PM denies big problem with US

The New Zealand Government clearly disagrees with the United States about the size of the problem confronting the two countries voiced by outgoing ambassador Charles Swindells.

Prime Minister Helen Clark yesterday barely disguised annoyance that New Zealand's contribution to the war on terror had not been recognised in his farewell speech.

Neither she nor Foreign Minister Phil Goff accepted critical comments made by Mr Swindells on Monday. He had called for "comprehensive dialogue" to address the problems.

He suggested that since New Zealand's anti-nuclear legislation in the 1980s the relationship had deteriorated to a point where trust had been eroded.

But Helen Clark told reporters in Wellington yesterday: "I don't think the relationship is in bad shape at all."

"In fact it was in significantly better shape than it was when we came into office.

"We have bent over backwards to be a very, very, very good friend to the United States through our participation in the Middle East, in Afghanistan with special services, reconstruction teams, frigates in the Gulf, Orions in the Gulf ... "

She said New Zealand should be evaluated "against our real contribution", and not to have the anti-nuclear legislation which New Zealanders were proud of held up as a problem. "To be seen to be throwing away that policy under pressure from external forces would be a very, very bad look for New Zealand," Helen Clark said.

Mr Goff said: "I don't believe the relationship has drifted in the last several years."

Both were happy for New Zealand under a Labour-led Government to take part in a new dialogue so long as the United States was aware it would have to be in the context of keeping the 1987 nuclear ban.

Mr Swindells visited Helen Clark and Mr Goff several weeks ago to discuss the speech and to extend the invitation from Washington to review the relationship. It is not likely to be pursued further until after the election.

The speech threw the nuclear issue into the pre-election campaign, giving Labour a chance to say it would not amend the law and a chance to suggest that National might.

Leader Don Brash yesterday said his party's position had not changed.

The law would not be changed without a clear public mandate - either through a referendum or by way of a pledge in a manifesto.

There would be no such pledge in National's manifesto this election.