There’s no row, says task group admiral

Press, 10 December 1983, Page 10

There’s no row, says task group admiral

NZPA-AAP Sydney Rear-Admiral Jeremy Black agreed yesterday that he was “the ham in the sandwich” in the row between Australia and Britain over Canberra’s refusal to allow the carrier H.M.S. Invincible to dry-dock at Garden Island naval base, Sydney. But Admiral Black, with the British High Commissioner’s support, again refused to say that there was a row over whether the ship was carrying nuclear arms or that the dry-dock-ing had been “arranged.” “At one time we thought we would do it here ... it would have been fairly attractive to do so,” he said. “It was investigated and then decided not to do it here.”

Asked by journalists why Garden Island was not being used, Admiral Black replied: “Well, as I’ve said, for operational reasons my Government has decided not to.”

Asked what the operational reasons were, he told the shipboard news conference: “No, my Government never discloses the nature of operational reasons.” When a journalist suggested that he was the “ham in the sandwich,” Admiral Black agreed; “Yes, but to no great resentment. It is

often the story of the mili•tary man where government run military things” He said that no-one had asked him if the Invincible carried nuclear weaponry. When asked yesterday he said: “My Government neither confirms nor denies whether there are nuclear weapons, along with other governments on this matter.”

The Invincible’s use or non-use . of the Garden Island dry-dock was “a question between governments — between Canberra and London,” he said. “Various equipment we have here is capable of carrying nuclear stores,” but he declined to say

whether that was the case now or any other time. While he admitted that repairs to a bearing on the Invincible’s propeller shaft would have been an attractive proposition in Sydney, the operational consequences of not doing the work were fairly minimal. “We have a slight limitation on our speed as regards this slight defect . . . it’s a question of five or six knots. It is not a matter of great urgency.” (The Invincible’s maximum speed is listed in “Jane’s Fighting Ships” as 28 knots.) He said the Invincible might now get the work done “somewhere else in the Far East,” though he thought it more likely that the vessel would await its return to the United Kingdom at Easter.

The British High Commissioner, Sir John Mason, sat to one side as Admiral Black returned volleys of questions on the issue. When Admiral Black refused to expand on the “operational reasons,” Sir John was asked to clarify the issue.

He did not: “I was fortunate to be in the House of Representatives yesterday and (Defence Minister) Gordon Scholes gave an absolutely accurate and, I would think, comprehensive ac-

count of the matter and you can’t do better than go back and read Hansard for his remarks: I have nothing to add to them.” > The British Press Association reported from London yesterday that the Defence Ministry was trying to find a Pacific dry-dock for the Invincible.

And British newspapers yesterday criticised Australia’s decision, one of them saying it was a pathetic and childish act. Under the heading “No, Cobbers,” “The Sun” owned by the Australian, Rupert Murdoch, said in an editorial: “This unfriendly act is caused by the Australian Labour Government’s ban on nuclear weapons on their soil.

“But the whole point and purpose of Invincible is to protect them — and the rest of the free world — as well as Britain.”

The Right-wing “Daily Express” suggested that Mr Bob Hawke’s Government had sunk to a pathetic level after only nine months by its decision.

“A worthless, childish gesture . . . quite inappropriate for the leader of a major nation wishing to play its part — as Australians do — in helping the Western democracies keep the light of freedom alive.”