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

The Greens oppose schedule (3) in the following terms:

(1)    Schedule 3, page 15 (line 1) to page 16 (line 22), TO BE OPPOSED.

Madam Chair, I seek your guidance on whether it is appropriate at this time to put a more general question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, certainly. Go ahead, Senator Ludlam.

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

During the period of Senate estimates, the week before last, there was speculation in the media that the Pine Gap agreement had come up for review, and a United States consular official indicated to an ABC journalist that that was in fact the case and negotiations were underway. Senior defence officials in estimates hearings then indicated that that was not the case. I am just wondering whether you would be able to clarify that matter for us now.

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

The Pine Gap treaty was originally signed by Australia and the United States in 1966 and was extended on 16 November 1998. By agreement between Australia and the United States, the treaty remains in force until terminated by either government. The recent comments made to the press by US Consul General Michael Thurston regarding the status of the treaty as being under negotiation were based on incorrect information. Regrettably, this statement was not corrected by the US embassy until US Consul General Michael Thurston had conducted his interview. There is currently no review of the treaty. Following the extension in 1998, the treaty remains in force until terminated by either government. I hope that assists.

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

Thank you very much for that clarification. Can I take it as read then that the Pine Gap treaty is now in effect entirely open ended and there is no formal period or process for review unless one or the other party calls it into review?

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

I think it is fair to say that that is accurate.

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

I will not speak at length to the opposition of this schedule—I think the views were pretty broadly canvassed during the second reading debate—except to say that in Senator Bishop’s remarks, which I listened to with great interest, there was emphasis on global terrorism, on arms control and on tracking illegal proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world. Obviously discussion of these things is welcomed. In fact, the kinds of people who would normally be seen demonstrating at Pine Gap are entirely supportive of these roles, but we must not allow these aspects or these roles of the base to detract from the fact that this is a military installation.

Senator Bishop did mention in his remarks that this facility exists to guide ballistic missiles, that it is in fact a nuclear weapons war-fighting facility. That was one of the original intentions upon which it was established. It remains so to this day. So it is all very well to be emphasising these rather wholesome sounding aspects whereby Pine Gap is used to detect missile launchers or nuclear weapons tests around the world, and obviously this is very welcome. This facility exists to help the United States fight nuclear wars. It is a Cold War relic. These aspects of the base and the base itself should certainly be closed down. Before putting this to the vote—and I indicate that I will be seeking to divide on this matter—I would just ask senators to consider for themselves whether they are aware, whether they know and whether they could find out if they asked what this base actually does.

Question put:

That schedule 3 stand as printed.