Banning nuclear-armed ships from Australian ports
13 June 1982
The statements by Mr Hayden and Mr Cain over the last week on banning nuclear armed ships from Australian ports has struck at the heart of a basic responsibility which the people of Australia entrusted to the Commonwealth government: the responsibility for national security.
When Mr Cain announced that the Victorian government would not permit nuclear armed ships to visit Victorian ports, Mr Cain was seeking to put in place a part of his party's publicly declared policy.
Mr Cain shall not succeed in giving effect to this measure which obviously reflects the socialist left's power.
The Commonwealth has the constitutional authority in such matters.
The Commonwealth Attorney-General will recommend the introduction of legislation as soon as possible to make it quite clear that there is adequate legal backing for the Commonwealth's responsibility in defence and foreign policy.
However, Mr Hayden's support for Mr Cain's position – the federal Labor leader's declared opposition to entry into Australian ports of ships carrying nuclear weapons – has serious implications for the security of the nation and raises several important issues.
Is Mr Hayden going to let Mr Cain and the socialist left determine labor policy, especially on such a fundamental issue?
How can Australia contribute to, or even remain in the ANZUS partnership with the United States and New Zealand if all U.S. naval vessels are barred from our ports?
For that is what Mr Hayden would do.
No nation with nuclear arms can say which of its ships have nuclear weapons. If it did, it would be providing vital information about the strengths of their opponents' ships to potential enemies. Mr Whitlam put forward this same argument in 1976.
Therefore, Mr Hayden would be banning not only all U.S. warships but also those of Britain and France. Our friends and allies often have naval vessels in our ports. There have been about 500 visits from British, American and French navies over the last 10 years; one ship a week, on average.
If we are to preserve our friendships and alliances, then we have to fulfil our obligations, and surely the most fundamental is the provision of ports and port facilities. Denying those facilities is a denial of our treaty undertakings and understandings.
Do the positions taken by Mr Cain and Mr Hayden merely reflect an irresponsible and careless approach to national security? Are they the short-sighted positions born of a disregard for long term national interests and of the unexpected short term storm clouds that can leap into today's apparently clear blue sky? Or are they part of a deliberate and planned Labor scheme to engineer a basic shift in Australia's defence and foreign policy?
Why has Mr Cain, followed by Mr Hayden, declared that labor would ban the United States navy from Australian ports only a few days before next week's ANZUS council meeting in Australia?
Is there a pattern emerging, a progression of declarations and arguments developing as Mr Hayden seeks to advance labor policies?
Is Mr Hayden's argument that there is no difference between nuclear-armed ships and nuclear armed aircraft part of that progression?
The government requires prior knowledge and agreement of flights over and through Australia by nuclear armed aircraft. However, there is a world of difference between a B-52 flying from or through Australia on a specific mission and a ship seeking supplies and recreation for its crew after weeks and months on duty at sea.
Mr Hayden must know that the vast majority of Australians support our American alliance.
Are these declarations and arguments the labor way to destroy ANZUS by making Australia no longer a worthwhile partner?
Next month the ALP's national conference will consider a motion to replace the section on co-operation in ANZUS with one calling for 'an independent and non-aligned foreign policy' for Australia? 'Non-aligned' with whom?
There are a range of nations around the world declaring their non-aligned status but how non-aligned are they?
It was the socialist left faction in Victoria who successfully piloted through the Victorian ALP conference to the national conference their motion to effectively end the ANZUS alliance and promote a non-aligned Australian foreign policy.
What do the socialist left mean by non-aligned? What does Mr Cain mean? Where does Mr Hayden stand? For we must assume he means what he says.
In the context of the events of the next few weeks, these questions demand clear and urgent answers.