David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commence by stating that the opposition supports these amendments, with some qualification. The purpose of the Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2008 is to make amendments to the Defence Act 1903 for three separate measures. The first of these three measures will amend the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the Criminal Code Act 1995 to implement the third protocol to the Geneva conventions in Australian legislation. The second measure will amend section 124 of the Defence Act 1903 to explicitly enable the making of regulations to cover the provision of medical and dental treatment, including pharmaceuticals, to an ADF member or cadet or a member of the family of an ADF member. The third measure amends the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952 to insert a new part to provide specific arrangements for the joint defence facility at Pine Gap.

The bill was read for the second time in the House of Representatives on 3 December 2008 and subsequently passed through that House on 10 February without amendment. The bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the report was dated 20 February 2009. The first schedule of the bill makes amendments to the third additional protocol to the Geneva conventions and is supported by the opposition, as I have indicated. On 8 March 2006, Australia signed the protocol additional to the Geneva conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the adoption of an additional distinctive emblem for the Red Cross-Red Crescent Movement, which is called protocol III. On 9 May 2007, the treaty on the protocol additional to the Geneva conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the adoption of an additional distinctive emblem, protocol III, at Geneva on 8 December 2005 was tabled. The treaty proposes that Australia takes binding treaty action to ratify the protocol additional to the Geneva conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the adoption of an additional distinctive emblem. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties reviewed the treaty and conducted a hearing on 18 June 2007. The committee’s report to parliament was tabled on 16 August 2007.

The Red Cross has extensively lobbied many senators to support this legislation. This part of the legislation amends the third protocol, as I have indicated, so as to recognise the red crystal in situations where the red cross could be considered culturally inappropriate, obviously predominantly in Islamic countries. The red crystal emblem has no religious, ethnic, racial, regional or political connotations, and the amendment ensures that the new emblem is used only with the consent of the Minister of Defence. The bill also amends the Criminal Code Act 1995 to ensure that the new Geneva emblem is covered by existing offences relating to the improper use of emblems of the Geneva conventions. The protocol includes a description of the new emblem, indicative and other uses of the emblem and, annexed to the protocol, a pictorial representation of the red crystal emblem.

Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Defence Act 1903 to explicitly enable the making of regulations to cover the provision of medical and dental treatment, including pharmaceuticals, to an ADF member or cadet or a member of the family of an ADF member. At present the Defence Force regulations contain a limited provision that merely recognises the provision of medical and dental treatment to members of the Australian Defence Force so that they are healthy for the purpose of discharging their duties, as well as cost recovery in specific, named circumstances. Medical and dental treatment includes the provision of services or goods, including scheduled pharmaceuticals, related to medical and dental treatment for an ADF member or cadet or a member of the family of an ADF member. In relation to pharmaceuticals, it is intended that the regulations will cover the possession, storage, supply, dispensation and administration of scheduled pharmaceuticals by ADF pharmacists, ADF medics, ADF nurses and civilian health professionals engaged by the Australian Defence Force. The effect of the amendments will ensure that the Australian Defence Force and its members are not hindered in the uniform application of their duties here and overseas by competing state or territory laws.

The contentious part of this schedule relates to a broken promise—an election promise—of the Rudd government. The health care commitment for ADF family members was set out in Labor’s plan for defence under the heading ‘Free medical and dental care for ADF families’. The promise stated:

ADF families can face significant difficulties obtaining access and to general medical and dental care for dependants, especially in regional and remote localities.

Posting to a remote location can mean that ADF families struggle to access the sort of health care that Australians enjoy.

A Rudd Labor Government will progressively extend free health care currently provided to ADF personnel to ADF dependent spouses and children.

Labor will begin this with a $33.1 million investment starting at 12 Defence Family Health Care Clinics, with a focus on remote bases locations and major regional centres.

