Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the 121st report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, on a treaty tabled on 16 August 2011. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I am pleased to present the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report No. 121, which contains the committee's views on the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America Relating to the Operation of and Access to an Australian Naval Communication Station at North West Cape in Western Australia, done at Washington on 16 July 2008, which was tabled in this parliament on 16 August 2011. This proposed agreement is intended to replace the Agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the United States of America relating to the Establishment of the United States Naval Communications Station in Australia, originally done at Canberra on 9 May 1963.

The fact that it is replacing a 1963 agreement demonstrates the length of the operation of this base and the relevance and ongoing importance of it to Australia's defence operations and to our defence relationship with the United States. The 1963 agreement provided for the establishment, maintenance and operation by the United States of a naval communication station in Australia, at the North West Cape in WA. This agreement was terminated in May 1999 and since then an interim arrangement applied until a new treaty was concluded. That, of course, is the treaty that we are considering today. The proposed new agreement will remain in force for an initial period of 25 years and, unless terminated earlier, shall then continue for subsequent periods of five years.

The new agreement provides for continued access to and use of this station. The station is officially known as the Harold E Holt Naval Communication Station—and I shall avoid making any obvious puns or remarks about the relevance of a station providing communications support to submarine activities named after the former Prime Minister Harold Holt. Nonetheless, the agreement provides continued access to and use of this station to the United States and, consequently, the means through which very low frequency, or VLF, communication for United States and Australian submarines may be maintained. Continuing US access to the station will help support the maintenance of a strong and adaptable US presence in the Asia-Pacific region. As I said before, it is also an important indication of the continuing commitment of the US government to regional cooperation and of Australia's continued commitment to working with the United States in that regional cooperation.

The station's capacity for communicating with submerged submarines in the Indian Ocean is unique in our region and therefore it is a vital element in enabling Australian use of other VLF transmitters to communicate with Australian submarines. This is not a one-way street relationship. This is the only station of its sort on Australian soil that allows such VLF communications with our submarines. It transmits into the Indian Ocean region. When our submarines operate in other areas they frequently use facilities that are used, owned or operated by the United States, the United Kingdom or other allies based on the soils of other countries. It shows the importance of integration in these areas of cooperation. As I indicated, the committee recognised that the station is part of an integrated network of communication stations and that the Australian Navy is reliant upon VLF transmitters provided by other bases operated by the US in other countries to communicate with Australian submarines worldwide. The committee heard, and highlights in its report, that it was important to accept this treaty and that it should be part of our ongoing relations and operations. Evidence provided by the Department of Defence to the committee indicated that the continued access and use of the station by the US, and consequently the means through which VLF communication for US and Australian submarines may be maintained, is critical and is afforded by this treaty. According to the Department of Defence, continuing US access to the station will help support the maintenance of a strong and adaptable US presence in the Asia-Pacific region and is an important indication of the continuing commitment of the US government to regional cooperation. The committee went on to highlight that the station's capacity to communicate with submerged submarines in the Indian Ocean is, as I said before, unique in our region. The Department of Defence argued strongly that hosting the facility was an important element in enabling Australian use of other VLF transmitters to communicate with Australian submarines in the Pacific and Arctic oceans in particular.

The committee did conclude its remarks by indicating support for the ratification of this treaty. We did so recognising that it was an important part of the continued defence relationship between Australia and the United States and that cooperation over the Harold E Holt Naval Communication Station represents a tangible expression of that defence relationship. The committee also recognised that this is part of an integrated network of communication stations and that the Royal Australian Navy is very reliant upon VLF transmitters provided by other bases operated by the United States in other countries to communicate with Australian submarines operating beyond the Indian Ocean range of this station. That is a fundamental reason for support.

We did note concerns about the support of nuclear armed submarines as part of this and heard and received some evidence of concern in that regard. The committee did draw to the government's attention that in the future there is the possibility of conflict between this proposed agreement and any agreement that establishes a Southern Hemisphere nuclear-free zone. I would highlight to the government that the committee did ask it to specifically address how such a possible conflict may be reconciled without in any way diminishing the Australian government's efforts to promote disarmament and the abolition of nuclear weapons.

