Who is behind this campaign

Westport is the Western Australian government's project to move the state's automated container terminal beside the naval base hosting United States nuclear submarines. This campaign asks the United States Congress to authorize a risk assessment of what that means for AUKUS and for the state’s freight supply chain.

Sponsorship disclosure

This website is sponsored by the Maritime Union of Australia, WA Branch, a trade union registered in Australia. It is published to inform United States policymakers, press, and the public about the security implications of the Westport project for American naval assets based in Western Australia.

Why an Australian union is talking to Washington

The Maritime Union of Australia’s WA Branch represents workers on the waterfront and on the water in Western Australia, including in Cockburn Sound. Its members crew, service, and work alongside the shipping this campaign is about, and they raised the siting question before anyone else did. Westport would move all of the state’s container freight into a single port, so the risk falls on their industry as well as on the submarine program.

The audience is American because the decision affects American assets. Western Australia’s government has declined to treat the concern as serious. The United States Congress can authorize a National Defense Authorization Act risk assessment of what the port means for the submarine program, and that is what this campaign asks it to do.

What is in dispute, and what is not

A campaign this narrow is easy to mistake for a broader one, so it is worth being exact about where the disagreement starts and where it stops. It stops well short of AUKUS, of the submarine rotation, and of Western Australia having more container capacity than it has now.

It does not stop short of the case made for Westport itself. This campaign disputes the projected rate of freight growth the business case rests on, whether Fremantle reaches its claimed capacity in the timeframe claimed, the assumptions about substantially larger container ships, and Westport’s record against its own forecast milestones. Those are answered against published figures on What They Say.

What this campaign argues about

Three things it does not dispute. One siting decision, and four claims behind it, that it does.

Not in dispute by this campaign

AUKUSThis is not about whether you support it.
The submarine rotation through HMAS StirlingUnited States and United Kingdom boats, based in Western Australia. Not opposed.
Western Australia building more container capacityNot opposed in principle.

The siting question, which is the campaign

Whether an automated container terminal belongs 3.7 miles across the water from a nuclear submarine base, sharing a single narrow entrance with it, and crossing the route those submarines take to their own maintenance facility.

Also in dispute: the case made for the project

The projected rate of freight growthThe forecast the business case rests on, not the existence of growth.
Whether Fremantle hits its claimed capacity when claimedThe date the ceiling is said to arrive, and what follows from it.
The assumptions about substantially larger container shipsBigger hulls carrying the same trade is a projection, not a given.
Westport's record against its own projectionsForecast milestones have been missed before.

A count of positions, not a chart. The three are what this campaign holds publicly and does not argue against; they are not concessions by the Western Australian government, which has published no agreement with any of them. The siting question in red is what the ask on Take Action follows from. The four claims below it are answered against published figures on What They Say.

What this campaign does not claim

These are the boundaries we hold to, stated plainly so readers can check our work against them.

It is not a grassroots American organization, and it is not a group of concerned American citizens. It is a campaign sponsored by an Australian trade union, disclosed on every page.
It does not claim any United States official has endorsed it. No statement on this site is attributed to any member of Congress or any other American official.
It publishes no supporter counts, no membership figures, and no testimonials. There are none to publish.
The narrative on The Scenario is a hypothetical. It is labeled as one everywhere it appears, and no part of it describes something that has happened.
It does not allege that any specific vessel, operator, or country has done or intends anything. The argument is about an opening, not about a plot.

How we handle sources

Every figure and every claim on this site traces to a published document, and those documents are listed on The Evidence. Where the Westport program or the Western Australian government has published a position, it is quoted verbatim and answered on What They Say rather than characterised.

If the risk assessments this campaign asks about have been done and are published, the case for the campaign goes away. That has been the position since the first assessment in August 2025.

Help this reach more people who can act on it.

The ask

We call on the United States to conduct a security risk assessment examining the proposed Westport container port and its potential interactions with AUKUS operations in Cockburn Sound, Western Australia. The assessment should identify and evaluate risks to submarine movements, naval operations, commercial freight traffic in Western Australia and security in Cockburn Sound to inform decisions about the project.

This is not about whether you support AUKUS. Moving all of Western Australia's container freight into a single automated port across the water from HMAS Stirling puts the state's supply chain and the submarine program in the same few miles of water, and no risk assessment of that has been published.

Take action on this ask