Madam SPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 8 June 2007 of the Hon Phillip Albert Amos QSO, who represented the electorate of Manurewa from 1963 to 1975. He was Minister of Education from 1972 to 1975 and Minister of Island Affairs from 1972 to 1974. I desire, on behalf of this House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory.

• Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.

Madam SPEAKER: Members should be aware that the cameras in the debating chamber are operational to enable equipment to be tested and technical staff to be trained. Images obtained during the next 3-week trial period will not be transmitted, however. Following a successful trial and training period this month, we expect to begin this service in July, when all proceedings of Parliament will be available to television networks to broadcast, and webcast on Parliament’s website.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : I seek leave to table six copies of the code of conduct for MPs, which the MMP parties have collectively developed, and that have been signed by the members of the Green Party.

• Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) : I seek leave to table a copy of the Standing Orders, which are Parliament’s already accepted code of conduct.

• Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) : I seek leave to table copies of the code of conduct that have been signed by the United Future members of Parliament.

• Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Whip—Māori Party) : I seek leave, on behalf of the Māori Party, to table three copies of the code of conduct for members of Parliament that have been signed by our three members.

• Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) : I seek the leave of the House to table two copies of the code of conduct signed by the two ACT MPs—myself and Heather Roy.

• Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) : I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I noticed that the Government was somewhat interested in badges earlier in the afternoon, and I notice that Parekura Horomia and Dave Hereora have their badges on upside down. Does that indicate the Labour Māori caucus feels some distress about this policy?

Madam SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Simon Power, seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 a report of the Ombudsmen into prisoner transportation. The report was released when I tabled it in the House today, even though it had been speculated in news media reports some days ago that the report was about to be released. In these circumstances, as Speaker’s ruling 161/1 makes clear, the application cannot be considered for an urgent debate today, though if an application is lodged tomorrow it can be considered then. The application is accordingly declined.

Madam SPEAKER: I have also received a letter from Sue Bradford, seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the disconnection of the Muliaga family’s electricity by Mercury Energy. The disconnection is a particular case of recent occurrence and, having been effected by or on behalf of a State-owned enterprise, I accept that it does involve the ministerial responsibility of the Government. The incident has been the subject of considerable public interest since it occurred, and this is the first opportunity the House has had to consider it. I consider that it does warrant an urgent debate being held today. I therefore call on Sue Bradford to move that the House take note of the matter.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : I seek leave to split this call in half with my colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons.

Madam SPEAKER: That is all right. Just arrange that amongst the Green Party members.

SUE BRADFORD: I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about this sadly defining moment in our country’s history. The disconnection of the Muliaga family’s electricity by State-owned enterprise Mercury Energy, and the death of FololeMuliaga a few hours after the electricity was cut off to her home and her oxygen machine, are a tragedy that has highlighted tensions of ideology and a gap of empathy in this country. But before I speak any more, I would like to formally offer my condolences and those of my Green Party colleagues to the family of FololeMuliaga. My heart goes out to them as I imagine their hardship and sorrow and what they have had to deal with over the last 2 weeks.

It was 2 weeks ago today, at around this time, that Mrs Muliaga died. She died because as a society we have come to value efficiency and profit before people. The strict chain of events surrounding Mrs Muliaga’s death started when she became sick and had to give up her job as an early childhood teacher. That reduced the family income to $400 a week for the four of them. Mr Muliaga was working as much as possible in his minimum-wage job, earning while his wife was sick. Although their income was drastically reduced, at the same time the price of power has gone up by 40 percent in real terms since 2000 and went up by 7 percent just last year. As most families who are surviving on a benefit or a minimum wage know, it is often not possible to have a roof over one’s head, warmth, clothing, a full stomach, running water, and bills paid in full and on time. People are forced constantly to make tough choices, regardless of whether someone is sick or there are children in the family.

One of the compromises the Muliaga family was forced to make was paying off the power bill in instalments. That, apparently, was not acceptable to Mercury Energy, or to the State-owned enterprise Mighty River Power—a State-owned enterprise that made record profits last year. Despite another payment being due in 2 days and two payments having recently been made by the family, the company decided to disconnect the electricity. At one stage the company was even reported as saying it believed that through cutting off the power it was helping the Muliaga family, by making sure it did not get further into debt,. The contractor involved was apparently disconnecting power to several houses that day. Who knows the stories of those other families? How many children across the country were left shivering in their beds that night, as a result of those disconnections and all the others that took place? How many pregnant women went to bed feeling cold, and without having had hot food? How many people with mental or physical illnesses or disabilities were left in darkness?

After the tragedy of 2 weeks ago, it quickly became apparent that Mercury Energy itself was turning off the power of hundreds of households a week. I think that all of us may have been shocked by the extent to which not only Mercury Energy but other power companies have been turning off the power across New Zealand every day, and in tens of thousands of households a year. This was a tragedy waiting to happen. It could have happened anywhere in New Zealand, and it could happen again any day now.

I thank the Government and the Prime Minister for their quick response to the matter. I appreciate that they have identified the need to develop some guidelines for power companies. However the guidelines, in so far as they have been talked about so far, do not go far enough. They are not mandatory. They will be introduced after 1 month’s consultation, and then monitored by the Electricity Commission for 3 months. The commission will then report back to the Government next year, and advise as to whether the guidelines are working or whether there needs to be more regulation. In this case, it appears that the threat of regulation is considered to be more important than the possible consequence of not doing something more regulatory, and that leads to the conclusion that there could again be further tragic circumstances. Effectively, the companies are being slapped on the wrist and told not to do it again, when we already have codes of responsibility and codes of practice for them that should have stopped them from doing it, but did not.

