Motions — Nuclear-free Legislation—30th Anniversary

I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to recognise the 30th anniversary of New Zealand’s nuclear-free legislation.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

I move, That this House marks the thirtieth anniversary of our nuclear-free legislation—the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act, which entered into force on 8 June 1987. The opposition to nuclear weapons symbolised by this legislation has become a defining aspect of this country’s international reputation and New Zealand continues to work for a nuclear weapon - free world. Whilst recognising the efforts of some countries to reduce their arsenals of nuclear weapons, this House also recognises the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and calls upon all States yet to join the Treaty to do so. The concerns that New Zealand and many other countries have recently expressed over North Korea’s nuclear programme highlight the importance of working to achieve the goal of a world without nuclear weapons.

I move, That all the words after “Treaty to do so” be deleted and replaced with: “and also calls upon all States to support the ongoing negotiations for a Convention of the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in which New Zealand is actively engaged.”

The question is that the amendment in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Noes have it? A party vote has been called for.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The statement came as a bit of a surprise, to me at least. Sorry, can I just seek clarification of the wording that the member raised for us at this point in time? I did not quite hear it.

I will allow the member on this occasion—I know we are halfway through a vote, but for the benefit of the Māori Party—just to repeat the replacement words.

Essentially, that the last sentence of the Government’s proposed motion be deleted, referring to North Korea, and there be a new sentence, which says the following: “and also calls upon all States to support the ongoing negotiations for a Convention of the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in which New Zealand is actively engaged.”

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to place on the record some concern about the way in which motions such as this are both worded and circulated. This is a very special day for a lot of New Zealanders to celebrate the passing of an iconic piece of legislation, but the way in which the motion was put together and the way that the process was gone through for that has led to the situation we have had now. I think that is incredibly unfortunate.

The Labour Party supported the Green Party’s amendment, but we do not feel we can oppose a motion supporting such an iconic and important piece of legislation. Perhaps the Business Committee can address the way we do these motions in the future.

Given that the member has raised a number of factual assertions, I just want to reject those and make quite clear that the entirely appropriate process was followed by the Government on this motion.

We have some sympathy with the point made by our colleague Grant Robertson. I point out, for the information of the House, the fact that the original motion on this subject was circulated, as I understand it, to all parties by the Green Party 5 working days ago—I think, last Thursday. I think all parties had it on notice—our motion, 5 days ago. It was only this morning, in response to the Government’s motion, that we had to think of an amendment and have negotiations.

I appreciate the point that the three members have raised. But I think the point Grant Robertson made in his contribution—this is actually a matter that does not need to be debated on the floor of the House. It is certainly a matter that I think the Business Committee needs to give further thought to.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the Business Committee considers it, will the Business Committee also consider the Standing Orders around whether it is possible to move an amendment to a non-debatable motion. I would have thought that if one cannot take the call, it is very hard to move the amendment.

That is something we can also discuss in the Business Committee.

Iran—Terrorist Attack on Parliament