This commitment was clearly—and has been acknowledged to have been—broken with the announcement of the government’s 2008-09 budget, which has only funded the new entitlement as a trial, allocating a mere $12.2 million over four years to trial the provision of free basic GP services and limited dental care to families of ADF members in rural and remote areas such as Singleton, New South Wales; Katherine, the Northern Territory; East Sale, Victoria; Cairns, Queensland; and Karratha, in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. The amount allocated for 2008-09 is a paltry and quite outrageous $2.4 million, with dental care limited to $300 per annum per dependant. Only five of the 10 rural and remote defence locations were mentioned—that is, excluding Townsville and Darwin. Rather than defence families attending defence family healthcare clinics at these locations, families are to ‘select the doctor or dentist of their choice’.

Changes to the commitment to provide defence healthcare clinics in Townsville and Darwin were also reportedly being considered, with the possibility that two defence family healthcare clinics promised in the campaign—those at Lavarack Barracks in Townsville and Robertson Barracks in Darwin—would be replaced by defence families accessing health department GP superclinics in Townsville and Darwin. No doubt in reaction and response to the public outcry from defence families that they had been completely misled by the Rudd government’s promises during the election campaign, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel announced in October 2008 that the free ADF family healthcare trial would be expanded to include Townsville, Darwin and, in Victoria, Puckapunyal. He said:

The trial is being expanded to fully test the delivery model, and ensure the development of evidence based policy to implement the Government’s commitment to progressively extend free basic health care for ADF dependants.

The initial phase of the trial is set to commence in early 2009 for 2,700 ADF dependants within the Singleton (NSW), Cairns (QLD), Katherine (NT), East Sale (VIC) and the Karratha/Pilbara (WA) regions.

…            …            …

Under the trial, ADF dependants will be able to visit general practitioners at no cost for standard consultations.

ADF dependants will also receive a benefit of $300 per dependant per annum for basic dental services.

When the trial is expanded in late 2009, it will provide for a total of approximately 16,000 ADF dependants.

While government statements have clearly limited ADF family dependants’ entitlements to visits to general practitioners at no cost for standard consultations and benefits of $300 per dependant per annum for basic dental services, this is not stated in the proposed legislation, the explanatory memorandum or the minister’s second reading speech. The bill provides for the making of regulations about medical and dental treatment for a member, a cadet or a member of the family of an ADF member. Details of the medical and dental treatment available to ADF members are contained in defence instructions issued under the authority of the Secretary of the Department of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force.

It is not clear, however, if the nature and extent of the medical and dental treatment will be detailed in the proposed regulations or whether it will be left to the discretion of the Secretary of the Department of Defence, the Chief of the Defence Force or the individual service chiefs, as is the case currently with the relevant defence instructions. In the interest of transparency and accountability, it would be appropriate if the government would give an assurance on behalf of the minister that any medical and dental care entitlements for non-ADF personnel—that is, the families—and thus expenditure be contained in regulations subject to disallowance under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 rather than in internal defence documents, such as defence instructions. I think that is a very clear and salient point. If anything, the recent fiasco with the SAS soldiers pay dispute highlights the fact that all of these things happening behind closed doors means that the service personnel and their families have no rights unless, as a last resort, they can come to parliament and have matters disallowed.

Turning to the last schedule of this omnibus bill, schedule 3 makes minor but important amendments that affect the joint defence facility at Pine Gap in the Northern Territory. As I have indicated, this is supported by the opposition. In the late 1960s, Prime Minister Harold Holt entered into an agreement with the United States which led to the establishment of the Joint Defence Space Research Facility, a top-secret base 20 kilometres south of Alice Springs at Pine Gap. Minister for External Affairs Paul Hasluck, as he then was, signed the agreement in December 1966. Pine Gap is run by Raytheon. As at 14 May 2008, there were 50 Australian Federal Police Protective Service officers stationed at Pine Gap. This schedule, which contains amendments to the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952, has been developed to explicitly provide that the joint defence facility at Pine Gap is a special defence undertaking and a prohibited area, and it inserts a purposive clause to make it clear that the defence power is not the only constitutional basis relied upon to support the act. This measure has been developed as a consequence of protestors questioning the Commonwealth’s ability to successfully prosecute the existing offences under the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952 in relation to the joint defence facility at Pine Gap.

