US Republicans in Congress are pushing the Biden Administration to put more funding into US submarine production before Congress agrees to transfer any Virginia Class submarines to Australia. Resolved, this won’t damage but will help the AUKUS deal.  But it shows that Australia can’t take Washington’s support of AUKUS for granted, so Australia must do its part to keep AUKUS on track. 

Getting Australia’s East Coast submarine base up and running by 2043 is a key element here. That’s when Australia’s first AUKUS design sub is scheduled to turn up.  Both our US and UK partners know this is a long lead item that needs to get underway. And 2043 is only twenty years from now – which might be just enough time if the Government and its new Submarine Agency work fast. 

That’s because building big new infrastructure in Australia takes a long time – and a lot of that time needs to be spent well before any actual construction begins. 

So, it’s disturbing that the Federal Government has told the public that it’s ‘close to a decade’ before the decision on a new East Coast base needs to be made. And it’s worse that the Defence Strategic Review made things even blurrier, with the Government undoing the Coalition Government’s commitment to build a new base, instead only agreeing to it ‘in-principle’, whatever that might mean.

This just doesn’t look right when you look at how long some other big infrastructure projects have taken.  It turns out time is short and will pass quickly.

Projects that take a few years just to build usually take considerably longer to get off the ground through community consultation, feasibility and environmental studies, land acquisition and compensation.  That all has to happen before any detailed design work and years before any building work begins. On top of all this, the likelihood of delay or even cancellation because of legal challenges can add years to any project timeline.

Even a relatively simple but large piece of infrastructure like the new Optus Stadium in Perth took over a decade from idea to reality. It started with the WA Government’s Major Stadia Taskforce report in 2007.  5 years later then premier Burnett announced the Burnside Peninsula as the site and got the project underway.  Construction started in 2014 and the stadium opened in 2018, 11 years from the Taskforce report.

A better comparison to a nuclear submarine base for complexity and sensitivity is probably the second Sydney airport.  The Badgery’s Creek site was formally selected back in 1986, which is when land acquisition started and ran until 1991.  Community opposition and pushback from Sydney Airport created political reluctance and the idea was shelved for over two decades, which is starting to sound familiar.

Planning began again in 2008, with a joint Federal-State study identifying the Badgery’s Creek site again in 2012.  A formal announcement was made in 2014 and construction began in 2018.  A first runway is scheduled to open in 2026. That’s forty years from the first site selection and land acquisition and 18 years from the project’s reactivation in 2008.  2043 looks close with this in mind.

Unlike the nuclear submarine base, neither the Optus Stadium nor the second Sydney airport involve parking weapons grade highly enriched uranium near local residents.  And the Badgery’s Creek airport site was as close to a greenfield site as you could get, while every viable East Coast harbour has many competing uses and motivated owners, users and locals who like it that way.

When we add in the nuclear element to consultation, planning and decisions, it gets even more urgent to start serious work on the new base project now.  Earlier this month, a federal court judge overturned the government’s plan for a low level waste repository on traditional owners’ land in South Australia, continuing a long history of false starts to locate and build a facility to handle radioactive material byproducts from medical uses like radiology and cancer treatments.    That court challenge echoes a court decision back in 2004 that forced then prime minister Howard to cancel a national low level waste repository near Woomera in South Australia.

Local communities, port operators, councils, State governments and major businesses needing port access need certainty to plan, invest and use land and facilities at every potential East Coast harbour that could be the site of the nuclear submarine base.  Many of them don’t want the base built in their harbour.

But until a decision is made about which East Coast harbour is the one to host the AUKUS subs, no investment or planning decisions can be made for Brisbane port, Port Kembla or Newcastle port with confidence, because the Federal Government may overturn them and resume the facilities and land involved.

It’s understandable that no Federal Government wants to inflict a campaigning problem onto local MPs and candidates by raising the issue of a base coming to an electorate near them, but the 3 year electoral cycle will simply drive further delays if it is left to dictate how and when a base decision is made.  

Our US ally will be observing the delay to a decision on the new base with concern and wanting to know what is happening.  Some polite questioning from US Defense Secretary Austin and Secretary of State Blinken at this week’s AUSMIN consultations is very likely.

Understanding the sensitivities involved and the long lead times for construction, without clear plans from Australian ministers, they will begin to question why a US President, their Administration, the Pentagon and the US Congress should continue to fast track its own work to provide Australia with nuclear submarines when its Australian partner seems to lack the seriousness of purpose to deliver a core part of the bargain.

It’s time to move from ‘in-principle’ agreement about a new East Cost base for Australian nuclear submarines and do the hard work to get one built by 2043.  If we start now, we just might make it.

A version of this article was first published by the Australian.