E 0 E -PROOF ONLY
TRANSCRIPT PRESS CONFERENCE PARLIAMENT HOUSE -6 JUNE 1984
Ladies and gentlemen I've asked Bill Hayden to join
me because of two reasons. I have specifically referred in
the speech I made in the House to the role that he has been
playing in these matters and he followed me in the House and as
also I thought you -would. like the opportunity of perhaps addressing
any questions to him as well. I simply want to say in a brief
opening statement to you that what I've had to say today to
the people of Australia through. the Parliament about the general
purposes of the joint facilities has never been said previously
by an Australian Government. And the particular purposes which
have never been disclosed can be discerned in the following
parts of my statement which I would refer to again briefly.
That's where I said that a " timely knowledge of developments
that have military significance is very important and can be
critical for the security of the United States and its allies,
including Australia,. Effective deterrence and hence avoidance
of conflict depend.-on this. Similarly, effective measures for
military restraint and f or the control and reduction of
armaments depnd upn reliable assessments of military
developments. Arms limitation arrangements between the United
States and the Soviet Union specifically provide for verification.
The general purpose of the facilities that we operate at
Nurrungar and Pine Gap with the Americans is to contribute
taol ofts obeives". Among the functions performed
are the provision of early warning by receiving from space
satellites information about missile launches, and the
provision of information about the occurrence of nuclear
explosions, which assists in nuclear test: ban monitoring and
supports nuclear non-proliferation measures. Disclosures of other
technical functions of the classified facilities would involve
damage to both U. S. and Australian interests and cannot be
justified. the maintenance of effective deterrence
including-through early warning has as its purpose
the avoidance of war between the nuclear powers. Such a war
would inevitably affect all nations, including Australia, and
its avoidance is essential for the security of the Australian
people." And I would simply repeat here what I've said in the
House, that it's very important to distinguish between these
purposes which I have discussed and revealed in the House and
the technical details of the functioning of the facilities
which must necessarily remain classified. I make the point
to you that this is the first time that an Australian Government
has disclosed these facts. There has been reference to it in
certain publications, but the fact that no Government has
addressed itself to these issues has led to speculation about
a range of other alleged purposes and functions of these bases.
P. M. cant: And we believe that it's appropriate that the
Australian people should be informed. The other point I would
make is that, as I said in the House, the statement that I have
made has been done with the full co-operation and support
of the United States administration. Now before you may
wish to address any particular questions either to myself
or to Bill, Bill you might like to make some observations.
HAYDEN: This is an extremely important: statement. It's the
first occasi -on on which officially there has been a declarat~ ion
of the general functions for which the facilities have been
established and in discharging which they operate. I'd like
to draw your attention to one simple fact there is a vast
difference between speculation, no matter how well-informed
you may presume it to be, and an official statement. No
official statement has been made of this nature before.
It'declares that the facilities contribute to verification,
arms control, deterrents, early warning functions. Verification
and arms control fulfil obligations which we have morally and
under-international arrangements, for instance under the SALT
arrangements, are concerns under various nuclear weaponry
regulatory mechanisms which have been set up through international
forums. Deterrence is the only thing we have in place which
operates as a break or an inhibitor on the arms race, the possibili
of it breaking out into nuclear conflict. We would wish for
better. We are working for better. But any alternative that's
available at the moment is far worse. In respect of early
warning we don't want to see a nuclear Pearl Harbour.. We
have a moral responsibility in that respect. We freely
acknowledge that tHese facilities in certain circumstances
could be nuclear targe perhaps in certain circumstances
some of them very high priority nuclear targets. But the fact
is that we have a moral responsibility as well as a practical
one to contribute to those functions I mentioned, and particularly
deterrents, and the advantage we get from this is that when
we talk on these matters, when we propose the calls for arms
control and disarmament in particular with our full-time
Ambassador for Disarmament, we do so recognised as a country
with a direct stake in this matter, not as some country
remote in the possible action should nuclear conflict take place.
JOURNALIST: But what have you really told us today that's new?