What is almost worse, though, in this whole debate is to realise that racist, blame-the-victim views seem to have gained such a foothold in our communities, particularly in places like talkback radio. To hear people turning all the blame for this tragedy on to FololeMuliaga and her family reminds me of the worst aspects of the 1980s and 1990s, when over and over again the victims of deliberate Government policies and corporate greed were held to blame for their circumstances rather than the system that had caused their unemployment or poverty, their ill health, or their death. Many of us remember those times, and it has been really sad to hear that kind of blaming raise its head again over the last 2 weeks.

This recent tragedy has, I believe, marked a turning point for us as a country. We have been internationally shamed. I think a number of us would have been shocked by the way this story went worldwide instantly and by the international reaction to the fact that a country such as ours, which is seen as a kind, caring, and compassionate country with a welfare state, would have allowed this incident to happen. If we are to reclaim our image and our reality as a country that actually adheres to and believes in fundamental principles of humanity, equity, and compassion, we should immediately take a number of steps.

The first step is to require a law providing that not only electricity companies but also gas and water companies put alongside any household having problems with its bills a community or social service agency to help it work through the payment problems, and to advise that family or household of any Government assistance that is available. Community-based groups helping with that work should, of course, also be funded by the utility company for their work. I realise this is in part what the Government is saying; the issue is simply that the Greens believe it should be mandatory. Alongside that, we are also saying over and over again that it is not just power that is at stake here but also gas and water. Those are all necessities of life.

Secondly, companies must be required to notify the Ministry of Social Development before anyone’s power is cut off, and the ministry should be expected, as a matter of course, to do everything it can to help the family concerned, whether it is already in the benefit system or whether it is on a low income—whatever its situation is. The rules inside the Ministry of Social Development must be changed in order to make it clear that the provision of power, gas, and water to households is a health and safety issue and an essential of life. The Government should also introduce a new ministerial directive within Work and Income on advances for residential utility payments. Such a directive, separate from other directives, could see the ministry working in with the power and water companies to ensure no one’s supply is cut off and that no one is denied reconnection. The Ministry of Social Development could use combinations of recoverable and non-recoverable payments to make sure than no one’s situation gets worse and becomes out of hand, and to make sure that the supply is maintained.

Thirdly, it should simply be illegal to disconnect water, gas, or electricity, except in cases where it is clear that people who can afford to pay are arbitrarily refusing to do so.

My colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons will now discuss a further key measure that should be taken in relation to the pricing of power.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : Can I add my condolences to the Muliaga family to those of my colleague.

Household electricity prices have risen 18 percent in real terms over just 8 years and we are faced with a paradox of pricing. At one end, power is now too expensive for people on low incomes to afford their basic needs; and at the other end, power is still too cheap to prevent a lot of people from wasting it. It is time to address the pricing structure, because there is a pricing structure that can address both of these issues; it is used in a number of places overseas, and—in fact—is known in those places as a lifeline tariff. This is called progressive pricing and it goes like this.

Every household, and only households, would be able to buy a basic block of power at a low price. That is not a subsidy. New Zealand generates lots of power from our old hydro stations that is really cheap, and that price just reflects that. Then, above that block of power, households would pay an increasing amount for further blocks of power so that at the margin the price would always be higher than it is on average. This has been Green Party policy since the 1970s when I presented a computer run of exactly how it would work, for the Auckland Electric Power Board—the ancestor of today’s Mercury Energy. The board thanked us politely, sent us away, and did not consider it further.

It is high time to consider that policy again and I was most interested to find that last year the Government did exactly that. The Ministry of Economic Development produced a report last year on various pricing structures. It was starting to get embarrassed by the fact that electricity company margins had doubled in just 3 years and that the windfall profits that the State-owned generators were making were starting to become quite embarrassing for the Government. The ministry considered a number of options along with progressive pricing, and unfortunately decided to do virtually nothing.

The report is interesting. It acknowledges that this would be a way of making a basic amount of power affordable to people on low incomes. It acknowledges that it would do that without causing a huge explosion in power consumption and that, in fact, the high marginal price of power would be likely to cause people to use it more efficiently—meeting both the goals of the Government’s social policy, which is that everybody is warm and fed, and the goal of the National Energy and Conservation Strategy, which is that we use electricity a great deal more efficiently than we do now.

Why did the ministry decide against that? It decided against that because it is not compatible with competitive market arrangements. So we have something that works very well to address the needs of real people, it works very well to address the needs of the environment, energy efficiency, and climate change, but it does not work very well to implement the ideology that the market must be totally free and competitive, and so it was abandoned.

Never mind that one could perfectly well legislate for that one basic block of power and the price that had to be charged for it for everyone, and that then one could allow the competitive market to determine the prices of the further blocks above that—and the power companies would no doubt look after their interests. So there are ways of dealing with market competition as well as with the needs of the poor and the needs of climate change.

The report from the Ministry of Economic Development is very disappointing. It is quite shallow. It puts up a heap of straw men about how we would have to have different-sized blocks for different-sized households. We already have research that shows that power consumption is not closely linked to the number of people in the house. It is much more linked to the fact that there is a house and there is one fridge, whether there are three people or one person in the house. That is so, even in the case of hot water, which is most closely linked to the number of people. If one has, for example, six children in the family, one is probably putting them through the same bathwater anyway. So there is not a close correlation between numbers and power use.

The biggest correlation that exists is between power consumption and income. High-income families have high power bills, and low-income families tend to have lower power bills because they cannot afford it. We could combine the idea of a rising block tariff for power with two existing ones. One is the attempt to insulate all the old homes so that people on low incomes have their power bills managed, because they are not expensive to heat. The other is the new technology of smart meters, which are starting to be rolled out, which give the customer feedback about what they are using and the cost of what they are using.

