Graham Kennedy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Graham Kennedy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6843] 
5.  
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Why did New Zealand vote in December 2008 against United Nations General Assembly Resolution 63/75 which called for an international agreement against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons and against Resolution 63/47 calling for measures for reducing nuclear danger; and will he instruct the delegation to support these resolutions if they are put forward again this year? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Each year in the General Assembly’s first committee on disarmament and international security and subsequently in the General Assembly itself India proposes the two resolutions referred to by the member. New Zealand votes against Resolution 63/75 to protest India’s attempts to use this resolution to gain credibility on nuclear disarmament while refusing to join the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. New Zealand votes against Resolution 63/47 due to the absence of any reference to the importance of joining the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty as a way to reduce nuclear danger. The resolution also requests that the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty States undertake a number of steps to reduce nuclear danger but does not seek similar steps from States not party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty that possess nuclear weapons. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Given the response which draws a distinction between India which has nuclear weapons and does not join the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and other nuclear powers that do how can the Minister reconcile the refusal to support all such resolutions pertaining to all countries that possess nuclear weapons independent of their adherence to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty with the Prime Minister’s assurance to this House on 8 April that New Zealand independent of that supported all resolutions for a ban on the possession and use of nuclear weapons? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The reasoning behind the member’s question is faulty. New Zealand is prepared to support certain resolutions and the member knows that. I refer the member to for example Resolution 63/49 proposed by Malaysia which is much stronger than India’s resolution and in its operative paragraphs targets directly a full prohibition whereas India’s resolution by contrast talks about a prohibition on the use or threat of use but not the possession of nuclear weapons. There are a number of resolutions. The member knows that. We support some. We have not supported the Indian ones for the reasons already given. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Does the Minister feel that he was enhancing New Zealand’s international reputation by voting against UN resolutions calling for a ban on nuclear weapons; and how does this action square with the boast of his leader John Key just last week: “We’ve been a leader in being a non-nuclear country and it’s an area President Obama raised with me.” 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I have referred to the fact that we do support certain resolutions. I also refer to what the Prime Minister said in this House on 8 April—that resolutions are one thing but actually getting work done is another. The Prime Minister said for example that he supported what President Obama had said in Prague in April 2009. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Given the New Zealand support as the honourable Minister has indicated for Resolution 63/49 can he confirm in light of President Obama’s undertaking at the United Nations yesterday to complete a nuclear posture review that “opens the door to deeper cuts and reduces the role of nuclear weapons” that New Zealand will take a lead with Costa Rica and Malaysia—as he identified—in initiating the commencement of negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention within the next 12 months? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I have already indicated the very strong support that New Zealand has given to for example the Malaysian resolution and also that we take note of what President Obama said in Prague in April 2009. Of course we pay very close attention to what the President said in New York yesterday and we will be following the position very carefully.  
Hon Chris Carter 
: Can the Minister tell us which action by his Government on international affairs he is most proud of: was it the decision to vote against the United Nations resolutions for a ban on nuclear weapons was it the decision to drop New Zealand’s bid for election to the United Nations Human Rights Committee was it the Minister’s silence over Israel’s actions in Gaza earlier this year or was it his decision to turn New Zealand’s aid focus away from poverty elimination and to just a search for New Zealand business opportunities? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I do not know why the member for Te Atatu seems to be so opposed to the stance that this Government took in relation to the two resolutions that were the subject of the primary question because his Government adopted the same approach. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Can the Minister confirm that our voting policy on all United Nations resolutions on nuclear deterrence and disarmament this year will be based on the logical application of New Zealand’s global nuclear-free policy instead of a political judgment of which country is sponsoring the resolution—the United States Mexico or India? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Well of course one has to scrutinise very carefully the wording of motions. I imagine that the same approach will be taken this year as was taken throughout the Labour Government’s period of office to Indian resolutions that were expressed in exactly the same terms as the motions that were put and lost in December 2008. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealand intends this year to support any resolution whose central thrust is nuclear disarmament confining itself to an explanation of vote if necessary on any parts with which it may have difficulty such as non-adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons rather than our using such concerns as a rationalisation for opposing the resolution in its entirety? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I cannot predict anything about the future. The member will have to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs about those particular resolutions based on their wording as and when the question arises in the first committee and then the General Assembly. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I thank the Minister for the response. Will the Minister be able now to assure the House that the Prime Minister at the United Nations this week will commit this country to supporting all resolutions calling for an end to nuclear weapons given President Obama’s statement yesterday that: “No single nation should pick and choose which nations holds nuclear weapons.”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The primary question was directed at particular resolutions and I responded I would like to think with some clarity to those. I have also responded to the Malaysian resolution question. I am unable to predict future policy; that will be for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to determine.  
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: In light of the Minister’s inability to predict future policy can he perhaps explain current policy. Given President Obama’s undertaking at the United Nations yesterday to complete a nuclear posture review that “opens the door to deeper cuts and reduces the role of nuclear weapons” how would he reconcile the inclusion of our SAS in the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan operating under NATO command when NATO maintains a policy in support of nuclear deterrence—[ 
Interruption 
]—and New Zealand opposes— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the honourable member can hear the concern of members that the primary question related to certain resolutions of the UN and the member’s supplementary question is now getting on to things like the SAS deployment in Afghanistan. I think it is a fairly wide stretch.  
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The reason for referring to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan is that New Zealand has a very strict nuclear-free policy that under the 1987 legislation precludes any cooperation with a nuclear weapon programme. To have our soldiers cooperating with an organisation that supports nuclear deterrence raises that issue for address. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member wants to raise questions about that issue then he should lodge a primary question. I do not believe he can expect the Minister to have that particular information given the primary question that the member lodged today. He still has a supplementary question to go. I am happy for him to reword his question in order to bring it within the Standing Orders. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I seek leave to table Resolution 63/47 dated 12 January 2009 and headed “Reducing nuclear danger”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I seek leave to table Resolution 63/75 dated 13 January 2009 and headed “Convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Finally I seek leave to table document A/63/PV.61 dated 2 December 2008 which records the voting on those two resolutions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Keith Locke 
: To what extent does the Government when making decisions like that to commit SAS troops to Afghanistan take into account the fact that the body they will be operating under is based on nuclear deterrence particularly in light of the resolutions against nuclear deterrence that the Government votes for at the UN? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: As I endeavoured to say to the previous questioner I can focus on particular resolutions in answering these questions today but the question about the SAS goes far beyond the ambit of the primary question. If the member wants an answer to his question if I am still acting Minister next week I would be happy to answer it. But he should put down a question on that.