Identification technique changed

Press, 6 December 1985, Page 3

Identification technique changed

’"-1 from front page

of certitude about this than you did then? Mr Lange: I haven’t got a greater degree of certitude. I was not satisfied in February and if I’m not now, it is out. Later in the session: Reporter: I’m sorry to return to this but, if there is no change between then and now, how would it be possible for the Buchanan to visit? Mr Lange: Because I’m asking you to consider the possibility, the one element in your equation which you may have overlooked in proposing that question, that sometimes vessels are nuclear-armed and sometimes they are not. Reporter: And you have a secret new method of establishing that then? Mr Lange: You have changed your assertion three times now. The first time you said there was no way we could know. The second time you said would I be making an assessment myself and now you are asking me to disclose a secret method of establishing it. I’m not proposing to surrender to that invitation.

It was a small enough admission but it took a lot of getting. The press conference was particularly tortuous, a showpiece in the phenomenon an American Embassy official in Wellington recently referred to as “Lange-fuzz.”

chanan is enough for me. I still can’t understand how you would let it in now with any certainty that it was not nuclear-armed. Could you explain it once more? Mr Lange: Because some days your car has six gallons of petrol in it and other days it has one and that is because what your vehicle carries changes from day to day and a Buchanan can be either nuclear-armed on one particular expedition or not nuclear-armed on one particular expedition. Reporter. But, to use your analogy, did you not say in February that you could not tell if it had six gallons in it or one?

Reporter: If (a visit) Tor the nuclear-capable U.S.S. Buchanan was applied for, would it be allowed in?

Mr Lange: That is right too. Reporter: So where is the difference? Mr Lange: The difference is in the state of the armaments. Reporter You mean you have changed your dipstick? Mr Lange: That was the closest you will ever come to a burst of enlightenment. This would seem to suggest that Mr Lange thinks the communication problem is a result entirely of the shortcomings of his audience. In this context, it is worth noting that a caucus colleague expects that Mr Palmer will introduce the anti-nuclear bill in Parliament rather than Mr Lange, the main reason being that he is “able to put things more logically and rationally.”

Mr Lange: If there was an assessment made that it would not be nucleararmed, it is in. Reporter: As you can’t tell, it would be out?

Mr Lange: You are making a leap in logic which I can’t go along with. Reporter: I’m just going by your words to the Labour Party conference (to the effect that) if there is any doubt at all, it would be out.

Mr Lange: That is right. Reporter: And then you said there was nothing specific which had changed between now and then?

Mr Lange: No. No. That is not what you said. What I said to the Labour Party Conference was: “If there is doubt, it is not here.” What you said was: “As you can’t tell, it is out.” Now these are two distinct propositions. Let us get them straight. If there is doubt, it is out. If there is not, it is in.

Mr Lange then hinted at the significance behind excluding nuclear-capable vessels from the ban by suggesting that the gallery turn its attention to aircraft where the presence or absence of nuclear arms can be determined more easily and more certainly. The hint was not picked

Reporter: What has changed since February? Mr Lange: Virtually nothing.

Reporter Then how can you have a greater degree

up. Reporter: Well, the Bu-