Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 2 Hansard (19 May) . . Page.. 304 ..

MR STEFANIAK: Did we really? When was that, Ms Tucker?

Ms Tucker: Last year. You had better ask Mrs Carnell. You all supported it.

MR STEFANIAK: I will go back and look at that. In relation to the substantive motion, Mr Speaker: Quite clearly, the major nuclear powers have made significant moves now towards non-testing, towards a world where nuclear arms are no longer a threat. I think substantive action has been taken in recent years. Whilst there are still some grave dangers in relation to this, I think all the major nuclear powers have adopted a much more responsible attitude in recent times - including, I might say, the French Government. I was talking recently to a member of the French Embassy in relation to the fact that they no longer test. It is interesting that they have taken some actions to ensure that any weapons they have are, in fact, safely stored; but they have ceased testing. I was, therefore, very surprised, indeed horrified, to learn that the Indian Government had suddenly resumed testing, testing they have not conducted since 1974.

Mr Speaker, I also heard on the radio, I think on one of the ABC talk shows in the afternoon, the current Indian High Commissioner say that Australia's attitude, as expressed by the Federal Parliament, was somewhat hypocritical. I do not think that is the case at all. The high commissioner was asking how Australia could criticise India for nuclear testing when Australia was effectively a member of a nuclear alliance - ANZUS - with our major strategic partner, the United States, possessing many warheads. I think the Indian High Commissioner, with the greatest respect to him, missed the point entirely. Australia has renounced us, as a country, being a nuclear power. We are part of an alliance with a major power, a major power who has had nuclear weapons and who has used them effectively for the last 50 years to keep the peace. One could well argue that as a result of American military strength in the 1980s the Soviet Union changed course and is now no longer the overtly aggressive superpower that it was during those dark days of communism after World War II and until the fall of the Soviet empire in 1991. But Australia has never taken any steps towards becoming a nuclear power. So, I think the high commissioner misses the point.

The high commissioner might also miss the point in terms of powers which are nuclear powers helping powers which are not. I seem to recall reading - in fact, I was only about 10 - and actually seeing on TV a report in 1962 that India was in some danger from an aggressive China which moved its border some distance to the south in the Himalayas, to India's detriment, in a border campaign against India; a border campaign which the Chinese quite clearly won. I do not think China was a nuclear power then. Of course, India was not. But there was a real threat to India's security. I am not too sure whether or not India at that time was non-aligned, but India was a member of the Commonwealth. This report indicated that India received assistance from a nuclear power at the time, Great Britain, which sent a number of V-bombers - the "V" stands for Victor, Vulcan or Valiant; I am not sure which, but they were the British deterrent strike force in the 1950s and 1960s - to India as a deterrent to China. I thought what the Indian High Commissioner said in relation to Australia being hypocritical was rather amusing. India, in fact, benefited, back in that time, from having a strong friend who, in fact, was a nuclear power.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .