New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control (Nuclear Propulsion Reform) Amendment Bill

I move, That the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control (Nuclear Propulsion Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. In 1987 this Parliament passed the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act. That essentially banned the deployment of nuclear weapons in New Zealand, or their passage through our territorial waters—that is, the 12 nautical miles; of course, it did not extend out to include the 200-kilometre exclusive economic zone. We must recall, though, that earlier, in 1986, New Zealand had signed the Treaty of Rarotonga, along with Australia and, for that matter, the United States. The Treaty of Rarotonga, signed in 1986, actually banned the deployment of nuclear weapons in the South Pacific zone.

My bill has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. I am not proposing any change to the existing law that stands on our statute book. Indeed, that issue is covered by the Treaty of Rarotonga, on a much broader scale—all of the South Pacific. That treaty is supported by Australia and the United States, our allies, and others—understandably so. No one wants to see an extension, vertically or horizontally, of the use of nuclear weapons.

However, when that legislation was passed back in 1987, a clip-on clause had been attached: clause 11. I can tell the House that there was a lot of controversy within the Labour caucus at the time. I was there; I know. I am the only one in the House tonight who was there. There was a lot of contention, and a lot of people were arguing that it was a bridge too far. Let me assure the House that it carried a deliberate, intentional anti-American sentiment. There is no doubt about that. Labour wanted to send a signal to America, and it surely did—and we have been paying the price ever since. I say it was a clip-on clause because it had nothing to do with nuclear weapons; it just banned visits of nuclear-propelled ships—very foolishly, I believe.

The reason why we do not need that legislation is obvious. No foreign warship can come to New Zealand without the express invitation of the New Zealand Government of the day. So if the Government does not want either a nuclear-propelled or a conventionally propelled vessel to come here, it does not come here. We all know that British, French, and other navies’ ships have come to New Zealand waters quite regularly in the 10 to 20 years since this legislation was passed. A lot of people say that American ships could come too. Well, I have it on very good advice that the American navy has never been invited. No New Zealand Government has invited a US naval warship to visit here. We have extended invitations to the French, in spite of what happened up at Mururoa. We have invited the British navy. But no US navy vessel has been invited since the passage of this legislation.

My bill is very simple. It merely proposes the removal of section 11. I would like to draw to the House’s attention Supplementary Order Paper 386, which lies on the Table. It states that my bill would not become operative until we had had a referendum of the New Zealand voting public. How can members vote against that? This is an important issue. Various political parties have somewhat entrenched views on it. This Supplementary Order Paper is saying that this bill would not become operative until a majority of New Zealand citizens said that, yes, we should lift this ban. How can members oppose that? Will Labour say, because of its blind, cold war mantra, that it will deny the New Zealand public the right to have that referendum?

That was the National Party’s position; National said that it should not occur without a referendum of the New Zealand voting public. Well, here is those members’ opportunity to walk the talk, if they really believe that—and I think a number in National do. I know that Lockwood Smith feels very strongly about the legislation. I was actually in the Pentagon with him in 1987, soon after the legislation was passed, and we got a clear message, did we not, I ask Dr Smith. He spoke out very vociferously about what nonsense this legislation was, and how he would do everything in his power to get it off the statute book. Well, here is his chance tonight. He had 9 years in Government and did not do it. Here is his chance tonight to walk the talk rather than just thump the chest.

New Zealand’s nuclear-free status is a myth, and that is the point. The legislation that was passed was about our being free of nuclear weapons, but we have turned it into our being nuclear-free. Labour trots out: “We’re clean and green and we’re non-nuclear.” What utter rubbish! New Zealand deploys nuclear technology every day of the week. [Interruption] The Green member beside me has just said yes. He acknowledges that. The Somers report, commissioned by Cabinet in 1992, is a report by three eminent professors and a retired High Court judge, who studied the issue for a year, travelled internationally, and heard public submissions. That report concluded there was no environmental risk or public safety justification for the continuation of the ban on nuclear-propelled ships. That was the consideration of that committee. The Somers report stated—I recall that it was on page 63—that Auckland Hospital alone emits twice as much radiation into the environment every day as does the entire US naval fleet and all its support services in an entire year. So to stand up and say that New Zealand is nuclear-free, and that we do not want nuclear technology because being nuclear-free is part of our clean and green label, is utter cant. What utter cant! What utter rubbish!

I have an interesting news clipping here. It is a report of an accident that occurred on State Highway 1 by Tirau in April of this year. A cargo of nuclear material—30 kilograms of radioactive material—was on a truck and trailer that crashed just out of Tirau. If we are really a nuclear-free country, why is radioactive material going up and down State Highway 1? It is utter nonsense—the myth that is perpetuated around this nonsense of our being nuclear-free.

The other point I would make is that there is nothing in our nuclear-free legislation that prevents the use of nuclear energy. The bill passed in 1987 is totally silent on nuclear energy, and properly so. If we believe in elevated carbon dioxide levels and in climate change, as a lot of people around this Parliament do, the obvious solution is to move to nuclear energy. In France, 78 percent of electricity comes from nuclear power-stations. The French actually export it to the UK through the Chunnel. Germany, Belgium, and all the neighbouring countries around Europe use that power. It is the cleanest and safest fuel for energy purposes. So in New Zealand’s future—I am not saying we should rush out and build a nuclear power-station—we should be considering that option. I introduce that into this debate just to help put it in context. It shows how foolish our ban on nuclear propulsion is.

