Relocating the navy's Fleet Base East to Port Kembla would be a "game changer" for the Illawarra economy, but the prospect of any warships sailing into Port Kembla to stay would require a significant change in defence policy.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
An Australian Defence Force Posture Review in 2012 said there were "encroachment and commercial sector pressures" on Garden Island and "a supplementary fleet base" needed to be considered.
That review did not consider Port Kembla an option at all, instead recommending Brisbane as the location of a supplemental fleet base.
"The reason the navy is in Sydney is based on a logical decision, there is nowhere else to put the navy on the east coast."
However, the 2013 defence white paper dismissed both the Brisbane selection and the idea that a supplemental base was needed at all.
"Further detailed analysis and feasibility studies have confirmed that the fleet bases in Sydney and Perth will continue to meet the Royal Australian Navy's needs for the foreseeable future," the 2013 white paper stated.
Similarly, several military analysts see the navy calling Garden Island home for a long time to come.
Neil James, executive director of the Australia Defence Association - a military and strategic think tank - said Garden Island ticked more boxes than any other location on the east coast.
He said Port Kembla was a better option than other suggested locations like Brisbane or Newcastle due to its proximity to the Jervis Bay training area and the presence of engineering and logistical infrastructure.
However, Mr James said Port Kembla wasn't as deep as Sydney Harbour, had insufficient space to allow ships to manoeuvre easily and there was only a small, single entrance.
He also said the cost of moving the base to Port Kembla - or anywhere else - was too prohibitive.
"Garden Island's got facilities that have been built up over nearly two centuries, and there would be an awful lot of money that would need to be spent to duplicate Garden Island somewhere else, which then begs the question, why would you want to do that when Garden Island is so suitable in so many ways?
"The reason the navy is in Sydney is based on a logical decision, there is nowhere else to put the navy on the east coast. There aren't any other suitable harbours."
Mr James said part of the fleet could be moved to Port Kembla but pointed out that would increase administrations costs due to having Fleet Base East in two separate places.
He also said the claims of the economic advantage that moving the navy would bring to Port Kembla were irrelevant.
"There's a simple point the Australia Defence Association makes every time one of these featherbedding suggestions is made," Mr James said.
"It's called the Department of Defence not the Department of National Development.
"The forced posture of the defence force needs to be driven by strategic and operational necessity on its own, not what it's worth for local economies."
Dr Andrew Davies, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Canberra, agreed the Department of Defence wouldn't be swayed by the economic effects. However, he said governments would, and it was the government and not Defence that would decide whether the navy moved.
Though he felt it wouldn't happen in the next 10 years, Dr Davies said a move from Garden Island was inevitable.
"At some stage, I think the pressure for the navy to move out of Sydney Harbour will become irresistible," Dr Davies said.
"That's been the pattern around the world where it's become unusual to find a major naval base in a place like Sydney Harbour, a major metropolitan area like that."
The reason for this would be the possibility of other uses for that waterfront land with views of the bridge.
"There an opportunity cost to the use of Garden Island, both the land on the island and the use of the berthing facilities for large cruise vessels," he said.
"The cruise industry's been lobbying the NSW government for years because with some of the new cruise vessels, they're actually getting too big to go under the harbour bridge.
"It's really the cost to the economy of having defence facilities there."
Though he was not aware of the specifics of Port Kembla, Dr Davies said the harbour could be a possible future home for the navy.
"What they'll be looking for is somewhere with a deep water port and reasonable access to the civilian population, because that's where you get all the economies of scale for things like general support services and also because families like to live somewhere nice.
"Something else you'd be looking for is an area without too big a tidal range, which I think Port Kembla would be fine [for] as well."
But any move would be fought for some time, both by the navy and the government.
"The pressures will be resisted as long as possible because the cost of moving a major naval base is really high," Dr Davies said.
"You've got to build all the facilities somewhere else and you've got to move all the people.
"The last time they costed moving out of Sydney Harbour they were looking at Jervis Bay in the mid-1980s, and it came to almost $2 billion then, so I think you could safely double that now."