These are remarks that the Australian Greens particularly picked up on in their dissenting report. I am sure that Senator Ludlam will speak to that. I know that Senator Ludlam brings to issues of nonproliferation and disarmament of nuclear weapons a very sincere approach. I have been pleased to work with him on some of those matters, including the more detailed work of the treaties committee in that regard. Nonetheless, when I read the Greens' dissenting report, I was struck by the first paragraph. I am not sure whether Senator Ludlam had some assistance from his colleagues in drafting that first paragraph because it states, 'The North West Cape naval communication base attracted controversy and protest during the Cold War due to the role it played as a command and control communications centre for US nuclear submarine warfare against the Soviet Union.' I see that Senator Ludlam has recently been joined in the chamber by Senator Rhiannon, who has some historical ties to the Soviet Union, which used to fund her writings and editorial activities through the Survey magazine in the 1980s. I would hope that there is no insinuation in those remarks that the Australian Greens think that perhaps the wrong side won the Cold War. We on this side of the chamber and Senator Feeney on that side of the chamber are very happy with the people who came out on top of the Cold War and recognise that our support of and cooperation with the US was probably quite important to that over a long and sustained period of time.

Flippancy aside, this is an important agreement. The issues raised by Senator Ludlam are also important and they do deserve the government's response. The government should address exactly how this treaty will work in the future in terms of their own policy commitment to nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. The committee overall accepts that this is a genuine area of mutual cooperation in defence activities that assists in meeting the operational requirements of Australia's Defence Force. These are important matters and that is why we think this treaty deserves support and ratification by the government.

We note that, after the expiration of the previous treaty and before the successful negotiation of this treaty, there was a period of negotiation between the two governments and some private agreements were struck in that period of time that are matters of sensitivity. We trust that they only support the operation of this treaty and the base station and address the small issues in relation to its ultimate clean-up, the use of facilities and the future handling or ownership of assets in that regard. In closing, I commend the report of the treaties committee to the chamber and commend the ratification, as the committee does, of this treaty.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make some additional comments on the 121st report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. I acknowledge Senator Birmingham's backhanded compliments to me as a longstanding colleague on this committee while repudiating the rude and undignified shot that he just took at my colleague Senator Rhiannon. Senator Birmingham, you and I are fortunate to be young enough not to have gone through the Cold War, when people quite literally lived in fear that their allies were going to incinerate each other one afternoon in an exchange of nuclear weapons. I did march, and perhaps you did as well, with my parents on Palm Sunday when 20,000 or 30,000 people streamed down St Georges Terrace. I can really only give thanks to people in the global peace movement who dedicated their lives to ridding the world of these weapons. Many of them have been demobilised over the last 10 or 15 years.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They weren't the ones who rid the world of nuclear weapons. They were the ones who wanted to disarm the West.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We sat and listened to you in silence. How about you do the same?

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senators will accord Senator Ludlam the courtesy of listening in silence. Senator Ludlam, resume.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We contributed to a dissenting report on this matter for some of these same reasons. We are not really satisfied that the agreement between the government of Australia and the government of the United States of America relating to the operation of and access to this communication station at North West Cape is good enough. Senators will be aware that the base sits right on Ningaloo Reef, which is Western Australia's Great Barrier Reef. I spoke about the risks faced by Ningaloo Reef due to climate change earlier today during the carbon debate. The North West Cape base emits very low frequency communications, and these are of abiding concern to marine biologists and environmental campaigners due to the possible ecological impacts of these sound waves on creatures that inhabit this precious marine sanctuary.

As we learned through the inquiry, there is disagreement between the US government and Australia on a couple of matters. For over 10 years it has been very difficult to tell who is responsible for cleaning up contaminated sites up there, and while that situation exists we have asbestos and quite serious diesel contamination of the groundwater very close to one of Australia's most important marine parks. The national interest analysis also states that there are unresolved issues on the worth of assets at the base. We are about to enter into another 25-year agreement—should we not perhaps clear up whether this thing is an asset or liability, and which of the two governments holds those? The Australian Greens believe that a new agreement should not be entered into before these matters are cleared up.

The base did attract controversy—here is this paragraph again, Senator Birmingham—during the Cold War in the role it played as a command control and communications centre for US submarine warfare against the Soviet Union. These are ballistic missile submarines whose entire purpose for being constructed and operated is to cruise the world's oceans completely out of sight, in communication only with bases such as this one, in the event that military or political commanders either in the US or in the former Soviet Union decide one afternoon to end civilisation. They are there in the event that someone decides to incinerate civilisation with nuclear weapons. That is their purpose; that is what they are for.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the deterrence?