Minister Goff stood up in this House and said that there have been accidents. I went and studied the examples he gave me. There has never been a serious nuclear power plant accident. The accidents he referred to were things such as burst steam pipes, but because they happened on a nuclear-propelled ship they were registered as nuclear accidents. That is a nonsense. We know about the Kursk, a nuclear-propelled submarine. Yes, a torpedo went off, it exploded, and it sank. I think, from memory, that some 152 Russian sailors perished in the Barents Sea. That submarine is lying on the bed of the ocean. There has been no leakage of radiation to this day. None has been recorded, and the experts say it is most unlikely that it will ever occur.

So the risk is totally overstated out of all proportion, and New Zealand is not nuclear-free. I am appealing to this House to take this step so that we can actually be on the same footing as Australia in negotiating a free-trade agreement with the United States, which, the economists tell us, would be worth a billion dollars a year to the New Zealand economy. It is a no-brainer: this bill should be supported.

I do not think it will come as any surprise to the House or to New Zealand that Labour opposes this bill and will be voting against it. Mr Shirley wishes to revisit the prohibition on visits to New Zealand ports by nuclear-propelled ships.

It sounds quite simple. It sounds as though nuclear propulsion is the normal method of propulsion. Well, if it is the normal method of propulsion and nothing to be feared, why are cruise ships not nuclear propelled? Why are large container ships not nuclear propelled? Why are only military ships nuclear propelled? It is not the normal method of propulsion, because there is a much higher risk to this method of propulsion, and, I have to say, a much higher risk than when the Somers report was written in 1992. I read from page 171 of that report, 13/20: “A Valid Question. I know that nuclear-propelled vessels do not visit New York or Sydney. Why should they be allowed to visit Auckland or Wellington? An answer involves an explanation of the assessment process which is carried out by the United States Navy before permission is granted to visit any ports. While it is not US Navy policy to reveal what matters are taken into account, we know from Captain Bush’s submission that though the criteria used to answer each request to visit a particular port were different, in general such factors as tide and current characteristics, harbour traffic, population density near the proposed berth, were taken into consideration and weighed against a possible nuclear accident for the reactor plant—a worst-case analysis.”

I think that speaks for itself. If at that stage, and still today, the Australians are not having nuclear-propelled vessels in Sydney’s port, why should we open our harbours? We do not go to such lengths when determining whether a ship containing hazardous cargo enters our ports, yet it is standard practice to do this sort of work for the entry of a nuclear-propelled ship, which is a military ship.

But worse than that, this report was written in 1992. Post-9/11 the risk has become even higher. US military ships have become targets for terrorists. Do we want to invite a mobile target into the hearts of our cities—in Auckland or Wellington? New Zealand is proud to be nuclear-free—free of nuclear weapons, free of all weapons of mass destruction, and free from nuclear energy. I do admit we are not free of nuclear medicine. I recognise that.

New Zealand has two main reasons for its stand. Firstly, it is anti weapons of mass destruction. Just the other day we stood in this House in silence for the victims of the recent suicide bombs. We abhor random violence. So why would we join forces with nuclear weapons? Why would we welcome them into our country? Why would we sign away our sovereignty to ban such weapons and their possible presence in our harbours?

The second reason is more environmental than an argument about weapon choice. No one has yet solved the issue of nuclear waste and its safe disposal. I ask members to look at the situation in Australia. It is a regular election issue in Australia as to which state or territory they will bury the nuclear waste in—and I freely admit that some of that is New Zealand’s nuclear waste, generated up there. Why use a source of energy whose cradle-to-grave responsibility has not been agreed to by the community?

Labour members are proud of New Zealand’s nuclear-free status, and our clear and consistent policy is to maintain that status. It has become part of our national identity. It is something that is unique about New Zealand. We are nuclear-free and we are proud of it. It will not be gone by lunchtime with a Labour-led Government. It is a solid, determined stand.

The stand of our opponents is not so solid. We have had at least six positions from Dr Brash—I find it really frightening actually; I hope he does not get to Kama Sutra numbers—well the proportions are there. We have had six positions from him. In January he told an American congressional delegation: “If the National Party was in Government today, we’d get rid of the nuclear propulsion section today—by lunchtime, even.” On 16 June: “The likelihood is that if we put a proposal to the Americans which they find acceptable,”—to the Americans? What about New Zealanders? “…if we put a proposal to the Americans which they find acceptable, and that, of course, would be after we became Government, we’d then seek a referendum.” So National would go to the Americans first before going to the New Zealanders! Not us. It is quite clear: New Zealand wants to remain nuclear-free. Give us a break, Dr Brash, and establish some credibility! What is National’s 54-day position on this particular issue? We have had at least six of them.