The Pine Gap facility has been the site of many protests over some long time, generally anti-nuclear or anti United States in nature. Protesters attempting to enter the facility have generally been charged with minor summary offences. However, in May 2007, four pacifists who cut through wire fences to access the facility in December 2005 faced court charged with indictable offences under the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952. They were the first to be charged upon indictment under the act. The four were convicted in June 2007 in, I think, the district court of the Northern Territory and together were fined over $3,000. But, in February 2008, their convictions were overturned by the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal and His Honour Mr Justice Brian Martin found that there had been ‘a miscarriage of justice’ and that the defendants were deprived of a possible defence, namely establishing that the facility was not necessary for defence purposes, which is a threshold issue within the terms of the act. I pause to say that, having read the case, I think it would have been quite obvious to any jurist that that defence was available to the defendants and was erroneously removed from consideration by the jury.

The amendments contained within this part of the bill proceed by (a) specifically declaring that the joint defence facility at Pine Gap is, without question, a special defence undertaking and a prohibited area for the purposes of the act, leaving no matter now open to question and (b) inserting a purposive clause to make it clear that the parliament’s power to legislate with respect to the defence of the Commonwealth is not the only constitutional basis relied upon for the act. The amendments will specifically declare the facility a special defence undertaking and a prohibited area directly under the act rather than by the existing process—which requires a ministerial declaration—and will provide a firmer basis for any future prosecutions by removing the opportunity for argument about the validity of a declaration, as I have indicated. These protections are essential for a facility of such sensitivity and importance to Australia’s national defence and external relations in order to deter mischief makers and those with other, more sinister intent. I commend this bill to the Senate.

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

It is with a certain degree of alarm that I rise to speak on this bill this afternoon. Two-thirds of the Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2008 is entirely sensible, for many of the reasons Senator Johnston has just outlined; one-third of the bill is patently ridiculous. It is sensible to establish the red crystal as an alternative symbol to the red cross and the red crescent. The red crystal does not have any religious, cultural or political connotations. It is equally sensible for the members of the ADF and their families to have dental care, for many of the reasons Senator Johnston has outlined in detail. The Greens support those two-thirds of the bill.

Schedule 3, relating to Pine Gap, is the part of this bill that I describe as ridiculous because the Australian parliament is being asked to legislate to further protect a facility about which parliamentarians know and are allowed to know virtually nothing. The 1999 report No. 26 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties testifies to this fact. What we are witnessing today is not informed democratic policymaking. Because of the substantial secrecy surrounding this facility and its protection from parliamentary oversight, Australians have been told very little, or else have been told lies and misinformation, about the history of this facility. In 1966 Australians were told the facility was to be a weather station. Later, the official cover, which still resides in the name, was that it was a space research centre.

In fact, Pine Gap is a ground receiving station for space based intelligence gathering. It is the most strategically important United States base in Australia and is probably a vital component of fighting the illegal war against the people of Iraq. Its monitoring of radar, cell phone, radio and long-distance telephone communication enables it to provide targeting information for US air and ground forces. When the United States launched the shock and awe bombardment of Iraq, it is very likely that information from Pine Gap pointed the missiles and so-called smart weapons toward Iraqi military targets—and also toward the many thousands of civilians who died in that initial phase of the Iraq war and in the long years since then. Now that the United States is attacking so-called insurgents, information from Pine Gap tracks and monitors telephone communications, identifying and tracking suspects and leading troops, missiles and munitions to the houses and neighbourhoods in which they live. Many thousands of civilians continue to be killed as collateral damage in these campaigns.

