Federal governments were consistently warned a nuclear submarine project was too difficult for Australia

Secret documents have revealed the Defence Department has warned successive federal governments, for more than a decade, against building nuclear submarines.

Secret documents have revealed successive federal governments were warned by the Defence Department against building nuclear submarines.

And in one advisory document, among hundreds of pages released, the department said the Port River build would require a permanent onshore nuclear reactor to train thousands of workers.

The documents – some dating to the first consideration of nuclear submarines in 2009 and up to 2021 – have only been revealed by a Freedom of Information application by Senator for South Australia and former submariner Rex Patrick.

Throughout the documents, the Defence Department states that nuclear is a much more combat-capable option, but its advice is that Australia lacks the staff, infrastructure and public support to go nuclear.

Rejection of the nuclear option is highlighted in one previously secret briefing which led to the 2016 Turnbull decision to pursue the now-dumped French design.

In an undated briefing to judge Australia’s ability to go with US Virginia class submarines, one of two design options now being considered, the federal government was told the 3024 submariners required would be: “A major and perhaps deciding factor against the feasibility of this proposal”.

The plan would require a fivefold increase in the current submarine arm and a 22 per cent increase in the size of the Australian navy.

The Virginia class, is a class of nuclear-powered cruise missile fast-attack submarines, in service in the US navy.

In several briefing notes and memos, Defence highlights that a nuclear reactor for training purposes may need to be based onshore, but this is not an option under the current government plan.

But there is no suggestion in the briefings that it must be in Port Adelaide, beside the construction site.

“The construction of a shore-based training sector would be an early issue for resolution for in establishing a naval training regimen for navy technicians in Australian” the briefing notes.

In a ministerial submission to the Labor government in 2009, the Defence Department revealed the nuclear option would double the cost of conventual submarines because Australia does not have laws or infrastructure for a nuclear industry, monitoring and safety capability, nuclear fuel and waste management.

It said it would take 15 years to develop a nuclear industry, even before submarines could be developed. This is a delay not currently factored in by the government.

But the report states nuclear submarines could be built in Australia without the need for a side-by-side nuclear electricity generating industry.

One briefing note advises, given time, Australia would be able to develop the engineering and academic experience needed for the industry, along with emergency incident safety crews; “These missing capabilities are generally highly specialised and would require substantial lead in times to address,” it states.

Astute class submarine HMS Ambush is pictured during sea trials near Scotland

Senator Patrick said the documents revealed that crewing eight nuclear submarines was virtually impossible, even if they could be built.

He said all off the problems highlighted by experts had “disappeared” and not been made public only because the government now wanted nuclear submarines.

“As the cost and schedule risks rise, the government will abandon its already shallow promise that it will build the submarines in Adelaide,’’ Senator Patrick said.

“South Australians will be left with the (up to $170bb) cost, with all the money being shipped overseas, without any benefits in terms of local jobs and skills transfer.”

Defence negativity about nuclear submarines dates back more than 10 years, the documents show, with the Labor government told in 2011; “Australia does not have the infrastructure to support nuclear powered submarines, such as the training facilities, medical support services, safety systems or fuel handling facilities”.

It was also told the submarines could not be built in Australia and would have to be “fuelled,

docked, de-fuelled and disposed of overseas” until Australia could catch up.

“Proponents of nuclear submarines also dismiss the very clear views of the Australian people on the nuclear issue,’’ one briefing states.

In a statement, Defence Minister Peter Dutton did not address the issues raised in the documents but reaffirmed Australia’s commitment to nuclear submarines under the AUKUS partnership.

“Since 2016, a number of developments have meant nuclear submarines are now an option for Australia,” he said.

“Our strategic environment has changed faster than anticipated. A nuclear-powered submarine maintains our capability edge in this environment.

“The historic AUKUS partnership announced last year, will enable us to work with our partners in the US and the UK to invest in this important capability in the future.”

Originally published as Federal governments were consistently warned a nuclear submarine project was too difficult for Australia