A military target with a big nuclear reactor on board
In the industrial port town of Port Kembla, seventy-five kilometres south of Sydney, a quiet bureaucratic preference has become a public reckoning. Leaked NSW government documents reveal that state planners identified this community as their favoured site for Australia's first east coast nuclear submarine base — a project of enormous strategic ambition and equally enormous local consequence. The disclosure, tabled in parliament by a Greens legislator, forces into the open what governments had kept in the register of internal deliberation: that the economic logic of AUKUS carries with it an acknowledged burden of displacement, environmental risk, and the prospect of becoming a military target. It is the oldest tension in the life of nations — the weight of collective security falling unevenly on particular shoulders.
- Leaked cabinet documents confirm Port Kembla as NSW's preferred nuclear submarine base, exposing a gap between official silence and internal certainty that has inflamed community distrust.
- The documents openly warn that the base would make the region a target for military adversaries and expose millions of people across the Newcastle-Illawarra corridor to risks the government itself cannot fully quantify.
- More than forty local organisations have already united under the Port Kembla Declaration, demanding their community be removed from consideration — a resistance that predates the leak and has now found documentary ammunition.
- The federal government insists no decision will be made until the 2030s, yet its own earlier commitments pointed to a 2023 deadline — a contradiction that critics say reveals deliberate obfuscation of a $10 billion fait accompli.
- With homes potentially lost, businesses disrupted, and highly enriched uranium reactors proposed for a densely populated coastline, the human cost of strategic ambition is no longer abstract — it has a postcode.
Seventy-five kilometres south of Sydney, Port Kembla has long been defined by its industrial port. Now, documents prepared by the NSW cabinet office and premier's department between 2022 and 2023 — tabled in parliament by Greens MLC Abigail Boyd — reveal that the state government quietly identified it as the preferred east coast location for Australia's first nuclear submarine base.
The economic case is substantial. The base would deliver an estimated $426 million in state benefit through infrastructure, services, and high-paying technical employment. Port Kembla's outer harbour, the analysis concludes, can accommodate the berthing, dry dock, and submarine facilities required. The project would dwarf the Western Sydney Airport development, with federal Defence estimates exceeding $10 billion and an operational target of 2040.
But the same documents enumerate the costs with unusual candour. Some residents would be displaced. Local businesses would suffer. The base would carry nuclear reactors fuelled by highly enriched uranium — the same grade used in warheads — and the documents acknowledge that residents would likely perceive it as they would a nuclear power station: a source of environmental catastrophe risk. More gravely still, the documents state plainly that in any military conflict, the base could become a target for Australia's adversaries, placing approximately seven million people across the Newcastle-Illawarra region in the shadow of that calculus.
Community opposition is already organised. Over forty groups signed the Port Kembla Declaration in September, rejecting the proposal outright. Federal Greens senator David Shoebridge argued the leaked documents prove both governments understand the base would be damaging and dangerous — and have chosen concealment over transparency.
The federal government maintains no decision has been made, and that the timeline extends into the 2030s. Yet the internal documents record a commonwealth commitment to decide by the end of 2023. That deadline has passed without announcement. What remains is a community that has already declared its position, a government that insists the question is still open, and documents that suggest otherwise.
Seventy-five kilometers south of Sydney, in the industrial port town of Port Kembla, the New South Wales government has quietly identified what it believes is the best location for Australia's first nuclear submarine base. The documents that reveal this preference—prepared by the NSW cabinet office and premier's department between 2022 and 2023—were only made public on Friday, tabled in parliament by Greens MLC Abigail Boyd. They lay out a vision of economic benefit and strategic necessity alongside a stark acknowledgment of the risks the community would bear.
The federal government announced in March 2022 that it intended to build an east coast nuclear base as part of the AUKUS agreement with the United Kingdom and the United States. Australia plans to acquire and eventually build nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines, which under current schedules would arrive from 2032 onward. Those vessels would initially be stationed in South Australia and Western Australia, but federal planners have consistently maintained that an east coast facility is essential to Australia's strategic interests. Three cities have been in the running: Brisbane, Newcastle, and Port Kembla. The NSW government analysis makes clear which one it prefers.