Pine Gap is also a major component of the proposed missile defence shield—the so-called ‘Star Wars’ project. This shield proposes using satellite based weapons and ground based interceptors to shoot down incoming missiles. It has been described as attempting to hit a bullet with a bullet. The United States has spent billions developing this system, but it is still a long way from making it work. Both China and Russia, predictably, have strongly denounced the project as threatening a new arms race. The Senate is being asked this afternoon to enact legislation that would protect the United States’s spy facility from Australian citizens, citizens who might dare to have an opinion about infrastructure on our soil being used to kill civilians in an illegal war or about our population becoming a nuclear target because of this vital component to the United States’s nuclear-war-fighting machine being on our soil—or citizens who might have an opinion about whether a peppercorn is enough rent for the price that our country pays for hosting Pine Gap.

The second reason that schedule 3 of this bill, the part relating to Pine Gap, is ridiculous is that it is putting a very old Cold War piece of legislation on life support. In my role as Australian Greens heritage spokesperson, I wonder whether it would be possible to heritage list legislation like this and then set it aside like the relic that it is. The Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952 became law in our country to secure the sites for British atomic weapons testing. The law protected nuclear test sites ‘from observation by any unauthorised person’ so that the nuclear tests could release massive and harmful quantities of radiation off the coast of my home state of Western Australia and in South Australia. A very long way from decision makers in London, the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act ensured that these bombs were safe from observation, from demonstrators and from Australian citizens—apart from those who found themselves unlucky enough to be deliberately exposed.

I am interested to know why the Attorney-General thinks this 1952 piece of legislation demands beefing up. The reason is very interesting. It is because when Attorney-General Philip Ruddock used the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act for the very first time in its history in trying to send four Christian pacifists to jail for seven years Attorney-General Ruddock lost and the Howard government set this train in motion. Four Christian pacifists entered Pine Gap on 9 December 2005 after informing the Minister for Defence and the media of their intention to conduct a peaceful and non-violent citizens’ inspection of the facility. Despite engaging an army of QCs at taxpayers’ expense to inflict the maximum punishment and place the maximum limitation on the courts hearing the defence’s justification and legal argument, Philip Ruddock lost that case. The Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the convictions of the Christian pacifists. The court found that citizens had the right to challenge whether the prohibited area was necessary for the purpose of the defence of Australia.

It is very unfortunate that Attorney-General Robert McClelland is following his predecessor’s lead, finishing what Mr Ruddock started by amending the law to further crack down on peaceful protest. Given this series of events, the amendments proposed in this legislation can accurately be described as retrospective revenge that would ‘punish and frighten those thinking about engaging in non-violent resistance against Pine Gap’s role in war making’, as a number of the submissions to the inquiry stated. The amendments would inhibit citizens from ever challenging whether Pine Gap is necessary for Australia’s defence in future, which is an erosion of the democratic rights of which Australians are proud. This schedule of the bill is unnecessary because adequate legislation, in particular the Crimes Act 1914, already exists to protect Pine Gap from trespass or from acts of aggression. If it is such a core element of Australia’s national security, what Pine Gap does not need is legislative protection; it needs perimeter patrol—especially when Christian pacifists have politely provided forewarning of their intention to non-violently enter the facility to pray. If it is indeed such a sophisticated intelligence-gathering facility, the capacity to gather intelligence about its immediate environment should perhaps be enhanced.

Amendments to the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952 making Pine Gap a special defence undertaking and a prohibited area are excessive, are corrosive of democratic principles and should not be supported. I foreshadow that the Australian Greens will make amendments to remove this schedule of the bill, retaining the red crystal and dental components but deleting the elements relating to Pine Gap.