HAWKE: Well I thought I'd addressed myself to that and so
had Bill. And that is that it's the first? time an Australian
Government has definitively stated what are the functions and
the roles of these bases. I've pointed out that there has
been speculation, statements if you like, in certain
publications. But none of these publications have the
authority of a statement by the Government. And it is the
fact,. as you'd be aware, that because there has been no
definitive statement by the Government in the past, then there
has been a range of speculation in the Australian community
about the functions and suggestions that other functions
are involved of an aggressive nature. Anid it is our belief
3
P. M. cont.: that it was appropriate that the grounds for
that speculation should be removed. And we point out that
it is an indictment we believe of previous administrations,
conservative administrations, that they; hadn't undertaken the
task of discussions with our United States ally to enable
this to be done. And I pay tribute to the United States
adminstration that in the process of negotiation, which wasn't
easy, it took time, that they understood the very sound reason
that exists for avoiding ill-based speculation which cannot
do anything to help public understanding of the importance,
indeed we would put the necessity, of Australia hosting these
joint facilities. There is after all a difference between
speculation in a newspaper whatever authority the editors
of that newspaper might wish to attach to their statements
there is a difference between what they may like to allege
and state and an official statement by the Government. There' s one
other point if I could just make which I meant to make in my
opening statement, and that is that it ought to be rememberEid
that it was the Labor Party when it was last in office between
' 72 and ' 75 that made these facilities effectively joint
facilities by insisting on Australian personnel participating
in the operation of those facilities.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke would you acknowledge that North. West
Cape which you haven't mentioned now, although you did in
the House, is more an aggressive facility than a defensive
facility? No I wouldn't put it in that way. I think there are
two points that ne~ fd to be made. It iq a key element in the
complex communications system which involves communications
with ships and submarides of the United States Navy and of
the Royal Australian Navy. And I think it's a fact that
is acknowledged by all experts that the SLBM, the submarine
launch ballistic missile, carried by the submarines connected
is not a first strike weapon in its nature. And we also
believe that out of the negotiations that we've undertaken
with the United States that we have now created a situation
through the special access that we have with the United States
Department of Defence and the enhanced status of the head
of the Australian Defence staff in Washington, that we are
able to be in a position to know what the possible relevance
which could involve North West Cape in support of any United
States military operations. And we're satisfied my Ministers
who have negotiated this and -through. them, : myself * and the Government,
that appropriate and necessary protection of Australian
sovereignty in these matters has been enhanced.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister I was wondering if I could address
a question both to yourself and to the Foreign Minister.
Mr Peacock has said that today's statement is a sanctimonious;
platitude with an absence of substance with a view to the
July National Conference.
Well I would have to concede that if one was looking
for an authority on the expression of sanctimonious platitudes
one couldn't go better than to the Leader of the Opposition. _/ 4
P. M. cont: But of course, as with virtually everything he
says in the Parliament these days that is a grotesque
misrepresentation of the situation. Wie acknowledge, of course,
I mean you would be foolish to try and deny that there is
within our Party concern about this issue. And in that
sense the Australian Labor Party refle! cts the total Australian
community. And it's healthy that there should be this
questioning about our position. Now we believe that we
have the responsibility as a Government, and in a sense
myself and Bill have a very particular responsibility in these
areas, to try and create an information basis for our Party-and
for the Australian community. So that people are able to
come to conclusions on the basis of facts rather emotion and
speculation. HAYDEN:..' Well I endorse entirely what Bob's said-and suggest ( what
Peacock has said) is a lot of nonsense,--as the evidence will'show since we've
been in Government we've been speaking in this area fairly
regularly. In particular this statement has been in the
pipeline for some months since we were in the United States
last year and came out in its final refined form a couple
of weeks ago. So it is part of an important obligation we
had to discharge to the Labor. Party. The requirement of the
policy is the general functions of the facilities be disclosedthat's
been done. But above and beyond that I believe that
the Labor Government, the Hawke Labor Government, has been
instrumental in mobilising informed concern in the community
on the issue of arms control and disarmament. And it's our
intention to maintpn a flow of information to the community
because we want t6 continue to-give leadership to the arms
control disarmament mcAvement in this country. We want them
to recognise that this Government is particularly active in
this field, is dedicated, and has already in the short time
we'ye been in Government shown some concrete progress in these
areas at the international forums. I don't think Mr Peacock's
statements can be taken seriously. He's suggested that
exclusively we were concerned about the forthcoming Conference.
