HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [ 4.12 pm ]: I move -
That this house -
(1) Notes that the federal government has announced an expanded function of the joint US spy satellite ground station at Kojarena near Geraldton.
(2) Notes that this expanded function will coordinate US military operations in the Middle East and Asia , making this the most significant military encroachment into Australia since the signing of the Pine Gap Treaty of 1966.
(3) Condemns the federal government for committing to this expanded function without consulting with the people of Western Australia , the City of Geraldton and the Premier.
I thank the house for accommodating that slight change of order in the motions to be moved. This is a significant issue. Even though the circumstances that caused me to put this motion on the notice paper occurred in February this year, the issues that are raised by the expansion of this satellite ground station at Kojarena are just as relevant now as they were back in February. I remind members that on 15 February 2007 , the federal Minister for Defence, Dr Brendan Nelson, announced that the Australian government had agreed to let the United States expand its military communications base at Kojarena, which is 30 kilometres east of Geraldton. This announcement, from what we can gather - because there is little information on this subject - was the end product of three years of secret negotiations between Canberra and Washington . I remember that at the time this news was brought to public attention in February, it was very clear that there had been no consultation with either the local community in and around Geraldton, or the local authority in Geraldton. Indeed, there had not even been any consultation by the commonwealth government with the Premier, as I found out from a question that I asked in this place about whether the Premier had been part of that decision to expand the operations of this military communications base.
Members may not know very much about this base, because the very nature of spy bases is that they are surrounded by secrecy. When this base at Kojarena is expanded, it will form a vital link in a new network of military satellites. I doubt that we will even know when that expansion does take place, because the United States will do that whenever it suits it. That new network of military satellites will enhance the ability of the United States to fight wars in the Middle East and Asia specifically. The base will control two geostationary satellites that will be permanently stationed over the Indian Ocean . The base will also provide front-line troops anywhere throughout the Middle East and Asian areas with high-quality intelligence information, graphics and maps. The base will form part of a mobile user objective system, or MUOS, which is a military satellite-based mobile phone network. Lockheed Martin Space Systems is the prime contractor for this program. The MUOS is said to be the next generation narrow-band tactical satellite communications system designed to significantly improve ground communications for US forces on the move. MUOS will replace the current narrow-band tactic satellite communication system, known as the ultra high frequency follow-on system, or UFO. They like to use these quaint acronyms within this militarist language! The Geraldton base will comprise three large satellite dishes, each 18 metres in diameter, and two small antennae, along with three small buildings to house the electronic infrastructure. I am sure this base will provide the US with a very efficient and valuable tool for its military deployment overseas. The location of this base near Geraldton will put it as far west as it is possible to go on the Australian landmass. That means that the corresponding satellites can be put even further west over the Indian Ocean so that they get a particularly good view of the gulf area.
I would now like to draw the attention of members to some comments made by Dr Philip Dorling, who is currently a visiting fellow at the Australian Defence Force Academy , about this announcement in February. Dr Dorling has said that -
. . . once the base was operating, it would be almost impossible for Australia to be fully neutral or stand back from any war in which the US was involved.
I will repeat that, because I think it is significant -
. . . once the base was operating, it would be almost impossible for Australia to be fully neutral or stand back from any war in which the US was involved.
I want to take a moment to consider the ramifications of that statement. If the US were to go to war with, or invade, a hypothetical sovereign state in the Middle East, or in Africa or Asia for that matter - which is, of course, possible, if not highly likely, in light of the growing tensions around Iran and the threats from the United States of military action in Iran - we in Western Australia would provide the US with vital military intelligence from this base located 30 kilometres east of Geraldton. The whole effectiveness of the US campaign would depend on the three satellite dishes located at this base. As Dr Dorling has said, if we knocked out that ground station, we would knock out the whole system. Dr Dorling went on to say that the base would have direct military significance and would be a military target, similar to the submarine communications base at North West Cape and the joint facility at Pine Gap with its missile early warning system. This particular academic whom I am quoting is not some left wing anti-war activist. He is a visiting fellow at the Australian Defence Force Academy who is giving us this advice. Dr Dorling goes on to say that if the Americans were involved in conflict anywhere in the Indian and Pacific Oceans - basically, our half of the hemisphere - Australia would be directly involved in providing vital intelligence and communication links.