The combination of a lifeline tariff and a smart meter would enable households to see how they are going and decide for themselves whether they can afford to go into the second band of power at the higher price that month, or whether they want to try to stay within the lifeline tariff. They would be in control of their situation, they would have the information they need, and we would not have people unable to meet their power bills, and being disconnected because of it. I believe that the Government should look at this idea again and, if necessary, a select committee should look at it, because it is a good idea. It has been around for 30 years. Other places do it; why should New Zealand not do it?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. Along with all members of this House I share the feelings of loss that the family have had, and I would like to thank the previous speakers for passing on—on behalf of all of us, actually—the surprise and condolences around this very real family tragedy.

This is a useful opportunity to be able to delineate the decisions that have already been taken by Cabinet, and the processes that will be followed in future. As members will be aware, a decision has been made. A large part of that is already in the public domain, but not in the wider sense understood by people in detail yet, and that is why I think today’s debate is particularly useful. A decision has been made to proceed with special requirements, particularly around the needs and the situation of vulnerable consumers. None of this is without semantic difficulties, and it is fraught with definitional issues. That is why I think the timing of the development of this policy is particularly useful.

The Electricity Commission will issue draft guidelines in line with the decisions made by the Government. After 3 months from the date of implementation of those guidelines the commission will be monitoring and coming back to the Government to see whether there is sufficient compliance with the guidelines. It is my view that the guidelines to date, albeit voluntary, have generally been quite well complied with. We certainly have had an appalling example of non-compliance, which led to this incident and to this debate, but I think it is important not to criticise unreasonably the other companies, public or private, involved in the industry because of the totally unsatisfactory performance of one supplier. That is why I think cautious decisions about the need to regulate further, depending on performance, is the desirable way to proceed.

The Government will be introducing legislation in due course to amend the Electricity Act to make future regulation possible, should that need to occur. So that is a given. I think it is important that members of the House and the New Zealand public are aware that the Electricity Commission has advised us that retailers have already taken on board—well and truly, I would imagine—the sad lessons from the last couple of weeks, and that the commission envisages it will get very good cooperation indeed throughout the implementation phase of its guidelines, and I will talk a little later on about the detail of those guidelines and the changes.

Essentially, the wording in the guidelines will be much stronger. Words like “should” will be changed to more appropriate language, such as “must” and “will be required to”, and the guidelines will make absolutely clear the requirements and expectations of these companies delivering essential utility services. I believe that the threat of regulation will be as effective as it has been in a large number of other areas. I am only too aware of all sorts of voluntary accords in my environmental portfolio area that have been well complied with, and, interestingly, the people who previously argued for voluntary regulation are often now coming to the Government and asking us to regulate to make sure that there are no freeloaders and that everyone is on board. That is good news. I believe that the threat of regulation will indeed be very effective, as it should be.

There are, however, as I commented a moment ago, some very good practices among electricity retailers. The example of Meridian in Christchurch has already been quoted. I am advised that Meridian funds a number of agencies to provide people with the sorts of budgetary advice services and support that are often provided by the Ministry of Social Development in various forms, particularly in the form of Work and Income, but also via other agencies. I compliment them on that. I have no reports of things not working well in that area. I am also only too aware of a, perhaps, too informal but none the less very effective protocol—that term might be an overstatement—or working arrangement with Contact Energy in my Dunedin electorate. Irrespective of the chills of the North Island, people will be aware that the criticality of power supply is often much greater in the south, particularly at the moment, and as a result of disconnection concerns from constituents some years ago, my office and I made contact with the local Contact Energy operators and have come to a regime that has ensured there are grossly fewer problems—I would not say none—with that company and with supply in our area than there have been in the past. So I think it is only too clear that retailers have learnt from this.

I need to put on record that the Electricity Commission and the Ministry of Social Development did negotiate in good faith, on their own initiatives, the first set of guidelines, and now we are in the situation, because of these tragic circumstances, where we clearly want to strengthen them and improve them.

What has happened over the last couple of weeks has clearly been a huge wake-up call for those who do not have good practices or are not ensuring that good practices are being followed. I am sure they are hurrying to make sure such practices are in place, because after the consultation period of a month, which I referred to, and the rewritten, strengthened guidelines being finalised, there will be a 3-month period for implementation. At the end of that period, we will be looking at the Electricity Commission surveying exactly what the practices are, observing and monitoring the level of disconnection, and coming back to the Government with further recommendations. Of course, given that that period will be during winter, I think that will be an instructive exercise.

The Electricity Commission, as I intimated earlier, is absolutely clear that it will recommend regulation if it assesses that there is not a satisfactory level of compliance with the new guidelines. We believe that the wake-up call from what has happened—the tragic events we have seen—has already sent retailers the very powerful signal that the expectation is that compliance with the new strengthened guidelines will be absolute.

We are going to be seeing in the community a much stronger set of guidelines, and if they are not properly complied with there will be, if necessary, further regulation. We will make sure that there is good monitoring of the issues around vulnerable consumers and disconnection issues, that other consumers are being properly advised of where they can go for advice should they need it, and the monitoring regimes that the Electricity Commission will be put in place. Can I say, though, in order to leave no possibility for doubt, that it is my view that in a country like New Zealand, irrespective of the particular issues of this or any other case, it is just not acceptable that any consumer who happens to have a debt of less than $200—as it was in this case—should be disconnected from the power supply. I just do not believe there can be any reason where, at that debt level, disconnection would be acceptable.

