SENATOR THE HON ROBERT HILL
_______________________________________________________________________________________
TRANSCRIPT
Minister for Defence Leader of the Government in the Senate
PRESS CONFERENCE
Kokoda Barracks, Canungra, Queensland 12.30pm, Tuesday, 13 January 2004
E&oe_____________________________________Missile Defence, Gulf War Syndrome
Senator Robert Hill I’m here to inspect this training facility. It’s very important to us in terms of our overall military training, particularly Army. heritage. It’s of course had a long and rich
It’s regarded as a very important establishment in terms of returned
soldiers and most of you from this area would have visited the various memorials. But we’re not only looking to the past we’re looking to the future. This is a new facility which is the state of the art intelligence training facility which was recently opened and it’s about to receive its first students at the start of next month. I’m expecting some 1200 intelligence students from across the three Services and also Defence professionals, civilian professionals, will be trained here.
It’s good to see that it’s being done as a joint facility as well.
It will have 105
permanent staff, again from across the three Services, also Defence civilians. Intelligence as we know is critically important to success in war and we’ve had so
2
many illustrations of that in the last couple of years in Afghanistan and Iraq. And our intelligence officers have done an extraordinarily good job again demonstrating how critically important they are to the ultimate goal of success. So it’s been good for me to see the facility. We also use it as a basis for training and supporting students from throughout the region, so not only are we training Australian military students, but also those of our friends and allies in the region. They will be able to receive some of their training here and then our staff will travel out to their countries and further their training on site. So it’s good to see that we’re providing a facility of this sophistication and practical benefit as I put this to you today.
The other matter that I’ve been interested in which also reflects the importance of the training base in the longer term is that apart from this facility we’ve also recently we put in place a major new water treatment plant which is also about to commence operations and we have further plans to redevelop the base. They
include replacing two of the major accommodation blocks. Some of the blocks have now got quite tired. I’ve had a chance to inspect the accommodation. There’s a range from being very good and quite ordinary – the ordinary we think will be replaced. There will also be, some of the office accommodation will be refurbished and replaced. But also because of the age of the base, a lot of the unseen
infrastructure needs to be replaced - I’m talking about the sewerage system and the piping, reticulation around the base and the like. The total project is estimated in the vicinity of some $70 million. We’re planning to take it to the Parliamentary
Public Works Committee this year and the plan if all approvals come through in time will be to commence work next year. So I think that that’s an illustration of the fact that we regard this base as a very important facility but also of our determination as a government to ensure that both the living accommodation and
3
the working accommodation for the Australian Defence Force, and our civilian professionals, is of a high standard. Now, that or other things? Journalist: The Americans missile defence system (inaudible) and are we going to participate in it? Senator Hill: Well we’ve said that we think it’s in Australia’s national interest to play a part. It ultimately provides the capacity to defend against incoming missiles. We don’t see that threat at the moment but unless you plan and engage in development of the capability, you won’t have it at the time if ever it occurs when it’s needed. So we’re working with the Americans at the moment to set up the framework for our involvement and to identify particular projects that will be of benefit to us and also where we can contribute particular experience or capabilities of value. It’s a two way street. And we will hopefully complete our memorandum of understanding a little later this year and make our contribution. Journalist: Are we talking finance, expertise or both? Senator Hill: Well it’s a development program. From the American perspective it’s quite – parts of it are quite well advanced. They will actually be deploying part of their missile
defence system this year. And in terms of their naval capability their Aegis ships, they already have some capacity in place. But it will evolve over time and we will provide a niche capability as I said according to what we are investing in and our experience. So in terms of what we are investing in, the air warfare destroyers that we are intending to purchase and that we’ve announced we will have the capacity to
4
play a part.