Of course we wish to speak to people who are going to be involved
in that Conference. But does anyone suggest that the fairly
wide range of people from both the social and the natural
sciences, the academics from-various other fields, the writers,
the intellectuals in this community and people from very a broad
range of average occupations in this community expressing
concern about this issue don't deserve to. be communicated with,
don't have a justifiable concern. our job is to explain what
we're about, what deterrence is and why it's necessary for u~ s
to fulfil that role if we're going to genuinely try to be
influential in the issue of arms control and disarmament
internationally.
JOURNALIST: You referred in-your speech and Mr Hayden has also
referred to it the presence of the bases here do make an
added risk to nuclear attack. Do you believe there is widespread
community acceptance of that reality?
There are at least-two things-I'd like to say on that.
Both I and Bill consistently since we've been in Government,
and indeed Bill in discharging his responsibilities as LeadE~ r
of the Opposition before we camne to Government, did not
attempt, has never attempted to hide that there is a balance
of judgement which we have to make in these things. It would
be futile, dishonest, not to acknowledge the risk that is
involved in us'hosting these joint facilities. But the
judgement that we make, and we have no doubt whatsoever about.
the correctness of that judgement, is that on balance this
is something significantly to the advantage of the people not
only of this country but the rest of the world. Because as
I have disclosed in this statement these facilities play a
vital role in the question of stable deterrents, particularly
through-the early warning functions that I've referred to, And
that of course is leaving aside the role that they play in
helping to make effective agreements between the superpowers
in respect of nuclear testing and so on. But essentially in
regard to the question of nuclear war we believe that the
existence of these joint facilities and the discharge of their
functions make more likely the continuation of a non-nuclear
war situation. And therefore the intere! sts Of the people of
Australia and of the rest of the world, we believe, demand
continuation of these functions. The second point I would
make is that on the evidence that's available from polling
in this matter, it is clear that majority of the Australian
people support the position of the Australian Government.
JOURNALIST: Should the Australian people, Prime Minister,
be disturbed about thos?, operations which you described as
classified? What we have done is to make a clear statement of what
the functions are. And let me make it clear that that is an
exhaustive statement of functions. There are no other functions
or roles than those which I have outlined. But necessarily,
of course, we can't go to technical details. It would be
manifestly against the interests of both ourselves and of the
United States to do that. But I repeat the statement of functions
that I've made to the Parliament is an exhaustive statement
of the functions.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke the issue of technical functions of the
bases. You said you can't say anything further because of
the damage to both the U. S. and Australia. Isn't it true that:
a lot of technical information is made available to the American
Congress by the American administration about technical funct:. ons
and why was it not possible for you to reveal some of that
information in your statement.
What happens in the United States, according to their proce! sses,
is a matter for the United States and as far as we are concerned
these are joint facilities and for us to be able to make a statement
of assistance to understanding by the Australian people requires
by definition agreement with the United States. The processes of
securing this mutual position has been a lengthy one which has
involved Bill and Gordon Scholes and then finally, myself. And
this is the position of agreement that we've been able to reach.
And we believe that it's been useful and will continue to be
useful for the people to have that information. It is not
possible to say more than that. Let me emphasise the important
P. M. cant.: in understanding which I think is the statement. that
I made that there has been an exhaustive statement of functions.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hawke, does the US Government seek the
Australian Government's permission before making these
statements about it, given that you had to get the US
Government's permission to make this statement?
PM: The United States Government doesn't talk to us about
wh; a t happens in the United States Congress.
JOURNALIST: -Prime Minister, will the newly established
Parliamentary sub-committee on disarmament and arms control
have access to this technical information?
PM: No, I would not believe it would.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hayden?
HAYDEN: I think the important thing is that this is a j6int
Australian United States statement and it came out of
consultation between both of us and it represents as much as
can be disclosed without going beyond that which has been
disclosed in the United States including the Congress. I am
aware of some of the technical data which has been disclosed
in the Congress which is available in the annual defence
report presented by the Secretary of State for Defence, but
nowhere there can I recall seeing any specification about
Nurrungar or Pine Gap and I think that is important to recall.
There are general statements and conclusions are sometimes
drawn from them rigJ~ tly or wrongly, wisely or unwisely.
That is a vastly differ nt matter. Specific terms on which
we have been dealingg -e have jointly recognised that is
Australia and America -we go beyond what has been provided
here about the general function of the base would be to
go beyond what is provided generally in the United States.
JOURNALIST: Won't the very suspicions remain the very
suspicions you are trying to overcome?