The previous speaker quite rightly identified the issue. We do expect all of us in this community to face up to our financial commitments. But it is equally an indicator of the humanity of a society that we make sure that those who, for whatever reason—and there are many valid reasons—are unable to do that, or find difficulty doing that, get the level of support and advice they are entitled to as members of this community. In that respect, members of this House and members of the New Zealand community will be only too aware of the lengths to which this Government has gone to make those financial burdens lighter. I guess, in many ways, the attitude to this matter characterises the different flavour of the politics and the philosophy of the different parties in this House. Labour, in one of its first moves in Government, reindexed the floor of national superannuation, and has shifted it annually since 1999. This Government reinstated the public provision of accident compensation and has moved the minimum wage annually since 1999—not a record that predecessors in the House would be able to claim.

Of course, that very shift in people’s base income is one of the key factors in making the payment of utility services infinitely more affordable. Members of the House are only too aware that the Working for Families package, now in the final implementation phase since 1 April this year, is providing very substantial assistance to around 360,000 New Zealand families. These are families that because of extra tax credits and other types of support as part of the components of the Working for Families package can obviously find it easier—if not completely easy, in many cases—to face up to the cost of the provision of utilities such as power. In addition to that, of course, that package will lift a very large number of children out of poverty—and energy poverty is an important part of that deprivation. Clearly, the last phase of Working for Families has put huge extra amounts of money into families’ pockets—the increases in family support and the family tax credit level, and the regular inflation adjustment, in particular.

The previous speaker also alluded to the energy insulation and retrofitting initiatives that have been running for a number of years. Those sorts of conservation measures are a clear and valuable part of the sorts of initiatives—very substantial initiatives—that this Government has incrementally put in place since being elected to the Treasury benches in 1999.

I will share with members one small example of a pretty typical New Zealand family. Chris and Allan live in Onehunga. They have three children. Their Working for Families package has increased their income by $365 a week. That is $365 a week they would not have, had this Government not been in power, and that is $365 a week that makes it easier for them to pay their mortgage, to pay their bills for utility provision, including electricity, and to make ends meet rather more comfortably. So for a very large number of New Zealanders it is much easier to meet those financial commitments; but for those who still need support, we will provide that.

In closing, I send one very clear message, both to members of the House and to the community. I would urge people who are having issues, around power supply in particular, or who have historical issues in that regard, not to hesitate to contact Work and Income. Anyone facing disconnection or having trouble paying a power bill can call and ask for assistance, whether or not that person is a current client of Work and Income. We will assist people privately and confidentially by looking at their financial circumstances and giving them advice ourselves on what assistance they can get, or, indeed, providing assistance if that is appropriate. We will continue to advise people—whoever they are and whether or not they have an existing relationship with Work and Income—on what other Government or other assistance might be available, such as the Working for Families tax credits that I have referred to, or a very substantial range of other budget services such as budget advice, which is often provided by other, independent agencies, a large number of which are funded by various sorts of Government funding, or, indeed, by some of the utilities such as the one I mentioned.

Of course, the sooner people put their hands up and ask for some advice to help with the ordering of their affairs, the sooner they can be assisted. As someone said during question time, often we do not notice things until they arrive, which is too late. This is an area where, for example, the guidelines will insist that there are no disconnections, or discussions of disconnection, on Friday or over the weekend, so that we can come to a much more manageable arrangement when people have difficulty. Thank you very much for the opportunity to clarify some of those matters.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) : Might I first express my condolences to the Muliaga family for what has been a most tragic death for them, in circumstances that—it would appear, on the face of it—most New Zealanders are not comfortable with at all. I further say that it is somewhat difficult when we know what the family is going through, and will go through for many, many months and, possibly, years ahead, to discuss this issue in the way that it perhaps should be discussed.

But the reality we are faced with is that the Prime Minister of New Zealand stepped into this argument and made some extremely strong statements about her view on this particular matter and what she expected to have happen. Despite the fact that her Minister had been somewhat cautious, she went out and said that heads will roll and someone will be publicly accountable. Today the police have decided not to charge anybody in connection with this incident. So where are the heads that are to roll?

The Prime Minister also said that the law would be altered, and that State-owned enterprises would be given a pretty hard message, by way of a legislative change, to ensure that this kind of incident never happens again. Yet yesterday the Government backed way off that and reverted to the voluntary code situation that existed prior to this incident. The question then arises of who is to be held accountable for the voluntary code, in the case of Mercury Energy, not being followed—not being picked up or exercised. I think it should be sheeted home directly to the board of Mighty River Power, which is the parent company of Mercury Energy. Why has the Prime Minister—who is, after all, the shareholders’ prime representative—not called that board in for some discussion? Why was it OK for her to go to the family to share in the occasion of their greatest grief, and, quite frankly, to grandstand off the back of this issue, but then do nothing? Nothing has been done. If members read through the press releases from the Government yesterday, they will see that there is nothing there that was not there before.

The chair of Mighty River has made a public apology. Good. Why has the chair not been brought in and asked why she and her board were derelict in their responsibilities under the State-Owned Enterprises Act? That Act states—plain as day, in black and white— “An organisation that exhibits a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community which it operates and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so.” That seems pretty clear to me. We know that guidelines were put out by the Electricity Commission as to how these situations were to be dealt with. But in this case they were not followed.

So why do we have a Prime Minister saying that this is terrible, that heads will roll, that she is right alongside the family—she has had her photograph taken with them, and she has made the tough statements—but then she does nothing? She has not even called in the board to ask a question about it. She has not even called in the board to ask it those simple questions.

