Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, , 3:32:45 to 3:39:21
Senator Paterson seeks clarification on whether the rotational presence of US and UK submarines at HMAS Stirling is an enduring arrangement or time-limited to 2032.
Topics: ADF, Pacific relations, National security
Speakers: Meghan Quinn, James Paterson, Hugh Jeffrey, Hon Murray Watt, Unknown Speaker, Raff Ciccone
>> All right. Thanks a lot, Senator Paterson.
>> Um I have questions about SRF West if uh
And just to note that we've got the Australian Submarine Agency uh who will come on after us so they might take questions of more detail.
>> Thank you. Thank you. I think this will be a defense matter but let's see how we >> Okay. Thank you. Um when is the rotational presence of submarines, US and UK submarines coming to an end at
Uh so we have a currently we have a strategic uh arrangement which sets out the plans between now and uh in into the 2030s. Um there is that at that as getting towards the end of that there will be a discussion with our partners about the next phase of that. Uh and so uh we don't have a end over the process. We have uh the current arrangement that's in place which ends I believe in 2032. Uh and then uh the expectation is we would have conversations with our strategic partners about our needs uh under the national defense strategy at the time leading up to that that the end of that current agreement.
>> So it won't come to an end at 2032.
>> Matter for government at the time. Um the expectation though over the the uh the national defense strategy going out further is that we'll work with alliance partners in the defense of the nation. And so the expectation is that there would still be continued arrangements between ourselves and allies, but exactly the nature of those would be subject to government of the day decision-m.
>> So would you describe it as time limited or would you describe it as enduring?
>> Uh I would characterize it as uh ongoing review points to make sure it meets the purposes of the national defense strategy of the day. >> Right. So I'm not going to pass between I mean we have set timelines we have arrangements we negotiate discuss uh agree quite complicated process depending on whether it's treaty levy orou or uh more strategic operational planning uh so there's a whole layer of discussions and and those come to an end and we have ongoing discussions and they shift over time depending on the nature of the context in which we're operating.
The only thing I'd add, Senator, is you would be aware of the deputy prime minister's uh reference to this being an enduring arrangement.
>> Yes, that's why I asked the question. So, it is an enduring arrangement.
>> That's what he said.
>> Right. So, it's not time limited.
>> Not that I'm aware of.
>> No, it's not coming to an end. I
>> mean, obviously, if any official at the table >> knows differently there because there are much more across this than me.
>> I've got lots of shaking of heads that Admiral Hman was shaking his head. It's
not coming to an end. Well, individual agreements come to an end because they're time limited like individual negotiated arrangements um can be time limited uh within an enduring relationship.
>> Yep. But uh their presence uh particularly the US presence is either enduring or it is time limited. It cannot be both. >> They are contradictory things.
>> Senator Paterson uh Hugh Jeffrey deputy secretary uh for uh strategy policy and international. If I I may help on this instance. What will help clarify this is that the reference to in 2032 um that is under the optimal pathway >> to ensure uh and working with the United States to ensure that Australia is sovereign ready to operate uh nuclearpowered submarines. So that date is 2032 and that's when Surf West is designed to be able to meet that date. But as uh Senator Watt, Minister Watt said, the deputy prime minister said earlier that surf west is intended to be an enduring >> feature of our cooperation with the United States and with other partners. >> Um the obviously the uh facility at Surf West is designed uh to be able to um not only uh sustain our submarines but also those of our partners. And so it's obvious that we would seek to ensure that that capability is enduring. Uh but it would occur under uh uh arrangements that exist um outside the optimal pathway. As you know, Senator, all uh military US military activity in Australia occurs under the US uh force posture agreement which is a treaty that two countries signed in 2014. M >> uh that agreement uh determines the terms under which US forces deploy to Australia and so uh any enduring uh US presence would occur under that under that treaty.
>> Yeah. Because I mean it's in our national interest, is it not, to have that enduring presence at Hajmar Sterling beyond 2032. We wouldn't want our partners to um step up and go in
strategy is clear about the the the need for us to work with allies. Yes.
>> And you know I I visited HMA Sterling recently. I must say I was very impressed by the work that is happening there. The the scale and the pace of the buildout there. Uh it would look to me like a very excessive buildout if we our partners were leaving in 2032 and only Australian submarines were being uh hosted there. uh it's clearly being built to have at in an enduring way um partners there for a long period of time beyond 2032 isn't it?
>> So it's being it's been built as against the arrangements of the optimal pathway and that includes partners uh with the US and the UK
>> because we're only going to get hopefully our first Virginia class submarine in 2032. It'll be a very lonely submarine at a a very big birth if it was the only one there, wouldn't
it? We we we have uh US and UK submarines uh using that facility uh in the current plans.
>> Okay. So it is if it is enduring, if it is not time limited, if it is not coming to an end in 2032, why did the defense industry minister say in an interview on the 7:30 report on the 29th of July on four separate occasions that it was coming to an end, that it was time limited, that it would expire in 2032, and that US submarines would be gone
beyond that date? Well, I think to be fair, Senator, you would be aware that Minister Conroy um clarified those comments subsequently um and has also made that point about the enduring nature of this arrangement.
>> So, his original comments were not correct.