Locke Keith: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Locke Keith: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9373] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise to support the schedules. There are two schedules here. One relates to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material which is a UN convention and the other relates to the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection. As has been said before in speeches I have made in the first and second readings and in the Committee stage the Green Party strongly supports New Zealand adhering to these two important conventions. It is important in relation to nuclear materials not only as part of the damage to the nuclear environment but also to the peace and welfare of the world that we do not allow the circulation of nuclear materials as prohibited by these conventions and this is quite relevant to some of the political events of today. 
I was reading in the news media—just last week I think—about Israel’s development of nuclear materials in the form of nuclear bombs. Of course these conventions go more to the raw nuclear materials. But the nuclear materials being used by Israel to make bombs are now being put on submarines so Israel now has nuclear weapons on submarines. Israel has been assisted by the United States according to the informed sources that various newspapers in New Zealand and around the world quoted. The United States Government was complicit in getting those nuclear bombs on Israeli submarines in contradiction of its declared opposition to some other countries having nuclear materials and being able to develop them into nuclear weapons. 
There was a lot of attention paid to Iraq. The United States claimed that Iraq was building a nuclear capacity. The inspectors had told the people well before they went there that there was not a nuclear weapons programme under way in Iraq. It had been finished in the early 1990s through the efforts of the UN inspectors there. 
Other attention is being paid to Iran and North Korea and I think rightly so. We do not want nuclear proliferation and we do not particularly want the presence of nuclear weapons in the Indian subcontinent. That is very dangerous in terms of what might happen in a war between India and Pakistan or in a major military conflict if one side or another resorts to nuclear weapons. It made me very worried when the President of Pakistan said about a year ago when it had a military standoff that the only reason India did not invade in a conventional sense was that Pakistan had nuclear weapons. 
We have a really serious problem here. Anything we can do in terms of reducing the existence of these sorts of nuclear materials and their circulation and their possible development into nuclear bombs the better. The same applies to plastic explosives. New Zealand is playing a lead role in the area of nuclear disarmament. We should look at it as both a problem with nuclear weapons and a health problem in relation to nuclear materials themselves. It has come out over the last day. The Hon Bill English made a statement that everyone read as the National Party moderating its nuclear policy or trying to undermine New Zealand’s policy of stopping the visit of nuclear-powered warships to this country—that he was not recognising that there is a danger in nuclear materials in the form of nuclear propulsion. 
While there are a lot of safety procedures in many of these nuclear power plants and with nuclear generators on warships the fact is that there still is a risk if something happens. A British warship has gone aground in the Tasman Sea recently. Ships can have accidents and if those accidents involve nuclear materials on nuclear waste ships or nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed warships it can be very damaging to the environment. We should definitely avoid that sort of thing. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call on the schedules but I will do two things. First I will compliment Mr Locke because Mr Locke brings to this Chamber the alternative view that people fought and died to allow to exist. I will compliment Mr Locke because he is absolutely consistent. It does not matter what bill comes before the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee if it is a bill that in any way impacts on human rights or civil liberties Mr Locke is true to form and regardless of what sort of derision might be heaped upon him and his political party he will fight for those things he truly believes in. I give him full credit for that. 
However I am confused when the Green Party votes against Part 2 and then says it supports the schedules. The fact is that the schedules are meaningless without Part 2. Once again we have one of those situations where members of the Green Party stand up and say that they oppose the lifting of the moratorium on genetic engineering yet when presented with a golden opportunity to force the Government’s hand and stop it allowing the moratorium to be lifted they fade into the distance. They give up their vote for the abolition of the right to appeal to the Privy Council and roll over and play dead. 
Here again they had the opportunity to enshrine their beliefs within this legislation to endorse the nuclear material and plastic explosives conventions and what did they do? They voted against Part 2. To now stand up and say that they agree with the schedules and endorse everything they stand for—waxing lyrical about the evils of nuclear-power plants and nuclear-powered vessels and how supportive they are of New Zealand’s nuclear-free policy—means absolutely nothing. Is it any wonder that discerning New Zealanders are thoroughly confused by the positions Green members take? I would have fully understood had they opposed Part 1 and voted for Part 2 or said that they were opposed to the overall thrust of this legislation and voted against the entire bill. But to vote against Part 1 and Part 2—which enshrines the schedules—then say that they support the schedules does not make one ounce of sense. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: How does one implement schedules? 
RON MARK 
: Precisely! How does the Government implement the schedules and give effect to those two conventions if it does not have Part 2? I ask Mr Locke to take another call to clarify that for the record because when we get on the hustings and talk about nuclear policy nuclear-free New Zealand and the evils of nuclear-power plants in Australia Britain or wherever Mr Locke’s comments here will be raised to the fore and held against him. I do not think that is fair. He is clearly a very misunderstood person but the explanations he has given tend to lead us to that conclusion. 
New Zealand First will be consistent. We will vote for the schedules and for the entire bill. We acknowledge and respect Mr Locke’s commitment to civil liberties and the issues he has raised but this latest speech of his has certainly raised a great deal of confusion.