Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard   

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Wednesday, 27 February 1985
Page: 261

Senator CHIPP (Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.07) —I will disappoint Senator Sibraa. He can bet on it that there will be a vote on this question this afternoon because the Australian Democrats will ensure-

Senator Sibraa —I did not say all the Opposition parties.

Senator CHIPP —We are not an Opposition party. We are a party that does not believe virtually one word of what has been put down. Before Senator Sir John Carrick, a Liberal senator from New South Wales, follows me in this debate, may I make the point that in debates such as this, which are so serious and which affect the possible survival of humankind, the survival of the human race in Australia, only accurate statements should be made. Yesterday Senator Sir John Carrick, Senator Walters, Senator Jessop and Senator Hamer made a grossly inaccurate statement to score a point off the Australian Democrats. Honourable senators will notice that I said 'inaccurate'.

Senator Sir John Carrick —I have a copy of Hansard here.

Senator CHIPP —I have too and I will quote Senator Sir John Carrick in a moment. I did not say 'misleading', because I would never accuse any of those four honourable senators of deliberately misleading the Senate. At page 139 of Hansard-I will help Senator Sir John Carrick-he said:

Much mention has been made by Senator Chipp of the MX missile. I wonder why the Democrats have never mentioned the SS18 and the SS19 Russian missiles, which in recent months have been tested regularly in the Pacific over the same range, around the Cook Islands and close to New Zealand.

That statement was made by Senator Sir John Carrick, Liberal, New South Wales, a former Minister. It is obvious that the four honourable senators had the same source material because their statements were in almost identical words. One reason the Democrats have not complained about the latest test by the Russians in the South Pacific was that it was in 1975, and it would have been extraordinarily difficult for the Democrats to have protested about that because that was exactly two years before our formation. I ask Senator Sir John Carrick, when he follows me, to declare his source. I would like him to go further and deny that his source is a person called Santamaria or of that group.

Senator Sir John Carrick —I deny that now, but he is a very reliable person.

Senator CHIPP — Thank you. It would be fair for Senator Sir John Carrick, instead of championing Mr Santamaria, to challenge me for my source.

Senator Sir John Carrick —I am not challenging you at all.

Senator CHIPP —The honourable senator would do so at his peril because I have a document in my hand-which I will ask leave of the Senate to table, dated 27 February 1985, which is today-which is a direct communique from the Australian Joint Intelligence Organisation. It states, among other things:

Since March 1975, however, all Soviet rocket missile tests have been to declared areas in the North Pacific.

Senator Sir John Carrick —Why did you not comment on the North Pacific?

Senator CHIPP —All I did was simply point out yesterday that those four Liberal senators, acting on whatever information they had, made a gross inaccuracy, perfectly innocently I am sure.

In important debates such as this I ask people such as Senator Sir John Carrick, a senior statesman of the Liberal Party of Australia, up to whom, if I could use a Churchillian expression, a lot of people look for guidance, to be accurate. Yesterday he was clearly grossly inaccurate and grossly in error. We have denounced the Soviets every time they have indulged in any sort of infamy. I was the only senator who, during the condolences on the death of Joseph Stalin, took the opportunity to condemn that man for the butcher that he was. The Democrats were outspoken, and I earned the wrath of Senator Georges at the time.

Senator Georges —You have got the wrong cove. It was not Joseph Stalin.

Senator CHIPP —I did it to Brezhnev as well. I was one of the first to join the Liberals in denouncing the Soviet's entry into Afghanistan. I will not wear this cheap debating trick that some Liberals are trying to put on the Democrats, that we are anti-American and pro-Soviet. It is absolutely absurd.

The first part of this urgency motion states that ANZUS is vital to our defence. We say that that is absurd. It is not vital to the defence of Australia and the region. Does anybody here believe that the United States would come to our aid in a regional conflict?

Senator MacGibbon —Yes.

Senator Lewis —Yes.

Senator Sheil —Yes, my word.

Senator CHIPP —Do Senator Sheil, Senator Lewis and Senator MacGibbon really believe that, if there were an incursion by the Indonesians into Papua New Guinea or if the Filipinos invaded New Zealand, the United States President of the day would commit troops or arms to defend New Zealand or Australia? If they believe that, I ask them to say so. So they believe that the President would then go to Congress to get its approval to ratify his action, which he has to do under ANZUS? If they believe that, please say so, because I do not think even a Liberal would put forward the insane proposition that the American Congress, after what happened in Vietnam, would approve the commitment of troops in the jungles of Indonesia, the Philippines or anywhere else outside America. I think it is absurd. We do not believe it is vital to our defence. How could ANZUS be vital to Australia's defence?

Can we look for one moment at what Australia has given to ANZUS or to the Americans and what we have received in return? I will tell honourable senators what we have given to the Americans. We have given 24 precious pieces of Australian soil so that they can build their bases, over most of which we do not have control and some of which are nuclear targets. That is not Don Chipp or the Australian Democrats saying that the bases are nuclear targets; the Soviets say that they are. The Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Hawke, says they are. The Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, say that we are a nuclear target.

Senator McIntosh —And the Russians say it.

