Motions — Nuclear Disarmament—Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Review Conference 
Motions — Nuclear Disarmament—Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Review Conference 
[Volume:662;Page:10806] 
Motions 
Nuclear Disarmament—Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Review Conference 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 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.” 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 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. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 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 1550 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. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 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. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: 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. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora ano tatau katoa e hoa ma. Rua wiki kua hipa ake i tu au ki roto i te whare o te United Nations i roto i te ahuatanga o te whakahihi mo te tu o Aotearoa i a ia e korero ana mo nga iwi taketake o te ao. Mena ka tu koe ki roto i tera whare kua mohio tonu koe ara noa atu te whanui te wharoa o nga korero kua korerohia e pa ana ki nga take o te ao. No reira ka marama tonu i a koe e tu ana ki reira e mo enei take penei i tenei na he take nui he take hohonu e pa ana ki te whanuitanga o te ao. No reira anei te Pati Maori kua tae mai ki tenei o nga kaupapa e tu whakahihi nei mo te tu o Aotearoa ki te mau pumau ki tenei o nga kaupapa ara kia watea a Aotearoa ki enei momo take kia noho nuclear free 
tonu a Aotearoa. Me ki kei te whakaae atu ki te ahuatanga i tenei wa tonu nei te wa e korerohia ana nga take nei mo te nuclear disarmament i roto i tera tiriti e korerohia ana ko te 
non-proliferation of nuclear weapons 
 
 i te hui ki taku mohio i roto o Amerika i nga ra tata kua hipa a tae ra no ki te mutunga o tenei marama. Kai te tautoko ake i te ahuatanga o te korero a te mema Paremata a Phil Twyford nana tenei take i kokiri ki roto i te Whare Paremata ka mihi ra ki a ia. 
No nga rua toru wiki pea kua hipa ake i tautoko ake te tiamana o te Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation i 
te ahuatanga o te tu o Aotearoa mo tenei take. Ka mutu i tautoko ake te ngako o tenei kaupapa. Lieutenant General Robert Gard mai i Amerika i Washington tonu i a ia e korero ana mo te Nuclear Security Summit 
.  
Ko tana korero he whakanui i a Aotearoa “hei toa” mo nga take e korerohia nei. Ka mutu mo te toa o Aotearoa ki te whakakore momo pu e korerohia ana ka mutu ki te whai i nga tikanga here kia whakakore i enei momo pu kino nei me ki. Ka mutu me tu whakahihi a Aotearoa na runga i te ahuatanga o nga korero o te Rt Hon David Lange te wa i a ia Pirimia ana toru tekau tau kua hipa ake. Nana tenei take i heri ki mua i te aroaro o te ao i tera o nga tau patupatu i Ranana i Ingarangi tonu. 
I nga tau 1980s ko te Ropu Reipa i tu tonu ki mua i te aroaro o te ao ki te whakatau ki te ki atu ki te ao ehara a Aotearoa i te wahi tika mo era momo waka kia haramai ki Aotearoa nei me aua momo pu kua noho watea tonu a Aotearoa i era momo pu. Ka mutu ko ta Aotearoa he whakakore i tera momo whainga hei tiaki i to tatau ake whenua. He ki atu waiho era take ki wahi ke ara te nuclear armament 
. 
 No reira na runga i tera whakaaro ake anei tatau e korero nei me te noho ahua rangirua tonu tenei na runga i te mea rau tau kua hipa ake ko te Ropu Reipa i whakahe i etahi o nga whakataunga i kokirihia e te United Nations General Assembly 
ki te whakanui i te ahuatanga o te nuclear-free world 
. 
 E toru nga whakataunga i puta a me penei rawa korerohia ki roto i te reo Pakeha 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”. 
No reira anei au e whakaaro ake ana he aha te take e penei ana te ahuatanga o te Ropu Reipa e kokiri nei i tenei take engari no nga toru tau kua hipa i whakahe nei i nga whakataunga. 
Hoi ano he korero hitori tera he korero no nga tau kua hipa. Engari tona mutunga mai i tautoko a Aotearoa i te taha o nga 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. No reira anei tatau i tenei po e korero ana i te take nei me te whakaaro ake tera pea kua huri te Kawangatanga hou nei ki te ata titiro ki nga take kua kokirihia ketia e etahi ka mutu ka ata titiro ki te painga mo Aotearoa. No reira kai te tino whakaae atu ka mihi ra ki te tangata nei ki a Matua Twyford me tana whakahou ano ra i tona ake ropu mo nga take kua korerohia ka mutu te tumanako ia ka tu ano a Aotearoa “hei toa” mo tenei take te nuclear disarmament 
. 
Kei te 
tautoko te Pati Maori i te whakataunga o te Tumuaki o te Kotahitanga o nga Whenua o te Ao a Ban Ki-moon i a ia e kokiri ana i tenei take mo te United Nations Security Council summit mo enei take kei te ahua ohorere tonu mo te nui o te putea ka whakapauhia i runga i enei momo pu. E ai ki nga korero hipa noa atu i te $1 trillion 
kaore au i mohio te ingoa Maori mo te “trillion” 
engari tera korero tera; trillion tara e whakapauhia e Amerika ki runga i enei momo pu. He mea nui tera he aha te he o te whakapau ki runga i te hunga pohara. A hoi ano kai te tautoko te Pati Maori i te ahuatanga o Aotearoa kia tau te rongomau te rangimarie ki runga i te ao. No reira me whai i tera kia kore whakapau moni ki te hoko pu ka mutu ka tautoko ake i te tu o nga five-point plan 
i kokirihia e Ban Ki-moon hei whakatau i enei momo take i te ao. Na runga i tera whakaaro ka mihi ki te mema ki te Whare tena koutou kia ora tatau. 
[ 
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 Maori 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 Maori 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 Maori 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 Maori 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 Maori 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 
.] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 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.