PM: I don't believe so. There may be by some people who
have got a particular barrow or prejudice to push and we
are not in the business of trying to stop the pushing of
prejudices or ideologies, but all I can say as Prime Minister
is supported fully by the Foreign Minister and the Government
is that we have made, I repeat, an exhaustive statement of
the functions of those joint facilities and that statement,
we are confident, will lead the great majority of the
Australian people to make the judgement that this Government
makes, and that is that obviously on balance the hosting of
those joint facilities is in the interests of the Australian
people.
HAYDEN4: The statement is designed to satisfy as many peoples'
concerns as we can possibly do and responsibly do. I am
satisfied that it will satisfy in turn a vast majority of
Australians. We can't satisfy everyone. Some people wouldn't
be satisfied until we remove the facilities from this country.
We have made it clear that that is an area of disagreement
that we have with those people. We have a moral, practical
obligation to support those facilities.
JOURNALIST: It satisfies your doubts that you expressed
three years ago?
PM: I have gone through some moral concern about these
matters and great heartburning over the past couple of years
and more particularly since I have been Foreign Minister.
I have come to the conclusion that this is the most
practical and responsible position that we can take to
continue to host those facilities. I believe that deterrants
are the only effective things in place. It is not pleasant,
but the alternatives are far worse. It allows us to work
credibly and influentially towards the things that we want
to work towards achieving.
JOURNALIST: was only 7 lines that has taken 10 months
to produce, what was the reason for the delay there?
PM: Well, the matter was, as you imply in your statement,
fTrst raised with tie United States administration some
considerable period ago and I came into those negotiations
fairly late in the pea ti at the very high levels of the
Un ited States administration. And the reason for the delay
was the concern of the United States that they were not only
talking about a situation and relationship with Australia.
They have relations with other countries and they were
concerned to be sure that the form of the statement made in
respect of Australia was not something that created difficulties
for them in other areas and we understood their concern. Anti
let me say they understood our reasons for wanting to let the
Australian people know and the discussions being of that
nature were fairly long. There were important considerations
that had to be taken into account. We at all times, I.
believe, were faced with a basically co-operative attitude
from the United States, but understandably-they wanted to make
sure that their interests, not only here, but elsewhere were
fully taken into account.
JOURNALIST: Were the differences between the Pentagon
upper echelons of the Pentagon and the US State Department
PM: I'm not going to go into the question of the internal
operations of the United States administration.
Your saying it really relates to the statement, are you.
JOURNALIST: It's not unrelated.
PM: The great double negative.
JOURNALIST: It's on French nuclear testing. As I
understand, Mr. Hayden, you asked the office of National
Assessments to undertake geological surveys ( tape ends)
Firstly, have you got any results on that and secondly,
there is a notion kicking around in similar circles that the
French really ought to undertake any underground testing that
they have to in Nevada. Would you put that as a credible
alternative?
HAYDEN: I read in one of the newspapers that I had asked
the Office of National Assessment to carry out this sort
of assessment and I'm not sure how that: got wrong because
I understood another might have lodged that request, but I
spoke to him and he said he hadn't, but: he thought I had.
All I can say is I haven't. And it gets rather complex and
curiouser and curiouser but it is probably not a bad idea and
I might give the idea in the very near future. For the
French to conduct their tests in Nevada I didn't have to
raise that with the French they spontaneously declared they
would never be like Britain beholden to the Americans having
their tests carried out in Nevada. It is one of the areas
of arguments that we have had that the tests should take
place somewhere else like metropolitan France.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Haywke, you said you have given an exhaustive
list of the functibns of the bases. one of the senior
officials of the Defernte Department, Mr. Rod Thomas, told a
Parliamentary Committee about two weeks ago that submarines
using North West Cape had counter force capabilities which
he acknowledged some analyses said was a first strike
capability. Do you disagree with those statements of the
Defence Department?
PM: I have quite clearly made my statement in the Parliament
and here on that issue.
HAYDEN: Can. I answer that. Look, I saw that statement. I
disagree with it entirely. One must recognise that modifications
and improvements in nuclear weaponry may well establish a
counter force capability on the part of Americans with the r~ ew
Trident submarine missile, for instance. I would be rather
dishonest if I didn't acknowledge that. I declared that much
as far back as about 4-5 years ago as Leader of the Opposition,
but that is something in the future and that is something
we have got attend to. And we attend to that sort of matter
with credibility because of our position, our direct stake
in these matters as I mentioned earlier. I think the area cf
far greater concern was the potential for the whole framework
of stable deterrents to come very much unstuck as a result.