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we learned during the hearing, it is still, 'Oh, because of nuclear weapons, that's what it is.'

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is why you are here today, because of the deterrence.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, the less we hear from you the better this will go.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludlum, direct your comments through the chair, if you will.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, thank you. As we learned during the hearing, the base facilitates, enable and support nuclear armed submarines, which are an attack and defensive weapons platform. There is no real doctrine which says that these are defensive weapons. The credibility of Australia's efforts to push for action on nuclear disarmament at the global level is greatly reduced when we lend ports infrastructure and personnel to legitimising the retention and deployment of these weapons. This, of course, is another reason why the Greens do not believe that this treaty should be adopted in its current form.

I acknowledge that the JSCOT committee, which did a comprehensive and unanimous report on nuclear disarmament issues some time ago and which Senator Macdonald's party signed onto, did seriously engage with the question of nuclear weapons in its inquiry and report. The committee noted in this report that the proposed 25-year agreement may pose a conflicting obligation should nuclear disarmament diplomacy advance within this timeframe. In other words, this agreement, it is to be hoped and acknowledged by this report, may outlast the security arrangements which preceded it, in that we may not need to keep these horrific weapons in the field for another 25 years. It is a pity that the committee refused to acknowledge that allowing nuclear weapon states to continue business as usual deters any action towards disarmament. As long as Australia continues to lend weight and credence to the idea that nuclear weapons bring security by participating in the US nuclear weapons umbrella, and allowing bases on our soil to facilitate the nuclear weapons apparatus, we are missing an opportunity to demonstrate that giving a reduced role to nuclear weapons is practically achievable and need not result in damaged alliances.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did your colleague ever think that the Russians were going to get rid of their nuclear weapons?

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, I will take that interjection, because the former Soviet Union and now the Russian government have demobilised an enormous number of strategic nuclear weapons—there are far fewer than there were before.

I put a number of questions to the Minister for Defence on 27 June—I thank him for the responses—to try to tease out precisely what role these weapons, which are quite literally weapons of genocide, play in Australia's security policy. There have been, over modern Australian history, a few tentative moves to develop them for ourselves, but fortunately sanity prevailed and that has never occurred, although we know that was one of the rationales for the construction of the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney. I put those questions to the Minister for Defence to get a sense of where Australian military doctrine stands on the issue of nuclear weapons under the US nuclear umbrella in 2011. Some of the responses are quite detailed. In part (4), they state:

For the time being, Australia accepts that nuclear weapons are part of the strategic environment.

Australian defence policy acknowledges the value to Australia of the protection afforded by extended nuclear deterrence under the US Alliance.

This is, as Senator Brandis was yelling across the chamber before, the policy of nuclear deterrence; if we have them we will deter the use of nuclear weapons by hostile countries. In the wonderful, bipolar world which these gentlemen who are—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Birmingham was heard in silence.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was. They are continuing to heckle in a most undignified way. What has happened is that the construction and use of these weapons and the testing of these weapons has simply bred more. The Soviet Union got them because the United States had them. Once the Soviet Union got them, India, Pakistan and China got them. Now Israel holds them, and we have reason to believe that even the Burmese government is engaging in a covert weapons program.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And Iran.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Iran, thank you, Senator Feeney. And who could forget the United Kingdom and France? We do not have a stable, bipolar situation any more, with two rational governments facing off across western Europe to its great misfortune. We have these weapons potentially in the hands of non-state actors, for whom deterrence is a joke. We have them in the hands of highly unstable regimes such as Pakistan. I wonder how the senators who have taken the time to come down here this afternoon and heckle about the idea of disarming the world of these horrific devices would feel if we came in here one morning to hear that one of these weapons had been detonated. We have lived in this extraordinary period of the last few decades where some survival instinct has kept the finger off the button. We must never take that for granted, as we have seen some examples of this afternoon. For some reason we feel that it is sensible and sane and part of an ordinary and entirely rational military doctrine to hold tens of thousands of weapons that could end civilisation in an afternoon; for some reason we feel this is somehow a great idea. I find it completely dumbfounding that this obsolete Cold War logic has followed us all the way to 2011. The Greens believe that the US government and Australia should not collaborate on support for nuclear weapons to be floating around the world on ballistic missile submarines. I acknowledge that the former Prime Minister, now the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kevin Rudd, has poured a huge amount of energy into these endeavours and has seriously tried to move the international debate forward. But at the same time that is occurring it is being undermined by the efforts of the global uranium mining industry and by precisely the response we had from the defence ministry that while trying to abolish these weapons we somehow believe there is still a place for them in Australia's defence and security doctrine. There is no place in the defence doctrine of any country in the world for weapons as horrific as these. I think having an honest conversation about removing the US nuclear weapons umbrella from Australia's security policy would strengthen, not destroy, our alliance with the United States.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to address report No. 121 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Harold E Holt Naval Communication Station at Exmouth. My colleagues have detailed the background to this treaty and the fact that it replaces a treaty that was struck before the facility was commissioned in 1967. Essentially, it extends the existing conditions of joint use whereby there is full disclosure and knowledge of what is occurring in that facility, which works to the benefit of both the United States and Australia.

