Motions — Nuclear Disarmament—Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Review Conference

I move, That this House recognise the historic opportunity to advance the cause of nuclear disarmament at the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) Review Conference May 3-28; acknowledge the leadership on this issue by United States President Barack Obama; and call on the New Zealand Government to take an active role in this issue, drawing on our country’s proud nuclear-free stance, working together with other like-minded nations to support the United Nations Secretary-General’s Five Point Plan for Nuclear Disarmament including preparations for the development of a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

For more than two decades nuclear disarmament efforts have floundered, but a year ago in Prague a new US President declared America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. Since then, the world has watched keenly, hoping that this generation will break the deadlock. In recent months we have seen the green shoots of an antinuclear spring. The US and Russia have negotiated a treaty to reduce their stockpiles. The US Government has conducted its Nuclear Posture Review. Some NATO States have called for the removal of nuclear weapons from Europe. President Obama hosted last month a summit in Washington to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Now, Governments gather in New York to review the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The world is watching with high hopes.

Twenty-three years ago we were ostracised by our traditional friends because of Labour’s antinuclear law. That reinforced in our nation a deep commitment to our nuclear-free policy as a symbol of our rejection of nuclear deterrence and our concern for the planet. That the Prime Minister was invited to Washington by the United States specifically because of our nuclear-free status speaks volumes about the fact that the world has caught up with New Zealand on this issue. But now is not the time to rest on our laurels. Now is the time to lead. We did it before, and we can do it again.

Others are looking to us. Former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans both visited New Zealand in recent months, urging the Government to take a leadership role on this issue. US Vice-President Joe Biden said to the Prime Minister: “New Zealand could play a leadership role working with other countries demonstrating that the world free of nuclear weapons would be a better place.” But the Prime Minister did not even mention New Zealand’s nuclear-free status in the three-page document he presented to the Nuclear Security Summit. To the Prime Minister I say: “Don’t be an antinuclear lion in the New Zealand media, and a mouse in Washington or New York.” His comments on the nuclear issues seem to be only for a domestic audience, and, as some commentators have observed, he seemed to be using the access gained by our antinuclear credentials to leverage a free-trade agreement.

Well, I say to this National Government that trade is vital to our nation, but it is not everything. New Zealanders are passionately antinuclear. We want our nation to be a voice of conscience to argue the antinuclear case in the streets, at the World Court, and at international meetings. If we can make a difference and make this world safer for our grandchildren, we should. But it will take courage. We will have to stand up and be counted, and sometimes disagree with powerful friends. Norman Kirk did it, David Lange did it, Helen Clark did it, and history recognises them for it.

We can continue to work patiently at initiatives to build confidence in disarmament, getting weapons off their hair-trigger alert, and building support for nuclear-weapon-free zones. But the challenge now is to lift our eyes to the bigger goal. The United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, has proposed a five-point plan to get us there. New Zealand should explicitly commit to the plan and work with other like-minded nations to build support for it. The Government should call for preparatory talks on a process leading to the nuclear weapons convention. Many MPs in this House have already endorsed that call.

I want to finish with a quote from President Obama, from his Prague speech: “Human destiny will be what we make of it. … let us honor our past by reaching for a better future. Let us bridge our divisions, build upon our hopes, and accept our responsibility to leave this world more prosperous and more peaceful than we found it.”

As a foundation member of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and a member of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this motion. This National Government remains totally committed to the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world. As we speak, the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, and New Zealand officials are heavily engaged in the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference being held in New York. As Minister Georgina te Heuheu said earlier today to the 189 non-proliferation treaty States parties assembled in New York, these are issues that New Zealanders feel passionately about. That passion has been borne out over many years and through the contribution of many members of this House and the broader community.

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is often described as the cornerstone of the global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime. It is the only multilateral treaty that contains a commitment to nuclear disarmament. New Zealand was one of the first countries to sign the non-proliferation treaty in 1968. The vision of a nuclear-weapon-free world has been adopted by all New Zealanders and is one that this Government proudly supports. As the Minister said in her statement at the UN this morning, the issues at the heart of the treaty are of a global nature. We are all impacted by the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and we would all suffer the catastrophic consequences of nuclear war.