Before I take my seat, I would like to put on the record what is probably a correction to one of Senator Johnston’s comments about people who have a long history of demonstration at Pine Gap—and that includes me—and who attended the Pine Gap demonstration in 2002. In my experience, these people are not anti the United States; they are anti war. They were there, we were there, to protest the coming bombardment and the loss of life of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and they will be back whether or not this bill is passed into law.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2008. The purpose of the bill, as has been outlined, is to address three separate policy measures. The first amendment is to the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the Criminal Code Act 1995 to incorporate protocol III to the Geneva convention. As has been said, protocol III recognises the red crystal as being a third distinctive emblem of the International Red Cross, in addition to the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. The second amendment is to the Defence Act 1903 and provides regulations for the possession, storage, dispensing and administration of pharmaceuticals by Australian Defence Force healthcare professionals. Its effect will be to standardise regulations to overcome state-based irregularities and discrepancies.

Finally, the bill will amend the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952 to ensure that the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap is adequately protected under legislation to prevent unauthorised access. This final amendment follows deficiencies identified during the trial and appeal of four activists who broke into the facility in 2005. This bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade for inquiry and the committee received 11 submissions. The committee reported in February 2009 and recommended that the bill be passed without amendment.

I would like to address the most controversial aspect of the bill—namely, as addressed by Senator Ludlam and relating to the third amendment, the provision of protection against unauthorised entry to the Pine Gap facility. As I think is generally acknowledged, protests at Pine Gap have occurred relatively regularly over recent decades. Any attempts to enter the facility have generally resulted in minor charges being brought. However, in December 2005, as outlined, four self-described—as I understand it—‘Christian pacifists’ armed with boltcutters entered a technical support area of the base. It reminded me of a section in Matthew in the Bible:

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.

Apparently, it might be suggested, that is respected by some in theory but not in practice. After all, I think it is acknowledged that the Christian pacifists were trespassing with clear intent to challenge the authority and existing law that regulated the facility.

In June 2007, they were convicted of the offence of entering a prohibited area and were fined over $3,000, but they did not receive a custodial sentence. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed the leniency of the sentence and the protestors appealed their convictions in turn. The result, as has been outlined, was the acquittal of all four defendants. At issue in those proceedings was whether the facility at Pine Gap was a defence facility for the purposes of the act. The amendments in this bill seek to clarify that position. I acknowledge at the outset that it is an emotive and emotional issue. Joint facilities raise questions of sovereign rights at the best of times. They also raise questions of the right of Australians to know what is going on within them. However, it is also fair to say that opponents of joint facilities, whether Christian pacifists or not, are generally strong supporters of disarmament, often unilateral disarmament. For this reason we need to separate fact from fiction.

If you google ‘Pine Gap’, you will find a massive amount of information on this facility which is either unsubstantiated or just plain wrong. To get at the facts we need to go back to the beginning. During the Second World War, Labor Prime Minister John Curtin changed Australian strategic priorities. In a statement to the Melbourne Herald in December 1941, following the attack on Pearl Harbor and amid fears about the imminent fall of Singapore, he made the much quoted comment:

Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.

From that time, our forces fought side by side in the South Pacific, and our fleets fought together in the Battle of the Coral Sea. It is also important to note that allied intelligence organisations were established at this time. At the end of the war, the Chifley Labor government put in place a permanent collaborative arrangement for our intelligence links. In 1951 our links in defence and security were formalised in the ANZUS treaty under then Prime Minister Menzies. For over 50 years since, the ANZUS treaty has been the cornerstone of our strategic relationship with the United States. That treaty is founded on our common values of democracy, freedom and the rule of law. It is also—arguably more importantly—based on our shared interests globally as well as in the Asia-Pacific region.

Fast-forward to the 1960s and Australia agreed to play host to joint facilities at North West Cape, Pine Gap and Nurrungar. Pine Gap, along with the other bases, was a project conceived and developed in the Cold War era to support global security. In 1966 the then Minister for External Affairs, Mr Hasluck, on behalf of the Australian government signed an agreement with the United States. That agreement was to establish the Joint Defence Space Research Facility. The head agreement, as it is known, came into effect on 9 December 1966. Significantly, it was amended in 1988. I will return to that milestone and set of negotiations later. Initially, the agreement was terminable at one year’s notice by either side. Since 1988 three years notice has been required to terminate the agreement. The agreement has also been subject to review, on average every 10 years.

