Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:21752] 
10.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: Does he accept the findings of the special committee on nuclear propulsion which found that: “The likelihood of damaging emission or discharge of radioactive material from nuclear powered vessels if in New Zealand ports is so remote that it cannot give rise to any rational apprehension.” and that nuclear-powered vessels would “occasion no significant threat to the environment.”; if not what rational justification is there for continuing the ban? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 The likelihood of a nuclear emission or discharge from a nuclear-powered vessel is small but accidents or acts of terrorism mean that the possibility cannot be ruled out. That is why so many ports including those of London Sydney New York and Boston to name just a few do not allow visits by nuclear ships. Although it is unlikely if such an accident or attack occurred the consequences of course could be potentially disastrous. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In view of the fact that the Somers report concluded that there is no environmental risk or public safety reason for justifying the ban and given that the DigiPoll of 750 New Zealanders released over the weekend showed that 62 percent of New Zealanders favour the removal of the ban what is the possible reason for the Government’s continuation of the ban? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are two points. Firstly the Somers report was done by a group of people handpicked by the National Government in 1992 to get a particular result and—surprise surprise—they got the result. Having got the result as the member himself pointed out they did not have the guts to carry it into effect. They do not have the courage of their convictions and they recognise that New Zealanders do not want a change to our nuclear-free status— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My understanding— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes that comment was inappropriate. Would the Minister please withdraw it. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I withdraw it. Given the fact that the National Government having received the Somers report did not have the gumption to act on its convictions it never carried through those recommendations. With regard to the DigiPoll the question was actually so heavily loaded—by a group of people who had commissioned it but who did not have the guts to say who they were—that it asked: “If there were no safety problem at all would you be in favour?” then 62 percent or something said: “Well we should perhaps give some consideration to it.” But if the member looked at other polls including the polls done for the  
National Business Review 
 and Phillips Fox he would be shown that a consistent group of New Zealanders—80 percent—are against nuclear arms and two-thirds are against nuclear-propelled ships. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House the purpose of the special committee on nuclear propulsion? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Somers committee on nuclear propulsion was set up by the National Government in 1992. It wanted to change New Zealand’s nuclear policy as National members still do now. The National Government commissioned the report got the reply but for 8 years did nothing about it because National knows that New Zealanders are fundamentally not in favour of having nuclear-propelled or nuclear-armed ships in New Zealand when there is no need to have either. 
Heather Roy 
: Why does the Minister and the Labour Government perpetuate the nuclear-free New Zealand myth when Auckland City Hospital alone releases twice as much radiation into the environment every day than the entire United States naval fleet releases in 1 year? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Because that is not the issue. The issue is the risk of accident and the risk of attack. The USS  
Cole 
 in Yemen in an area that was dangerous but where the ship was properly guarded was nevertheless able to be breached substantially by an attack on it by a group of terrorists. With regard to accidents I have a list of no less than 34 major accidents that have taken place involving nuclear-propelled ships the latest of which was an American nuclear submarine just last year. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Is the Minister aware that the United States Government formerly had a ship-type nuclear reactor installed and operating at McMurdo Base and if there is no environmental risk from ship-type nuclear reactors why was that reactor and hundreds if not thousands of tonnes of contaminated material removed to the US for decontamination leaving McMurdo once again reliant on diesel for electricity generation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The United States made the deliberate and welcome decision to remove the nuclear reactor because of the difficulties with the use of nuclear power particularly in a fragile environment and because of the questions of waste. I say too that the Somers report in terms of nuclear-propelled ships and accidents makes this very curious comment. It noted that Sydney should not have the ships but said that it could have been OK for Auckland and Wellington because there was less distance to the open sea and less population density in Auckland and Wellington. If we can take that comment directly from the Somers report on page 171 as a measure of the reliability of the judgment of that commission then we might as Ken Shirley has do a total flip-flop on his previous stance and accept it as gospel. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In view of the clear findings and recommendations of the experts on the Somers report who included a chair who was a retired High Court judge a professor of physics a professor of medicine and a professor of engineering would the Minister be prepared to let the people of New Zealand express their view by way of a public referendum on this issue—yes or no; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Because unlike the ACT party this party has the courage of its convictions and makes its decisions on principle taking note of the fact that for 20 years the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders have shown their endorsement of a nuclear-free New Zealand which is why although Don Brash wants the nukes here by lunchtime that will not happen because he knows that public opinion is against him. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that the Government is under some pressure but that does not excuse its members from following the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. I particularly want to refer you to Speaker’s ruling 145/5: “The Minister in answering about the report cannot be hypothetical about what may or may not be the effects of another political party’s policy.” and furthermore to Standing Orders 370(2)(c) and (3) which have been repeatedly breached time after time by Ministers in question time today. I ask you to reflect on whether you intend to enforce Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders when the Government is obviously feeling the pressure a bit. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Far from being hypothetical I quoted from the Somers report and I quoted things that are factually on the record with one exception—that while in the records of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Dr Brash said that the policy would be gone by lunchtime he said he cannot remember saying it so I guess we do not have that admission in the House to rely on. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have listened carefully because I know we are— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is this addressing the same point of order? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No Madam Speaker. You have tossed out the Prime Minister for interjecting on a point of order; Don Brash interjected on that point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I want to rule on the first point of order and yes I did hear the interjection and it was inappropriate. Would members please settle! In ruling on the point of order I say that I have listened carefully today to make sure that references to each other’s policies are established with some report or some evidence and are not hypothetical. The Minister I think gave a response to the point of order that was raised in that he was referring to what was on the record. Now whether the record is correct is not a question for the Standing Orders; it is not hypothetical in that sense. I want no contesting of that ruling unless there is a new point of order and it had better be a new point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is the point of order I referred to during your ruling on the previous point of order. During Phil Goff’s contribution to the point of order Don Brash interjected across the floor and was heard by all members I think on this side. I ask for you to rule in the same way as you did earlier in the day on people who breach the Standing Orders in that way. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am afraid the Standing Orders do have to be applied equally so I guess they will be applied equally. I ask the member to please withdraw. 