President Obama’s leadership on nuclear issues has been largely responsible for reinvigorating the debate. When he spoke in Prague in April of this year, he expressed America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. More recently, the US and Russia signed a new treaty on nuclear weapons reduction, and the US released its own Nuclear Posture Review, which marked a significant break from the past. Yesterday, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, announced that the US would be taking the important step of working to ratify the protocols to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. The UN Secretary-General’s Five-Point Plan on Nuclear Disarmament is also lending momentum to global nuclear disarmament efforts, as the Minister acknowledged in her statement to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference today. The New Zealand Government welcomes these initiatives as concrete steps towards nuclear disarmament, but our delegation at the conference will be working for real disarmament commitments from all nuclear-weapon States.

Central to New Zealand’s nuclear disarmament engagement at the conference is our membership of the New Agenda Coalition, which will be pressing the review conference to adopt a number of practical recommendations that would significantly advance the world towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. New Zealand is also coordinating a group of States calling for action to address the significant number of nuclear weapons that still exist today on high alert, and to bring an end to a Cold War legacy. We will also be working closely with Australia on promoting greater transparency from nuclear-weapon States as an essential confidence-building measure, and supporting a Canadian initiative to address the non-proliferation treaty’s need for better working methods.

The motion put to the House today supports the development of a nuclear weapons convention that would outlaw the possession and use of nuclear weapons. This Government firmly believes that a legally binding instrument or framework of instruments governing the elimination of nuclear weapons will one day be required as we progress towards a world without those weapons. For that reason, New Zealand regularly supports a resolution at the UN General Assembly that calls for negotiation leading to a convention. As the Prime Minister stated in the House in April last year, our support for those negotiations is conditional upon the time being right. We need to deploy our resources where they will have the most effect. New Zealand’s approach has therefore been to support a nuclear weapons convention as a long-term goal, but in the meantime to focus on practical measures that will lessen the importance and number of nuclear weapons, and further diminish their threat. Our engagement at the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference is focused on just those measures.

I rise to support Mr Twyford’s motion, members’ motion No. 1. This House is asked to do three things: first, to recognise the historic opportunity to advance the cause of nuclear disarmament at the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons treaty conference that is currently under way; secondly, to recognise the leadership on this issue by US President Obama; and, thirdly, to call on the New Zealand Government to take an active role on this issue, drawing on our proud nuclear-free stance and supporting the UN’s five-point plan, including preparation for a nuclear weapons convention. Let us scrutinise each of those matters without any euphoria over the global opportunity for nuclear disarmament or New Zealand’s role in it.

The one historic opportunity for nuclear disarmament came and went in 1946, when the US, which was at the time the only country that possessed nuclear weapons, offered the Baruch Plan to place atomic energy under international control. Global strategic relations since that ill-fated attempt have taken the schizoid character of a determination by the five permanent Security Council members to accumulate nuclear weapons in their national arsenals, while preventing other States from doing the same. So we need to distinguish between nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation.

The non-proliferation treaty is an agreement to limit the spread of nuclear weapons to non - nuclear weapon States. It recognises the de facto possession of nuclear weapons by the five permanent members of the Security Council. That possession was justified for 40 years on the grounds of the need for there to be a mutual deterrent during the Cold War. When the Cold War ended, the rationale switched to retaining nuclear weapons as a prudential hedge in an uncertain world, and also as the currency of global power. Today it rests largely on the proclaimed need to deter nuclear terrorism. The strategic policy of NATO speaks, as always before, of the retention of nuclear weapons into the indefinite future at the lowest level necessary to preserve international peace and security—a haughty and patronising attitude, redolent of 19th century alliance diplomacy. The non-proliferation treaty includes, as the quid pro quo for the original agreement, an undertaking by the five permanent members to negotiate nuclear disarmament measures in good faith. The World Court judged back in 1996 that it was a binding obligation not just to negotiate but also to reach agreement on nuclear disarmament. That, of course, has not been done.