What scares me, though, is whether such flip-flopping, such poor credibility, will result in selling New Zealanders’ ideals and beliefs for trade. It is not just about our nuclear-free ideals; it is also about the lives of our young people, and bodies being returned home from Iraq in body bags for a trade deal. That is why we are not getting any clear answers from Dr Brash. He cannot resolve this question that is being asked by the television stations and by the Opposition. He says things such as: “I’ll get my officials. I’ll wait until I get some official advice about this.” Dr Brash and the National Party should understand that I know my values. I do not need officials to tell me my values. My values cannot be bought or sold. New Zealand is nuclear-free, and as long as Labour forms the Government it will remain so. Labour, therefore, will be opposing this bill.

This issue is important for New Zealand. I say to the honourable member who is introducing this bill that National believes this is not the way to resolve this hugely important issue. I think a measure of the importance of the issue was raised in Ambassador Swindell’s farewell speech to New Zealand on 4 July, when he spoke of the drift in the relationship between the United States and New Zealand—a drift that could see New Zealand float off into irrelevance to America in the future. I know that there are some extremists in New Zealand, including some Labour members on the benches opposite me, who probably want things to be that way. They probably have an innate dislike of things American. But most New Zealanders who have travelled through America have experienced the generous spirit and goodwill of American people. Those mainstream New Zealanders want us to have a good working relationship with America. That is where National wants to see New Zealand; clearly Labour does not want that.

In fact, to be blunt about this issue, our security in the Pacific is ultimately dependent on the security presence of the United States of America, because if there was any conflict one thing is for sure: neither New Zealand nor Australia has the military capacity to ensure the security of the Pacific. Perhaps even more important for New Zealand, trade is our lifeblood. The security of our trade is totally dependent on the US global naval presence. I want the Labour members to be fully aware of that. What is more, as we look to the future, whether we like it or not—and I know that a lot of Labour members probably do not like it—we can see the United States will be the major economic player in this world for many years to come. As such, that is important to New Zealand. The US is our second-biggest trading partner now; that country, whether we like it or not, is very important to New Zealand. It is therefore in New Zealand’s interests that our relationship with the US be as good as possible.

Having said that, New Zealand’s antinuclear policy is very, very important to many New Zealanders as well. It is more than just an issue about the safety of nuclear-propelled ships. I mean, for goodness’ sake, my wristwatch that I wear here in the House tonight emits more radioactivity than a nuclear-propelled ship—far more. But that is not the issue. The issue is that many New Zealanders feel very deeply about the importance of New Zealand’s antinuclear legislation. I think it is fair to say that many New Zealanders would feel that there should be no change to that legislation in this overtly political way, whereby a bill is introduced into Parliament—and I do not want to be too unkind to the member from ACT, but the bill is really introduced for political purposes. An issue as important as this to New Zealanders should not be tried to be changed in this way.

National has made it very clear that we will not change the antinuclear legislation without a specific mandate, either by way of a referendum or through a specific election policy mandate. We will not make any change without either of those mechanisms, whereby the public of New Zealand has a chance to express its view, either through a referendum or a specific election policy mandate. That is important, because an attempt to change this legislation politically is not in New Zealand’s interests, and it is not in America’s interests. Just the fact that one may get a change of Government in New Zealand and therefore try to change the legislation does not mean that that is in New Zealand’s interests. The only change that makes sense for either New Zealand or for the United States of America is a sustainable change—a change that the people of New Zealand want. That is the only change that makes sense—a change that the people of New Zealand want. Therefore, before this Parliament tries to change this legislation, we should give the people of New Zealand the chance to indicate what they want. After all, we do live in a democracy, and on something as important to New Zealanders as this issue we should show New Zealanders respect, by asking them what they want before we seek to change the legislation.

That is National’s policy. We agree this is a hugely important issue. We agree it is an important issue for New Zealand’s future—hugely important. It is very important that we should listen to the people of New Zealand, before attempting to make any change to the antinuclear law in this House. That is National’s policy, and it is very simple and very clear.

At least on this issue there is no ambiguity about ACT’s approach, unlike its erstwhile coalition partners in the National Party. At least members know where ACT stands on this issue. There is no ambiguity.

We have just heard a speech from Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, which, if it was not preparing the way, if it was not preparing the ground, if it was not softening us all up on the inevitable policy change that would happen under a National-led Government, then I do not know what would be. It was a fine speech. It was a very soothing speech. It was a very soothing sales pitch speech. But I think most people in this House who were listening to it would have heard a very key, clear message—“We will be preparing the ground for a change of policy.” He may not have echoed the words of his leader in January 2004, when Dr Brash told an American congressional delegation that if the National Party were in Government it would get rid of the nuclear propulsion section today, by lunchtime even—no, he was not saying that; he was saying that it would take a few months. But figuratively, they cannot get rid of it by afternoon tea or morning tea. It may take a few months. But the outcome is going to be exactly the same.

We on this side of the House are absolutely proud of New Zealand’s nuclear-free status, and our clear and consistent policy is to maintain that status. The Labour Party is not ambiguous on this issue. There is no ambiguity. It will be very interesting to listen to the other National Party speakers during this debate, as to where they stand on this bill.

