Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share 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.