Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, , 5:12:40 to 5:32:14
The committee debates the US alliance's impact on international law and the policy governing Australian personnel embedded with US military units.
Topics: International law, Pacific relations, National security
Speakers: David Shoebridge, Hon Jenny McAllister, Hugh Jeffrey, Admiral David Johnston AC RAN, Greg Moriarty AO, Raff Ciccone
>> Um, oh, thanks very much, Sher. I had some questions of Mr. Jeff, I think, arising from the exchange with Senator Cash earlier today. >> M Mr. Jeff Senator. >> Yeah. M. Jeff, you were speaking about the um the change in the strategic environment for Australia as a result of certain forces and actions that have been happening in our region around the world. Do you remember that exchange?
>> I do, Senator.
>> And you said that there were there were disturbing changes to international norms. One was that up until now, one of the core postw World War II norms that keeps us safe is the prohibition on territorial conquest. And because of certain actions, that prohibition is facing threat and challenges. Do you remember that exchange? >> I do. And I think he said that you know if significant players in the world undermine that prohibition on territorial conquest then countries like Australia which rely on international law are less safe. Do you agree with that? >> I do. And then I think you said that when nations use punitive tariffs to try and coers other nations that again that's a disturbing international trend and it makes countries like Australia less safe and the world less safe when countries are using punitive tariffs to try and coers other countries. Do you
we use the word punitive tariff. I think I raised the idea of the consensus around globalization giving away to a much more contested international domain around trade and economic integration. uh we worry about supply chains and that form of interdependence that we've all invested in over the last 30 40 years becoming a tool of strategic leverage and that informs that dynamic informs one of the uh uh it's one of the trends that we've identified and informs our view that the strategic environment is becoming more difficult.
>> Yes. So to use your language, um tariffs being used for strategic leverage deeply problematic. Do you agree?
>> I I I agree.
>> Now, if someone hadn't been sitting in this room and hearing the sort of group think in this room, someone in the general public had heard that exchange, which regime, which country on the planet do you think they would have thought the exchange was about? the the the the regime at the moment that's most notorious for threatening territorial conquests and for using punitive tariffs. Someone outside this room who hadn't been caught up in the group think of defense. Which country do you think they might have thought you were
>> Well, I think I was explicit. I think uh in relation to the prohibition on territorial conquest, I'm thinking primarily about Russia. M >> uh that is the most egregious violation of that prohibition that we have seen in modern times and we are worried that that becomes some form of template and we're it's one of the reasons why I think the government has been so focused on ensuring we contribute to the support of Ukraine because we want states to conclude that this type of prohibit this type of violation >> is not only dangerous but is not going to contribute to your national security.
>> Well, you see, >> I think people outside this group think space would have assumed you were talking about the United States and Donald Trump, but in actual fact, the only country you and Senator Cash mentioned in these exchanges was China. Um, Mr. Jeff, you you would have seen, I am sure, President Trump's repeated threats to use force. Um um uh and repeated threats against Denmark and the people of Greenland to threaten territorial conquest for Greenland. You can't have missed that,
can you? Senator, I I think President Trump, well, I'll let the Americans speak for themselves, but I think President Trump ruled out the use of force in relation to the question.
>> Well, I'll tell you what he did say. He said the fact that Denmark had a boat land there 500 years ago doesn't mean they own the land. One way or another, we're going to get Greenland. You You say that's ruling out force. Well, >> one way or another,
>> Senator, I read another I listened to the speech where he ruled out using
>> So, one day he rules out using the force, the next day he threatens a military invasion. Um, you you seriously don't think that Europe and the world has seen threats from Donald Trump to to militarily invade Greenland.
if I could, I mean, the prime minister has been very clear that the Australian government won't get involved in a ongoing commentary about comments from say that the Australian government um is places a lot of importance on upholding international law and I think that that's the fundamental
>> so much importance secretary that they've said not a single whisper about Donald Trump's repeated threats to use military force on Greenland. So much force Australia has that they've said not a word when there were threats made against Canada. so much force that Australia said not a single word when Donald Trump came out after having kidnapped the head of state of Venezuela and said to quote him, "Your indispensable ally, I don't need international law." Not once, not one peep came out of Australia >> when our so-called indispensable ally has been trashing international law, trashing the prohibition on territorial conquest and then using punitive tariffs to threaten his friends and and former allies.
