Hobbs Marian: New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control (Nuclear Propulsion Reform) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hobbs Marian: New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control (Nuclear Propulsion Reform) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22103] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I do not think it will come as any surprise to the House or to New Zealand that Labour opposes this bill and will be voting against it. Mr Shirley wishes to revisit the prohibition on visits to New Zealand ports by nuclear-propelled ships. 
It sounds quite simple. It sounds as though nuclear propulsion is the normal method of propulsion. Well if it is the normal method of propulsion and nothing to be feared why are cruise ships not nuclear propelled? Why are large container ships not nuclear propelled? Why are only military ships nuclear propelled? It is not the normal method of propulsion because there is a much higher risk to this method of propulsion and I have to say a much higher risk than when the Somers report was written in 1992. I read from page 171 of that report 13/20: “A Valid Question. I know that nuclear-propelled vessels do not visit New York or Sydney. Why should they be allowed to visit Auckland or Wellington? An answer involves an explanation of the assessment process which is carried out by the United States Navy before permission is granted to visit any ports. While it is not US Navy policy to reveal what matters are taken into account we know from Captain Bush’s submission that though the criteria used to answer each request to visit a particular port were different in general such factors as tide and current characteristics harbour traffic population density near the proposed berth were taken into consideration and weighed against a possible nuclear accident for the reactor plant—a worst-case analysis.” 
I think that speaks for itself. If at that stage and still today the Australians are not having nuclear-propelled vessels in Sydney’s port why should we open our harbours? We do not go to such lengths when determining whether a ship containing hazardous cargo enters our ports yet it is standard practice to do this sort of work for the entry of a nuclear-propelled ship which is a military ship. 
But worse than that this report was written in 1992. Post-9/11 the risk has become even higher. US military ships have become targets for terrorists. Do we want to invite a mobile target into the hearts of our cities—in Auckland or Wellington? New Zealand is proud to be nuclear-free—free of nuclear weapons free of all weapons of mass destruction and free from nuclear energy. I do admit we are not free of nuclear medicine. I recognise that. 
New Zealand has two main reasons for its stand. Firstly it is anti weapons of mass destruction. Just the other day we stood in this House in silence for the victims of the recent suicide bombs. We abhor random violence. So why would we join forces with nuclear weapons? Why would we welcome them into our country? Why would we sign away our sovereignty to ban such weapons and their possible presence in our harbours? 
The second reason is more environmental than an argument about weapon choice. No one has yet solved the issue of nuclear waste and its safe disposal. I ask members to look at the situation in Australia. It is a regular election issue in Australia as to which state or territory they will bury the nuclear waste in—and I freely admit that some of that is New Zealand’s nuclear waste generated up there. Why use a source of energy whose cradle-to-grave responsibility has not been agreed to by the community? 
Labour members are proud of New Zealand’s nuclear-free status and our clear and consistent policy is to maintain that status. It has become part of our national identity. It is something that is unique about New Zealand. We are nuclear-free and we are proud of it. It will not be gone by lunchtime with a Labour-led Government. It is a solid determined stand. 
The stand of our opponents is not so solid. We have had at least six positions from Dr Brash—I find it really frightening actually; I hope he does not get to Kama Sutra numbers—well the proportions are there. We have had six positions from him. In January he told an American congressional delegation: “If the National Party was in Government today we’d get rid of the nuclear propulsion section today—by lunchtime even.” On 16 June: “The likelihood is that if we put a proposal to the Americans which they find acceptable”—to the Americans? What about New Zealanders? “…if we put a proposal to the Americans which they find acceptable and that of course would be after we became Government we’d then seek a referendum.” So National would go to the Americans first before going to the New Zealanders! Not us. It is quite clear: New Zealand wants to remain nuclear-free. Give us a break Dr Brash and establish some credibility! What is National’s 54-day position on this particular issue? We have had at least six of them. 
What scares me though is whether such flip-flopping such poor credibility will result in selling New Zealanders’ ideals and beliefs for trade. It is not just about our nuclear-free ideals; it is also about the lives of our young people and bodies being returned home from Iraq in body bags for a trade deal. That is why we are not getting any clear answers from Dr Brash. He cannot resolve this question that is being asked by the television stations and by the Opposition. He says things such as: “I’ll get my officials. I’ll wait until I get some official advice about this.” Dr Brash and the National Party should understand that I know my values. I do not need officials to tell me my values. My values cannot be bought or sold. New Zealand is nuclear-free and as long as Labour forms the Government it will remain so. Labour therefore will be opposing this bill.