A referendum (with a twist) on Nuclear Free New Zealand

Here is a blog post to ponder over the summer break...

New Zealand’s nuclear policy was one of the interesting issues of the 2005 General Election (and keeps popping up as a topical issue – see Don Brash’s discussion on the issue on Agenda, and this news item).

During the election National’s position was never really clear. Did they want to get rid of our nuclear free status or didn’t they? Lockwood Smith apparently asked for US help to convince the New Zealand public it was time to allow nuclear powered ships into New Zealand ports. Don Brash apparently told US Senators New Zealand’s Nuclear Free Policy would be “Gone by lunchtime”. Various National MPs spent the 2005 Election Campaign promoting Nuclear power in New Zealand (they wouldn’t want the power plant in their backyard/electorate I’m sure). Yet in the last televised leader’s debate Don Brash said that National was committed to keeping New Zealand nuclear free until such time as New Zealanders decided it was time for the policy to be abandoned.

So do National support the policy or not?  It’s a bit of a cop-out to simply say we’ll do what the New Zealand public wants without actually taking a position.

Labour made it clear that it is committed to keeping New Zealand nuclear free. The policy is an important part of our identity as New Zealanders. It reflects our courage at taking independent and principled stands on issues and our willingness to oppose the world’s only superpower when it is right and moral to do so. The policy also reflects our unique clean green image that helps promote ourselves to the world as a place worth visiting and helps sell our products (particular dairy) overseas.

I have no doubt that many National MPs and members actually want to get rid of the policy, and like Act would get rid of it in a flash (no pun intended) if they could. The 2004 National Party conference passed two remits against the nuclear free policy.  One remit was focused on scrapping the ban on nuclear propelled ships in our ports so that New Zealand could rejoin ANZUS and the other remits was an amendment that would allow safe nuclear technologies (i.e nuclear power) to be used in New Zealand. National wants to improve our relationship with the US in order to improve our chances of getting a free trade deal. 

National wants us to tighten our defence and military relationship with the US and rejoin ANZUS to help New Zealand’s security. They also think getting rid of the policy makes sense in terms of science, in terms of risk analysis, in terms of the realities of the kind of ships that the US would be sending to New Zealand.

I disagree with those views, but the above are genuine positions to hold. It would be nice if National was upfront with their views so we could actually debate them.

But they can’t be up front, because too many New Zealanders support New Zealand’s nuclear free policy. New Zealanders, like Labour , see the policy as an integral part of who and what we are as New Zealanders. Jim Bolger understood that. He knew (or at least National’s internal polling demonstrated) that in 1990 if the nuclear free policy was up for debate, National would have lost. Which is why Jim Bolger made the very clear political move of taking it off the agenda. He did so by saying that under National the nuclear free legislation won’t be changed this election, the next election, or the election after that.

I actually agree with National that the New Zealand public should have their say on the nuclear issue. But I think National is asking the wrong question. We shouldn’t be asking should we get rid of New Zealand’s nuclear free legislation? We should be asking how we make New Zealand’s nuclear free legislation endure in the long term.

I support the Government sponsoring a non-binding referendum on the nuclear free issue to be held at the same time as our next election (probably 2008). The question being “Should New Zealand entrench the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987”. And I’d like to see whatever government emerges from that election passing such legislation. And I’d like all the political parties to adopt that position as policy going into the 2008 election.

A referendum could be announced in 2007 (the 20th year anniversary of the policy) along with other initiatives such as a commemorative 20cent coin. A referendum would answer the question, do New Zealanders hold our Nuclear Free policy as an integral part of who and what we are as New Zealanders. And it would allow the next government, if the answer to that question is yes, to entrench the legislation in law. It would also expose the National Party. They would have to adopt a position. Either support, or oppose.

NB: I realize that few pieces of legislation are entrenched (most around the constitutional conventions). But just because general legislation isn’t currently entrenched doesn’t mean we should abandon the idea. Why not entrench legislation that is fundamental to New Zealand values?

Comments

[Ross Browne]

The short summary would be that Labour didn't support the public having a say in the issue, and made moves to ensure they wouldn't. National did support letting the public having a say, and would let them if they so desired. Hardly a complicated comparrison. I think the lesson to be learned here is that an election year is no time to conduct a policy debate :-)

[ADAR]

Ross: Where have you been? The whole lead-up to an election is about debating policy.
I'm going for my lunch, so rest assured my soap box is safely tucked away for today. However, a most interesting topic Tony has presented us with, one which deserves considered thought not likely to be achieved until I have devoured my much anticipated chip and cheese sandwich!

[Matt]

While we're at it, why don't we ban all imports of radioactive materials, devices which emit radiation and all food treated with radiation. Make a proper job of it.