Senator CHIPP —I said that the Soviets say so as well. Another thing we have said to the Americans is: 'Yes, we will be a nuclear target in the name of ANZUS.' Without consultation we have been tied to the United States' infamous Star Wars program, the strategic defence initiative. In the name of the American alliance Australia has wasted most of its 2.9 per cent of the gross domestic product devoted to defence on equipment which is not used to defend Australia and the region but to fit in with the United States global foreign and defence objectives and needs, not Australia's objectives or needs. In the name of ANZUS Australian governments have agreed to monitor the testing of the MX missile, a first strike weapon.

Senator MacGibbon —Nonsense.

Senator CHIPP —Well, the expert on defence, Biggles MacGibbon, says: 'Nonsense'. I would have thought that a weapons delivery system, which is capable of holding 10 nuclear warheads, each of which could be 20 times more destructive than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, and each of which is aimed at hard headed silos, not towns, could not be anything else but a first strike weapon. I disagree with him there. This Government has stated that it is against first strike weapons, but it agrees to monitor the testing of the MX missiles. The MX has been denounced by such people as that 'rampant left winger', Barry Goldwater. He says that it is a monstrous crime against humanity. That other 'rampant communist', William Colby, the ex-director of the Central Intelligence Agency, has also denounced it as being against humanity. Admiral Noel Gaylor, former Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Forces, has also denounced it. What defence has Australia received in return? I ask people who are listening to this debate, not the people in this chamber who have closed minds, what we have given to the Americans and to ANZUS. Ask yourselves out there: 'What have we got in return?' Have we received any guarantee of defence from the United States? There is not one word in any treaty that says that if Australia is attacked America will come to our aid. I challenge any Government or Opposition member to point out an article or series of articles that gives us that commitment and protection. It is not even a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation-type agreement. Even the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence of this Parliament in 1982 agreed with us on this.

The next point in the motion is that ANZUS has been a major contribution to the maintenance of an effective stable deterrence and the preservation of peace. That is one of the suggestions as to why we should support it. It has not contributed to the maintenance of an effective stable deterrence and I defy anybody to prove that it has. Can anybody remember that distinguished American, Robert McNamara, the then Secretary for Defense, subsequently the head of the World Bank and a most distinguished human being, saying in 1961: 'People of the world, don't worry any more. We have now reached the stage of deterrence. There are 1,000 bombs between the Russians and us, so we can destroy each other. There is no need to build any more. We have now reached the stage of mutually assured destruction, so don't worry. That is it, 1,000 bombs'. Mr McNamara said that in 1961, and he was supported by Kennedy. Today there are 50,000 bombs, the average size of which is 30 times more powerful than the bomb which was dropped on Hiroshima and which killed 200,000 people, and we are going to build 20,000 more in the next 10 years. So do not give me this rubbish that ANZUS or anything else has brought about the preservation of peace or an effective stable deterrence. The very statistics give the lie to that. Robert McNamara, the creator of the theory of deterrence, now disowns the theory as worthless.

Senator Walters —Of course he does. We have not had a nuclear war.

Senator CHIPP —If Senator Walters believes that she is a greater expert on foreign affairs than the great Robert McNamara who created the theory of deterrence and who says that it is now worthless, and if she, the Liberal Party and the Government say that it is still an effective policy, let them do so in the face of such expert advice.

I will end my contribution on a chilling note. Senator Chaney talks of peace. We have 50,000 bombs. We do not know what advice has been given by the military to the masters in the Kremlin. We are now beginning to find out, because America is a democracy, what advice has been given to various Presidents by the military in the United States. I disclose this: The world renowned physics professor, Professor Corceau, using the Freedom of Information Act in the United States-the thirty-year period having elapsed-has recently obtained documents from 1954. Those documents reveal that the United States President considered, on the advice of his military, launching first strikes on the Soviets on a number of occasions in the past. Five times in 1954 the United States President was advised by his military advisers to launch a first strike. Is this called stable deterrence? I remind honourable senators that 1954 was the year when the French Army was surrounded in collapsing Vietnam at Dien Bien Phu and when Anthony Eden flew to Washington to plead with Eisenhower not to bomb China. I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard an extract from the Joint Intelligence Organisation report which I read earlier and which contradicts the statements made by the four Liberals about whom I spoke.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-


1. (U) This information is supplied in response to an oral request from Dr Gee.

2. (U) Since 1960 the Soviet News Agency TASS has issued 49 announcements declaring the short-term closure of some 72 areas in the Pacific for the testing of long-range rockets or space boosters. Thirteen of these announcements, closing 21 areas, have been made during the last five years, the last occurring during December 1984. In the first fifteen years of long-range rocket tests to ocean areas the USSR announced only five closures in the South Pacific. Since March 1975, however, all Soviet rocket/missile tests have been to declared areas in the North Pacific. At least thirteen missiles have been launched to Pacific Ocean impact areas since 1978. Often some of the areas near the Kamchatka Peninsula are used concurrently with declared areas in the Central Pacific for the impact of depleted upper stages of multi-stage rockets. In recent years closure announcements, which cover a period of up to ten days, have been notified by TASS some five to seven days prior to becoming effective. Frequently launchings to the area occur on the first day of the closure and the areas are reopened to shipping immediately afterwards.

3. (U) In contrast, China has announced the closure of only two areas (one in the South Pacific) for the testing of long-range rockets since May 1980. Probably three rockets have been launched to these areas, but only one rocket impacted in the declared South Pacific area.

Senator CHIPP —I just repeat that five times in 1954 the United States military clearly recommended nuclear options. We must assume that the Russians have done the same, which indicates the falsity of mutual deterrence as a concept.