins to the future nuclear-powered submarines, including the new east coast submarine base.” The federal Greens senator David Shoebridge, spokesperson on defence and foreign affairs, said the documents show that both the NSW and federal governments know that a nuclear submarine base will be “damaging and dangerous for the community”. “It’s no surprise that people don’t want to live next to a bunch of floating nuclear reactors with a big military target on them. It’s also no surprise that the state and federal governments are desperate to hide this truth from the public.” Shoebridge argued the Labor government was “putting a target” on the largest population conurbation in Australia – about 7 million people who live between Newcastle and the Illawarra. “This, and any other Aukus base, doesn’t make us safer, as we have seen in the war on Iran, US bases make countries targets. “We are watching the US actively driving war and instability around the world and instead of distancing Australia from that conflict, we have Labor, One Nation and the Coalition inviting that into our homes.” The Guardian has put questions to the NSW premier’s office and to the federal department of defence.