Shirley Ken: Visiting Forces Bill — First Reading 
Shirley Ken: Visiting Forces Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10260] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 ACT will be supporting the Visiting Forces Bill. It is a harmonisation of criminal and disciplinary provisions and it seems to be time to legislate for this although it is rather curious that for some 64 years—when our friends used to visit us regularly and we had lots of visiting troops from other nations—we managed to get by without this legislation. Now at this time in our history when we have no friends and when no troops from other nations want to visit us this Government deems it necessary to pass legislation to harmonise aspects associated with visiting troops. That is certainly an extraordinary situation. 
I want to comment on the situation with regard to visits by United States forces. The United States was our traditional ally going right back to the Second World War and earlier. Large numbers of US troops used to come here. During the Second World War we had numerous bases such as at Paekakariki where the Guadalcanal campaign was launched. The hospital at Silverstream was built for American troops involved in the Guadalcanal battle. The visiting American troops from that time were a part of our culture. We know now that because of the actions of this Government the troops are no longer welcome. 
When it comes to visits by nuclear-propelled ships of the United States Navy—and other navies for that matter—they are banned by statutes on our book. Clause 11 of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control Act which was passed in 1987 in the run-up to an election bans visits by nuclear-propelled ships to this country. I abhor nuclear weapons. The issue of nuclear weapons is totally distinct from that. The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty signed in 1985 bans the deployment of nuclear weapons in the South Pacific. But for some strange reason the Labour Government thought it necessary to have this clip-on ban on visits by nuclear-propelled ships. 
An anti-American sentiment drove that. There was an extensive review of the situation by the retired Judge Somers in 1992—a 179-page report by a retired High Court judge along with three eminent scientists in physics and medicine. Their conclusion after hearing all public submissions was that there was no environmental risk or public safety reason for precluding the visit of American ships to New Zealand. In other words it is a straight anti-American sentiment that this Government clings on to. 
The Somers report went further with regard to these visits of nuclear-propelled ships and their troops. It concluded that two times more radiation is emitted into the environment from patients being treated by iodine for goitre in Auckland Hospital alone than there is from the entire fleet of US nuclear-propelled ships and all their support services in a year. That was the conclusion of a High Court judge and top scientists after a year of study. So that is the nonsense of our ban on the visits of nuclear ships. 
Of course we lose massively in the economy because visiting troops are part of the tourist industry. If it is a large aircraft carrier for example there would be 2500 troops with 5 months’ accumulated pay and a lot of disposable income. It is a very lucrative part of the industry. I am told that New Zealand ports were always preferred ports of call. The troops enjoyed themselves here more than at many other ports around the world and they always looked forward to coming to New Zealand. We have lost that expenditure and it was not just those pays that were being spent here but it was all the provisions of the ships and the repairs and maintenance. We no longer see that. Ten nuclear-propelled ships visited New Zealand between 1960 and 1984 when we essentially banned them. There were five submarines and five surface ships with 13 visits in total but involving only 10 ships—obviously some came twice. 
So we are losing massively by this silly provision on our statute book. I raise the issue here because it is the Visiting Forces Bill and it is an appropriate time to address it. While this bill does address those criminal and disciplinary provisions we must reflect on the nonsense of the perpetuation of our ban on nuclear propulsion. Apart from there being no environmental reason for it and no public safety risk it is to our disadvantage from a strategic point of view. It is the single greatest obstacle blocking New Zealand from enjoying equal status with Australia in the negotiation of a free-trade agreement with the United States and that could cost this country dearly. 
So because of cold war rhetoric this Government is not prepared to put us on an equal footing with Australia so that we can gain access to that market on an equal basis. While I say to the House in that respect what we will see is CER withering on the vine because as Australia looks to the bigger market in the United States with a free-trade agreement to the extent that New Zealand is an obstacle to that New Zealand companies will relocate to Australia. I know the Carter Holt Harvey head office is already thinking of doing that. Closer Economic Relations will become an irritant and as New Zealand is a smaller market there is no doubt where the Australian economy will be looking. 
We will lose massively from an economic point of view and this foolish Government persists in retaining and perpetuating this meaningless ban. It is meaningless from an environmental point of view and from a public safety point of view—it is meaningless from all perspectives—but it continues this ban on the visits of nuclear-propelled ships which effectively blocks the navies of many nations from visiting our ports for strategic visits and for rest and recreation. It costs us directly in the economy but indirectly it costs us our future.