Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, , 6:02:36 to 6:11:58
Debate over the interpretation of the Treaty of Rarotonga regarding rotating nuclear-armed assets through Australian ports.
Topics: ADF, National security, International law
Speakers: David Shoebridge, Raff Ciccone, Meghan Quinn, Mark Hammond, Hugh Jeffrey, Hon Murray Watt
>> Um we got an agreement from the US or have we made a clear demand to the US to say that they they are not permitted to bring nuclear armed Virginia class submarines to HMAS Sterling. Has that has that clear line been put to the United States in the same way that New Zealand does? for example,
>> we have a clear commitment from the US government to honor our obligations under the treaty of Raratonga and that is the agreement
>> and and we know how this government interprets that agreement which is um provided the nuclear weapon isn't permanently stationed either in the air base or in the port provided it's just I think the word is rotating through that you don't believe that's a breach of the treaty of Roatonga That's that's that's the that's the interpretation of the treaty of Raaratongra and it's been repeatedly reiterated by uh Senator Wong and others. That's your position, isn't
>> Well, Senator, the Department of Foreign Affairs administers and owns that treaty. So, I think questions on interpretation should go >> to the Department of Foreign Affairs. But of course,
>> Admiral Hammond, you mentioned the Treaty of Raratonga. You said this is consistent with the Treaty of Rarotonga. You must have some understanding of what that means. What is it? Is it as I said that provided it's not permanently stationed there, if it's just rotating through that that's not a breach of the treaty.
>> Senator, I'm bound by a whole bunch of laws and treaties which I will point to as being limitations or constraints on on the ADF operations, but I'm not going to interpret them for you. That's not
see you do things like you operate ports and you operate air bases and you must know um how the treaty of Raratonga impacts on your operation of air bases. You must have heard at least a dozen times the foreign minister and the defense minister both state that their views of compliance with the treaty of Raratonga is um it it permits the rotation of nuclear armed US um uh platforms through Australia provided they're not stationed there. Are you saying you've never heard the defense minister or the foreign minister say
that? So senator the
>> admiral
>> so senator
>> admiral my question was directed to admiral in direct response to his question
>> the official
>> the chief of defense is here
>> thank you senators thank you secretary
>> so we were just
>> but the secretary no look I'm just going to take a point of order I'm going to take a point of order my question was whether or not the chief of defense had heard this been said by the defense minister or the foreign secretary and to with all due respect to the secretary unless she's sitting inside the chief of defense's hedge. She cannot answer that >> I put the question again to the chief of defense.
>> As I stated in my opening statement, we treat all witnesses with respect. Um I think we're all keen to hear from the secretary. I'm sure the the chief of of the ADF may also want to add as well.
But >> the secretary cannot provide an answer to what's in the chief of defense.
>> If you know what they're going to say, Senator, why are you asking questions? I mean, let's just let them let them answer and then you'll have an option to
>> Please tell me what um the chief of defense um if the chief of defense has heard the um the defense minister or the foreign secretary make that statement. Repeat.
>> You really have to be a smart alec. You've actually
>> No, I just would like the question. It's not being a smart. This is about nuclear weapons and the presence of nuclear weapons and basic polic.
>> I knew by Thursday the smart alec behavior would be coming out. Just ask.
>> You're such a you are such a um you such a you >> colleagues. Come on. You are always you. Point. You are always you, Minister.
>> Secretary, I always forget you the
smartest man in the room. I keep and I
always forget you. I never forget you were you.
>> All right. Now, I think Secretary was going to add something. >> I only wish I was >> and then we'll see if the chief would like to add something. Secretary,
>> I I was simply pointing out that the interpretation of treaties uh we we clearly are responsible for the interpretation of treaties that the Department of Defense administers. the department of foreign affairs administers the treaty of Roatonga interpretations of detail would be best put to them. Um it is clear in terms of the statements that the the treaty of Roatonga as published and as already mentioned in this is around the stationing of weapons. Um and while um with greatest respect uh the CDF and I have a very close working relationship, I cannot uh interpret his mind uh on all matters. But to be very clear, the minister's comments stand as the ministers state them and it's not for the public service to reinterpret minister's statements.
>> Um now, uh Admiral, I'm not asking you to reinterpret. I've asked you if you've heard statements repeatedly said from both the defense minister and the foreign minister that the treaty of Rarotonga prohibits the stationing of nuclear weapons in Australian facilities but does not pro prohibit the rotation of them through through Australian facilities. Have you ever heard that said by the defense minister or the foreign minister?
>> Senator, I've heard you assert that. I I've heard you assert those those statements have been made. I don't recall being in the room when they have
>> and and and Senator I have not heard those statements. I have I have we have I have certainly heard uh about visits which is different from rotations.
Uh have you heard um chief of defense um either the defense minister or the foreign minister say the treaty of raratonga does not prohibit the visiting of US platforms that have nuclear weapons on them.
>> Senator, can I just offer a quick
clarification? >> Chief of defense's head
>> uh ministers have said that the treaty does not prohibit the visit of nuclear capable assets. So that is not a confirmation that they are nuclear armed. And I'll take you back to the threatened government >> that we respect the United States uh uh policy of neither confirming nor denying.
principles we would the the the the word salad that this department applies um to try and avoid recognizing the the basic truth that you permit the US to bring nuclear weapons into this country to make this country a target. Um and and the word salad that you apply to try and avoid that obvious truth has been so apparent for the last 15 minutes of engagement. >> The the the sort of dormat approach. We don't ask, we don't test. They can bring their weapons in when they want. That's fine. It just proves how little independence that this department has from the US, doesn't it?
>> Senator, we don't we don't hold policy authority over that. And they are not the assertions. We we made and I think everybody else quite a few people smiling at
>> last question. I got to rotate the call.
>> I I missed the last part. >> I missed the last part of your
>> Sorry, hang on. Hang. Hang on.
>> I missed the last part of your What did
>> I said they are not the assertions that that we are making in this room. We are not the policy authority on those things you were describing. There are some people smiling in this room at those assertions that you're making.
>> Are they? because they also have the same policy position about being a doormat. >> That's why they're smiling. You're all
>> yeah. How's the UK going? >> How are those Russian submarines going?
>> You all have the doormat approach. This
is the Here we go. Exhibit A everyone
>> and it's also over there.
>> Look at how pro Australia
>> doormat approach. You're all of one mind.
>> Good to see you on our side.
>> Smiling.
>> You're certainly you're certainly unique when it comes to not supporting Ukraine.
You are very unique in many respects.
>> You're very You are unique in
>> Where is your doormat to the US?
>> You want to talk about doormats? How's Vladimir Putin going?
>> you you you minister are continuing to
be you. >> I'm not the one saying Russia should get whatever they want.
>> Well, nor am I. And you suggesting that if you want this to degrade into you
lying, which
>> Here we go. to you lying what you're doing now which which I perfectly understand. I'm used to you and other ministers lying about the position. >> He should withdraw. >> I'm used to you and others.
>> You should withdraw. Actually, you're making you're making um characterizations in on the minister. I actually do think you should withdraw that. I think it does go to the character of the individual being the minister that you were just
>> I withdraw it to the extent it goes to the character of the minister.
>> Well, I think you withdraw without any conditions. All right. The um I've got to rotate the call. you've had um some time so I will need to move the call around Senator so we will come back