We know that other companies are doing the right thing. No less a person than the Minister for Social Development and Employment has suggested this afternoon that Meridian Energy’s practice in Christchurch is a good example. I think it is. Nine social agencies are working with Meridian Energy to ensure that when people get into difficulties, any assistance available gets to them.

The other interesting argument that was run this afternoon was that we might be able to separate out blocks of electricity for sale under special conditions and special provisions to those who, effectively, are the vulnerable in our community. But that denies the fact that one of the problems we have in this country at the moment is a scarcity of electrical energy. Any look at the demand on our system, any look at the peaks in demand that are there at the moment, tells the person looking why there are high electricity prices in this country.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Why?

GERRY BROWNLEE: It is interesting that the Green Party is suggesting that we might adopt this practice, when in many ways the Green Party is part of the problem. I tell Mr Parekura Horomia that over the last 7 years we have not seen the sort of investment in electricity generation in this country that we should have seen. We should in particular have had far more investment in renewable energy. But we have not had it, because project after project has been knocked over.

Jill Pettis: “Your power prices will not go up.”—that’s what Max Bradford said.

Hon Parekura Horomia: What did Max do, Gerry?

GERRY BROWNLEE: Members on the other side scream out that it is the system—the system put in place some time ago—that is the problem. Well, after 8 years of a Labour Government, I ask why it has not changed. It has not changed because, fundamentally, it works. What is wrong with it is the fact that every time a generation project comes up for consideration in this country, it has to go through such a big hoop of Resource Management Act compliances and other such exercises—including stopping off at the office of the Minister of Conservation—that not one project of any considerable size has been given consent. There is all this hot air about wind power, but we find that even wind power projects are getting knocked over.

Well, while there is scarcity of supply there will be rising prices. This afternoon we heard the figure of 18 percent, in real terms, in 7 years, but I can tell the House that the figure is much higher—much higher. In some districts it is up to 40 percent, in real terms, and that is a lot of money for struggling families to find.

I heard the Minister for Social Development and Employment say: “Well, look what we have done through family support.” This family was a working family, and I would like to know whether it was getting the $256 a week in family support that it should have been getting. Well, no one seems to know. The Prime Minister has not bothered investigating that, and the Minister himself could not tell us that here today. So this wonderful Government, which is so caring and concerned about people in this sort of plight, talks the talk but does not walk the walk.

Jill Pettis: Oh, right, tell us in 2 minutes what you’d do.

GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, I can tell this House that the next National Government will ensure that there is a substantial amount of new generation investment in this country, the next National Government will ensure that New Zealanders have rising incomes through work rather than welfare, and the next National Government will not excuse itself from the responsibilities it has in this sort of situation by simply raising spurious arguments about how well it has done in social welfare policy in this country.

These people are in grief, and it is not fair that we talk too much about their situation. It is not fair that we use their family situation to any great political extent. That is why, I have to say, I am very dark on what the Prime Minister did last week. I think it was cynical manipulation. I want to make it very clear that it was not the National Party that brought this issue to the floor of Parliament today; it was the Green Party. I do not think that discussing personal tragedies in the way that is happening here is particularly useful in any event. I certainly do not think the Prime Minister deciding to grandstand on the back of this family’s tragedy then doing nothing is acceptable. That is what this Government has done. It has talked about it, it has got the photographs, but it has done nothing.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : I will commence by offering, on behalf of my colleagues, our sincere condolences to the Muliaga family members on the loss of their wife and mother. This should not have happened. Nobody—nobody—should die in this country because he or she has not paid the power bill. Nobody should have an oxygen machine switched off because he or she owes a power company $168. That is an absolute disgrace, and it is a further disgrace that the company that switched the power off is a Government-administered company. There are protocols in place, and now there has been talk of making them compulsory.

The power companies are run by highly paid executives—highly paid executives—and all the contractor out there had to do was to press a button on his cellphone and ask whether he could leave the power on because there was a lady there with an oxygen mask who needed to use that equipment. That was all he had to do, but what did he do? Nothing! He simply said that he was just doing his job. That is appalling. It is no wonder this incident made international news, and no wonder it was reported on the BBC. This is a country that prides itself on its compassion and its caring, but we allowed an event like that to happen.

When I heard about this incident first off, I am on record for producing a media release that said somebody should be held accountable for it, to the degree of being charged with either murder or manslaughter. I have to say that personally I am still of that opinion. It is the sort of incident, to my mind, where somebody should be held accountable. I am not talking about politicians; I am not talking about the Prime Minister or anybody else in this House. But there should be somebody in that company who says yea or nay in relation to whether the power stays on, and that person should be held accountable.

I note that the family members themselves have said that they do not want to persevere with the police inquiry, and that they have compassion for the contractor. That speaks volumes, in my book, because no compassion was shown to that family—none at all. I cannot think of anything worse that somebody could have done than simply to say he was sorry, but he was just doing his job. I do not know whether the contractor even said he was sorry.

Jill Pettis: I think he did.

PETER BROWN: Did he? Well, let us give him the benefit of the doubt. In fairness to the man, I understand that he is feeling pretty awful right now—

Hon Parekura Horomia: So he should!

PETER BROWN: —and I agree with the Minister; so he should. It is beyond belief that a person can walk into a family’s house, see a person with an oxygen mask on, and say he is sorry, but he is only doing his job and he is turning the power off.