Of course, radiotherapy used for treating many forms of cancer would be out, little Jimmy who broke his arm won't be able to get it x-rayed and we'd be restricted to eating food grown out of direct sunlight and most certainly not microwaved.

Seriously, this ban is infantile. To claim that is symbolic is cowardly. The only reason that people support it is because our deplorable education system doesn't educate them well enough to understand the science behind it.

[stef]

I'm against making policy by referendum and further against entrenching policy. The only laws that should be entrenched are constitutional type ones.

Setting things in stone is all fine and good when the left is in power and you agree with the policy, but could be very dangerous in the wrong hands.

[redfish]

I have heard that nuclear power won't work in NZ because of the long, thin shape of our country (something about the infrastructure that would be required to move the power long distances). And also we don't have anywhere to put the waste (no huge canyons or deserts, for example), so it would either have to be sent somewhere else or dumped in the sea. Is this right or is it just Green propaganda? It sounds logical to me but I don't think I've ever seen information on the issue that isn't politically influenced in some way.

[tim barclay]

We need to have an intelligent dabate about nuclear issues. We have not heard it from the left in this country. New Zealand can prohibit the development use and storage of all weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons. As for nuclear power and propulsion we need to get sorted on that. I suspect nothing will happen until we get power cuts and NZ is threatened by invasion. I do not care really nothing serious will happen in my lifetime, let the next generation have the problem.

[Matt]

redfish: There is no problem with the shape of the country - after all, power from south island hydros powers much of the north island. Besides, any nuclear power plant would most likely built near Auckland and the power used there. The nuclear waste is a problem, but probably less of a problem (in terms of risk factors) than importing all the oil we do. When it's transported nuclear waste is typically encased in a protective coating (glass, I think), so that even if it is dropped in the sea the risk of radioactive materials leaking is minimal. The issue of nuclear waste having to be put somewhere has to be seen in the context of the life of uranium fuel, which is radioactive already when it's dug out of the ground.

[Nichlemn]

We at least need an informed debate on it. Too much of the opinion is knee-jerk opposition without any real reasoning. Simply removing the ban without even discussing it isn't much better though. A rational debate discussing the pros and cons is the way to go.

[David Farrar]

If the policy is core fundamental values, then there is no need to entrench it.

Entrenched legislation is to a degree fundamentally undemocratic and should be reserved for constitutional provisions only.

It is arrogant for one particular Parliament to entrench its views of future Parliaments and populations.

[Andrew]

I feel that the all-encompassing 'nuclear free' slogan is a bit bold and idealistic. Has there ever been much public debate concerning whether or not nuclear power should be included in the ban? Whenever I question political parties (who support the ban) about this, I am given the impression that nuclear weapons and power are somehow inseparable. Furthermore, I think that the "let's not go there" statements (with the words "chernobyl" or "hiroshima" printed close-by) are offensive to the public. These scare tactics are an offence to my intelligence.

[scott]

The issue of nuclear waste having to be put somewhere has to be seen in the context of the life of uranium fuel, which is radioactive already when it's dug out of the ground.

Incorrect, Uranium is dug out generally as yellow cake - uranium oxide naturally occuring Uranium is the U238 isotope which s quite stable (hence it being used in DU shells etc) - it is the U235 isotope that is fissile. The U235 isotope needs to be sperated out, by centrifuge for example.

[Tony Milne]

A referendum on entrenching the nuclear free legislation would be a great opportunity to debate these issues. I think the nuclear free legislation is as important to New Zealand as our constitutional conventions. But I'd only support entrenching if 2/3 of Parliament supported doing that: it needs multi-partisan support.

[ADAR]

A referendum, with all political parties putting their cards on the table, and a national debate on the issue would be most productive.
I have always suspected the corridor of power in the National camp would like to see our nulear free stance swept under the diplomatic carpet so that they can cosy up to the USA, under the guise of re-establishing ANZUS in these terrorist times, or trying to increase trade. Admirable endeavours, defence and trade, but I do not agree that it is in our interests to welcome nuclear power or weapons into NZ.
Al Qaeda 'hit' both the USA and UK despite nuclear power. Countries with weapons of mass destruction do not necessarilly deter invasion as much as precipitate arms races.
As for trade, I think NZ's 'brand' is clean and green. We have an opportunity to capitalise on this and make a bold statement to the world that we value our natural environment by enshrining our position on nuclear in legislation. Such a move can only strengthen overseas markets that buy our natural produce.
As for nuclear free being part of NZ identity I completely agree. The history of this important chapter in our heritage is valued enough to be a part of the history syllabus in NZ high school Year 11 history, and one of the most popular topics I might add too, as part of New Zealand's Search for Security. While the cynical might trumpet it is PC indoctrination, I'll argue that it is merely representative of an increasing value New Zealanders are placing on their heritage and their developing consciousness of what it means to be a New Zealander. Granted, this has not always been the case. I am still amazed at how little some people know of this nation's fascinating history, but this is changing as evidenced by the interest in the recent TV series and book, Frontier of Dreams, and Belich's work on the NZ Wars.
My father was on HMNZS Otago when it was sent to Mururoa to protest French nuclear testing in the Pacific. I could sense he was just a little proud that something he was a part of back then was still valued and being passed down to future generations in the classroom. As well as feeling a little ancient that he was involved in something that is now studied in history classes!
I do not doubt that there are some benefits to nuclear power, but there are also great risks, no matter how carefully or scientifically one approaches it. It is all very well to say we could have nuclear power without softening our stance on weapons, but truthfully, how many people really believe it wouldn't be a matter of time before the argument was advanced that if we have nuclear power what's the big deal about letting American warships in with nuclear weapons capabilities?
The comment was made earlier that if New Zealanders consider nuclear free to be a fundamental value there is no need to enshrine it in legislation. I disagree, I say celebrate it by doing so.