The positive rhetoric of the US President is a welcome change from the benighted and wilfully ignorant policy of his predecessor, but Mr Obama does not expect nuclear disarmament to occur in his lifetime. This relieves him of any responsibility to proceed with haste. Reducing the levels by 30 percent, to 1,550 nuclear strategic warheads each, will simply make the rubble bounce fewer times. It does not penetrate the barrier of minimal deterrence, nor will it do so until the legitimacy and effectiveness of global collective security through conventional weaponry is achieved, with nuclear weapons actually being dismantled. It would, in fact, be possible for the two major powers to dismantle their strategic arsenals in roughly the same amount of time that it took them to build them up: about 10 years. India recognised this in its proposals back in the 1980s, with its 20-year programme for a nuclear-free world. Failure by the five permanent members to make progress in this respect prompted India and Pakistan to emulate them. Israel, of course, is offered the special treatment of a duplicitous silence by superpower decree.

We in New Zealand have succumbed to a bout of narcissistic preening over our nuclear-free policy. I was, and remain, a supporter of that policy. I did my PhD on the subject, and I was part of the New Zealand delegation that negotiated the South Pacific zone. But there has always been a distinction between the strict nuclear-free policy that applies here in our national territory and the ambivalent stance that we take at the United Nations regarding a nuclear-free world. To this day, we still vote along political, rather than logical, lines on nuclear disarmament at the United Nations. Only when New Zealand declares its readiness to commence negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention that can be implemented over 20 years can this country stand true to its proclaimed nuclear-free policy. Until then, we remain encapsulated within the NATO reliance on nuclear weapons and remain pliant with our deployment of conventional armed forces overseas. Our SAS and provincial reconstruction team in Afghanistan operate effectively under NATO strategic direction, not that of the United Nations.

Let us wish the non-proliferation treaty conference well, let us wish President Obama well, and let us start to vote consistently for a nuclear-free world at the United Nations and take a leading role in working towards a nuclear weapons convention.

On behalf of the ACT Party, I rise to support this motion. We could hardly do otherwise. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is a bit like mum and apple pie: no one could possibly be against it.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Motherhood and apple pie.

Motherhood—I thank the member. It has been around for many years. Even Phil Twyford, who moved the motion, was unable to tell me exactly since when, but we settled on it being many years prior to the Cold War. Certainly, times change. I recall being at university in the late 1980s, where I joined my fellow students, who were 10 years younger than me, in tittering sneeringly at the idea that “MAD”—mutually assured destruction—was indeed mad. But here we are, 20 years later, and I wonder whether the idea of mutually assured destruction did work, and whether the certainty of mutual annihilation prevented it from happening.

Although times have changed and the Cold War is over, one thing has not changed. I recall that 20 years ago nuclear terrorism had already been identified at that university as a threat for the future. University dons do not always get things right, but they were right about that one. Global thermonuclear war will probably never happen—thank God—but, sadly, nuclear terrorism probably will.

The non-proliferation treaty rationale was to keep the nuclear club no larger than it was when the treaty was first entered into. It failed. Israel, South Africa, North Korea, India, Pakistan, and probably Iran—not Iraq, we now know—got nuclear weapons anyway, so, in that sense, it was a failure. However, no one can disagree, as I said at the beginning, with strengthening the non-proliferation treaty and re-injecting life into it. That can only be a good thing. But, as I have said, times have changed.

The real threat that was predicted in the late 1980s has now come to pass. I may be mistaken, but there was a suggestion that the bomb that was to be let off in New York the other day was a dirty bomb. It was a so-called explosive bomb designed to fling about fissile material, not a nuclear device as such. That is the real threat. Sadly, it does not much matter even if Dr Graham’s fantasy comes true and all of the members and the non-members of the club disarm. There will still be a whole heap of fissile material floating around the world to fall into the hands of radical Islamic terrorists, or of any other terrorists for that matter. That is the real threat, and it does not matter how well the treaty machinery does its job. The real task is to eliminate fissile material from the world, and that will not be easy. It is a major problem.