We have to come to terms with what we are doing in this country, in relation to power. We have heard from the Greens and from National about the escalation in power prices over the last few years. I believe that the Greens’ figure of 18 percent is on the low side. It may be an average, but I believe that generally it is on the low side. The fundamental reason for the increased cost is that we are not producing power plants at the required rate. As a nation, we are relying more and more on electricity—more and more. We should, in my view, have a gas-fired power station at Ōtāhuhu. I know that Government members will shrug their shoulders at that and say no, we should be given a few windmills somewhere else. But Contact Energy would build a gas-fired power station tomorrow if the Government was willing to give it a bit of support, and that would not only give us more power fairly promptly but also ease the problem regarding the transmission lines through the Waikato.

The Bradford reforms were set up in 1997-98 to create a bit of competition in the industry, but at that time there was a surplus of power—there was more power than New Zealanders needed. We rapidly overtook that surplus and, in my view, we are now barely keeping pace with the power that is required. We cannot build coal-fired power stations, because of climate change problems. We cannot build gas-fired power stations, because of climate change problems. This country produces 0.2 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions in the world—0.2 percent—and we cannot build coal-fired power stations! Since the Kyoto Protocol has come into being, between them India and China have produced 800 coal-fired power stations. In this country people are kicking up about our one and only coal-fired power station, at Huntly. People complain about the new E3P power station that is coming on line, which will burn gas. I ask you!

We must get our priorities correct when it comes to power in this country. Shortly we will have people freezing in the southern part of this country—going to bed with blankets wrapped around them, because they cannot afford their electricity bills. The 121 of us here in this House live in relative comfort compared with some New Zealanders. Some New Zealanders need power on an essential, ongoing basis, not only for medical reasons but for warmth and heat in their homes. For the sake of $168, we cut off a family’s power. The family had been paying back, on an irregular basis, some of the money it owed. I think it owed $15 more this month than it did last month, and we cut the power off. Why? Why are we putting the need for money, and even the needs of the environment, ahead of people’s welfare? Why have we got into that way of thinking in this country? We need to address this issue from a people’s perspective and from a compassionate perspective. People are relatively low-paid in this country, and people need power. We should be able to produce power, and we should be able to produce it more cheaply than we do. The effect on global warming of another gas-fired power station, or even of another coal-fired power station, would be negligible.

I think the Australians produce the equivalent of 1.5 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, but 75 percent of Australian power is generated from coal. The Australians are taking a long-term, practical-assessment view of climate change and climate change problems. We should join with them in doing that. We should work in tandem with the Australians and address those problems in a proper, professional, and workable manner.

If we had power at a reasonable price, the lady in this family would still be here. The Greens have the idea of blocks—I do not know; is it selling in low blocks at a cheap rate? I do not recall the Greens ever making that information available to any other political party in this House. This very afternoon I asked Jeanette Fitzsimons for some information. She stated that that system operates in other countries—in other places. On behalf of New Zealand First, I can say that my colleagues would be very interested to know where, and to what degree, that system is working. It seems like an idea that should be examined. But the Greens have not come across and offered any sort of advice to us on that system. We would have a close look at it. I cannot say here and now whether we would support the idea, but from what I heard today it certainly sounds like an idea that is worth examining.

We must make power available in the quantities that New Zealanders need and require, and at a reasonable price. I say—and I hope I am in step with my colleagues in saying this—there is nothing more important than that. Climate change problems can be addressed in the fullness of time, and as Tony Blair said only last week, without the Yanks—without the Americans—without the Indians, and without the Chinese on board, addressing climate change problems is a waste of time. We must start to put our people, particularly low-paid people, ahead and at the top of our priorities. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) :Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, kia ora tātou katoa itēneipō. Hei whaiwhai haere i te ia o te kōrero, ko te wāhanga ki ahaui te tuatahi, ko te tuku ingā poroporoaki ki tērā o ngāwhāea, kuangaroneii te tirohanga kanohi, ingāwikitatakuahipaakenei.

Kei te rongoi te āhuatanga o te ngau o mamae. Ka tapirihia atu tērā o ngāaituā ki tērā o ngāpēpii mate neii te marae o Hoani Waititi. Ka mutu, ki tērāi pa mai ki a au, ki a Te Arawa, a ko Weterina Harris.

Me pēneirawa te kōrero, haere koutou, haere koutou, haere koutou ki te rua kōiwi o ngāmātua, o ngātūpuna, moe mai. Ka huri ki tēneiwhakatipuranga, tātou e noho neii roto i te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou.

• [An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

• [Greetings to you, Madam Speaker, and to us all tonight. To follow the trend that the debate has taken, the part for me to address first is to add my condolences to those expressed already to a beloved mother who died in tragic circumstances in the weeks just past.

The pain of the loss through such tragic circumstances is keenly felt. To that one, I add the tragic death of the toddler at Hoani Waititi marae as well. Finally, I acknowledge Witarina Harris, whose death is keenly felt by me personally and Te Arawa.

And so I say to them, farewell, farewell, farewell. Return to the resting place of the ancestors, rest there. And now to you of this generation, to us seated about in this House, greetings, greetings, and greetings to us all. ]

This issue, the tragic loss of life that the Muliaga family has experienced over the last fortnight—and indeed, it has had major ramifications throughout this country—is not, we regret to say, the first event of this nature. We in the Māori Party have been painfully aware that in too many families there have been lives lost, hardship endured, poverty experienced, and no one taking responsibility. Responsibility must rest in the hands of many, not the least being the State and its agencies. We concentrate here within this Parliament on our ability to make a difference. In this case, we know there were rules and policies that should have been followed, we know that there are already electricity and gas commissioners, and we know that there have been guidelines for low-income and vulnerable consumers. So the question would be: why did this tragedy occur?