To its credit—if I can use the word “credit”—there is no ambiguity about ACT’s position, just as there is no ambiguity about ACT’s position on wanting to send our troops to Iraq to support the coalition of the willing. The National Party in its heart of hearts had exactly the same policy, and indeed Simon Power, in one of those moments of absolute honesty, said on 1 May 2004—and I will quote him because this was a moment of non-ambiguity, a moment of absolute honesty, by Simon Power: “Without reservation we will support our close allies, Australia, the United States, and Britain, when and wheresoever our commitment is called upon.” That was very unsubtle code for saying that the ships will be back by afternoon-tea time. That was very unsubtle code for saying we would have joined the coalition of the willing to go to Iraq.

At least Simon Power was honest; at least he was upfront. There was no ambiguity about Simon Power. And for being upfront and honest he was dumped from that portfolio, but he absolutely gave us the hint of where a future National-led Government would go. Any party that was even contemplating any coalition arrangement with that particular party might do well to reflect very seriously, in terms of this nation’s interest in putting New Zealand first, and this nation’s interest in terms of what the National Party really wants to achieve.

No, the nuclear-free status will not be gone by lunchtime with a Labour-led Government. We will not be sending troops, in terms of the coalition of the willing, by lunchtime. Indeed, the words of Phil Goff say it all. This Government has “never moved from our point that the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders want this country to stay nuclear free, and not because we are paranoid about nuclear power. It is part of the way we see ourselves, part of the way we promote ourselves to the world, and for many New Zealanders it is also symbolic of New Zealand’s right to make its own decisions. That is why indeed so many ports, including those of London, Sydney, New York, and Boston, to name a few, also do not allow visits by nuclear ships.” They are joined by the port of Lyttelton, the Port of Tauranga, the port of Wellington, the Ports of Auckland, and the port of Port Chalmers. I am proud to be part of a Government that supports nuclear-free legislation. There is no ambiguity on this side of the House. There is a helluva lot of ambiguity on the other side of the House.

On behalf of New Zealand First, I say that I think the comment made by Mr Gallagher about ambiguity is important. As I listened to Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, I thought he was a little ambiguous, at least, in what he said. I just say on behalf of New Zealand First that our defence policy in our manifesto states that we will maintain New Zealand’s commitment to its nuclear-free policy. We say in our foreign affairs policy that we will remain strongly committed to New Zealand’s antinuclear policy. Is there anything ambiguous about that? In defence and foreign affairs we have made it absolutely clear that we have a nuclear-free policy.

As has been mentioned during the course of this debate, New Zealand First also opposed the sending of troops to Iraq. That is unambiguous; we clearly opposed it. Of course, when we look at New Zealand First’s ability to consider Middle Eastern affairs and affairs involving Islam, we can see we have the great advantage of having two members of our caucus who have been in the defence forces. Bill Gudgeon served in South-east Asia with the New Zealand forces, and that area has an Islamic background, and of course Ron Mark served in the New Zealand armed forces and then also served in the Gulf States. He has a smattering of Arabic, and has knowledge of the way the Islamic people in the Gulf States and the surrounding areas act and react. I, of course, having been born and brought up in a Muslim country, also know something about Islamic affairs. So New Zealand First is very well placed in so far as refusing to send troops to Iraq is concerned. As we all know, it is not a question of what they would do when they got there; the question is how we would get them out again. That was always going to be the problem in Iraq, and that is the problem that the Americans are facing in a big way. So we were opposed, and remain opposed, to the sending of troops to Iraq. From the point of view of our policy, we put New Zealanders and New Zealand first.

People have asked us what we will do after the next election. We will wait, first of all, to see what the people of New Zealand have to say. I understand that other political parties are making that statement as well, copying New Zealand First’s stand as usual. Whether we go with one party or the other party, or whether we decide to stay in the middle and do the sort of thing we have done this time, which is to support good policies and oppose bad policies, remains to be seen. It is dependent upon what the electors do on election day, and on the decisions that will be made afterwards. But New Zealand First’s policy is very clear: we support a nuclear-free policy, and we oppose the sending of troops to Iraq.

Indeed, we oppose nuclear energy altogether, even in so far as electricity generation from nuclear power is concerned. One of the things we are most concerned about—and I think Ken Shirley made a very, very good point about the building of nuclear-powered generators in New Zealand—is that the royal commission’s report of 1977 stated that we should have nuclear power-stations commissioned between 2005 and 2008. We should have had them by now, based on the population growth we had in those days, which was an increase of about 160,000 over 10 years. In the last 18 years we have seen New Zealand’s population rise by 25 percent, or by about 750,000 people. Indeed, in that time Auckland’s population has risen by 435,000, which is almost the entire population of the Wellington region, from day one. So we are looking nuclear power generation in the face, especially if the United Future leader has his way and New Zealand’s population rises from 4 million to 5 million in 10 years’ time. [Interruption] He says that it will, anyway. Mr Dunne and United Future support nuclear power generation That is their view. New Zealand First says that we have—[Interruption] The member said it will, anyway.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: I talked about population. The member made a comment about nuclear generation, which I have never spoken about.