Particularly in light of some of the comments made by my colleague Senator Ludlam, I would like to talk a little more broadly about our relationship with the United States and some of the benefits of having these agreements on shared use facilities. At the moment much is being made of the fact that the United States is facing a period of economic difficulty and there is considerable drawdown in its defence spending. At the same time, regional powers, whether they be China or India, are facing periods of significant growth and expanding influence. Those who read papers dealing with defence and strategy will have seen a deal of writing just recently on the expansion of the Chinese navy and their bluewater capability. The US Secretary of Defence, Mr Panetta, has been working in the region recently and looking at the expansion of the Chinese navy and their operations through the East and South China Seas. And the Indian Navy, for example, reports some interaction now with the Chinese navy. So there are many people who argue that if our economic dependence on China is increasing and they are an increasingly important player in the region then surely our relationship with the United States should change, and some people would even argue it should decrease. There are many people, though, who are studying this area in great detail and who argue completely the opposite—who say that the best outcome for the region would be for the United States to continue a strong engagement in the region and that that in fact would be welcomed by the Chinese.

One of China's great concerns is our North West Shelf project, the Gorgon development and the Guangdong agreement. The plan is that some 10 per cent of China's energy needs will be met by that region by 2020, so from an energy security perspective they have great concern about what happens in trade routes and what happens in this region. Clearly, if there are strong relationships between the United States and Australia in our region and security in the trade routes around the Malacca Straits et cetera then it removes an uncertainty from their perspective and removes a reason for them to extend even further the activities of their naval fleet, with its increasing capability. That then adds a deal of security and certainty to regional nations in terms of the balance of powers, stability and their own need to expend moneys on defence. In that context, I welcome not only the tabling of this treaty but also the fact that we are looking at AUSMIN discussions between Australia and the United States on increasing cooperation in Australia for training areas and bases, whether that is up in the Northern Territory at the Bradshaw training area, at HMAS Stirling or access to other bases.

There is a real opportunity here for us to build a new relationship with America. The ANZUS alliance, since 1951, has been the basis of our engagement with the States, and that specifically had its origins in this issue of regional stability. Post World War II, particularly in light of the Korean War, the Americans were very concerned to allow Japan to re-engage with the international community and to rearm. It was the nervousness of regional nations such as Australia and New Zealand that led to the ANZUS alliance being signed, such that we felt comfortable that in a regional sense countries could re-emerge.

What we see now is the emergence of new powers in the region, so the ANZUS alliance and a relationship with the States has increasing importance. Signing agreements like this one on the Harold E Holt Communication Station, I believe, is just the first step in renewing the relationship with the US. We should be embracing the fact that they are looking for opportunities. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in the November issue of Foreign Policy magazine, says that one of the most important things for the United States to do in the coming years is to reinvigorate and invest in its relationships and strategic partnerships in the Asia-Pacific region.

We have the opportunity not only to engage in a meaningful and strategic manner with their military but also to make sure that there is a benefit to both our defence capability and our industry capability. If we are operating common platforms, there is no reason why we should not be able to include in those agreements areas where our industry capacity can be involved in the through-life support of maritime, land and air assets. That enables a sustainable base of work to supply and support our own military as well as growth opportunities and transfer of technology opportunities from the United States to our industry.

There are real opportunities here to bring greater stability to our region, greater benefit to our industry and better cooperation and certainty for our military and those of our regional neighbours through an intentional and close cooperation with the United States. It is for that reason that I am very happy to support the recommendation of this report, which is that the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States relating to the Operation of and Access to an Australian Naval Communication Station at North West Cape in Western Australia, which was done in Washington in 2008, be done, and that binding treaty action be taken.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.