The location of Australia’s nuclear submarine bases on the East Coast is so sensitive that the Defence Department withheld an FOI response until 24 hours after the polls closed. Rex Patrick reports.
Documents released to me last Sunday, based on an FOI request, were due on March 15, just before the election campaign was about to start in earnest. Was the delay coincidental? I think not.
In March 2022, then Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced that a future submarine base would be built on the east coast of Australia to complement the base at HMAS Stirling in WA. The planned base would be used to home port some of the Royal Australian Navy’s (RAN) nuclear powered submarines, and support US and UK nuclear powered submarine visits.
Three cities were nominated as potential locations for the new submarine base, Brisbane, Newcastle and Port Kembla. These cities were selected from a Defence review of 19 potential sites, because of their access to areas the submarine would exercise in, their proximity to industrial infrastructure, and significant population centres (to support personnel and recruitment).
What was released to me on at 8:17 PM on Sunday (an odd time for an FOI official to be beavering away at his or her desk), were documents showing that the site feasibility was to be informed by the ongoing work of the then Nuclear Submarine Task Force (now Australian Submarine Agency), supported by the US and UK. Defence’s Security and Estate Group opened initial consultations with the New South Wales and Queensland Governments.
The feasibility studies were to include an assessment of the three locations against the International Atomic Energy Agency siting criteria from a nuclear safety and security perspective. The study was due for conclusion in the third quarter of 2023.
Defence disclosed eight documents in part and fully redacted 12 documents, one/some of which will be feasibility study/studies.
The redactions and exemptions were claimed on the grounds of national security (including the ‘mosaic theory’ that innocuous fragments of information can still reveal classified secrets), disclosure of trade secrets or commercially valuable information, and protection of proper and efficient” agency operations.
Defence is clearly intending to fight tooth and nail to prevent the disclosure of the politically sensitive site selection process.
Silence is golden
HMAS Ovens, an Oberon class submarine that served in the RAN from 1969 to 1995, has a formal ship’s motto, “Silence is golden”. It was an appropriate motto given the importance of stealth for submarines.
But it also seems to have been a motto adopted by the Albanese Government throughout the election campaign.
AUKUS is not popular amongst Labor voters.
After a short consult with Anthony Albanese, Richard Marles and Penny Wong, 24 hours prior to the announcement of an AUKUS study by Prime Minister Morrison, Labor committed to bi-partisan support for the program. Due process of consultation with the Labor Caucus and indeed the Labor membership on such an important issue was overridden by the desire to adopt a low target strategy for the 2022 election.
Following Labour’s 2022 election victory, there was an opportunity in March 2023 to walk away from AUKUS after the Morrison study was completed. The massive $368B price tag would have provided ample justification, but the Albanese government threw its full support behind the project at an AUKUS signing ceremony in San Diego.
Marles Mauled: Rex Patrick demolishes Defence sophistry on AUKUS, submarines, nuclear
Labor against war
In 2023, Marcus Strom, a former Albanese government press secretary, initiated a grassroots ‘Labor Against War’ organisation, which commenced its life with an opposition campaign to AUKUS.
Much criticism of AUKUS was expressed by Labor branches around the country, but the Labor leadership steamrolled the submarine agreement through the Labor National Conference with Albanese declaring “Nuclear powered submarines are what Australia needs in the future.”
Since then, however, a lineup of Labor luminaries, including Paul Keating, Gareth Evans, Bob Carr, Peter Garrett, Carmen Lawrence, Doug Cameron, and Melissa Parke, have continued to criticise the AUKUS submarine project, sharply questioning its geopolitical merit and expressing concern about the massive opportunity costs involved.
So, it’s unsurprising there was minimal AUKUS chat during the election campaign, and certainly no electioneering visits that centred around the program. The only mention of AUKUS came when Albanese rejected separate calls from Senator Jacqui Lambie and retired Australian Army Major General Michael Smith for an inquiry into AUKUS, as is occurring in the UK Parliament.
Lack of scrutiny
Sadly, there will be no AUKUS inquiry. Even though the Greens will share power with the Government in the Senate, the much-reduced Coalition will combine with the Government to strike down any attempt to initiate an inquiry. The Greens are unlikely to make this a do-or-die condition on the passage of key government legislation.
The only oversight of AUKUS, including east coast basing, will be by individual Greens and cross-bench Senators in Senate Estimates and by people equipped to fight through the dysfunctional FOI system.
Work will continue in the background on site plans for an East Coast base, with little to no transparency around the process.
A site will need to be selected to install new wharves, maintenance facilities, logistics and training facilities, radiologically controlled workspaces, emergency preparedness and response facilities and appropriate physical security arrangements.
The Albanese Government decided to kick the can down the road during the 47th Parliament. Having won the election, they’re now walking further down the road and the political can is waiting for them. Some form of decision will need to made prior to the end to Albanese’s reign in the 48th Parliament.
Where will the base be?
All three short-listed east coast base sites are located in now Labour-held federal electorates.
The New South Wales and Queensland State Governments will likely engage in fierce competition to secure a multi-billion-dollar new base development for their state.
Even Port Kembla, where strong public opposition has been voiced in large protests, will remain in contention. With a significant Labor majority in the House, the electorate’s new Labor Left MP, former Greens member Carol Berry, will have little leverage. The best AUKUS opponents in Port Kembla can hope for is that the findings of a 2011 Defence basing study deter it as the optimal location.
Port Kembla Final Analysis from a 2011 Basing Study (Source: FOI)
Secret Navy business
Anthony Albanese’s indifference to FOI reform, in contrast to his strong promise in opposition, will hinder the public’s involvement in deciding where an East Coast base will finally be established. Legislation passed through the Parliament in 2024 allows the defence minister to unilaterally nominate a site by regulation. The Government’s preference will be to present a fait accompli to the residents of Brisbane, Newcastle or Port Kembla.
In the most recent FOI into basing the Department has engaged in temporal obstruction (the late release of an FOI) and a series of inappropriate redactions. One such redaction, just to give an example of the flimsy nature of the transparency exemptions being employed, relates to depth information in the approaches to the three ports. Whilst such information can be easily obtained from publicly available sea charts, for some reason it’s release under FOI has been suppressed.
Secret Navy Business – Charted Depths (Source: FOI)
MWM will keep on fighting for AUKUS transparency. A Federal Court appeal is currently on foot to access a report into where an AUKUS High Level Radioactive Waste site will be located. This newly released East Coast submarine base FOI will also be appealed (to the Information Commissioner) to gain access to the eight fully redacted documents.
It will be a battle, with the one shining light being,
there’s about as much chance of the RAN receiving US Virgina Class submarines by 2035 as there is that our FOI regime will be fixed.
The big problem is the non-refundable $4.7B that will be sent to the US over the next few years, to not get those US subs.
Government ignores AUKUS ‘very high risk’ warning from the Admiral in charge
Rex Patrick is a former Senator for South Australia and, earlier, a submariner in the armed forces. Best known as an anti-corruption and transparency crusader, Rex is also known as the "Transparency Warrior."