Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, , 3:39:21 to 3:44:43
Discussion regarding Australia's obligations under the Treaty of Rarotonga and the policy of allowing visits by nuclear-capable US assets as part of extended deterrence.
Topics: National security, Pacific relations, International law
Speakers: Hugh Jeffrey, James Paterson, Hon Murray Watt, Unknown Speaker
>> I I'll let you describe them however you wish.
>> I don't wish to. I'm asking you to.
>> Well, I think you are trying to describe
any way you like, Minister. It's up to
I've I've done that that um Minister Conroy clarified those remarks.
>> Right. You only have to clarify something if it was wrong. Right.
>> Again, you can describe it however you wish.
>> Okay. So, in that interview with Sarah Ferguson on 7:30, this concept of the US submarines departing from 2032 was used as an answer to a question about Australia's nuclear non-proliferation obligations. Minister Conroy was explaining to Sarah Ferguson and her viewers that we need not worry about Virginia class submarines potentially being equipped with nuclear uh weapons in the future because they were not going to get those uh weapons until 2032 and they'd be gone by 2032. So their departure in 2032 is not the reason why we don't need to worry about that. What is the government's policy on uh US or any other partner having nuclear equipped uh platforms at our bases?
>> U Senator uh I think the uh Australian government continues to invest in and use our diplomatic and strategic weight to support international strategic arms control including nuclear non-proliferation disarmament. It's a key part of Australian uh foreign policy and statecraftraft. Um however um and and as you know Australia h has a number of treaties and agreements u which preclude the stationing of nuclear weapons on Australian soil and the Australian government has said repeatedly of course that it will not it does not seek and will not seek to develop uh an independent nuclear capability uh of its own. However, that arrangement does not preclude um the ability of uh uh the visits by nuclear capable American assets. Um and uh um we regard those visits as consistent with our obligations under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, also known as the Treaty of Raratona. Uh we of course respect the United States policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons on particular platforms and visits by US strategic assets support credible strategic deterrence in the Indo Pacific to benefit Australia security and of course our own regional uh stability in this uh in the Indoacific.
>> Thank you. So look, I understand this is a sensitive important issue. I'm not going to press you into a difficult position on this. I my to be transparent about my my motivations. I want a clearly articulated government policy on the record to point to because this is a question that is of interest to the community and that they have legitimate questions about it. So to be very clear, can you just explain how it is consistent with both the US policy of uh neither confirming or denying which is understandable and reasonable and our obligations under the treaty of
Well, Senator, our treaty ratonga requires us uh not to station nuclear forces uh uh uh nuclear uh weapons in Australia. Um but as I said, the government has no intent to acquire nuclear weapons or to station nuclear weapons in Australia. I would note of course that the United States does not station nuclear weapons in the territory of its Indopacific allies. It has not done so for over 35 years. Uh it only stations its nuclear weapons uh in uh continental United States um and United States territories but not in its Indopacific allies. That said, uh we are part of uh extended nuclear deterrence arrangements with the United States. As you know, Senator, famously, uh, US President Kennedy said in the 1960s that his concern was that, um, at the dawn of the nuclear age, uh, there would be in 30 years 25 nuclear weapon, um, states. Y, >> that did not turn out to be the case. And principally their reason that is one of the key reasons is that US allies agreed to fall in um underneath a US nuclear umbrella and there has been a critical and I I would say unsung asset in global non-prololiferation efforts in relation to nuclear weapons. Part of those arrangements is that it's in our interests to support the visits of nuclear capable vis um American assets from time to time as you know those uh visits have been occurring for many years and it is US policy as part of those arrangements and neither confirmed nor deny. Um obviously you would appreciate that this is the most sensitive operational feature of American force presence globally and they do not declare uh whether those assets are nuclear armed or not. And of course uh long-standing uh practice of Australian governments uh to respect that position. But of course, United States also respects Australia's international and domestic legal obligations >> and uh conducts its visits in a manner accordingly.
>> Okay. Thank you. I think that's important to have on the record. I'm grateful for that, Mr. Jeffrey. Um and I'm happy to move on to another topic if the chair is happy.