In terms of particular expertise that we have and assets that we
already have, there has been some suggestion that the JORN over the horizon radar system can provide a sensor system that would be of use to our mutual interests. Journalist: Inaudible. Senator Hill: Well as you know our defence budget is about $14 billion a year. This government has given commitments in terms of 3% real increase per year during the decade following the White Paper. That’s the investment we have committed to that and I won’t go into detail about our budgets over the last few years as well. So we don’t provide a specific new budget at this time for missile defence. We look at ways in which our existing projects can contribute to a joint benefit and might add to it. Journalist: (Inaudible.)…how much money are you willing to commit to the US project? Senator Hill: Well, I don’t think you can distinguish it. As I said when we purchase three air warfare destroyers which we have committed to do – that is a multi billion dollar project. The principal capability is to defend against incoming missiles. The system as the Americans are now showing, can be really only slightly upgraded to actually be able to intercept incoming ballistic missiles as well. So our ships would be able to contribute to the network of ships that will ultimately give us both protection against the threat of incoming missiles. Journalist:
5
Minister, given that the threat of ICBMs doesn’t exist at the moment, you just admitted that a while ago, don’t we make ourselves something of a target for them by participating in this? Senator Hill: Well, no, we’re not a target at the moment. There is not a threat to Australia at the moment. But I can’t say what the position is going to be, 10, 15 years down the track. And the point is that unless you invest in the technology and the know-how, unless you are prepared to provide an input, you won’t get the output. You won’t get the extra security against this sort of threat if it occurs in the future. What we have said is that we recognise that logic to be sound and therefore it’s in our national interest – a long term project – to start contributing to identify areas in which we can make a useful contribution. Journalist: Is there credibility to claims the system could fuel an arms race? Senator Hill: Some of the opponents to missile defence claim it, yes. They say that if you’re developing a way to defend against missiles, you’re encouraging somebody else to develop better offensive missiles. But my answer is that the proliferation of offensive missiles is already occurring throughout the world. And in the Cold War days, the way to defend against that was to threaten an even greater response. So we got to the mutually assured destruction concept. Which didn’t give you a lot of comfort. Now, in the post-Cold War era , that doesn’t work because you don’t have the same blocs, there’s not the same discipline between states and so you’ve got to look to other ways in which you can protect against that possibility of incoming missiles. The way the Americans believe it can best be done is by actually defeating the
6
missile during its flight – at either any of its three stages, either at the launch stage, the cruise stage, or when it comes back through the atmosphere. Journalist: What is the capability of the SM3? Senator Hill: Well the SM, that is the most sophisticated long range anti ballistic missile that exists at the moment. It is the missile that is commonly used on the American Aegis destroyers and cruisers is the SM2 missile. We’re getting SM2s, we’re converting, on our frigates at the moment, our FFGs we have SM1s. SM2 is longer range. We’re converting 4 of those to take SM2. The new air warfare destroyers will be fitted with SM2s but they will also be capable of taking the next range of long range missile, the SM3, which would be the missile that would ultimately be used to defeat the threat of an incoming missile. Journalist: How far has this technology moved in the last few years? (inaudible) Senator Hill: Incredibly quickly. You know a few years ago very sound scientists were saying you know this is still decades away. And already in trials now we’re seeing intercepts in really quite extraordinary circumstances. The most recent one was the one just before Christmas where the Americans picked up the launch from one Aegis ship, identified the launch, determined the track the missile was going to take and indicated that to another Aegis ship which was closer to the target range. Journalist: (inaudible)
7
Senator Hill: You’ve got to ask them the question, you know what do they say won’t work? If they won’t say that the Aegis system won’t work because as I said in December, one month ago it demonstrated it can and will and that’s the fourth of this series of tests. The Americans are deploying on land base systems this year which they Generally if you follow the opponent, the scientific perspective
know will work.
down a burrow they will say well in terms of the protection of a continent, because you would need so many points to defend bombs and so forth. And that’s really all for the future. But what’s being shown now, that on a point basis the capability already exists. Journalist: (Inaudible.) What sort of message might this send to our Asian neighbours? Senator Hill: Well we believe that this is in their interest as well. They will have in the future the same interest in being able to defend against such a threat if they ever find they face it. Some of our Asian neighbours already have worries in that regard. Some on the other hand have been concerned about whether it would encourage the development of more and more sophisticated offensive missiles. We talked to them. We’re saying what we’re doing and why we’re doing it. We keep them informed. They have received the representations that we’ve made and they might not necessarily think it’s the best way to go, but they respect our right to protect our own interests. Journalist: Inaudible. Senator Hill:
8
No those relations are really good at the moment. Journalist: What do you think it signals about (inaudible) with the US in terms of defence policy capability partners? Senator Hill: I think it signals taking advantage of a unique strategic asset we have in terms of our alliance with the United States. But defence systems of this sort of The fact that the
sophistication have not traditionally been open to others.