Some people might say, “So what? We have a particular relationship with the United States . Why should we not provide the US with the capacity to spy where it wants around the Asia-Pacific region?” There are some very good reasons that that is a very bad idea. The first is that Australia will never have an independent defence policy if we provide the US with the capacity to set up bases in Australia . Probably unlike other members in this place, I have attempted to enter the Pine Gap base. As an elected member of the Australian people, I think it is very reasonable that we be allowed to see what is happening at these bases within Australia . As I am sure all members are aware, an ordinary member of the Australian public cannot get into Pine Gap. An elected representative of the Australian public also cannot get into Pine Gap. It is extraordinary that somewhere in Australia is a place that Australians are basically not only banned from entering but also are not allowed access to information on what functions are carried out there. I suggest that the Geraldton spy base is also in that category. I would be interested to know how many members here know of or have an interest in what goes on in this spy base that very few people seem to know about and that is only about 30 kilometres out of Geraldton. Again, it is a base that we do not have access to. We have very limited information about what occurs there. On behalf of the Greens, I cannot accept that as a reasonable proposition to basically hand over our sovereignty - certain areas of Australia - to other governments that are obviously not elected by the Australian public. It does not matter what shade of politics one has, the issue of acceding one’s sovereignty to another country is seriously problematic.
As events have unfolded in Iraq , we have seen the Australian federal government fall into lockstep with the US on all matters relating to international aggression and international foreign policy. There is a significant risk in becoming involved in that policy, not the least that in the event of conflict, there is a very real risk that the spy bases in Australia will become a target for other countries that wish to prevent them from operating. As has been pointed out, the new capacity at Kojarena will mean that the information that is gathered in that particular communication system will be absolutely vital to effective troop movements in any conflicts in the Asia-Pacific region that the US might be involved in. There seem to be quite a few of those.
We know that the Howard government is extremely eager to please the United States . We should not be surprised that the Prime Minister has acceded to this request for another eavesdropping base in Australia . Dr Nelson has already suggested that more ground stations could be built in other locations in Australia . This is a huge worry. Where do we go with our relationship with the US ? Is it a matter of saying that because we have Pine Cap and North West Cape already, we might as well provide other bases as well? I do not accept that we have to do that. We certainly do not have to accept any further propositions of foreign spy bases in Australia . The reality is that if we become any further compromised in military terms by allowing the US to operate bases from Australian territories, those bases will be targeted by the enemies of the US . For whatever reason, there is a growing list of those enemies. We will be perceived as a US deputy in the Southern Hemisphere. I am sure we are already perceived that way by organisations such as Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia . We will not want to further risk our chance of being targeted by US enemies by becoming more deeply entrenched in their military support systems.
Another sinister take on this development is that Australia ’s proximity to the Indian Ocean is a very valuable resource to the United States . We know that the Central Intelligence Agency has a track record of propping up governments that it supports and undermining governments it opposes. We only have to look at South America and Vietnam and, more recently, Iraq in this regard. We understand that the US will only act to serve its own interests in all these situations. The US would like to serve its own interests in all situations. I think we all finally understand that. I am saying that if we become too important to the US , if we become too integral a component in its military capacity, it will covertly interfere with our domestic politics to ensure its continued support for its bases. If we want to retain our sovereignty as a nation, we need to be independent of US foreign policy. I might just touch on that by looking at the ANZUS Treaty. Has the ANZUS Treaty served us well? The ANZUS Treaty was drawn up with the intention of protecting the interests and security of the US , Australia and New Zealand in the Pacific region. Since it was drawn up in 1952, the US has called on us for support in four wars - Vietnam , the Gulf War in 1990, Afghanistan and Iraq . The three most recent wars were nowhere near the Pacific but, nevertheless, the ANZUS Treaty was raised in at least the moral arguments about why Australia should be involved in those wars. It is very clear now that the war that is currently occurring in Iraq is an illegal war. Very serious stakes are involved in these close alliances.