If the member wants to interject, he takes the consequences of that. He said: “It will, anyway.”, and I said that was what he had said—that it will, anyway. I am just quoting what he said.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): It is a debatable point, which that member may clear up at the end of the speech, or in his own speech.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although this is a robust debate, if members are being deliberately misrepresented by a speaker in the course of the debate, that then becomes a matter of order and the member has the right to seek your protection against that deliberate misrepresentation.

Speaking to the point of order, I ask the member whether he used the words: “It will, anyway.”? Those are the words I was quoting.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: I used the words “It will, anyway.” in respect of population. The member then went on to say I had used them in respect of nuclear generation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member has given an explanation, so we will move on.

The very clear fact is that New Zealand First is committed to a nuclear-free policy. We want, as a matter of interest, to ensure that our Defence Force expenditure goes up to 2 percent of GDP and we will not trade defence for trade. We will not give away our rights to defend New Zealand, in favour of getting a free-trade agreement, whether or not that agreement is with the United States. We will not give away our rights to China, as the Labour Party wants to do. We want to make sure that New Zealand is a nuclear-free country, and we certainly will not support the National Party’s policy on selling New Zealand out to every Asian country with low wages that the National Party can ever find for itself.

The Green Party will be opposing this bill. It seems clear that it is not really about nuclear energy or nuclear power but, from what Mr Shirley said, about getting a free-trade agreement with the United States. It is about playing up to the Bush administration. The explanatory note of the bill talks about the strains on the ANZUS relationship over a couple of decades. That is what the bill is about. It is not about nuclear power. It is about military power, and the projection of military power with the use of nuclear weapons.

I quote from an article in this year’s May-June New Zealand International Review by a respected defence commentator, Dick Gentles, who says: “The only nuclear-propelled ships operated by the US Navy are the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers and submarines. The carrier task force groups, including submarines, are the most critical element of American power projection capabilities. Their use depends on access to port facilities around the globe. The US Navy could not accept the precedent that would be set by a New Zealand policy precluding port access for these crucial assets. This is now a more important issue as the United States draws down its forces stationed in foreign countries and relies more on its power projection capabilities to protect US interests.”

That is what the bill is about, and ACT wants to go down the track of supporting the military power projection of the United States. Those carriers and aircraft carriers are the front forces of that country’s projection, including with the invasion of Iraq. Of course, ACT did support the sending of New Zealand combat troops, along with the Americans, to Iraq.

I refer to the question of safety, and of course the chances are not great that we would have a nuclear accident by a visiting nuclear-powered warship, but it is possible. So why take the risk? A nuclear accident could occur with a nuclear-powered warship ending up sitting on our seabed leaking radioactivity that would destroy our future for generations, in terms of fishing and everything else. Why take that risk?

Mr Shirley has portrayed those with nuclear-powered warships as being infallible, virtually. He said there was no chance of accidents in that respect. We know that accident after accident involving nuclear-powered warships has happened. Members might have seen on their television screens a couple of weeks ago that this year the USS San Francisco, a nuclear-powered submarine, struck an undersea mountain in the Pacific and smashed its front to smithereens. It was very lucky not to stay on the bottom. So these accidents do happen, and they have happened over the years with nuclear power.

There was the big incident in 1979 at the Three Mile Island power plant in the United States. In 1986 the Chernobyl disaster occurred, where between 300 million and 400 million people in 15 nations were put at risk and a nuclear cloud spread right across Europe. There are radiation leaks from nuclear power plants or nuclear reprocessing facilities. Over the years there has been big controversy about the Sellafield plant in Britain. The Irish Minister for the Environment, Martin Cullen, said just a couple of months ago that the plant should be closed down because it is still leaking radiation into the Irish Sea.

Lockwood Smith says there are great Americans. There are. There are great Americans who are fighting nuclear power and nuclear weapons. In fact, just a couple of days ago a whole combination of native Americans, actors—all sorts of people—have been fighting for an end to nuclear power in the United States, and particularly against the putting of 44,000 tonnes of nuclear waste into one of the Indian reservations in Skull Valley. There are people in America who are fighting nuclear power and the Bush administration’s policies around the world that have a nuclear spearhead. We should be alongside those Americans. Those are the Americans we are making friends with in order to end the more aggressive policies of the Bush administration and its policies in relation to nuclear energy, too.

Nuclear energy is not an efficient form of energy. It exists around the world only because it is heavily State subsidised. ACT should not be pushing it, because as far as I know it is not in favour of State subsidies.

United Future upholds and supports New Zealand’s nuclear-free status, and therefore will not be supporting this bill. But we also recognise one of the points that lies behind the bill, and that is the broader issue of our relations with the United States. We do think that, 20 years on, there is merit in reviewing where things are at and seeking to improve what has become a somewhat isolated relationship.

