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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Bob Carr) to a question without notice asked by Senator Ludlam today relating to United States of America marines and training exercises in Australia.

My question was about the effective ambush announcement made by President Obama and Prime Minister Gillard last November that a contingent of 2½ thousand US Marines will be rotated through an Australian base in Darwin—in effect, a permanent new military presence. This is starting, as the foreign minister confirmed for us, in April—in a few weeks time—and will be using training facilities and air weapons ranges, including Bradshaw and Delamere, and Robertson Barracks while in Darwin.

I asked the foreign minister about this issue because it does have implications for our foreign relations with countries in the region. Increasing the presence of military troops is a military decision, but it is also a political and diplomatic signal. It impacts the posture of other countries in our region. This issue was raised in quite strong language by the former deputy secretary of Defence, ANU Professor Hugh White, who said:

I think this is a very significant and potentially very risky move for Australia. In the view from Beijing, everything the US is doing in the western Pacific is designed to bolster resistance to the Chinese challenge to US primacy.

In Washington and in Beijing, this will be seen as Australia aligning itself with an American strategy to contain China.

Obviously, Professor Hugh White is respected for his views in defence and foreign policy matters. There are others who will probably take a different view, the point being that that debate in Australia is not being had. This is proceeding as though it were a fait accompli.

As senators know, two-thirds of all US Marines are based in the Pacific, with big concentrations at US bases on the Okinawa island chain south of Japan and in Guam. Locals resist their presence through protest, and have for many, many years. The success of some of those demonstrations over many years is resulting in a winding back of the military presence in Okinawa for a multitude of reasons, including the social and economic impacts and, indeed, the severe environmental impacts of that base in Okinawa.

Former US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said last November in Melbourne:

We don't want to do things that would be politically difficult for the Australian government. We want to enhance the alliance, not create controversy.

These are worthy sentiments. But, of course, controversy has been created, and in part it is because the announcement—despite the leaks shortly before and the drip feed of information that had been seeping out of various places into the media—would have come to the bulk of the Australian people as a surprise.

I was told during the last estimates session that the design and the precise shape of the US rotational presence has not been determined. We do not know what the Australian government has offered and what deals have been done; we do not know what other bases are on the table and which are not. There are persistent rumours going back more than a decade now of an increased naval presence in Western Australia using the Fleet Base West—the submarine base down there—and the Australian Marine Complex maintenance facilities for US vessels.

People in the Northern Territory and people across Australia have a right to know the terms upon which military forces of a foreign government will be operating in their communities. I think it is entirely reasonable for people in Darwin to be calling for a social impact assessment survey to ensure that concerns of locals are heard. When is it going to happen? The first deployment starts in a matter of weeks. When will that occur?

I asked about the agreement between the US and Australia because treaties and agreements come under the foreign affairs portfolio, and it is conceivable that the status of forces agreement signed between the US and Australia would need updating because this is the first time troops will have been stationed here since the Second World War. It is an agreement that was signed in 1963. The new arrangement with the US government has been described by the defence minister as:

… the single biggest change or advancement of alliance relationships since the joint facilities regime was established back in the 1980s.

Under this agreement, if US personnel commit an offence under Australian law while in the course of their duties it is entirely ambiguous whether Australian law will apply.

We had a case in Queensland of a woman killed by a US Navy officer and the Attorney gave the US primary jurisdiction. We need to know how this base is going to impact, and not just on the local community—many of whom think it is a great idea. We need to go into this with open eyes and learn from the experience in other countries of the presence of foreign military bases—not just United States bases but Russian bases and Chinese bases, and wherever they may be. This is something that we should not be simply sleepwalking towards. Some of the minister's glib assurances left me more worried this afternoon than before I put the questions to him.

We will be hearing a great deal more of these matters. I think we need to deal with things such as foreign military postings with a bit of foresight so that we do not end up dealing with them with regret.

Question agreed to.