The economic case is straightforward. A nuclear submarine base at Port Kembla, the documents state, would generate $426 million in economic benefit to the state through improved infrastructure, community services, and the creation of highly technical, high-paying jobs. The port's outer harbour, the analysis concludes, has the capacity to accommodate increased berthing, a dry dock, and a submarine facility. The project itself would be massive—at least twice the size of the Western Sydney International Airport development—and the federal Department of Defence estimates it will require more than $10 billion for facility and infrastructure requirements. The base is expected to be operational by 2040.
But the documents also contain a careful, almost clinical enumeration of why residents will likely oppose it. The NSW government acknowledges that some people will have to leave their homes. Local businesses could suffer. Rail and road travel would worsen. The base "is likely to have negative impact on the amenity of the local area," the analysis states. More fundamentally, residents living near the facility will perceive it as a risk to their health and the local environment. The submarines would carry nuclear reactors fueled by highly enriched uranium—the same type of uranium used in nuclear warheads, not the lower-enriched fuel used in civilian nuclear power plants. Each submarine carries enough uranium to operate for over thirty years.
Then there is the question of military targeting. "In the event of a military conflict the ECNB could be a target for Australian military adversaries," the documents plainly state. The NSW government acknowledges that residents are likely to perceive the base similarly to a nuclear power station—as a source of environmental disaster risk. The probability of a nuclear accident at a submarine base is reduced by the fact that submarines are not always in port, the analysis notes. But a nuclear submarine base is more likely to be a military target, and could be perceived as riskier for that reason. The documents concede that the public's "risk perception" of such a base compared to a nuclear power plant remains unknown without more detailed research.
Community opposition is already organized. In September, more than forty organizations signed the Port Kembla Declaration, insisting their community should not become the site of a nuclear base. They argue it would endanger their community. Federal Greens senator David Shoebridge, the party's spokesperson on defence and foreign affairs, seized on the leaked documents as evidence that both state and federal governments know a nuclear submarine base will be "damaging and dangerous for the community" but are attempting to hide this truth from the public. He argued that the Labor government is effectively placing a military target on the largest population conurbation in Australia—approximately seven million people living between Newcastle and the Illawarra region.
The federal government has not yet made a final decision. A spokesperson for deputy prime minister Richard Marles said no location has been chosen, and that the timeframe for making a decision is not until the 2030s. The NSW government's own documents, however, state that the commonwealth had "committed to ensuring a decision on the location of the base is undertaken by the end of 2023, to be operational by 2040." That deadline has passed. The current NSW minister for planning and public spaces, Paul Scully, said his government is undertaking no work on the matter. What remains is a gap between the urgency implied in the internal analysis and the extended timeline the government now publicly maintains—and a community that has already made clear what it thinks of the proposal.
Citas Notables
In the event of a military conflict the ECNB could be a target for Australian military adversaries.— NSW government documents
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.— Federal Greens senator David Shoebridge
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why Port Kembla specifically? What makes it the preferred choice?
The port has existing infrastructure—berthing capacity, a dry dock, the ability to expand. It's already an industrial harbor. From a purely logistical standpoint, it works. And the economic modeling shows $426 million in benefits to the state.
But the documents themselves warn about the risks. Why would they choose a site they acknowledge is problematic?
Because the risks are everywhere. You can't put a nuclear submarine base in a place with no people nearby. The question becomes: which location can absorb the economic benefit and the risk? Port Kembla has the infrastructure. That's the calculus.
The uranium fuel—the documents say it's more like weapons-grade uranium than reactor uranium. How dangerous is that actually?
The documents don't answer that directly. They note that submarines carry enough uranium for thirty years of operation, and that it's enriched more highly than civilian reactor fuel. But they also note that submarines aren't always in port. The risk is real, but it's not constant.
And the military targeting concern—that seems like the harder problem to solve.
It is. You can't engineer away the fact that a nuclear submarine base would be a strategic asset worth attacking in a conflict. The documents acknowledge this plainly. It's not a technical problem. It's a geopolitical one.
Seven million people live in that region. That's a lot of exposure for a strategic decision made in Canberra.
Yes. And that's why the community has already organized against it. They're not wrong to see themselves as bearing the risk while the strategic benefit accrues elsewhere.
Why did it take leaked documents for this to become public?
Because the government hasn't announced a decision yet. The analysis was done, the preference was identified, but no official commitment has been made. The documents were classified—not secret, but not volunteered either. It took a parliamentary order to bring them into the light.