Let us look at Vietnam , for example. A total of 512 Australian troops were killed between 1962 and 1973. In addition to these casualties, approximately 2 400 soldiers were injured, and many others have suffered the long-term effects of Agent Orange poisoning and other traumas; I refer here to not just Australian and other troops, but also the Vietnamese population as well. Australia ’s peak commitment was 7 672 combat troops. To achieve these numbers, Australia had to reintroduce conscription in the face of significant public opposition to the war. What benefits did we derive from our involvement in the Vietnam War? Did we help make South East Asia a better place? Did we avert a security threat to Australia from the so-called yellow peril? Has the sky fallen since the fall of Saigon ? I do not think so. A total of 1.4 million soldiers from both sides lost their lives in this war, along with devastating civilian casualties of between one million and four million people. Who put us there? The Menzies Liberal-National government in 1962, at the request of the US . Who ended national conscription? The Whitlam government as one of its first acts in late 1972.
We now move on to Afghanistan . The US requested that Australian troops aid the US-led invasion after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The October 2001 invasion was intended to root out the leaders of Al-Qaeda and to overthrow the ruling Taliban after it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. The invasion was codenamed Operation Enduring Freedom. They got the enduring part right at least. The Taliban was overthrown in December 2001 but a guerrilla war ensued with the Taliban and other resistance groups. It has now endured for nearly six years and a major combined Taliban resistance resurgence is now anticipated. It is interesting to see that Afghanistan is now returning to be one of the world’s major exporters of opium. That was one of the downsides of getting rid of the Taliban.
The Howard government has recently agreed to increase our deployment to 1 000 troops. Mr Howard said, “We are not losing the war but we will not win it without renewed and increased efforts and that is why we are playing our part.” Mr Howard tells us to be prepared for Australian casualties and that should be understood by the Australian public. Who put us there? The Howard Liberal-National government in 2001 at the request of the US . Who will get us out? Neither the Howard government, nor, apparently, a Rudd Labor government based on current ALP policy.
I touched on Iraq and I have spoken about Iraq in this place before. It is obviously the most pertinent war that Australia has been drawn into as a result of our lockstep approach with US foreign policy. We can thank the ANZUS Treaty for drawing us into a war on Iraq as well, although nowhere near the Pacific again. Australia currently has 900 personnel in Iraq . It is estimated that between 61 294 and 67 243 Iraqi civilians have died so far in this war. It is very hard to get firm figures. Through our involvement in the “coalition of the willing”, we are complicit in these civilian deaths. Who are the willing, by the way? The Howard government committed our nation to this course. No mandate was given exclusively or implicitly at the 2001 election for this war. No plebiscite was held to determine the nation’s view on whether we should help the United States to invade Iraq . Recently held opinion polls show an overwhelming desire to withdraw our troops from Iraq , but, as Mr Howard repeatedly tells us, he intends that we stay the course in what is another unwinnable war.
Let us be very mindful that this is an illegal war. The United Nations has made that very clear. There is no doubt that it is not only the United Nations that has made the clear ruling that the war in Iraq was an illegal invasion. Who put us there? It was the Howard Liberal-National government in 2003. Who will get us out? It will not be the Howard government. We can be sure of that. Perhaps a Labor government with support from the Greens is our only hope for an exit in the medium term. The question is: does the US alliance serve us well? I do not think so. We have been drawn into four wars on the basis of this alliance, and three of them have been unwinnable.
The current administration in the US is derided and despised by many around the world. I am exceedingly thankful to the American forefathers in that the US Constitution sets in place a limit of two terms for any one President. Unfortunately, the action of one administration in an eight-year period has caused intractable damage to all security. We have been dragged along in this by association, and now our children are growing up worried about the threats of terrorism. We cannot catch a train without being asked to look suspiciously at unattended bags. The US likes to paint the world as good versus evil, but the reality is that there are many sides to the story and the US is plainly not as pure as the driven snow. The desire to preserve the superpower position and the methods it employs not surprisingly cause unsympathetic reactions among their adversaries. In another graphic example of the US interpreting our alliance to suit its own interests, the details on the Geraldton base deal emerged on the same day as the US told Australia it would not allow even its key allies, including Australia , to buy its best fighter aircraft, the F22 Raptor.