Notwithstanding that, we should support nuclear disarmament—of course we should. The world can only be a better place without weapons of mass destruction. But we also need to face the fact that we have a major problem with nuclear terrorism that is linked, sadly, to religious radicalism, but not linked solely to it. I believe that the next challenge will not be disarming the superpowers, the members of the club, and the non-members of the club, but it will be accounting for and containing, if not destroying, fissile material that could well destroy us if it falls into the hands of people who are not only unafraid to die but also very keen to die. That is a whole new concern and a great worry, but we are certainly in favour of this motion. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora anō tātau katoa e hoa mā. Rua wiki kua hipa ake i tū au ki roto i te whare o te United Nations i roto i te āhuatanga o te whakahīhī mō te tū o Aotearoa i a ia e kōrero ana mō ngā iwi taketake o te ao. Mēnā ka tū koe ki roto i tērā whare kua mōhio tonu koe, arā noa atu te whānui, te whāroa o ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia e pā ana ki ngā take o te ao. Nō reira, ka mārama tonu i a koe e tū ana ki reira, ē, mō ēnei take pēnei i tēnei nā, he take nui, he take hōhonu e pā ana ki te whānuitanga o te ao. Nō reira, anei te Pāti Māori kua tae mai ki tēnei o ngā kaupapa, e tū whakahīhī nei mō te tū o Aotearoa ki te mau pūmau ki tēnei o ngā kaupapa, arā, kia wātea a Aotearoa ki ēnei momo take kia noho nuclear free tonu a Aotearoa. Me kī, kei te whakaae atu ki te āhuatanga i tēnei wā tonu nei, te wā e kōrerohia ana ngā take nei mō te nuclear disarmament i roto i tērā tiriti e kōrerohia ana ko te non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, i te hui, ki taku mōhio i roto o Amerika i ngā rā tata kua hipa, ā, tae rā nō ki te mutunga o tēnei mārama. Kai te tautoko ake i te āhuatanga o te kōrero a te mema Pāremata a Phil Twyford, nāna tēnei take i kōkiri ki roto i te Whare Pāremata, ka mihi rā ki a ia.

Nō ngā rua, toru wiki pea kua hipa ake, i tautoko ake te tiamana o te Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation i te āhuatanga o te tū o Aotearoa mō tēnei take. Ka mutu, i tautoko ake te ngako o tēnei kaupapa. Lieutenant General Robert Gard mai i Amerika i Washington tonu i a ia e kōrero ana mō te Nuclear Security Summit. Ko tana kōrero he whakanui i a Aotearoa “hei toa” mō ngā take e kōrerohia nei. Ka mutu, mō te toa o Aotearoa ki te whakakore momo pū e kōrerohia ana, ka mutu, ki te whai i ngā tikanga here kia whakakore i ēnei momo pū kino nei, me kī. Ka mutu, me tū whakahīhī a Aotearoa nā runga i te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero o te Rt Hon David Lange, te wā i a ia Pirimia ana, toru tekau tau kua hipa ake. Nāna tēnei take i heri ki mua i te aroaro o te ao i tērā o ngā tau patupatu i Rānana i Ingarangi tonu.

I ngā tau 1980s, ko te Rōpū Reipa i tū tonu ki mua i te aroaro o te ao ki te whakatau, ki te kī atu ki te ao, ehara a Aotearoa i te wāhi tika mō ērā momo waka, kia haramai ki Aotearoa nei me aua momo pū, kua noho wātea tonu a Aotearoa i ērā momo pū. Ka mutu, ko tā Aotearoa he whakakore i tērā momo whāinga hei tiaki i tō tātau ake whenua. He kī atu, waiho ērā take ki wāhi kē, arā, te nuclear armament. No reira, nā runga i tērā whakaaro ake anei tātau e kōrero nei me te noho āhua rangirua tonu tēnei nā runga i te mea, rau tau kua hipa ake ko te Rōpū Reipa i whakahē i ētahi o ngā whakataunga i kōkirihia e te United Nations General Assembly ki te whakanui i te āhuatanga o te nuclear-free world. E toru ngā whakataunga i puta, ā, me pēnei rawa kōrerohia ki roto i te reo Pākehā, tuatahi, the major powers to reduce their nuclear arsenals, tuarua, stated that the use of nuclear weapons would constitute a violation of the charter, tuatoru, perceives nuclear weapons as posing “the most serious threat to the survival of mankind”. Nō reira, anei au e whakaaro ake ana, he aha te take e pēnei ana te āhuatanga o te Rōpū Reipa, e kōkiri nei i tēnei take engari nō ngā toru tau kua hipa, i whakahē nei i ngā whakataunga.