>> Not one word, >> minister.
>> Thank you, chair. I I was going to suggest to the senator that I understand his interest in international relations and I understand that you routinely attend the DEFAT hearings which occur tomorrow. Senator She bridge I think the scope of your questioning really goes to broader diplomatic questions that are best directed there tomorrow.
>> Um thank you Minister I appreciate your input. I'm responding to the strategic environment discussion that happened between Senator Cash and Mr. Jeffrey, because Minister, you may not think it is relevant to defense, but I do that our so-called indep indispensable ally is trashing international law, threatening his allies, even threatening military invasion of his allies. And I think it is relevant to whether or not we are so utterly dependent upon the United States for weapon platforms and others. You you don't see the connection
>> Senator. The exchange that you referred to earlier in the day between Senator Cash and Mr. Jeff really went to her questions to officials around our strategic environment and what the response needs to be from a defense perspective. Uh Mr. Jeff provided that context. Um but the focus here in this committee uh really is on the way the contribution that defense makes to securing our strategic interests. The government is in fact very clear that we seek to use all levers of strategic power. Those include diplomacy, but it is not the case that those levers are all exercised from within this portfolio. And it's why the DEPAT officials do appear tomorrow. Minister Wong appears tomorrow. And if you do want to ask questions about our broader diplomatic relations, that is the place to ask those questions.
>> So Mr. Jeff, I agree with your assessment that the world is less safe now because nations are breaching the prohibition on territorial conquest, that nations are using punitive tariffs to try and coers others. But the problem you face in the Australian Defense Force and the Department of Defense is the nation doing this most obviously in combination is in fact the United States. We are incredibly dependent upon the United States for the great bulk of our weapons platforms and indeed you and defense are trying to make us an interoperable unit of the United States military. Do you not see how the rogue behavior of our so-called indispensable ally is making us less safe? And do you not think we should be trying to not double down on the United States but diversify our military procurement and
Senator, I think the as we as discussed with you earlier, I think the international system is becoming one where countries need to ensure that uh they rely not only on their treaties and agreements and the international system to ensure their security and prosperity. But they also need to invest in capabilities that give them the ability to defend themselves and to deter force projection against them. >> That's the core recommendation of the national defense strategy that was released in 2024. And indeed it will, you know, subject to government consideration uh continue in the defense strategy in 2026. So yes, we need to build a more self-reliant defense force, but of course we define that self-reliance in what we can do uh with our allies and
from them.
>> Yeah. Now, Secretary, it's not just the sort of conflicts outside the United States that Donald [clears throat] Trump is potentially getting Australia involved in. It's potentially conflicts inside the United States because of Australia's deployment of troops in with the US military. Secretary, were you aware that last year or at least last year and maybe this year as well, there were Australian troops secundered to the US 11th Airborne um often called the Arctic
you aware of that, >> Senator? I'm I know that we have a a number of personnel uh embedded with and working with uh US units. I'm not aware
of >> CDF. Were you aware that we had um two individuals um um a W2 and a sergeant? I could say their names, but I won't. One was from the Lighor Regiment. One was from the Royal Australian Regiment. um who were deployed they were actually in Alaska at the time with the 11th Airborne Division's Arctic Angels. Were you aware of that?
>> Not explicitly as I the secretary said we have a large number of people who had >> short-term seconments longerterm placement senator but not by name or
that location. I' I've asked previously for details of Australia's seconments and deployments with the US and we're told we can't get it because it's too secret. Do you stand by that position? I
>> think we gave you some details in the response.
>> Broad numbers. >> Yeah, >> but not details of where they were deployed because apparently that's too
>> We gave you the broad numbers that we had for where our people are in the US.