The point I want to make is that I think it is a matter that goes unnoticed by the majority of the population of Western Australia that we have facilities on Western Australian soil where spying on other sovereign nations occurs on a minute-by-minute basis. The capacity of these sorts of facilities to eavesdrop on every mobile phone conversation, if they chose to, and to provide a very high quality surveillance of significant areas of the planet, is technically extraordinary to contemplate, but this is very real and this happening only 30 kilometres out of Geraldton. I guess a lot of people might think: so what? I think it is a significant activity to be occurring in Western Australia . If people stopped to think about the implications for Australian security, our capacity to have an independent foreign policy that is not necessarily linked to American foreign policy is severely compromised. Even if, as a democratic country, we decided to agree with some of the American foreign policy decisions or choices, by providing a place for a spy base to be established and run without even providing the scrutiny that I think would be the minimal requirement, it means that we are accepting, without the capacity to question, those sorts of activities.
I do not know if other members have had the opportunity or even chosen to see a film that was recently in the cinemas called TheLives of Others, which was about the spying in East German by the Stasi secret police. It is an extraordinary film, if members are interested, dealing with the social and personal impacts of the obsession and policy of surveillance and spying. In this case it was about spying on a whole range of people in the general populace, but I think it is not something that we need to simply put from our mind and say that it is not an issue that we are interested in or that affects us. We can go about the days of our lives and, arguably, not be affected by the fact that there is a wholly US controlled spy base just outside of Geraldton. It does impact on international events and on international relations. It does mean that Australia is not seen as being its own country with its own separate position on questions of military matters or foreign policy. It means that Australia is simply seen as a site for American influence in this particular part of the world. I do not think that is good. It would not matter which country it was that was choosing to have military bases on Australian soil. I think that it is fundamentally wrong to host those bases here in Australia . It has, and will continue to have, a significant impact on Australia ’s relations in the Asia-Pacific region, because we are not seen as independent. We are not seen as being able to go to international forums and have a position that is independent of the United States . Therefore, it means that Australia is somehow inextricably linked with whatever happens to be the flavour of the foreign policy of the government of the day in the United States .
It is essential that the state government, and indeed the community of Western Australia , has a greater involvement and understanding of the operations of a facility such as North West Cape . I realise North West Cape now, at least in theory, is a joint facility, but I think that most Western Australians still do not know exactly what activities occur there. The expansion of the capacity at Kojarena, which has now been foisted on Western Australia , should not go unnoted in the Western Australian Parliament. At least it should be said that somebody stood and said that she did not accept that an area of Western Australia, which is fenced and inaccessible to Western Australians, should have a foreign power base that spies on other sovereign counties. If I can do anything about getting bases such as Kojarena closed, I will continue to work to that end, and I will continue to take that position, particularly in relation to Pine Gap, because we need to take seriously these issues about surveillance of other countries, how we do it, what we know about it and what sort of democratic controls there are on any of those activities. This makes me touch on the debate we had in this place a month ago about so-called antiterrorism measures. This most significant problem with all these matters is that democratically elected members and the community in general are not privy to the supposed information on which these laws are put forward. This is the problem when there is increased emphasis on surveillance and spying and all the underhanded tactics that are supposedly needed to operate in the world. We need to have a complete rethink about that as a policy direction. How can we possibly be seen by our Asia-Pacific neighbours as friends and a friendly nation if we facilitate spying on them? How would we feel if there were spy bases in Indonesia or somewhere nearby that were listening in on our domestic phone conversations in Australia ? I suggest that we would not look very kindly on it at all.
Hon Norman Moore : How do you know that there is not?
Hon GIZ WATSON : There might be.
Hon Norman Moore : Maybe the federal government does know.
Hon GIZ WATSON : Maybe it should tell us.
Hon Norman Moore interjected.
Hon GIZ WATSON : That is a bit like the argument about nuclear weapons: they have one, so we get one and then they get two, so we get three, and so it goes on. I am just suggesting that if we are to have respectful relations between nations, any escalation in spying is a negative in that equation. I am not talking about surveillance that is being carried out by Australians; I am talking about surveillance that is being carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency. We will never know what it is doing. I am not even sure that it knows what it is doing. It is going one step further to allow another nation to use Australia as an outpost for its target practice in places such as Lancelin, which is how we are largely viewed in American foreign policy, and as somewhere to put a spy satellite ground station and to refuel its aircraft carriers and other military hardware. That is really what Australia amounts to in United States foreign policy.
