Anti-nuclear legislation has only minor changes

Press, 17 October 1986, Page 1

Anti-nuclear legislation has only minor changes

By

PATRICIA HERBERT

in Wellington The Government’s controversial anti-nuclear legislation was reported back to Parliament yesterday and set down for second reading with only minor amendments. The prominent peace activists, Messrs Owen Wilkes and Nicky Hager, expressed disappointment that the legislation had not been strengthened, but said they were pleased it would be passed into law as a statement that New Zealand was serious about the anti-nuclear policy. The Democrats took a similar line, voting with the bill, but giving notice that they would move to have it amended and made tighter later in the process. Only the National Opposition voted against yesterday’s reporting back, promising also to oppose

the measure at all ..subsequent stages. National’s spokesman on foreign affairs, Sir Robert Muldoon, dubbed it the “A.N.Z.U.S. termination bill,” saying if the bill was passed in anything like the present form, this would mean the end of A.N.Z.U.S. as far as New Zealand was concerned. That clearly was not the wish of the New Zealand people, he said, quoting the poll findings in the Defence Review which showed 52 per cent of New Zealanders supported a return to full security co-operation with the United States even at the price of abandoning the ship ban. That survey also showed, however, that 44 per cent want to keep the ban regardless of the treaty’s future; a voice which was considerably louder in the evidence presented to the select

committee on the bill. The committee’s chairman, Ms Helen Clark, said that 1236 submissions had been received and 1225 of these had been broadly supportive- of the legislation, although most had wanted aspects made tighter. Among the changes proposed — and rejected — were: • That the standard of proof required by the Prime Minister before any vessel be admitted entry should be extended from the “is satisfied” test now provided to “beyond all reasonable doubt.” This was supported by 669 submissions, ' more than half the total. • That decisions on port entry be taken either by persons other than by the Prime Minister or by the Prime Minister with others. The provision now is that the judgment is for the Prime Minister alone

to make. ■Some argued for a judicial review and others that the .Public Advisory Committee on Disarmament and Arms Control — provided for in the bill—- — either involved in the decision-making or responsible for it. Ms Clark said the committee had decided against any change to the provisions contained in clauses eight and nine on the basis that these were sufficient to prevent admitting nuclear weapons into New Zealand which was “after all, the key objective of the legislation.” The amendments which were made were small. The provision which had included the Secretaries for Foreign Affairs and Defence on the disarmament committee has been scrapped so that the seven-member committee will now have six mem-

bers appointed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs instead of just four as originally envisaged. They will not, however, hold office at the Minister’s pleasure but for a maximum of three years. In clause six, prohibiting the emplanting, emplacing, transporting, stockpiling, storing, installing or deploying of any explosive device in the nuclear-free zone, the definition of inland waters has been changed to internal waters Clause 12 in the bill allows free passage through New Zealand territorial sea and straits and has been left unaltered after the committee rejected an opinion from Dr Jerome Elkind, an international lawyer, that New Zealand had the power to ban such movements.

Dr Elkind’s interpretation was disputed by both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Professor Ken Keith on the ground that New Zealand could be seen to be in breach of obligations under the Law of the Sea if rights of transit were prohibited. The Opposition spokesman on defence, Mr Doug Kidd, and Sir Robert said much of the legislation was innocuous but that they would oppose it because of those provisions which conflicted with the “neither confirm nor deny” policies of New Zealand’s allies, and because it was a costly gesture which would achieve nothing positive. Sir Robert said the supporters of the bill had

fallen into two categories: the genuine peace people, and what he called “the political pacifists” in which group he had detected a number of Moscow sympathisers. "The peace movement throughout the world, as is well known, is riddled with Communists,” he said provoking murmurs of “Here we go” from the Government benches. He then named Mr Wilkes as anti-American and pro-Russian, a charge to which the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Palmer, responded immediately by accusing Sir Robert of “Red baiting” and “character assassination” and to which Mr Wilkes responded later by circulating two papers demonstrating his concern about Soviet military activity in the Pacific.