Download PDF

SPEECH Senator the Hon. Robert Hill Minister for Defence Leader of the Government in the Senate

21 Nov 2002 MIN 670/02

TRANSCRIPT

Doorstop Interview

Parliament House, Canberra

10:30am, Thursday 21 November 2002 E&OE______________________________________________________________

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

Any questions?

JOURNALIST:

Has Australia received a letter asking about what it can contributes to the US coalition against Iraq? Any possible war against Iraq?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

Well that would be government to government and you should take that up with the Prime Minister. I haven’t spoken to him in the last 24 hours but I don’t think so.

JOURNALIST:

From his address last night, it’s being interpreted that the Prime Minister is committing the SAS basically as our main contribution and not much more than that. Is that a correct interpretation?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

Well it’s incorrect on two counts. Firstly, if you’re talking about Iraq, firstly we’re hoping that the Iraq issue is going to be solved through peaceful means. And we haven’t been asked to make a contribution to a forceful action. And furthermore it would be - if we were asked and if unfortunately we got to that stage that military means was the only way to disarm Saddam Hussein, consideration would be then given as to an appropriate contribution.

JOURNALIST:

Is that then opening up for a bigger contribution than just the SAS? Is that still possible?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

Well I don’t want to encourage speculation on that. What I’ve said in the past is because it is premature to discuss that issue the best guide is probably to look back at what we’ve contributed in the past. But that might not be so in the future either.

JOURNALIST:

But has there been any preliminary ...

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

If you look at the war against terrorism we’ve contributed Special Forces on the ground, we’ve contributed ships in the Gulf, we’ve contributed in-air refuellers out of Kyrgyzstan and we’ve contributed FA18s operating out of Diego Garcia. But as I said it would be premature and speculative to talk about any other action.

JOURNALIST:

Has there been any preliminary discussions with the US?

JOURNALIST:

Minister there has been suggestions that Australia has been asked for a large …

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

Can I get one at a time please?

JOURNALIST:

Has there been any preliminary discussions or contingency discussions with the US about Iraq?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

Well obviously we talked to the US about Iraq at a political level. I certainly did that in my recent discussions at the AUSMIN meetings. And at a military level there have been discussions also. We’ve said that in the past, that we’ve had some of our personnel in the United States command centres in order that it is possible to conduct contingency planning.

JOURNALIST:

(Inaudible)

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

Fran, you were the next. We’ll have to have a question order here.

JOURNALIST:

There have been persistent suggestions over months that Australia, that the US had wanted Australia, had been talking to Australia about a large contingent plan of land ground troops. Now given the Prime Minister’s

words last night and what you’ve just said and as you said before that seems that it’s not going to happen. Can you rule that out now? That there won’t be a large contingent of 1000 troops, something like that?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

Well it would be totally inappropriate for me to rule things in or out. We are seeking to resolve the weapons of mass destruction program in Iraq through the United Nations and through peaceful means.

JOURNALIST:

The CIA says that a military strike on Iraq will encourage Hussein to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. Do you disagree?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

I’ll just finish. I’ll just say - but if you look at the most recent experience I suppose is the war against terror in that region. And you can see the sort of forces that we believe that were appropriate to contribute in terms of our capability and in terms of what was needed.

JOURNALIST:

The CIA says that weapons of about - that a strike on Iraq will encourage Hussein to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. Do you disagree?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

They say that a strike on?

JOURNALIST:

A pre-emptive strike on Iraq will encourage Hussein, as an act of revenge, to provide terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

Well we want to see Saddam Hussein disarmed. We want to see an end to the weapons program and the weapons of mass destruction that he has, we want to see destroyed. And it’s not just us it’s the international community as a whole. And when we succeed in that goal we don’t - we are not being concerned about how he might inappropriately use those in terms of exercise of his state power or in any way that they might find their hands into non state players such as terrorists.

JOURNALIST:

How detailed have the military to military discussions been? What sort of scenarios have they been examining? Have you been briefed on the [inaudible]?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

Well I’m obviously kept informed by our defence people on the discussions that they have. But for me to answer in greater detail would simply add to speculation which would be undesirable at this time. Because, as I said, on the one hand whilst the responsible thing is to conduct contingency planning in order that government is well informed if we got to that stage at the moment our emphasis is on a peaceful resolution of this issue.

JOURNALIST:

Given Australia’s commitments at the moment, does it have the capability to provide a level of contribution at say battalion level?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

Well Fran said a larger force. It is not appropriate for me to speculate on the size.

JOURNALIST:

[Inaudible]

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

That’s just asking the same question in a different way. I’ve said to you I think the best thing to do, because otherwise I would be adding to speculation, is to simply look at our historical contributions. Either in relation to Iraq in the past or more recently. Or our most recent experience in relation to terror.

JOURNALIST:

Does the guide that the Prime Minister gave, seemed to have been giving in his speech last night - I go back to my first question, is that the reasonable interpretation of what he said? That the SAS is the most likely ...