[Matt]

Scott: You are wrong. Allow me to refer you to http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml as an example.

[Matt]

ADAR: Alow me to rebut your points in turn,

WOMD don't deter terrorist attacks: Seriously, I don't know where this came from. There is no incentive, nor inclination for New Zealand to aquire these. You essentially are using a buzzword to defend your argument.

New Zealand's brand is "clean, grean": Yes it is. And just how long do you think that will stand up when we have to start buying carbon credits as a result of our failure to adopt nuclear power? Unless we abandon all industry, following the "clean, green" ideal is not possible.

"Nuclear free" is part of the New Zealand identity: As is our il-treatment of chinese miners during the 19th century. So? Besides, opposing nuclear weapons whilst employing nuclear power in eminently possible. Comparing nuclear power and nuclear weapons is like comparing the automobile to napalm.

The risks of nuclear power outweigh the benefits: That's a big assumption to make. You are ignoring the risks of alternatives (Dams breaking, oil spilling, global warming etc). To claim that nuclear power is riskier without providing evidence is very high-handed.

Let's enshrine the ban in legislation: Great! While we're at it, let's enshrine a ban on homosexuality as well! (note, I'm being facetious here ;) )

[ADAR]

Matt: I think you are confusing history with identity. Certainly the poll tax and related xenophobic treatment of Chinese in the 19th Century is a less than savoury aspect of New Zealand's past, but I'd be interested if you could explain how you have come to associate that as an element of NZ identity today (I'm not being pedantic, I'm actually interested). I know I am on shaky ground making sweeping statements about a "New Zealand identity", and I don't for a minute pretend that there is one definitive identity (I have several myself, and I don't mean split personalities!), but I think we can at least define elements such as nuclear free as I have suggested, the egalitarian spirit and the Suffrage movement for examples. This heritage is something we as New Zealanders seem to draw on as positive expressions of what a New Zealander "is like". I am just curious how the treatment of the Chinese has fed into your concept of idenity.
My comment about terrorist attacks happening despite countries having nuclear weapons was a little unclear in retrospect, and a fair point for you to say that nuclear weapons don't deter terrorists. They don't. My line of thought there was mainly in response to Tim Barclay who suggested nothing would be done in NZ about the issue of nuclear until NZ was threatened by invasion, hence my suggestion that stock piling nuclear weapons can lead to arms races, not necessarily deter invasions. Terrorist attacks being quite different to invasions was a poor example.
I haven't automatically made the assumption that if NZ was to get nuclear power that we would have, or allow nuclear arms. My suggestion was I didn't think it would be too long before the debate went in that direction. If NZ had nuclear power I wouldn't be suprised to hear calls for allowing American vessels carrying, or possibly carrying nuclear weapons to be able to enter NZ waters.
I did concede that nuclear power does have some benefits, even though I qualified that by saying I think the risks are high, no matter how careful we are. And you are completely right about all industry and consumers (me included) needing to clean up their act in regard to the environment for NZ to maintain its clean image/reality. Because I did not mention these in relation to my comments on nuclear power does not mean I do not think these are serious issues that need attention. But perhaps this is the main point. Those problems are our reality now. How about we clean up our backyard of what we do have before we add another potential problem to the mix? You misquote me when you said it is very high handed of me to say nuclear is riskier without backing it up with evidence. I never said that. I said it has great risks.
I appreciate your considered approach to my comments Matt, it shows the true value of a blog like Tony's. People appear to be actually reading each other's ideas, subjecting them to healthy critique, and entering into the spirit of debate. I like that. I certainly enjoy reading other's responses, like Socrates (I think?) said, the first step to knowledge is to admit you do not know.
Though, I too am only human and can't help myself ending a little facetiously as well in that NZ no longer has a ban on people being homosexual (you know this, I know), so clearly its not considered as bad as nuclear, which currently does :)