Pine Gap was billed as a top-secret base. However, it did not take long for Australians to become aware that it was located 20 kilometres south of Alice Springs. Construction began in early 1967 and the infrastructure was completed in 1968. It began full operations in June 1970. Although the head agreement is not a public document, it is known that the agreement required that the Australian and US governments would establish, maintain and operate in Australia a facility for general defence research in the space field; the Australian government would provide the land for the facility and it would remain vested in the Australian government; the US government would be accorded ‘all necessary rights of access to, and joint use and occupation of, the land’; and the land would ‘be considered a secure area’. Initially, there was not a genuine joint arrangement in the management and operations of the facilities, although, it must be stated, there was an unusually high level of Australian knowledge of the more sensitive operations and of the satellite and communications systems they supported.

Today, the role and functions of the facility are known. Firstly, the facility collects intelligence and provides an early warning system for the launch of ballistic missiles. Secondly, the facility aids in the detection of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and can help to identify surprise or accidental nuclear missile attack. That means the facility makes a vital contribution to the deterrence of conflict. It also contributes to efforts to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I cannot overstate the importance of this function to Australia and our allies. International verification of arms control is a means to achieving agreements between nations to limit, reduce and over time eliminate their arsenals of nuclear weapons. For that reason, effective verification is a key component in the disarmament process.

We cannot hope that nations will agree to strategic arms reduction agreements if their success cannot be measured and verified. If agreements fail it is generally because stringent verification requirements cannot be met to the satisfaction of both sides. Through early warning, communications and other functions, this facility promotes confidence in the balance of deterrence. This confidence must be maintained if superpowers such as the United States and Russia are to keep disarming. It is a contribution we must continue to make to our national as well as our global security.

The agreement as it stands today does not in any way impinge on our sovereign rights. This is a recurring theme in criticisms of the facility. I believe it stems mainly from the secrecy which shrouded the project in its early days. Since 1988 our relationship with the United States with respect to the joint facility has matured. Under the terms of the 1988 agreement, negotiated under the aegis of Prime Minister Hawke by, I believe, then Defence Minister Beazley, we are engaged in a policy of ‘full knowledge and concurrence’. As I said previously, this was not always the case. In the early seventies and early eighties only a handful of Australian personnel were directly involved in the central work of the facility. There was also a significant degree of secrecy surrounding the work of the facility.

However, following the negotiations in 1988, much of that changed. As a result of the new agreement Australian commanders are in charge of shifts and an Australian holds the position of deputy commander of the facility and becomes acting commander in the absence of the commander. That was not always the case; it is now. Also, there are now Australian personnel and contractors on every shift and, most importantly, we use the capabilities of the facility for our own national security priorities without United States veto powers. So we have control of the facility, command of the facility and sovereign rights over the facility, while we maintain an independent and highly valued contribution to the work of the facility.

All this points to the fact that the Australian government has full visibility of the role and functions of Pine Gap. Of the 800 personnel at the base, over 60 per cent are Australian government employees or contractors. Our personnel includes members of the AFP as well as members of the ADF. The work of our senior officials ensures our full knowledge and concurrence will continue. More importantly, the new agreement heralded a commitment by the Hawke government to inform the public as fully as possible about the facility. The thinking behind that policy shift in 1998 was and is simple: if there is a better understanding of the role of the facility, there may well be increased public support for it. There are of course limitations on what can be revealed publicly. Successive Australian governments in practice have not commented on intelligence matters. There is, however, enough information publicly available on the importance of Pine Gap, an importance based not only on our obligations to our allies but also on our national aims for the reduction of arms and nuclear weapons.