I will conclude my comments at this point, but I think it is extraordinary that the federal government can simply announce that there will be a significant expansion of this spy base near Geraldton without having had any communication or consultation with Western Australians about it, and can simply say that that is what we are getting and it will not tell us what is going on there. I think that is unacceptable.
HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [11.22 am]: I will make some comments in response to some of the contributions to this debate. I thank members for their contributions. The Leader of the Opposition made the point, and I thank him for doing so, that this motion is deliberately worded in moderate tones, in simply noting the announcement. When I spoke about this motion initially, I raised two key points. The first is that a matter such as this has significance to Western Australians, and is therefore of interest to the Parliament and elected representatives in Western Australia. We cannot pretend that we can easily separate decisions made at a federal level from local matters that affect Western Australians. Secondly, the motion is about condemning the federal government for committing to this expansion without consulting the people of Western Australia, the City of Geraldton and the Premier. The Leader of the House acknowledged, in his appeasement speech to the US, that it would have been nice if some consultation had taken place. At least there is some support for the notion that, whatever we understand to be the formal legal powers of the federal government to act - I am not questioning that the federal government has those powers; it clearly does - it is extraordinary that such an announcement could have been made without even having the courtesy to inform the Premier that it was to be made. When I asked whether the Premier was aware of this expansion in the Kojarena facility, the answer was no. That is the reason this motion is relevant.
I listened to comments from members opposite about the degree to which this facility, with its enhanced capacity, will be a terrorist target. This is not a view that is held only by the Greens. The article I quoted from was published in The Age. It indicated that the increased capacity of the facility would lead to an increase in the likelihood of the base becoming a terrorist target. I agree that terrorist activities internationally have been targeting civilian populations. That is outrageous, and I totally oppose it and find it abhorrent, like everybody else. However, I think we kid ourselves if we think that other facilities are not also of interest to terrorists. The reality is that, once this facility with its enhanced capacity is operational, it will be of fundamental importance to military activities by the United States in the Asia-Pacific region. That is the reason the Americans want to do it. I find it rather amusing that members are suggesting that, just because it is only the size of two rugby fields, that somehow makes it less dangerous. By analogy, a radioactive fuel rod from a nuclear power station is about the size of a pencil, or a bit thinner. It is very small, but if it is held in the hand for more than 30 seconds it inflicts a terminal dose of radiation. I do not think size is everything.
Hon Barry House: Do you want that sort of stuff to be in the hands of the terrorists?
Hon GIZ WATSON: Of course not. I do not quite get the connection. Basically, I am saying that it is ridiculous to argue that because a facility is relatively small it is relatively innocuous. The fact that the base occupies the area of only a couple of football pitches does not detract from the fact that it is dangerous.
I direct this comment back to the Leader of the House, because he reiterated some information that is on the public record about this facility. I wonder if the leader is also aware that this facility, when it is operational with its expanded capacity, and even currently, intercepts millions of messages every day, and 80 per cent of the messages intercepted are sent automatically to the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency in the USA without ever being seen or read by Australians. We paint a picture of this being a joint facility, but I defy any member to contradict the claim that 80 per cent of the information intercepted by an extraordinarily sophisticated system is sent straight to the USA without being read by Australians. It is a mobile communications monitoring station that intercepts millions of messages every hour. There is a system of decoding those messages using keywords and that information is automatically sent directly to the CIA and the NSA without anybody in Australia seeing it. There is this notion that we are in this cosy deal whereby we get information from the US. We get the information that the Americans choose to give us. We are being totally naive if we think otherwise. If any member wants to get up in this place and provide evidence contradicting that, I would be very happy to hear it.
Hon Anthony Fels: Can you give the evidence that proves that?
Hon GIZ WATSON: I will work on it. I do not have the documents with me, so I cannot tell the member where that reference comes from.
Hon Anthony Fels: It would be hard to prove that it does do that.
