Roy Heather: Motions — Nuclear-Free Legislation—20th Anniversary 
Roy Heather: Motions — Nuclear-Free Legislation—20th Anniversary 
[Volume:639;Page:9770] 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of ACT New Zealand to support the Minister’s motion. ACT supports the fact that New Zealand should continue to work for a nuclear weapon – free world and strive for a world free of nuclear weapons. 
I note that the motion also draws the House’s attention to the fact that last Friday 8 June was the 20th anniversary of the passing of the nuclear-free legislation. That legislation has in fact been a double-edged sword and I think we should also look at other dates in history in particular 8 June 1942 when Japanese submarines shelled the Australian cities of Sydney and Newcastle. That should act as a timely reminder that New Zealand perilously close to Australia is not immune to external threat even today. 
A little bit of history I think is important in this whole debate. The history of New Zealand’s anti-nuclear policy is revealing. It began when the Labour Government the Lange Government in 1987 passed the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control Act. The move was very popular within the Labour Party at the time and I think that not much has been made of that today. 
Many members of the Labour Party at that time were very angry about the free-market reforms being passed to deal with the economic mess that Lange had inherited in 1984. The anti-nuclear legislation gathered the left of the party around him—something that obviously was very desirable to him at that time. It is often forgotten that he initially sought to ban only nuclear weapons but was persuaded to ban all nuclear vessels from New Zealand shores at that time. It was not a big issue because nuclear weapons were nuclear-armed. However the cold war was about to end surprisingly quickly and to end in favour of the democracies. One result was a significant de-escalation of nuclear tension. Nuclear weapons were removed from surface ships including those that were nuclear-powered. 
Today visiting warships from whatever nation are certain not to be nuclear-armed but they are unwelcome in New Zealand waters anyway. This is most unfortunate as the United States of America is New Zealand’s most important ally. Key in this debate is the fact that the issue of nuclear weapons has become confused with the issue of the peaceful use of radioactive fuel. There is an overwhelming agreement that New Zealand should not be used as a base for nuclear weapons—an agreement that ACT certainly supports—and this policy is consistent with international obligations to limit the spread of nuclear weaponry. 
The use of nuclear propulsion however is a completely different issue and should be considered as a peaceful use of radioactive material. New Zealand is not nuclear-free. It already has a number of industries that use radioactive material. We import 3000 radioactive material shipments each year. Kiwis have over 1 million dental x-rays and over 2 million medical x-rays every year. Radioactive material is used frequently for medical treatment for scientific research and in the sterilisation of food. In the energy debate a significant minority favour nuclear power and any informed debate would include this as an option. Even some high-profile Greens including Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore advocate nuclear power as the environmentally acceptable power of the future. 
The nuclear propulsion debate has become emotive and confused preventing reasoned debate based on sound scientific evidence—something that Minister Hodgson used to be in favour of but not today it would appear. A nuclear-powered ship’s reactor is simply a micro-reactor powering a turbine that in turn powers the ship. 
Safety issues were certainly very well investigated and reported in the 1992 Somers report a report commissioned by the Bolger Government to examine public safety and environmental concerns in relation to visits to New Zealand ports by nuclear-propelled ships. It is sad that National members did not see fit to mention that in their speeches today. Mr Bolger was keen to improve our relationship with the United States at that time but was aware of the unpopularity of nuclear weapons. The Somers report found that no concerns justified the continuation of the legislative ban. These findings have been steadfastly ignored. I quote from the report: “The operational record of powered vessels of the United States and Britain is such that there has never been an accident to a propulsion reactor involving a significant release of radiation.” 
One surprising statistic is that at the time of the writing of the report more nuclear radiation was emitted from Auckland Hospital in one day than was emitted by the US Navy in that year. The Somers report is a very thorough investigation well-constructed and easy to read and I can recommend it to members of this House. It is well worth the effort for those who would like to be reliably informed. 
Forgotten in this whole debate is the fact that no nuclear-propelled surface vessel carries nuclear weapons today. It is also a fact that no nuclear or conventionally powered foreign warship would ever visit New Zealand ports without the consent of the New Zealand Government. The current legislative ban is totally unnecessary and extremely offensive to our allies. Labour and National Governments since legislation was enacted have maintained that they want to preserve a good working relationship with our traditional allies but the ban is akin to saying to friends: “Come for dinner but I don’t like the sound of your car engine so don’t drive down my street.” 
 Former ACT MP Ken Shirley submitted a member’s bill before Parliament seeking to remove clause 11 of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control Act which bans nuclear ships from entering New Zealand’s ports and territorial waters. Neither Labour nor National supported Mr Shirley’s bill. We need a reasoned debate based on sound science. Instead we have political decisions based on hysteria and unfounded fear. 
The fact is that Labour’s nuclear-free legislation has passed its use-by date. By clinging to it we are allowing relations with our traditional allies to deteriorate. British and United States war ships whether nuclear or conventionally powered never visit New Zealand and we are no longer privy to the high level of security intelligence or the joint training exercises that our defence force previously enjoyed. That has been the flipside of the nuclear legislation to this country. 
New Zealand has made a huge contribution to international peace and freedom but we have also been a recipient of foreign military assistance particularly from the United States during the Pacific theatre of World War II. Clinging to this outdated legislation means that we may not be able to rely on such assistance ever again. 
The main problem with the nuclear debate is that the anti-nuclear sentiment and the anti-American bias intrinsic within it reaches the feverish pitch of hysteria whenever the issue is raised. There is much confusion about the differences between nuclear propulsion nuclear weapons and nuclear power as an energy source and the neo-pacifists find it politically convenient to deliberately blur the very clear lines of demarcation between them. 
In Europe a significant core of green politicians are now promoting nuclear power as the cleanest and most efficient source of energy. Australian Prime Minister John Howard has been talking about the use of uranium in recent months. Can we now expect to see a backlash against these proponents of a safe and efficient means of energy production? I suspect not. Instead there has been celebration of the 20th anniversary of a nuclear-free New Zealand. There will be no useful debate on our security measures for the future no thought given to the assistance our allies have given us—such as the battle of the Coral Sea during World War II—and no discussion about how or why we enjoy the freedoms we do today. 
Helen Clark has famously said that we live in a benign strategic environment. She is wrong. The reality is that New Zealand is at risk of external threats and can no longer rely on our allies to come to our aid when we have gone a long way towards alienating them. That said ACT does support the motion before the House today. We realise that the repealing of this legislation is just a small part in this whole debate and ACT along with the other parties in this House supports the motion before the House.