Hoi anō, he kōrero hītori tērā, he kōrero nō ngā tau kua hipa. Engari tōna mutunga mai, i tautoko a Aotearoa i te taha o ngā whenua o NATO, i te taha o Ahitereiria, he mema katoa i raro i te korowai o te global nuclear alliance o te Hononga o Amerika. Nō reira, anei tātau i tēnei pō e kōrero ana i te take nei me te whakaaro ake tērā pea, kua huri te Kāwangatanga hou nei ki te āta titiro ki ngā take kua kōkirihia kētia e ētahi, ka mutu, ka āta titiro ki te painga mō Aotearoa. Nō reira, kai te tino whakaae atu, ka mihi rā ki te tangata nei ki a Matua Twyford me tana whakahou anō rā i tōna ake rōpū mō ngā take kua kōrerohia, ka mutu, te tūmanako ia ka tū anō a Aotearoa “hei toa” mō tēnei take te nuclear disarmament.

Kei te tautoko te Pāti Māori i te whakataunga o te Tumuaki o te Kotahitanga o ngā Whenua o te Ao, a Ban Ki-moon, i a ia e kōkiri ana i tēnei take mō te United Nations Security Council summit mō ēnei take, kei te āhua ohorere tonu mō te nui o te pūtea ka whakapauhia i runga i ēnei momo pū. E ai ki ngā kōrero, hipa noa atu i te $1 trillion, kāore au i mōhio te ingoa Māori mō te “trillion”, engari, tērā kōrero tērā; trillion tāra e whakapauhia e Amerika ki runga i ēnei momo pū. He mea nui tērā, he aha te hē o te whakapau ki runga i te hunga pōhara. Ā, hoi anō kai te tautoko te Pāti Māori i te āhuatanga o Aotearoa, kia tau te rongomau, te rangimārie ki runga i te ao. Nō reira, me whai i tērā kia kore whakapau moni ki te hoko pū, ka mutu, ka tautoko ake i te tū o ngā five-point plan i kōkirihia e Ban Ki-moon, hei whakatau i ēnei momo take i te ao. Nā runga i tērā whakaaro, ka mihi ki te mema, ki te Whare tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us all, fellow colleagues, once again. It has been 2 weeks since I stood proudly in the United Nations building as the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Dr Pita Sharples, addressed the indigenous peoples of the world on New Zealand’s position. It is not until one stands in that building and experiences it for oneself that one realises just how broad and far-reaching statements impact on the world at large. So the Māori Party members come to this issue among the ones before us, proud of our stance to ensure that the Nuclear Free Policy remains in New Zealand. We agree to the circumstance at this moment right now; and during the discussions on issues relating to nuclear disarmament at the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons conference, to my knowledge America was involved in days just past, and right up to the end of this month. I support Phil Twyford, who proposed and brought this matter before the House, and acknowledge him.

In the past 2 or 3 weeks, the chair of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation reinforced our unique standing on this issue, supporting the nub of this policy. Lieutenant General Robert Gard, from Washington, in talking about the Nuclear Security Summit, said that New Zealand has been a “champion” in pressing nuclear weapons States to meet their obligations and disarm. Further to that, New Zealand can be proud of the stand taken some 30 years ago under the leadership of the late Rt Hon David Lange as Prime Minister, when he took this issue before the world in one of the debates in London in the very heart of England.

During the 1980s Labour stood up in the world by banning nuclear ships and declaring New Zealand nuclear-free. At the same time, New Zealand rejected the possibility of nuclear deterrence as part of a national security strategy, and stated quite firmly that nuclear armament should be taken to somewhere else. In that context, I am somewhat perplexed, because just 2 years ago Labour opposed some resolutions that the United Nations General Assembly put forward to promote a nuclear-free world. Three resolutions were as follows, and I will put them in English. The first one called for the major powers to reduce their nuclear arsenals; the second one stated that the use of nuclear weapons would constitute a violation of the charter; and the third perceived nuclear weapons as posing “the most serious threat to the survival of mankind”. So here I am wondering why Labour members should be putting this matter forward, when just 3 years ago they opposed the resolutions.

But never mind, that was just a historical account of the past. At the end of it all, New Zealand, with NATO countries and Australia, voted in favour of being members of the United States global nuclear alliance. So here we are tonight, talking about this matter, and confident at the same time that the new Government is prepared to review decisions and act in the best interests of New Zealand. We totally agree with that, and recognise Mr Twyford’s efforts in turning his party’s viewpoint round in respect of the issues that were discussed. The real hope is that New Zealand will once again be seen as a champion of nuclear disarmament.

