THE PRESS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1984. Nuclear issues in Australia

Press, 8 November 1984, Page 20

THE PRESS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1984. Nuclear issues in Australia

Comments in the last two days from the Australian Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and from the Australian Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, have demonstrated that the nuclear issue in the Australian election is still alive. The obvious way in which to raise it was to introduce the New Zealand Government’s decision to ban visits of nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships to New Zealand ports. This has been seen as a threat to A.N.Z.U.S., despite the determination of the New Zealand Government to make the bans compatible with A.N.Z.U.S. The long-standing nuclear issue in Australia has been the mining of uranium. However, the Australian Government had decided to press ahead with some mining and, alive as the issue remained on the Left of the Australian Labour Party, uranium mining by itself was unlikely to become a central issue of the election campaign.

The nuclear ships ban imposed by New Zealand was commented on during the first day of the official election campaign by the leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Andrew Peacock, who said that a Coalition Government would give New Zealand three months in which to change its mind and then begin negotiations for a United States-Australia treaty. Mr Peacock is somewhat desperate to find an issue of substance in the campaign, and he may have been casting around for possibilities rather than being adamant about how an Australian. Coalition Government would treat New Zealand. The Australian Labour Government has been a model of good sense over the issue and regarded it as a problem between the United States and New Zealand. There was a chance for grandstanding — showing the most junior of the A.N.Z.U.S. partners the correct way to behave — and there was a risk that the Coalition could have scored political points against the Government, but the Australian Labour Party resisted the temptation to reply in kind. There was an element of fraternity between the Labour Governments — and more than a trace of sophistication on the part of the Australian Government.

Nuclear issues were also raised by the Australian Democrats, whose power is

considerable in the Senate, not because of their numbers but because of the fine balance of the parties in the Senate. Senator Don Chipp, leader of the Australian Democrats, was unable, because of throat surgery, to speak at the beginning of the election campaign. His views on A.N.Z.U.S. were made clear by his holding up a note addressed to his deputy, Senator Colin Mason. In it, Senator Chipp said that A.N.Z.U.S. was now a nuclear treaty and a danger. Later, when Senator Chipp was able to speak, he voiced these assertions. The Australian Labour Party, which had hoped to gain control of the Senate, has been disturbed by the fact that a political party standing -for nuclear disarmament had decided that it should give its second preference votes. to the Australian Democrats. Such a move will not mean that the Australian Labour Party will lose the election, but it does mean that it seems more likely than ever that Labour will not get control of the Senate.

The 7 statements by Mr Hawke and .Mr Hayden are designed to demonstrate the Australian Labour Party’s commitment to nuclear disarmament. Mr Hawke lectured the five nuclear Powers on reaching an accord on disarmament. Using an argument that could well be heard more frequently in future, he said that the nuclear-weapons States alone do not have the right to determine the destiny of mankind. Mr Hayden went further and argued that the mining of uranium and the existence of the American-Australian facilities in Australia helped Australia in its drive towards disarmament. He has usqd that argument before and this time tried to counter criticism by saying that the Government was not asking the community to love these means of working towards disarmament, but that they should be considered. The debate in Australia has reached a level of exchange that has yet to be reached in New Zealand. As consideration of the nuclear ships ban and the implications of belonging to A.N.Z.U.S. continue, many New Zealanders are going to need to ask themselves whether their true commitment is to disarmament or to gestures, and if it is to disarmament, how best that may be achieved.