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

I don’t’ think he said that at all. I can’t see how you could interpret that at all from what he said. What he said is that we’re bringing the SAS out of Afghanistan because we believe that their task is complete, complete for a force with their particular specialties. There is still a lot of work to be done in Afghanistan but it’s not as appropriate for Special Forces at our level of training. In relation to Iraq he dealt with that separately in his speech last night. And he said that we’re part of an international community that wishes to see an end of Saddam Hussein’s program of weapons of mass destruction.

JOURNALIST:

Senator, what skills have our SAS developed in Afghanistan which would be of use in a hostile, dry climate environment?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

In a hostile, dry climate environment? They are - well you know what’s the role of Special Forces. They operate in dry climates or not dry climates. They’re very highly trained, very capable, very adaptable, flexible force. But the specific targets al-Qaeda - the training camps have been largely destroyed. What remains of al-Qaeda is largely spread we believe across the borders out of Afghanistan. In the case of what remains of the Taliban, it’s largely melted into the village environment and so we believe it’s no longer appropriate to be using our Special Forces without having a specific targets to address.

JOURNALIST:

Is it appropriate do you think for our - for us to be sending large numbers of infantry soldiers across to the other side of the world? What are the national interest issues that you might take into account when considering such a proposition?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

Well I am not going to add to the speculation on large numbers of infantry soldiers. I’ve guided you to our past experience when I think you’d probably say we haven’t sent large numbers of infantry soldiers. In relation to the Army, we have sent very specialised forces limited in number but very capable. In terms of the interest to us, terror is globalised. It may have had - the militant Islamic terrorism may have had its birth in the Middle East and may continue to be supported from the Middle East but it’s now being expressed across the world. In relation to the issue of weapons of mass destruction that is globalised as well. We have a very real and vested interest in limiting the potential of weapons of mass destruction either by use by a road state or by use through a non state player such as a terrorist organisation.

JOURNALIST:

Does the contingency planning include what we would do in the event that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons? That is are the troops being prepared for that and equipment put in place?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

Contingency, obviously if we are privy to US military planning, then we have an idea of how they might conduct operations. This is separate and distinct from political decisions. This is the sort of thing that defence forces do on a continuing basis. And I think it’s reasonable to say that that would include how troops would respond to the capabilities of the opponent.

JOURNALIST:

How would they respond in the event of a chemical attack?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

Well our - in this day and age our forces are being much better equipped to deal with potential chemical or biological weapons.

JOURNALIST:

Senator the North Koreans ...

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

And that’s across the world now. It’s just part and parcel of this new age in which we live.

JOURNALIST:

Senator North Korea may or may not have a nuclear bomb, but some of them say they have. Is that a recent revelation? Has that changed the thinking of Australia’s policy on North Korea?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

In relation to the foreign policy dimensions, you should really address that to Alex Downer. In relation to, well on a whole of government basis, it is another issue that needs to be addressed and it’s another aspect of the global challenge of effectively addressing a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Prime Minister draw a distinction last night between the issue in Iraq, the weapons program in Iraq and the weapons program in North Korea. In the case of North Korea that’s being addressed through diplomatic means at the moment and the major powers, particularly those in close proximity - Japan, China, Russia together with the United States - is seeking to achieve that through influence.

JOURNALIST:

Will the SAS have a role to play at home in their peace or in their prevention of a possible terrorist strike here? What might that be?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

Yes we doubled our counter-terrorism capability after the 11th of September attack so we now have a counter-terrorism capability provided by Special Forces on both the east coast of Australia and the west coast of Australia. They are supported by a capability that we’ve put in place to address chemical, biological and radiological weapons and they are all supported by a much greater investment in intelligence. So for the last year we have been bolstering our domestic capability and using these special - taking advantage of these special skills of our Special Forces to achieve that goal.

JOURNALIST:

So is there an argument for keeping the SAS here?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

Sorry?

JOURNALIST:

[Inaudible]

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

I missed the start of the question.

JOURNALIST:

A month ago you told a number of us here that the capabilities of the SAS were close to being exhausted by the campaign in Afghanistan. Are you confident that we have a capable team seeing as a significant number are [inaudible]?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

I don’t think I said quite what you’ve put to me. Well no, I think you may have put the question in terms of how many missions could the SAS engage in contemporaneously, and I said there is certainly a limit upon that. We’ve been - we were in and still are in, although we’re drawing it to a close, our third rotation of Special Forces through Afghanistan. And they are basically a relatively small force and anything that we ask of them, obviously we’ve got to do cogniscent of that fact and of the fact that their capabilities are not unlimited. And I think that’s the point that I was making at that time. I don’t think I used to the word exhausted.

JOURNALIST:

When will we see this strategic review?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

The update of the strategic environment is before Cabinet at the moment and it’s currently under consideration so it really depends on how long that process takes, after which we will produce a public document.

JOURNALIST:

Before Christmas?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

Well I don’t know because that’s - it’s now in a whole of government environment. It depends on how long that takes. Obviously the attack in Bali has added another dimension that requires considerable debate.