The blunt truth that both we and the United States should reflect upon is that both our countries, over the last 20 years, have got on to respective high horses that we find it very difficult to get off. The New Zealand position for a long time was: “Your move.” The American position has been in return: “No, it’s your move.” The reality is that both countries will need to make progress in the relationship at the same time in a way that respects their particular positions. What we ought to be concentrating on in this Parliament are the steps that we in New Zealand need to take to start that process from our end. Neither an arbitrary move to repeal certain provisions of our antinuclear legislation, nor our putting an untested issue to the public in a referendum, will produce the type of progress that we might seek. There needs to be some subtle diplomacy here.

I think the advice given by the American ambassador in his valedictory address of calling for some form of discussion between the two countries is an appropriate starting point. I note that neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade ruled it out completely at the time the statement was made. The question therefore becomes what is the best way in which this dialogue could proceed.

For some time the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has had before it a proposition that we consider some form of inquiry into our relations with the United States. I think the climate has shifted now to the point where that becomes a real possibility in the next Parliament. Initially it would be at a low level, but ultimately it would involve the business community, political and defence interests, and education and cultural interests, to try to put on the table all aspects of the relationship between New Zealand and the United States, and to assess what common ground there might be, where the differences are, and what the prospects for progress overall might be in that respect. Changes that come, to any aspect of policy, flow out of that, but they also have to recognise the bottom-line positions of the respective countries. We do not expect the United States to change its defence policy. Equally, the United States should not expect New Zealand to change its policy. We need to move forward in a way where we are addressing this issue step by step to see what is achievable, what can be resolved, and what progress can be made.

Everyone agrees on one core point. Our shared values, our history, our language, and our sense of communication with each other give us a platform from which to move forward. The challenge is whether we actually decide to do anything, or whether both countries remain entrenched in their particular corners, lamenting the fact that the relationship is drifting apart, as the former ambassador noted.

I think the real issue is not whether we pass this legislation, or change our antinuclear legislation. The real issue is whether we in this country, matched by the Americans, have a commitment to sitting down and working out what we have in common, what we can achieve together, and what progress we can make. The challenge of this Parliament should surely be, in the interests of our people, to see what effort we can make in that regard, without compromising our basic principles.

It is a real pleasure to have the opportunity to take a brief call on this most significant bill. I have been heartened by some of the comments we have heard in the House over the last little while. Like most New Zealanders I am very proud of this country’s nuclear-free status and our very clear and consistent policy over the years—more than two decades—to maintain that policy. I guess that for most New Zealanders that nuclear-free status has become a clear part of our national identity; one that we treasure as something that is unique about our position in the world. We are nuclear-free and we are proud of it.

I must say that one of the pleasures of being a member of this House is seeing the effect that that position has, along with other statements of our international integrity, when we have the opportunity to talk with parliamentarians and people from other countries. It is an often-stated cliché that New Zealand punches above its weight. That is certainly true in terms of international politics, and I think we should be very proud, because we have that integrity, that independence, and we make our own calls about our foreign policy. That is in no way to denigrate our relationship with other countries. It is essential that we do develop good-operating, cooperative relationships with everyone in the world, where that is possible. But the fundamental essential for this nation—as for any other independent nation—is for our foreign policy to be decided by sovereign, elected members and the citizens of New Zealand. That is the position we hold, and that is why our nation of 4 million people in the southern Pacific Ocean has the international respect that it does in so many areas of world activity.

I guess we all acknowledge that in most recent times that respect stems from the political interventions of people like Norman Kirk; of leaders of this country such as David Lange, and, most recently, the superb leadership we have from our current Prime Minister. I think most New Zealanders would acknowledge that this country has been put back on the international stage by those interventions and by that activity.

I was pleased that my colleague Martin Gallagher mentioned earlier the issue of port closures to nuclear ships, including in the United States. I think it is a telling criticism of the ACT bill, and a telling criticism of the American policy itself, in fact, that even some of America’s own key ports, such as Boston and New York, are closed to the sorts of vessels that were referred to earlier—not just London, Sydney, the port of Otago, Port Chalmers, and other ports around the world.

I say to Mr Shirley that I am glad my parliamentary colleague Mr Locke did refute some of the extraordinary comments he made about the safety of nuclear power and the use of nuclear energy. I do not know where Mr Shirley has been!

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Read the literature.

I have read the literature. I have read the literature in several languages about Chernobyl, and I taught in Germany at the time when there were continued demonstrations about nuclear storage and waste disposal in Gorleben. I read the German and English literature about the failure of nuclear plants in France and in Germany. So I say to Mr Shirley that, like a lot of his policies, I find no connection between the proposed legislation and the reality of the literature, as he tells it, or recent history in terms of the dangers and the failures of nuclear power-plants and nuclear waste disposal in many parts of the world.

With regard to the position of the opposing parties, I guess I would agree with Mr Gallagher that the one redeeming factor of the ACT policy is that at least it is upfront, unlike its extremist friends in the National Party, who have about six positions that we can calculate, on this issue; about five positions on related issues around Iraq; and as for tax, well, they are breaking their promises there already. The fact of the matter is that the Opposition policies of extreme-right Opposition parties in this House cannot be trusted. Clearly, the ACT party—not much longer for this place because of its extremism and because of the fact that its policies have been pirated by the National Party—at least has the integrity to put its policies on the table. Unfortunately, Dr Brash and his friends do not have that same honesty, but they can, none the less, be no more trusted.

