PARLIAMENT American Spending On Operations In Antarctic

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29334, 13 October 1960, Page 16

PARLIAMENT American Spending On Operations In Antarctic

(flew Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, October 12. Discussing United States expenditure on its Antarctic work, the Prime Minister (Mr Nash) said in the House of Representatives tonight that he understood Americans spent 4m. dollars annually in Christchurch and Canterbury.

He said the Government hoped to complete an agreement with the United States soon for the continued use of New Zealand facilities by the United States Antarctic expedition.

Mr Nash was speaking in the second-reading debate on the Antarctica Bill. He said he was disappointed he was not able to go to Antarctica last year as planned, and would still go if he had a chance.

The bill, which ratifies the 12nation Antarctic Treaty signed in Washington last year, was welcomed by Government and Opposition speakers. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition <Mr Holyoake) described it as a major step forward in international co-operation, Mr Nash said the treaty meant that representatives of any of the 12 nations could go anywhere in Antarctica and observe what the others were doing. Measures of a military nature were prohibited, and there was provision for an inspection system to ensure that Antarctica was used only for peaceful purposes. Mr Nash said the treaty established for the first time an international inspection system, to which the Soviet Union and' the United States were both parties. The treaty banned nuclear ex-

plosions and the disnosal of radioactive waste. This provision would protect New Zealand. “The main purpose of the treaty is to neutralise the Antarctic from a military point of view,” he said. Mr J. J. Maher (Opposition. Otaki): Could- you export, say. 30,000 tons of butter down there? Mr Nash: Yes, if you can find a market.

Mr Holyoake said the treaty was a splendid example of international co-operation for peaceful purposes. That the United States intended to sfcend up to 15m dollars a year in the Antarctic showed the importance of the area.

Mr R. M. Algie (Opposition, Remuera), discussing a clause in the treaty providing that disputes between parties to the treaty may be referred to the International Court of Justice by agreement between the disputants, said it was a pity there was not compulsory reference. “I agree that is difficult at present, because the United States does not take its cases to the International Court unless it wants to. But I hope the United States may change its attitude,” Mr Algie said. Mr Nash said he would like to see all countries take their disputes to the International Court of Justice. New Zealand had tried to get this provision inserted in the treaty, but some other countries would not agree,