Shirley Ken: New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control (Nuclear Propulsion Reform) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Shirley Ken: New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control (Nuclear Propulsion Reform) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22101] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control (Nuclear Propulsion Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a first time 
. In 1987 this Parliament passed the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control Act. That essentially banned the deployment of nuclear weapons in New Zealand or their passage through our territorial waters—that is the 12 nautical miles; of course it did not extend out to include the 200-kilometre exclusive economic zone. We must recall though that earlier in 1986 New Zealand had signed the Treaty of Rarotonga along with Australia and for that matter the United States. The Treaty of Rarotonga signed in 1986 actually banned the deployment of nuclear weapons in the South Pacific zone. 
My bill has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. I am not proposing any change to the existing law that stands on our statute book. Indeed that issue is covered by the Treaty of Rarotonga on a much broader scale—all of the South Pacific. That treaty is supported by Australia and the United States our allies and others—understandably so. No one wants to see an extension vertically or horizontally of the use of nuclear weapons. 
However when that legislation was passed back in 1987 a clip-on clause had been attached: clause 11. I can tell the House that there was a lot of controversy within the Labour caucus at the time. I was there; I know. I am the only one in the House tonight who was there. There was a lot of contention and a lot of people were arguing that it was a bridge too far. Let me assure the House that it carried a deliberate intentional anti-American sentiment. There is no doubt about that. Labour wanted to send a signal to America and it surely did—and we have been paying the price ever since. I say it was a clip-on clause because it had nothing to do with nuclear weapons; it just banned visits of nuclear-propelled ships—very foolishly I believe. 
The reason why we do not need that legislation is obvious. No foreign warship can come to New Zealand without the express invitation of the New Zealand Government of the day. So if the Government does not want either a nuclear-propelled or a conventionally propelled vessel to come here it does not come here. We all know that British French and other navies’ ships have come to New Zealand waters quite regularly in the 10 to 20 years since this legislation was passed. A lot of people say that American ships could come too. Well I have it on very good advice that the American navy has never been invited. No New Zealand Government has invited a US naval warship to visit here. We have extended invitations to the French in spite of what happened up at Mururoa. We have invited the British navy. But no US navy vessel has been invited since the passage of this legislation. 
My bill is very simple. It merely proposes the removal of section 11. I would like to draw to the House’s attention Supplementary Order Paper 386 which lies on the Table. It states that my bill would not become operative until we had had a referendum of the New Zealand voting public. How can members vote against that? This is an important issue. Various political parties have somewhat entrenched views on it. This Supplementary Order Paper is saying that this bill would not become operative until a majority of New Zealand citizens said that yes we should lift this ban. How can members oppose that? Will Labour say because of its blind cold war mantra that it will deny the New Zealand public the right to have that referendum? 
 That was the National Party’s position; National said that it should not occur without a referendum of the New Zealand voting public. Well here is those members’ opportunity to walk the talk if they really believe that—and I think a number in National do. I know that Lockwood Smith feels very strongly about the legislation. I was actually in the Pentagon with him in 1987 soon after the legislation was passed and we got a clear message did we not I ask Dr Smith. He spoke out very vociferously about what nonsense this legislation was and how he would do everything in his power to get it off the statute book. Well here is his chance tonight. He had 9 years in Government and did not do it. Here is his chance tonight to walk the talk rather than just thump the chest. 
New Zealand’s nuclear-free status is a myth and that is the point. The legislation that was passed was about our being free of nuclear weapons but we have turned it into our being nuclear-free. Labour trots out: “We’re clean and green and we’re non-nuclear.” What utter rubbish! New Zealand deploys nuclear technology every day of the week. [ 
Interruption 
] The Green member beside me has just said yes. He acknowledges that. The Somers report commissioned by Cabinet in 1992 is a report by three eminent professors and a retired High Court judge who studied the issue for a year travelled internationally and heard public submissions. That report concluded there was no environmental risk or public safety justification for the continuation of the ban on nuclear-propelled ships. That was the consideration of that committee. The Somers report stated—I recall that it was on page 63—that Auckland Hospital alone emits twice as much radiation into the environment every day as does the entire US naval fleet and all its support services in an entire year. So to stand up and say that New Zealand is nuclear-free and that we do not want nuclear technology because being nuclear-free is part of our clean and green label is utter cant. What utter cant! What utter rubbish! 
I have an interesting news clipping here. It is a report of an accident that occurred on State Highway 1 by Tirau in April of this year. A cargo of nuclear material—30 kilograms of radioactive material—was on a truck and trailer that crashed just out of Tirau. If we are really a nuclear-free country why is radioactive material going up and down State Highway 1? It is utter nonsense—the myth that is perpetuated around this nonsense of our being nuclear-free. 
The other point I would make is that there is nothing in our nuclear-free legislation that prevents the use of nuclear energy. The bill passed in 1987 is totally silent on nuclear energy and properly so. If we believe in elevated carbon dioxide levels and in climate change as a lot of people around this Parliament do the obvious solution is to move to nuclear energy. In France 78 percent of electricity comes from nuclear power-stations. The French actually export it to the UK through the Chunnel. Germany Belgium and all the neighbouring countries around Europe use that power. It is the cleanest and safest fuel for energy purposes. So in New Zealand’s future—I am not saying we should rush out and build a nuclear power-station—we should be considering that option. I introduce that into this debate just to help put it in context. It shows how foolish our ban on nuclear propulsion is. 
Minister Goff stood up in this House and said that there have been accidents. I went and studied the examples he gave me. There has never been a serious nuclear power plant accident. The accidents he referred to were things such as burst steam pipes but because they happened on a nuclear-propelled ship they were registered as nuclear accidents. That is a nonsense. We know about the  
Kursk 
 a nuclear-propelled submarine. Yes a torpedo went off it exploded and it sank. I think from memory that some 152 Russian sailors perished in the Barents Sea. That submarine is lying on the bed of the ocean. There has been no leakage of radiation to this day. None has been recorded and the experts say it is most unlikely that it will ever occur. 
So the risk is totally overstated out of all proportion and New Zealand is not nuclear-free. I am appealing to this House to take this step so that we can actually be on the same footing as Australia in negotiating a free-trade agreement with the United States which the economists tell us would be worth a billion dollars a year to the New Zealand economy. It is a no-brainer: this bill should be supported.