Garrett David: Motions — Nuclear Disarmament—Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Review Conference 
Garrett David: Motions — Nuclear Disarmament—Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Review Conference 
[Volume:662;Page:10809] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 On behalf of the ACT Party I rise to support this motion. We could hardly do otherwise. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is a bit like mum and apple pie: no one could possibly be against it. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Motherhood and apple pie. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Motherhood—I thank the member. It has been around for many years. Even Phil Twyford who moved the motion was unable to tell me exactly since when but we settled on it being many years prior to the Cold War. Certainly times change. I recall being at university in the late 1980s where I joined my fellow students who were 10 years younger than me in tittering sneeringly at the idea that “MAD”—mutually assured destruction—was indeed mad. But here we are 20 years later and I wonder whether the idea of mutually assured destruction did work and whether the certainty of mutual annihilation prevented it from happening. 
Although times have changed and the Cold War is over one thing has not changed. I recall that 20 years ago nuclear terrorism had already been identified at that university as a threat for the future. University dons do not always get things right but they were right about that one. Global thermonuclear war will probably never happen—thank God—but sadly nuclear terrorism probably will. 
The non-proliferation treaty rationale was to keep the nuclear club no larger than it was when the treaty was first entered into. It failed. Israel South Africa North Korea India Pakistan and probably Iran—not Iraq we now know—got nuclear weapons anyway so in that sense it was a failure. However no one can disagree as I said at the beginning with strengthening the non-proliferation treaty and re-injecting life into it. That can only be a good thing. But as I have said times have changed. 
The real threat that was predicted in the late 1980s has now come to pass. I may be mistaken but there was a suggestion that the bomb that was to be let off in New York the other day was a dirty bomb. It was a so-called explosive bomb designed to fling about fissile material not a nuclear device as such. That is the real threat. Sadly it does not much matter even if Dr Graham’s fantasy comes true and all of the members and the non-members of the club disarm. There will still be a whole heap of fissile material floating around the world to fall into the hands of radical Islamic terrorists or of any other terrorists for that matter. That is the real threat and it does not matter how well the treaty machinery does its job. The real task is to eliminate fissile material from the world and that will not be easy. It is a major problem. 
Notwithstanding that we should support nuclear disarmament—of course we should. The world can only be a better place without weapons of mass destruction. But we also need to face the fact that we have a major problem with nuclear terrorism that is linked sadly to religious radicalism but not linked solely to it. I believe that the next challenge will not be disarming the superpowers the members of the club and the non-members of the club but it will be accounting for and containing if not destroying fissile material that could well destroy us if it falls into the hands of people who are not only unafraid to die but also very keen to die. That is a whole new concern and a great worry but we are certainly in favour of this motion. Thank you.