Pacific. Firstletmerecall ~~at,asIsaidearlier thisafternoon, itg1ves Australia nopleasure tohaveadisagreement withFrance. Thereareanumberof reasons forthis~manyarehistorical andsomeareextremely important andarise fromourfraternal affiliation asmemb~rsoftheSocialist International. Nonetheless,inspiteofourcommitmentasdemocratic socialists, wehave differences ofsubstance onfundamental principles, onthingslikenuclear te$ting, nuclear armsescalation andrelated matters. Wehavethesebecause thetesting takesplaceintheregioninwhichourcountry anditsneighbours aresituated. It isperfectly correct, astheAmbassador ofFrancepointed out,thatinOCtober 1983 amission whichinvolved NewZealand andAustralian scientists produced areport. Itisalsoessentially correct tha~thereportfoundnoshort-term problems. But th~conclusions madeitelearthatquitedefinite longer-term problems wouldarise fromleakageoftoxicnuclear wasteproducts. Thiswillbeaproblem forfuture generations ofpeopleliVingintheregion. Inthosecircumstances wehavea justifiable concern, whichneedstoberaised. Finally, Iwouldmerelyrecallthat,asIpointed outinmycomments this afternoon, ifthetestingisharmless, ifthesecurity measures arestringent and iftherearenoproblems, inthelightofthefactthatithasbeenincontestably established thatthereareareasofmetropolitan Francewherethissortoftesting canbeconducted, itwouldbemoreappropriate forthattesting tobeconducted there. Themeeting roseat5.45p.m.
**Analysis**
The text discusses a disagreement between Australia and France regarding nuclear testing, specifically the concerns about the environmental impact on the region and the potential risks to future generations. The discussion is focused on the scientific findings of a report and the security measures needed to mitigate any problems. This suggests that the category should be related to natural resources and the environment.

**Category**
Natural resources and environment, Science and technology