Hon GIZ WATSON: Exactly, and that is the point, but my question is: on whom is the onus of proof? I argue that Australians need to know what is happening on Australian soil. Therefore we need to know whether all that information is available to Australia or whether, as alleged, it goes directly to the USA. I believe that it does go directly to the US; that is the nature of electronic communications.
It is also perhaps of interest to members that, in September 2001, according to a report in the Sydney Daily Telegraph, the Kojarena spy base intercepted private phone calls from the MV Tampa that enabled the Howard government to formulate its infamous political response to the Tampa rescue. These spy stations are involved in tapping private communications in Australian waters, such as those between the captain of the MV Tampa and authorities. I obviously will not have a chance to get a response to my next question, but I ask: given that the government has some information about the expansion of this facility, when will construction actually occur? That is also of interest to the community.
It has been said that this spy base is a hard target and not a soft target. I was interested to note the comment of the Leader of the House that it is an unmanned facility. It is interesting that this facility, which is supposedly a hard target and very secure, does not seem to have any attending personnel. I do not know how security is maintained at the site if people are not on site.
Hon Kim Chance: It is on an Australian site. That is the point I made.
Hon GIZ WATSON: Does the Australian service provide security?
Hon Kim Chance: I do not know that, so I cannot comment.
Hon GIZ WATSON: That is what I am asking.
Hon Kim Chance: It is not on an unmanned site. The facility is unmanned, but the site is manned.
Hon GIZ WATSON: Right. In the view of the Leader of the House, is security provided by Australian -
Hon Kim Chance: I can’t know that; I’m sorry.
Hon GIZ WATSON: The Leader of the House cannot know it? Would he be told if he asked?
Hon Kim Chance: Probably not.
Hon GIZ WATSON: No. That is what I thought. That is why it is worth having a look at the site and seeing the uniforms. It is good to walk around it.
Hon Kim Chance: The golf balls are very pretty.
Hon GIZ WATSON: Gorgeous - it is usually black. I have touched on the relationship between Australia and the United States and the treaties between the two countries because they very much underpin these joint facilities. I do not think that we can talk about the expansion of a facility such as this without commenting on the broader relations between Australia and the United States. The point was made by members opposite that the Greens have an issue with the US. I am here to tell members that I do not care which country wants to be the world’s policeman, because I disagree with any nation taking on that role. It would not matter which country it was. It is totally inappropriate for one nation to occupy a role -
Hon Barry House: How about giving that role to Osama bin Laden?
Hon GIZ WATSON: No.
Hon Barry House: Do you think that is a good idea?
Hon GIZ WATSON: Of course not. Hon Barry House is not listening to what I am saying. It is inappropriate for any country to occupy that role.
Hon Barry House: But he doesn’t acknowledge any law or authority.
Hon GIZ WATSON: Saddam Hussein was propped up by the US, he was paid by the US and he was armed by the US. That is what the US does. Other countries have done that in the past. I disagree with any country that appoints itself the world’s policeman. I would not care about the ideology of that country or what -
Hon Barry House: What about independent, radical groups that will not acknowledge any sort of authority?
Hon GIZ WATSON: That is why we need organisations such as the United Nations. The United Nations is continually undermined by countries such as the US, which refuses to sign treaties or to pay its dues to the United Nations. One reason that the United Nations is under capacity is that the US refuses to pay the levy that each member country of the United Nations is asked to pay.
Hon Anthony Fels: What was the position of the Greens (WA) on the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan?
Hon GIZ WATSON: We opposed it and we continue to oppose it.
Hon Anthony Fels: As much as you oppose the US invasion of other countries?
Hon GIZ WATSON: Each has to be taken on its merit.
The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We are moving away from the motion.
Hon GIZ WATSON: Thank you, Mr President, for your timely reminder. I ask the house to support this motion. The Leader of the House acknowledged, albeit in moderate terms, that it is at least unfortunate, if not inappropriate, that the announcement of the expansion of this facility was made without any consultation with the Western Australian community or the Western Australian government, either in the lead-up to the announcement or even on the actual day on which the announcement was made. Therefore, I expect that the Labor Party will be comfortable with supporting this motion.
Question put and negatived.