Competition that is about to break out in outer space is not
Just a matter of putting weapons together, but new technology,
laser beams, particle beams which can be transmitted from
earth to a reflector, amplifier stations in satellites in outer
space and then directed back to earth in a way that fulfills
the role of anti-ballistic missiles extraordinarily
* de-stabilising. That is why we are particularly active in
this area which, I think, probably even comes ahead of
concern about the D-5 or Trident missiles because if you
nip that in the bud, we have nipped in the bud something
that presents awesome worries for us in the near future.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hawke, would your Government contemplate the
establishment of any other United States facilities on
Australia soil of a similar kind?
PM: Well, that issue is not before us. Let me say this. I
Tikin my statement today I have made quite clear on behalf
of the Government why we host those facilities because of
the functions that those facilities what objectives, I think,
are satisfied by the discharge of those facilities. Now, one
has to be entirely speculative. If it were put to us that
given the development of capacities in the technological serise
that may require another facility, which facility could serve
the same objectives then that is something we would have to
take into account.
JOURNALIST: And you are totally satisfied that you know all
of the functions of the bases at present in Australia?
PM: Yes, and I repeat that within the policy under which we
have operated and the concepts that we have, what I have just
said to you would be entirely consistent with that. But we
would not change the conceptual framework that we have got.
In other words we woild not be hosting aggressive facilities,
but only facilities ' which would serve the basic purposes which
we believe are in the inferests of the Australian people.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, does all this information flow
through the Australian Government or does it any of it go only
to the Americans?
PM: In respect of the matters that I have talked about, then
we are in a position where we have access to all the information
which is relevant to those objectives.
HAYDEN: We have small managers. We have co-managers. We have!
people working on the floor on all shifts at those facilities
at Nurrungar and Pine Gap. I can't tell you any more than that.
You recall Lionel Bowen and I went to those ' facilities, I think
in 1979 had quite an extensive assessment of them and I cam
away satisfied that we were aware of what was taking place and
had full access.
PM: I haven't seen inside them.
JOURNALIST: Do you also disagree with the Defence Department
view put to Cabinet a couple of months that an American
could use North West Cape base without necessarily asking for
specific Australian agreement?
PM: We believe that given the new arrangements that have been
negotiated under this Government that AuStralian sovereignty
is fully protected in regard to any possible use of that
facility in United States military operatiaons.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hawke, was there anything that the Australian.-
Government wanted to include in this statement that the US
Government ruled out?
PM: There was a process of negotiation. I think it is accurate
to say that there was some slight differEnce from first drafts,
but that always happens in any negotiations, whether it is at a
level between governments or at other levels. All I can say i~ s
this that at the end result, we are satisfied with the statement
and so is the United States Government.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hawke, are you satisfied that some Australian
service personnel are denied access to some sections of the bases?
PM: Well, all I can say is that I haven't had the opportunity
that Bill has had and Lionel to visit them. I have listened t~ o
their reports on this matter and I have certainly had reports
made to me since I have been Prime Minister and I am satisfied
as I put that the sov ereign interests of Australia are
protected in the way thebases operate.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hawke, you say that Pine Gap and Nurrungar axe
not military bases, isn't that a fairly narrow interpretation?
PM: Well, it is a question for you to say whether it is narrow
or not. I explicity spelled out in my statement to the
Parliament what I meant and I think that is quite clear.
JOURNALIST: Previous Prime Ministers and Government spokesmen
have referred to them as not being part of weapons systems.
Would you exclude that possibility as far as
PM: I have made it clear that they are not properly so
described. I said that in the statement.
JOURNALIST: Can we assume from what you said today that when
the North West Cape agreement comes up for renewal, it will be
renewed? PM: Well, we have gone through the process of negotiation since
we have been in Government we have and my I remind you that
when Labor was in before the negotiation between Mr. Barnard and
I think it was Mr Schlesinger wasn't it as a result of those
re-negotiations Australian sovereignty was better protected and
since we have been in office again this Labor Government we
have had further discussions and we believe have : enhanced the
1 i.
facility of our people in Washington to be better involved.
We are satisfied with results of those negotiations. I have
no reason to believe that the issue arises for further renegotiation
that we would not renew the facility.