>> Yeah. um but not accurate numbers and not there. But these two have gone on a podcast and spoken about their deployment with the 11th Airborne Division's Arctic Angels. You can tell a podcast, but you can't tell the Senate because that's how defense works. Um, CDF, did you know that that same unit was mobilized, given a standup order by Donald Trump in in January of this year to be ready to deploy into Minnesota to provide military force to enforce Donald Trump's ICE anti-immigration crackdown? Did you know that,
>> Senator? I wasn't aware that that unit had been put on a notice of that nature. But what I am aware of is that we in all of our succumbments give clarity of the directions on the nature of involvement that our people would have the application of Australian policies that continue even when they are placed in foreign units whether they're in the United States or elsewhere. So we maintain that national control of individuals and the type of employment that they perform.
>> Well, were there Australians with the Arctic Angels, the 11th Airborne when that standup order was was given in January,
>> Senator, I don't take it on. Yes. Are
there provisions in our secononement with the United States that expressly say that Australians won't be permitted to be used for those kinds of internal deployments by the Trump administration in this case to provide military force to assist the ICE um um crackdown on immigration? Are there express provisions saying Australians can't be
deployed in that situation? that senator there express provisions that provide the nature of employment they can when circumstances arise in a military unit as you described that may be what I'd call non-rine employment our people come back and ask that question so but that's why I would need to check the element that our people may have been involved in may not have been put on a notice and the question or issue didn't arise to them I'd have to establish the facts
>> well is There a I mean does defense have a blanket position that of course no Australian troops should ever be deployed internally by the US military to assist with ICE anti-immigration crackdowns. Is there a policy position that says no never.
>> The issue hasn't arisen to my knowledge and I would expect that it would if there was a likelihood of that employment arising for our people.
>> You would expect that it would? Yes. >> What does that mean?
>> That that I that the individuals would seek to understand what our policy position was and what authority they had to participate or not.
>> What is our policy position? If if if the US president wants to use Australian troops that have been secounded in this way, is there a clear position that says Donald Trump, you cannot do that? So we
require our people to to comply with law as we understand it to act in a way that is consistent with our national interests and policies and you're inviting me into a hypothetical for our people there. But we would review that and provide a very clear position on what they were permitted to do or not.
Well, we are not providing a clear position here. Um is there a position? Is there a policy position from either the Labor government or defense that says no never Australian troops if they are secounded to US military unit can never be deployed to assist inside the United States on ICE anti-immigration
We you don't know.
>> No, no. I would I would find it very difficult to say we would ever put our people in a position where they were employed in that nature.
>> But you won't say absolutely no
>> because Senator, you are
>> because it's easy. You could just say no. We think that's wrong.
>> Official Senator to speculate about a hypothetical operational situation that
hypothetical, but this very unit was given a standup order.
>> May I ask you, Minister? Senator, um the CDF has indicated to you that he will take on notice your earlier questions about the circumstances you've particularized. He quite properly said that he would need to establish the fact base to answer your question. You are now inviting him to speculate about hypotheticals. That is not a reasonable way to approach the
officials. >> Well, Minister, I'm now going to ask you if the Labor Party has at least some some form of policy where they would ever stand up against Donald Trump. And is it Labor Party policy? Is that the position of the Labor government that they would never permit Australian troops [clears throat] on seconment or deployment with the United States military to be used to support Donald Trump's ICE anti-immigration crackdown? Do you at least have that degree of political independence?
Senator Shoebridge, your position has been consistent, as I understand it, for about 20 years about the Australian governments and Australia's relationship with the United States. You don't support the alliance. You don't support the activities that are conducted between our nations. You don't accept the role of the United States as an ally for us or its role in our security arrangements. The government is really clear about how we seek to establish um and prosecute what we perceive to be our national interest. Uh the CDF has explained to you that there are a range of protocols that govern the way that personnel who are deployed into uh US military environments must behave consistent with our national interests. I'm confident that that is something that the CDF is focused on and that defense is focused on. Uh your invitation to speculate about a range of matters is not one I intend to take up.
>> You know, Minister, it would have been so much easier to just say >> no, we'd never let that happen.
>> Now's expired. I'll move the call around. Senator Whitten, you have the