On Pine Gap’s 40th anniversary in 2007, the then defence minister said:

Our intelligence relationship already strong has been reinforced over the past five years. This co-operation, which now borders on seamless, has seen an increase in information exchange, technical cooperation and embedded liaison officers.

He went on to say:

The public can have confidence that its elected representatives are responsibly and accountably overseeing such activities.

Our alliance with the US provides us with crucial military benefits such as unique intelligence; sophisticated weaponry, technology and equipment; logistics, training and operational experience through exchange programs and exercises; and defence research and technical cooperation. The history of this interaction means that we now make a significant military contribution to our own national security.

The question then becomes whether as a society we are confident in the protections afforded by our democratic institutions. It is a debate that will no doubt continue as long as the need for alliances and treaties between nations exists. I acknowledge that not all Australians will support the existence of this joint facility. However, as we all know, terrorism is a global challenge and we must continue to play our part. I would like to reiterate that intelligence collected at Pine Gap contributes to the verification of arms control and achieving disarmament agreements. Verification is vital to the arms control process. Therefore, the importance of our contribution should not be underestimated. In this respect, we should all be aware that, if you will the outcome, you need to will the means.

The joint defence facility Pine Gap makes an important contribution to the security interests of both Australia and the United States. It serves a modern purpose. Pine Gap is an outstanding illustration of the commitment and level of cooperation that has been achieved in Australia’s close defence relationship with the US. It is also an Australian defence base. The changes to the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act will maintain an appropriate level of protection for the facility Pine Gap. The protections are in line with those in place for our other defence bases. We need to ensure that Pine Gap continues to make significant contributions to our national and global security. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In summing up the debate on the Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2008, I want to thank all participants in this debate from all sides—and I know that they were not all singing from the same song sheet—for the very informed contributions that each senator has made to this discussion.

The bill amends three separate acts. The first set of amendments amend the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 to specifically incorporate a reference to and description of the red crystal emblem and a reference to protocol III in part IV of that act and annexing protocol III as a schedule to that act. The bill further amends the Criminal Code Act 1995 to specifically incorporate protocol III and the red crystal in the dictionary to the Criminal Code and ensures that improper use of the red crystal is caught by the offence of improper use of the emblems of the Geneva convention. The amendment also ensures that the new emblem is used only with the consent of the Minister for Defence.

The red crystal will be of significant benefit to combat zones to help secure the safety of eligible humanitarian workers from all countries, regardless of their location or political situation. Incorporation of protocol III would be consistent with Australia’s longstanding support for the Geneva conventions and their additional protocols. The new emblem is unlikely to be used in Australia for either indicative or protected purpose, given the longstanding recognition accorded to the red cross emblem. The new emblem may, however, be used by the ADF in certain regions overseas. Incorporation would further demonstrate and enhance Australia’s credentials in international humanitarian law. It would also enable Australia to encourage states, both within our region and beyond, that are not yet a party to the protocol to ratify it.

The second set of amendments are to the Defence Act 1903 to explicitly enable the making of regulations to cover the provision of medical and dental treatment, including pharmaceuticals, to an ADF member or cadet or member of the family of an ADF member. The amendments to section 124 of the act enable a more comprehensive regime in the Defence Force regulations. In relation to pharmaceuticals, it is intended that the regulations will cover the possession, storage, supply, dispensing and administration of schedule pharmaceuticals by ADF pharmacists, ADF medics, ADF nurses and civilian health professionals engaged by the ADF. The effects of the amendments would be to create a regime that would ensure that the ADF and its members are not hindered in the uniform application of their duties overseas by competing state and territory laws.

The third issue covered in the bill relates to the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952 to explicitly provide that the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap is a special defence undertaking and a prohibited area. The bill will insert a purposive clause to make it clear that the defence power is not the only constitutional basis relied upon to support the act. These protections are essential to a facility of such sensitivity and importance to Australia’s defence and external relations to deter mischief makers and those with more sinister intent. I once again thank honourable senators for their support for the bill and commend it to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.