Some have chosen to point the finger of blame at individuals. We have been appalled that the crisis that occurred for the Muliaga family should have been turned inward on the community, on to the family, and on to consumers, rather than people looking at blaming those with the responsibility for what occurred. Responsibility and accountability for crisis management must be taken seriously, and not just in this sad case.

We think, too, of the train crash last Tuesday at Kerang in Australia, in which New Zealander Nick Parker lost his life. That crisis sent shock waves across the Tasman. It is not the first time, of course, that fatalities have occurred in public transport. Who will ever forget Christmas Eve of 1953, the night that 151 people died when the rail bridge at Tangiwai collapsed, causing the Wellington express to crash into the flooded river? Later investigation suggested that although a lahar was undeniably responsible for the disaster, warnings by amateur geologists about the state of the crater wall should not have been ignored by the authorities.

April 10 of next year marks 40 years since the Wahine sank in the worst recorded storm in our history. The court of inquiry, which was held 10 weeks after the disaster, found that although conditions had been fatally dangerous, errors of judgment had been made both on board the ferry and onshore.

We can fast-forward to 1979 and to the Mount Erebus disaster, which was New Zealand’s biggest single tragedy, killing all 257 people on board Flight 901. The Chippendale report attributed the captain’s decision to drop to a height below the approved level as being the main cause of the accident. A year later Justice Peter Mahon’s report instead placed the blame for the accident on the airline’s systems. Public opinion has remained divided ever since on where the blame for the disaster should rest.

Then 12 years ago 14 people lost their lives when the viewing platform at Cave Creek collapsed. That platform had been designed, approved, and built by people who lacked engineering, building, or design qualifications. A commission of inquiry found that the Department of Conservation had acted illegally and negligently in constructing the platform. Resignations followed and procedures were changed, but no prosecutions resulted.

Although mass fatal disasters such as those are engraved on our collective memory, less known but just as worthy of attention is the number of individual deaths that have occurred from the malfunctioning of corporate, State, or company responsibility. Edited out of the glossy annual reports has been the fact that people have been dying of poverty and neglect for years. Every member of this House will have been approached by advocacy groups such as Grey Power, the Child Poverty Action Group, and others who have warned us all that the savage and consistent toll of rising rates, electricity, and other prices is creating accelerated levels of severe hardship amongst many superannuitants, beneficiaries, and low-paid workers. Have we listened? What have we done? We have elderly people who die from the cold every winter. We have children who die from their basic needs not being met, yet the agonising price of poverty is considered to be of less interest than the debate around a sports stadium or the victory at Valencia. Hospitals and health authorities have buried their fatal mistakes in hearings that blur the boundaries between medical misadventure and medical error.

On the question of life and death, who will take responsibility? When will we recognise that when tragedies occur and corporates are involved, we expect people to take responsibility? How hard is it to say one is sorry? Not only did the Muliaga family suffer because of the neglect of a State agency but what must be of serious concern to all members in this House is the way that the family was treated after the tragedy occurred. One would have expected the police, with their recent profile, to show far more sensitivity than to rush into the house and treat the children—the recently bereaved children—as witnesses in terms of a crime sheet. It is very sad and disappointing that innocent children, heartbroken by the loss of their mum, were then exposed to the cold process of interrogation, which has been reported at large. And then for the widowed husband to be put through the gauntlet as well—well, that beggars belief!

Accusations of brutish, corporate heartlessness in the wake of recent events have given rise to the call of the Māori Party to consider the relevance of providing for an offence of corporate manslaughter. It is a concept that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions President, Ross Wilson, has previously supported, suggesting that in cases of gross negligence, company principals should not be protected from criminal law by the corporate facade. Of course, we do need to have proper guidelines in place. We need regulations in order to determine where responsibility lies—the lines of accountability between companies, State-owned enterprises, businesses, and the Government. But when accidents occur, and when tragedies happen—as they do and will continue to do—the law must see that justice will be done.

Justice will be seen to be done when we have effective laws in place to prosecute organisations that pay scant regard to the proper management of health and safety—with fatal results. Justice will be seen to be done when an organisation accepts liability if the way that its activities are organised causes a person’s death. Justice will be seen to be done when a corporate body acknowledges that its culpability amounts to a gross breach of the duty of care owed by that organisation to the deceased. Justice will mean that we have legislation that will make it easier than it is at present to prosecute companies when gross negligence is deemed to have contributed to death.

We in the Māori Party believe that many more issues surrounded the health and well-being of FololeMuliaga. We asked why she was discharged from hospital, when clearly her health was in a crisis state. We asked why the guidelines that Mercury Energy and Mighty River Power already had in place were not followed in that case, and perhaps in many others that we have not heard about. We asked when agencies will take seriously the task of making information freely available to their clients in order to enable them to be able to enjoy a quality of life, rather than having their guidelines and policies simply gathering dust and sitting in manuals that are never looked at. I personally have been asked by people about what they should do when they get into situations like that of the Muliaga family. We think that New Zealanders have the right to ask for information about basic services—services that sustain life and well-being. We do not think that is too much to ask for.

We cannot let another tragedy like this occur again. It is up to all of us in this House to ensure that information is available, that guidelines are tight, and, most of all, that communities are cared for. Kia ora tātou.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) : I want to begin by extending my condolences and very deepest sympathy to the family of FololeMuliaga on this tragic set of events. The loss of a mother and a wife is something that strikes hard at the heart of every family, and the grief that that family will be enduring at this moment can only begin to be imagined. As human beings, one to another, our hearts go out to them. But we need to be very, very careful in a situation that is so charged as this, that is so shocking, that we as parliamentarians do not overreact to those circumstances.