JOURNALIST:

If Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against us, as part of this contingency planning would we be prepared to use chemical weapons against him in retaliation?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

We don’t have chemical weapons.

JOURNALIST:

I mean the allies. The US.

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

We don’t have them. We don’t use them.

JOURNALIST:

Minister this build’s on Zoe’s question, we have the counter-terrorist capability now on both the east and west coast, would the SAS coming home from the rotation in Afghanistan, are they likely to be deployed in any counter-terrorism way given the level of threat that’s been announced this week?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

Well there’s no relationship - no direct relationship between the announcement this week and any other decision that we’ve taken in relation to Special Forces. And there’s no relationship between the announcement to complete our contribution of Special Forces to Afghanistan and the attack in Bali. Basically what we’ve had in Afghanistan is about one sixth of our Special Forces and as I’ve said we’ve been rotating a force of that size, of about 150. In relation to an enhanced role for Special Forces in domestic security, there’s no decision that we’ve taken beyond that which I’ve just mentioned - the doubling of our counter-terrorism capability and the like. But these issues are under review as the Prime Minister has said. He’s announced some initiatives post the Bali attack in relation to domestic security and - but it is unfinished business. There are still other aspects still being considered by government.

JOURNALIST:

What about boosting the number of Special Forces generally? Is that something that’s under review?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

Sorry?

JOURNALIST:

Boosting the number of Special Forces more generally given they seem to be required more and more in the types of warfare we’ve seen in the post September 11 world. Is that something you’re looking as part of the security review?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

Well across the world that is a trend. In that we’re now into this phase where smaller teams of highly skilled Special Forces seem to provide a more effective answer to the threat than perhaps more broadly based, large numbers of infantry. And obviously our Defence Force in terms of its doctrine is considering that issue. And if they bring recommendations to government in that regard then they would be considered by government. It’s not an easy - it’s not an easy thing to do because there are only a certain number of individuals that are suited to that particular job. And within a Defence Force of our size there’s only a certain number that you would therefore be able to train to that capability and people who do have those particular - that particular potential - people who have that potential are generally already in the Defence Force so you couldn’t expect a huge change in that regard.

JOURNALIST:

So we don’t have the talent to increase the size of the SAS?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

Well - talent! It takes a particular sort of person and those that have those particular capabilities volunteer within our Defence Force, go through the most rigorous of assessment process and then the most arduous form of training and come out as good as they are which is exceptionally good. But because it does require a particular sort of person, and that’s not an unlimited list, there will always be a relatively small Special Force component in Australia.

JOURNALIST:

Minister is there any relationship at all between the decision to withdraw the SAS from Afghanistan and the possibility that they may be called upon to fight in another engagement?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

The decision we’ve taken to withdraw them from Afghanistan is based purely on the situation in Afghanistan and the advice our military advisers view that there is insufficient, what they refer to as tier one tasks to justify their continued deployment. There was also - this rotation really only had about another month to run in any event and the chance to actually have them home by Christmas to enable them to spend some time with their families influenced us a touch as well.

JOURNALIST:

Giving them a break before they could be deployed elsewhere?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

That wasn’t the goal no. And it doesn’t mean that if there was a further deployment in the future it would necessarily be the same men.

JOURNALIST:

How successful would you say the deployment to Afghanistan has been when Osama Bin Laden is still alive?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

Well we think he’s alive. You’ve got to look at what’s been achieved and the disruption to the terrorist network that’s been achieved. Basically the leadership of al Qaeda has been broken up. A number of the key players have been captured or killed. A number are still missing and has we believe dispersed across the world. That is true. The training camps have been largely destroyed. Many of the weapons caches have been largely destroyed. And the Taliban who fostered and harboured them that - in effect that headquarters and that training network in Afghanistan - have been thrown out. And basically the Taliban structure has been destroyed as such. So in terms of disrupting and reducing the capability in relation to global terrorism, I think it’s been a very significant achievement. Now that doesn’t - in the nature of terrorism that is not the end of the matter. You can still implement a terrorist attack with very few people and immature infrastructure. If they’ve got the mature infrastructure and sophisticated training that obviously helps them and that’s been destroyed. But as we’re finding throughout the world, the threat is still there and terrorist are still attacking targets. And therefore it’s going to be an ongoing challenge. What I’m saying is if we hadn’t had the successes that we’ve had in Afghanistan it would be much worse than what it is now.

JOURNALIST:

Have you had a positive response from Afghanistan on this decision to withdraw the SAS?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

From Afghanistan? I don’t know.

JOURNALIST:

You didn’t find out?

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

We’re not there - we’re in Afghanistan. There are a number of different roles and tasks in Afghanistan. Our role has been to attack and destroy terrorists and that we believe in terms of our tier one tasks has been largely successful. Okay, the Estimates Committee awaits me. I think I’m holding them up.

JOURNALIST:

[Inaudible]

SENATOR ROBERT HILL:

That’s far too provocative for me.

ENDS

Receive media releases automatically via email. Register your address here

[ back to top ]