The Māori Party supports the call from the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that set the context for the United Nations Security Council summit on these issues. But we are still amazed at the size of the funding spent on nuclear weapons. According to estimated costs, it far exceeds $1 trillion. I do not know what the Māori word for trillion is, but that is another issue; more than $1.3 trillion is being spent by the United States on nuclear arms. That is staggering. What is wrong with spending that amount on the poor? Nevertheless, the Māori Party supports peacekeeping functions in the world, and advocates that money should not be spent on arms. In addition, we support the five-point plan put forward by Ban Ki-moon to address this kind of global issue. On that thought, I acknowledge the member and the House by extending greetings to you and to us.]

I rise on behalf of United Future to support the resolution moved by Mr Twyford. I acknowledge his role in bringing this resolution before the House. I generally concur with the remarks made by the other speakers in this debate. I cut my political teeth on the campaign in 1971-72 to oppose French nuclear testing at Mururoa atoll. I vividly recall the image of Norman Kirk standing on the dock in Devonport in 1973 as HMNZS Otago, as it was at that stage, was farewelled to be the beacon of hope for New Zealand in the Mururoa test zone. I recall Norman Kirk saying we may only be a small country, but we could send a signal to the rest of the world. The fact that New Zealand and Australia combined shortly thereafter to take a case to the International Court of Justice, called the World Court in those days, and won that case regarding the illegality of the French efforts, gave some substance to what was a mounting campaign in this country at that time against the use of nuclear energy and on antinuclear issues not only in this country but on an international scale, as well.

In that same vein, I say one of the proudest moments, if not the proudest moment, that I have had as a member of Parliament was being in Los Angeles in 1985, when David Lange passed through on his way north to the Oxford Union debate. I was heading back to New Zealand as a young MP at that stage. I went to a dinner that was hosted on his behalf at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, in the very hotel—in the very room— that Robert Kennedy had been in shortly before his assassination a few years earlier. During the course of a very hostile dinner, which was attended by a largely American audience that was sceptical about the New Zealand Prime Minister and this country’s attitudes, Lange was getting a fairly rough time. At the end of the dinner—members have to imagine the back wall of the dining room was lined with television cameras—a rather large drooping-moustached, cigar-chomping, American reporter got up and said: “Prime Minister, you are on your way to Oxford to debate the morality of nuclear weapons with Jerry Falwell. He will have the Bible in one hand and a cross in the other, and be arguing in favour of nuclear weapons. What can you possibly say in response to him?”. Prime Minister Lange leapt to his feet and said: “I will tell him that to err is human, but that I am prepared to forgive him.” At that point, the approximately 400 people in the room leapt to their feet in a spontaneous standing ovation—including a group of senators that I had been at the same table with, who had spent the entire previous 2 hours deriding everything that Lange stood for and had said.

As a Kiwi, it was a moment of extraordinary pride to see our Prime Minister—let us forget party allegiances at that point—getting up there and essentially winning over an international audience. So it was to be in the Oxford Union debate held a little later—which to this day I have never actually seen, because I was in the air at the time. What those two events did for me, and I think for the country as a whole, was to give us some credibility in terms of nuclear non-proliferation issues. We were never going to be a nuclear power; that was never an issue as far as New Zealand was concerned. But I come back to what I think we can be, and what this resolution is all about: that moral beacon that Norman Kirk spoke of way back in 1973.

The challenge that now arises—and I pick up Dr Kennedy Graham’s point—is how we should give effect to what is a domestic sense of commitment, in an international environment. This resolution and the actions that would flow from it, if it is adopted, give some substance to the antinuclear cause, so I think that supporting the resolution is the appropriate thing to do. I think, also, that credit must be given to the New Zealand position as reflected by the Prime Minister in Washington just recently. This has been the result of an accumulation of effort over the years. It is important that we take advantage of the opportunities that are provided to us in the international forum and of the standing that we do have, and have acquired, to continue to push those issues, which have been very important to many New Zealanders over a long period of time.

I congratulate the mover of this motion. I am delighted to think it will pass with unanimous endorsement in this House, but I come back to Dr Graham’s point. These resolutions are all very well, but there is a wonderful quote from Bismarck that is appropriate in these circumstances. It is to the effect that the actions that flow from this resolution will be what is important, not the mere passage of the resolution itself.

Motion agreed to.