I am very pleased to support the position that the Government has taken on this issue. Clearly, the Government will not be supporting this bill.

In view of the time, and in view of the fact that this will be the last member’s day of this Parliament—my calculation is that there is one ACT speech remaining, to be given by my colleague Stephen Franks, and that I then have 5 minutes in reply—I therefore seek the leave of the House to complete the debate on this member’s bill.

💬 Jill Pettis: But Labour has a speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I am aware that Labour has a speech. We will just see what happens. Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

I am proud to rise to support my colleague’s bill on the nuclear propulsion issue. I am proud because it is in the long tradition of bills, motions, and amendments that ACT has brought on matters that other parties simply will not touch. I believe that that is a function that the Greens too, from the other side of the spectrum, perform in this Parliament. They raise issues that the big parties would rather not debate. In this case it is essentially a foreign policy matter. I heard the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, the Hon Marian Hobbs, tell us in relation to the bill debated earlier tonight that one of the things she wanted was to have the hard issues discussed in this House—to take matters that were important to New Zealand, but that were difficult, to a select committee, where New Zealanders could express their views on them. She said, in ringing tones, that she would vote for the Green bill we debated earlier tonight because she wanted to send it to a select committee. Then I heard the Labour speakers on this bill wanting to close the debate down. They want to close it down because they know that the submissions would be embarrassing.

We have been a shameful, crawling, craven, lefty country. The kind of credit that David Lange secured by talking about uranium on the breath has long since run out. We now get our credit in international fora by going to the cocktail parties in New York of people who cannot pay their bills—the representatives of countries that cannot even feed themselves. We have elevated that kind of posturing to an art. New Zealand has managed to embarrass itself with the British, who have nuclear-propelled vessels, with the Americans, who have nuclear-propelled vessels that are now accepted in almost every other country in the world, and with the Australians. All three countries are our longstanding and natural allies, and we have got ourselves into a position whereby we have reneged on defence arrangements with all of them.

We have paid dearly for that. The Government may sit quietly and pretend that none of that matters, because it has hidden quite a lot of the costs. The Minister of Transport knows just how much this country paid when Australia decided to give us the fingers on theopen skies agreement, when Australia decided to tell New Zealand that it had better hand part of Air New Zealand to Qantas or else, and when Australia decided that we were untrustworthy. Dr Cullen therefore had to go crawling to the Australians, and ask whether they would make things up with us if we gave them our banks. He asked them whether, if we gave them absolute control of our banking sector, they would not trash our economy.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: This is just stuff out of fairyland.

It is out of fairyland. In terms of the New Zealand Government’s foreign policy, the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control has managed not to intervene in support of our so-called sovereignty. The police are about to destroy $2 million worth of perfectly sound sporting firearms, because we do not have enough guts to say to the United Nations that those firearms are lawful weapons in this country and that we do not like to waste money. Instead, we are kowtowing to the spirit of an agreement that does not even require us to destroy them.

What connection does that have with this bill? It is that we are primitives. It is that no one is prepared to say that the emperor has no clothes. We have a Government that simply will not stand up and say that it made a big mistake 20 years ago: that it could have banned nuclear weapons, and that it could have achieved a situation where it preserved its defence relationships, but instead it wanted to punch the nose of the big boy on the block, in order to distract itself from internal debates it could not otherwise win. It is pretty much like the student loan bribe. But I will get back to foreign policy. It is like the president of Indonesia picking a fight with Malaysia, because he had domestic trouble. This country has been no better than that. Now, we are picking a fight with Zimbabwe, a little country, because we are too scared to tell Mbeki and China that they should stop supporting Mugabe. The vaunted sovereignty position of this country is in absolute disgrace.

I have to say, in seeking what I think will be the last call in this debate, that I am pretty disappointed in the quality of the debate in the last speech. That is disappointing, because in many ways I have quite a lot of respect for that speaker. His logic has failed him pretty badly. The first bit of logic that failed him was on the issue of who was in Government at the time when Ansett convinced the Australian Government to renege on the open skies agreement. If that was done on the basis of Labour’s antinuclear stand, then why did the Australian Government kick New Zealand when it was under a National Government that was so pro-America that it actually changed its position twice on the nuclear issue at the 1990 election? This flip-flop nonsense is nothing new. Mr Shirley knows that well, because, like me, he was a member of Parliament from 1987 to 1990, and was then defeated. We had to watch National lying its way around the country at the time. I told the candidate in New Plymouth at the time—in 1990—that I would be back in 1993, pointing out to the people how right I had been on those issues. The National Party, which became the Government, changed its position twice on the issue in days.

It is no surprise to me whatsoever that, on issues of nuclear policy, National has changed its mind—has it been six times so far? Have we heard six different stories from the National leader? I am not quite sure where the National leader is today on the issue, but I can tell him where New Zealanders are. They are overwhelmingly opposed to nuclear ships coming to our ports. And I say to Mr Shirley that it is not just New Zealanders who oppose nuclear ships; it is people right around the world. Other countries have the same antinuclear policy as ours, in a very similar way. Denmark is an example of that. Denmark has had visits from US ships, because the US ships have been prepared to tell it that there are no nuclear weapons on board.