Americans are happy to have us at the table and furthermore that they recognise we can make a worthwhile contribution, it’s very small in terms of the total project, but nevertheless an important contribution, I think just again illustrates the importance of that relationship in terms of our long term security. Journalist: And what’s the next stage after these negotiations? Senator Hill: Well, we’ll settle with the Americans particular projects that we will work on. And over the next few years we will work on those projects. Journalist: Inaudible. Senator Hill: Well they haven’t been decided but what I’ve said is that if you look at areas we are already working on, that would be relevant, the first is the air warfare destroyers is obviously one. We’ve already taken the decision to use that, an American based air warfare system. It’ll therefore be compatible with the US system, which is really
9
one of the reasons why we’ve done it apart from the fact that it’s the best system, but also allows for interoperability. It allows for us to support them and of course with much greater capability for them to support us. Other assets, you know might be the over the horizon radar system in Australia, the Americans already stressed considerable interest in. Journalist: Inaudible. Senator Hill: I don’t think they’re here for very long. This will be one of a series of discussions each way over the course of the next few months. Journalist: Inaudible. Senator Hill: Well it’s a test but that’s the way you develop the capacity. That’s the fourth in this series and each test becomes more demanding and there are further tests that will become even more demanding. If you read the website of the Missile Defense
Agency, you’ll actually see that it was an extraordinary achievement and it is a step towards what’s going to be an even more sophisticated response. So you simply cannot say now that it won’t work. There is already existing and proven capacity to defeat a missile that’s out of the atmosphere. In terms of an effective defence
barrier, then you’ve got to start asking questions about what are you seeking to defend against and what circumstances. Will you need a tiered system, your long range missile will be playing one part but you’ll also have a closer-in missile system that – patriot system or whatever which will be the next level of defence. I have no doubt at all that the pace of development of this particular mission despite its
10
complexity, it’s going to become a very important part in terms of US national defence and in terms of our knowledge of the future a resource that we may well find very useful in terms of Australian national defence. Journalist: Inaudible. Senator Hill: Well at the moment we haven’t had to forego anything else because the capability such as the air warfare destroyer, that offers a multi role capability so we need the air warfare destroyer to protect our troops that are being carried from Australia to an offshore theatre and also to protect them onshore when they arrive. If we can get an extra benefit of being part of an international missile defence network that can provide defence against a different sort of threat well that’s an added benefit. Now it might require new software for further down the track, upgrade of software which could be an additional expense, but that is something we will face further down the track. But that’s really some years away. Journalist: Inaudible Senator Hill: Well first point I make is that I think subsequent Australian governments that are sensible will want to be committed to this process because to be able to defeat an incoming threat, this is a defensive mechanism, it’s not offensive, to be able to protect Australians by defeating a threat that’s coming in without putting Australian service personnel at risk, it just seems to me to be a huge benefit that I can’t see a future Australian government would walk away from. How much – how far does our commitment – well it doesn’t – it might be regarded as disappointing to
11
our principal ally if we walked away from it, but not much beyond that because as I said the capabilities that we’re specifically investing in have a multi function. Journalist: Inaudible. Senator Hill: Well Australia – China is very sensible and the Chinese are pragmatic, quite sensible. They obviously don’t want to see actions that encourage an arms race but they do understand the rationale for defensive mechanisms. Something that I’ve discussed with my counterpart in China, something the Americans have obviously discussed at length with the Chinese. Before we committed to development of this MOU, we again discussed with the Chinese. Their perspective on this particular issue might differ slightly from ours but they understand what we’re doing and why we’re doing it and they respect that in return. And in terms of the broader Australia/Chinese relationship, it’s a huge relationship that covers a multitude of different facets all of those facets important to both countries and won’t be affected. Journalist: Inaudible. Senator Hill: It’s not – If you want to look at the Aegis air warfare system of the United States alone, not only do the US have it, but now the Japanese have it, the South Koreans are getting it, the Spanish have it and the Norwegians are getting it. So that’s not unilateralism. Journalist: Just another point very quickly. Any response to the British research about so
called Gulf War Syndrome and its impact on Australia’s defence personnel?
12
Senator Hill: Well I only heard of their report this morning. We did our own study as reported last year and we didn’t find any evidence of a Gulf War Syndrome. That’s our
objective defence medical professional assessment. There was a combined study between Department of Veteran’s Affairs and Defence. Now having said that we obviously monitor the work of others and we will look seriously at the British’s have now come up with. In terms of our forces who come back from operations in the Gulf region, whether that was in Afghanistan or in Iraq, we monitor their health but the bottom line is that in our studies we found no evidence of Gulf War Syndrome. Journalist: No possibility of further fresh investigations? Senator Hill: No I said that we – if any reputable party brings forward new information then we take it into account. We always do that. But on our studies to date we haven’t found such a syndrome. ENDS