Dr Don Brash withdrew from the Chamber. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek leave of the House to table page 69 from the Somers report to the Prime Minister and Cabinet dated December 1992 outlining that Auckland Hospital emits twice as much radiation in 1 day as the entire US naval fleet does in 1 year. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In respect of that which can be commented on and the point of order I raised in respect of Standing Order 370 the intimation you made was that whether it is Government policy or another political party’s policy the type of questions should be the same. That is not what the Standing Orders say at all. This Parliament is about holding the Government to account and there is not the capacity for Ministers to comment on other political parties’ policies at all. That is not in the Standing Orders because they have no responsibility in that regard. That is the Standing Order that you have not applied today and that has long been the established principle of the House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: If we were to take that as the interpretation of the Speaker’s ruling it would lead us into a logical absurdity. Let us suppose that it were the policy of a party that we should have the vote at age 18—which happens to be the law. If we were to take Dr Smith’s point literally no Minister could comment upon a policy of having the vote at age 18 because it was another party’s policy. There is in fact a dividing line here between what is allowable and what is not. Secondly I think Madam Speaker you would tend to agree that overly rigorous interpretation of some of these rulings of course would then have to be applied equally. I would be on my feet almost continuously challenging at least half the supplementary questions that are asked in the House by members opposite because they breach any number of the Standing Orders—usually those around imputation epithets and various other things. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I need no more assistance because this is in effect speaking to the ruling I have made. I thank members for their contribution. I ask the Hon Ken Shirley to raise his point of order. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the DigiPoll conducted in the last week of May and released last weekend which shows that 62 percent of New Zealanders supported the removal of the ban on nuclear-propelled ships visiting our territorial waters and ports 33 percent opposed it and 4.3 percent did not know. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the  
National Business Review -  
Phillips Fox poll which shows that 62 percent of people are against nuclear-powered ships being allowed into New Zealand waters and only 32 percent support it. That is two to one against. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. During the course of the answers the honourable Minister made reference to a list he has of 34 mishaps I think involving nuclear-powered ships. I am not sure whether he has an obligation to table it but if there is an obligation I seek leave for the Minister to seek leave to table the document. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There is no obligation to table it and we cannot ask for that. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am happy to read it out Madam Speaker if I could take the time of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I would prefer you did not. Perhaps the members would like to discuss this outside the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to consider where a point of order is in fact not a point of order and whether your decision to be firm with the House and I am not disputing that decision over interjections—on questions in the first place but particularly on points of order—can in all cases be fair particularly where someone is using the point of order process to make a political point that does not meet the standards of a point of order. This of course happens quite frequently. In the incident that has seen you exercise your prerogative to ask Dr Brash to leave the House Mr Goff in speaking to a point of order referred to a meeting that he was not present at—a meeting where certain allegations have been made repeatedly by the Government but where the Government has refused at all points to release any sort of corroborated transcript for their position. What we know is that there were senior US senators present at that meeting who do not back the Government’s position with regard to what was and what was not said. I think you can see that when a person is effectively accused of mistruth in the House it causes a certain emotional response and that is usually quite immediate. In this case I think given that it was not a point of order—or even part of a point of order—that Mr Goff was speaking to it seems rather unfair that the normal procedure for interrupting a point of order was applied. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that we need to correct what the honourable member has just said. Far from not being prepared to provide evidence I tabled in this House the written comments of the neutral public servant which recorded word for word what Don Brash said in that meeting. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think that part of the point of order was really a debating point. On points of order and interjections I am aware that there is some provocation at times but I have also been asked to ensure that questions and points of order are heard in silence which is what I am endeavouring to do. While at times I understand that people are provoked if we start having exceptions then when will it stop? I have asked other members to leave the Chamber who have interjected on points of order. That is why I was consistent with that ruling. So I thank the member for his contribution. Unless there are any more supplementary questions on question No. 10 I would like to move to question No. 11.