I say to the member as well that today I had a visit from a very charming doctor who is doing some research on the European Union. She happens to be Ukrainian and to remember extremely well what happened at Chernobyl. I am sure that that has been rehearsed many times during this debate. Kiev is a major city that still suffers today from the after-effects of Chernobyl, and its medical bills will be going through the roof. We know that there have been nuclear accidents right around the world—nuclear leaks. We have seen leaks from nuclear plants, including leaks from the very ship-type reactors that Mr Shirley wants to have American ships bring back here.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: What about the one out in Upper Hutt?

I say to Mr Shirley that we are not talking about, nor is he talking about, a small device for medical use. We are talking about nuclear power reactors and nuclear ship reactors. If those reactors are so safe in ships, what happened to the ship-type reactor that the Americans installed at the McMurdo base to replace the diesel generators, because of the pollution from the diesel and the risk of spillage of diesel, etc., at the height of the American enthusiasm at the time for things nuclear? The US base at McMurdo put a ship-type nuclear reactor there. Sometime later, after it leaked, I tell Mr Shirley, not only was the reactor dismantled and taken back to the US for decontamination, etc., but so was a whole lot of the material below the reactor—the subsoil, etc.—taken back to the USA for decontamination. Now, not many people live there, and we do not know what the effect on the environment was—whether there was a long-time effect or not. But today the US is generating again by diesel at McMurdo. If nuclear power generation is such a safe technology, why was the use of the nuclear reactor discontinued?

I tell Mr Shirley that we are respected throughout the world for our stand on this issue. I fully agree that some countries are saying that they have to look again at the issue of nuclear power, while other countries are dismantling their nuclear reactors. We can do one of two things here: we can pass this bill, or we can throw it out. I am firmly for throwing it out.

I thank the members of the House for their considered comments. There were many I disagree with, but that is the purpose of this House—for the various views to be expressed. I have to say I am disappointed in some.

There are a number of points in reply that I would like to make. Firstly, I draw the House’s attention to a recent Herald-DigiPoll, a nationwide poll of 750 New Zealanders. It was a published Herald-DigiPoll, done under its normal, stringent conditions. When asked the question whether, based on the fact that the US had removed nuclear weapons from its surface ships in 1992, we should allow nuclear-propelled US ships to visit this country, 65 percent of the 750 people polled said yes. Yet speaker after speaker in this debate said that the New Zealand public does not want that. Well, that is partly why I changed the commencement clause of my bill to say that it would not take effect, and my bill would not commence, until a majority of New Zealanders, by way of a referendum, said that we should remove section 11. Those parties that are not going to support this bill are denying the voting public of New Zealand—New Zealand citizens—a say. What are they scared of? This bill would not become operative until it was carried by popular referendum.

I agree: I think this issue has become such an iconic issue in the New Zealand psyche that it is wrong for this Parliament, or any party within this Parliament, just to thrust such a change on the New Zealand public. It is up to the New Zealand public to express its view by way of a referendum. This bill provides for that, yet, in spite of it, Labour is saying it does not want to hear from the New Zealand public. National, although its policy is to have a referendum, is saying, when tested, that it does not want to pass this bill, either. Well, there is not much credibility in that position.

A number of other issues are raised. I give this example. How many people here know what, following the Boxing Day tsunami and the disastrous earthquake off Sumatra that measured 9 on the Richter scale, the first support on-station was for those devastated communities? It was the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt, a nuclear-propelled aircraft carrier with a whole mobile hospital and helicopter support crews. Let us think about this scenario. New Zealand is a very tectonically active zone. It is very similar to Sumatra. We could, perish the thought, have something of equal proportions. Wellington and the Cook Strait could be devastated. Would we say, if all transport were down, and if we were offered help in the form of a ship like the Franklin D. Roosevelt, which has a mobile hospital and helicopter support, that such a ship could not come here because we had nuclear-free legislation and we did not think it would be appropriate? I say to Mr Duynhoven that we should think about it. It is absurd.

The other point I make and reiterate is that if we pass this legislation, we are not saying that these ships can automatically come here; they can come here only if invited by the New Zealand Government. All that the bill is saying is that we should not keep legislation that was introduced to be anti-American, that has been an incredible irritant, and that has cost this country dearly, because of some cold war, chest-thumping bravado that has more to do with the Labour Party in the 1970s than it has with contemporary New Zealand in the 21st century.

The time has come to revisit the legislation, and I call upon the House to vote in support of my bill and refer it to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. How can the House not at least refer it to a select committee for further consideration? Others have made the point that the bill needs further debate and consideration. Well, let us give the opportunity for New Zealanders to make submissions on this bill. This issue is an important aspect of New Zealand’s foreign policy, and our trading policy, for that matter. Let us have a parliamentary select committee consider the bill, with public input. I urge every party here to vote in support of this bill.