Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12968] 
6.  
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What reports if any has he received on changes to New Zealand’s nuclear-free legislation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I have seen a number of reports. One was from the  
Holmes 
 programme on Friday night when Dr Brash acknowledged that he probably did make the comment to US senators that the nuclear propulsion ban would be “gone by lunchtime” and admitted that to have made that comment while telling the New Zealand public something different would have been unwise. I have also seen a number of reported comments from a former senior diplomat Terence O’Brien dismissing the National Party’s so-called “Danish solution” as a red herring and saying that it is irrelevant to New Zealand and provides no solution to the difference of opinion between New Zealand and the United States. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not know whether you heard it but I do not think it is appropriate to accuse the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of lying which is what I have just heard from my right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Did any member make that comment? If so he or she will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I made the comment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows what to do: withdraw and apologise. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I cannot. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has one— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member must never say that sort of thing again. He knows that is out of order. He is a very responsible and senior member of this House and he should know better than that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What responsibility does the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade—and you as the Speaker with responsibility for enforcing the Standing Orders—have for giving a long speech about National Party policy; surely he has no responsibility for that at all? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was because he was asked what reports he had received and that was one of the reports he had received. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I notice that you take a wider and wider interpretation of that to the point that Ministers are now very well trained to be able to give a long diatribe about a report and then tag on to the end of it that it was a statement by a National Party spokesperson or by its leader. If you were to look at the  
Hansard 
 of that Minister’s answer you would see it did not refer to any reports. It was simply a statement by the Minister solely in a political capacity. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I heard the member say that he had received two reports: one I think of the Leader of the Opposition’s comment and the other from Mr Terence O’Brien. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: In the report on Terence O’Brien’s comments why did O’Brien argue that the Danish approach could never be a solution for New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Terence O’Brien made a number of points. First he said that the Danish solution offers no parallel to New Zealand because as a member of NATO Denmark is a member of a nuclear-based military alliance so “nuclear-free” has never really been an accurate description of Denmark. Secondly he said that under existing legislation most US surface ships which are not nuclear-powered can visit New Zealand right now. He said that it is in fact our policy of banning nuclear weapons that prevents US ship visits because of the US “neither confirm nor deny” policy. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Has the Minister seen the report on comments made by the Hon Jim Sutton in May 2003 that a rethink of our nuclear-free status would be done “in the fullness of time”; if so does the Government agree with Mr Sutton’s comment? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have seen the report that purports to quote Jim Sutton in that way. Let me say that there is nobody in this House who has any doubt about where this Government stands on this issue. Nobody however knows where the National Party stands on the issue because it tells a different story to a delegation in private than it is prepared to admit to in public—and that applies to Dr Smith’s own comments at that meeting. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister went on for far too long there. 
Keith Locke 
: Has the Minister received any reports that by banning nuclear weapons across our land and all our harbours our antinuclear legislation is an international model for non-proliferation; and will the Minister be advising US officials that rather than attacking our legislation they should be promoting such legislation for countries like North Korea Iran India Pakistan and Israel? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have seen a report along the lines that the member suggests. Again it is from Terence O’Brien. He makes the comment that the world is consumed with the problem of non-proliferation and that that makes it absurd in logic to start dismantling pieces of non-proliferation law that do exist like New Zealand law at the present time. I agree 100 percent with Terence O’Brien’s observations on that. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Does the Minister share the views of his Australian counterpart Alexander Downer who observed that there have been scores of nuclear-propelled ship visits to dozens of countries over several decades and not one adverse nuclear incident; and if he does accept that observation that there is no justification on the basis of environmental risk or public safety what is his Government’s justification for the retention of the ban on nuclear-propelled ships? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I do not agree with that specific comment from Alexander Downer because I know of four or five different examples where the seabed is littered with nuclear-propelled submarines that have never resurfaced. Where I do agree with what Alexander Downer said is that it is very frustrating when the National Party says one thing in private to him and acts in the opposite way publicly. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister did not answer my question. He mentioned submarines lying on the seafloor whether it was the  
Kursk 
 or whatever it was but not one of them has resulted from a nuclear propulsion incident. Could the Minister please answer the question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister has. He said that he does not agree with Mr Downer and then gave an example. He was asked whether he agreed with Mr Downer. I heard the question being specifically addressed. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What would be the effect of the repeal of section 11 of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control Act? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The only effect of the repeal of that section would be to allow nuclear-powered ships into New Zealand ports. There is no reason to repeal that section unless we want to allow such visits. That objective would of course be consistent with the desire to abrogate New Zealand’s foreign policy to overseas powers on issues such as troop deployment and climate change as expressed recently by Simon Power and Nick Smith. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is the Minister aware of any political party in this House that favours scrapping the ban on nuclear weapons in New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I of course cannot talk for any other party in this House. But I can tell Dr Brash one thing: I along with the New Zealand public would not trust that member’s party for one moment on either issue. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The difficulty we got into was that I probably allowed the original question. The Minister is not responsible for any other party’s policy. However I allowed the question because I wanted to let the flow go on. The Minister responded and there was an enormous amount of noise. In actual fact the question was not really in order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During one of those answers the Minister clearly referred to a transcript of the notes of a Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade official when it came to the contribution made by one Lockwood Smith. He clearly referred to it. I am asking now with Dr Smith’s waiver that the Minister table the part of the transcript that relates to what Lockwood Smith said which would seem to be at variance with what he is saying publicly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I know that the Minister wants to table something because I stopped him from doing so earlier. Perhaps he would like to take that point of order now if he wants to table something. I will take that point of order now. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The document I wish to table is a transcript of Dr Brash’s comments which backs up entirely what I said in my principal answer. However if Dr Lockwood Smith wished his comments at the meeting to be tabled with his permission I would be happy to find those comments and table them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is entirely within Dr Smith’s prerogative and no one else’s. Leave was sought to table a document that had nothing to do with that. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What’s the transcript of? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Dr Brash’s comments. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The document I wish to table is a transcript of the  
Holmes 
 programme on Friday night where Dr Brash admitted that he— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A very important issue has arisen as a result of my request for the tabling of a document by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. If he has referred to an official document I can require him to table it. The principle I want you to clarify—not now but to think about it—is whether that principle is upset purely because the document may contain information from another member of the House that that member deems or thinks was given in secrecy. That may be a fact but the reality is that the principle of disclosure because of the reference by the Minister to the document would nevertheless surely stand. I want a ruling on that. It may not be apposite now but it will be at some time in the future. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is very easy to give a ruling on that. Was the Minister quoting from an official document? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No I was not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is all I wanted to hear. No there is no requirement to table it.