Of course we need to ensure that the circumstances that gave rise to Mrs Muliaga’s death are rectified, that there can never be a repetition, that people who are in need of urgent medical services have access to those at all times and in all circumstances. But I was extraordinarily angered last week, on the very day of her funeral, to listen to Morning Report and a slanging match between the two major political parties in this House about culpability. That was what prompted my comments about political grandstanding, not the attendance of the Prime Minister at the funeral, at the family’s invitation. I could not begin to conceive how insensitive it was, on the day of the funeral, when the family’s emotions would be at their most taut and most strained, to have the so-called leaders of this country arguing about whether heavy-handed regulation, or something more cavalier, was the circumstance that required action. That was the height of insensitivity. It was callous, and it was brutal.

It is a timely reminder to all of us, in such awful circumstances—and these are awful circumstances—that our responsibility is to ensure that there are no repetitions but not that we rush to judgment, not that we leap up and down and aggravate an already difficult and tense situation by trying to score the ultimate point.

I think many, many, many New Zealanders will be shocked by the turn of events of the last fortnight. Our egalitarian status—and I agree with my colleague Mr Brown—has taken a huge knock in this country and around the world, at the thought that these circumstances can occur.

I guess emotions naturally run high in that situation. We have to act to make sure this never happens again, but, please, can we do so without resorting to making this the sort of sensational story that only demeans the reputation of Mrs Muliaga and her family, in the way I think we have been guilty of doing in recent times. This is not something to be proud of. This is not the New Zealand way. We support people. We work with them. We reach solutions. Surely one solution must be that if ever anyone is prescribed lifesaving or necessary medical equipment, there be an automatic flag from the district health board to the utilities to make sure that that equipment is able to be operated. Had that been in place in this situation, these events would not have occurred. I believe that that is the point at which we should be starting to think about solutions, and that is the ultimate way in which we can move forward.

I want to end simply by repeating my condolences—my sense of sympathy—to the family in the loss they have endured, and my hope that in the days ahead they can derive strength from the support of their community and can again come to grips with life and have very positive and powerful memories of the contribution of their wife and mother.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) : This is indeed a solemn occasion and a solemn debate, and, like the previous speaker and others, my heart goes out to the Muliaga family, to the late mother, and to family members who are mourning her passing as we speak. This indeed was, and is, a tragedy.

I think Mr Dunne spoke well when he spoke of our egalitarian spirit. In his own way he talked about the outpouring of grief for the family, putting his own interpretation on it—an interpretation that I respect but in some ways disagree with. I say to Mr Dunne, and to others, that that is done in different ways, and people can interpret it as they will. I just wonder, though, what the media response would have been, what the country’s response would have been, and what, in a sad, political sense, Parliament’s and this House’s response would have been had the Prime Minister and the Government not taken the view they did and described what happened in the terms they did—that is, as a tragedy. What would have been the response had the Prime Minister not acted in the way she did—had she not attended the funeral, at the invitation of the family, and had she not spoken at the funeral, at the invitation of the family? What statements would have been made in this House in those circumstances?

I note Mr Brownlee’s comments. Without getting political, I do note the fact that at the end of his 5-minute speech he said that he was not going to trawl over the family’s grief at this time, after he had spent 5 minutes in doing so—questioning, of course, whether the family was receiving Working for Families assistance and the family’s financial state. I will not comment on that behaviour, but leave it to the people to judge.

But I do wonder what this House would have done if there had been a different response from the Government and the Prime Minister. I think I know what it would have done, in its own petty, political way. There would have been members who said that the Prime Minister had not reacted and that the Government had not expressed grief. They would have asked whose responsibility the tragedy was, and said that as a State-owned enterprise, an organ of the State, was involved, the Government should step up to the plate. And I think they would have been right to make that judgment.

It is a bit difficult to win in politics sometimes, but I think that the outpouring of emotion from Parliament, from the Prime Minister, and from the Government to share in the family’s grief and to lend the family support in its time of need after such a tragic passing, as all Kiwis would do, is appropriate. In fact it is very Kiwi to do that. It is not Kiwi to stand aside, to do nothing, to posture from the sidelines, to talk about it, and to blow the debate from one about the simple but tragic circumstance of an error of judgment into a debate about whether we have enough electricity supply, about the price of electricity, or about who did what to whom 10 years ago when the industry was deregulated, or whatever else. I do not think that, in its essence, adds to the mana of this Parliament or of the speakers, or adds to this debate.

Here are the facts. A tragedy has occurred and a family has lost a mother. There were those in the community who chose to lend support; others chose to do that in other ways. It is a fact that a State-owned enterprise, through a contractor, visited the house and saw a piece of apparatus attached to the mum. The mum, or the family, was behind by less than $200 in paying the power bills, and a judgment was made. I suspect that the person who cut the power off is owed a little sympathy—and the family members themselves have shown sympathy to that person. I cannot imagine what that individual is feeling. It is interesting that in that wonderful Kiwi - Pacific Island way, the family that was impacted on by the loss of a mum and a wife has shown that wonderful Kiwi spirit and compassion and has extended the olive branch to the contractor and, ultimately, to the company. I commend them for that. I do not know whether I would have had the grit or the guts, had I been in that situation, to be as generous as that family has been.

But an error of judgment was made, and the question is how to address that. The Government has taken the view—and I endorse the views of Mr Dunne, Peter Brown, and some of the other speakers who have spoken—that it is not acceptable in this day and age that under the most tawdry, stressful, or vulnerable circumstances, the basic human need of electricity should be withdrawn because a paltry sum owed on a power bill cannot be paid at a given time. The sum was $168, I believe, or less than $200. Surely there is a better way, as the Government has said, to manage that. I have worked in the private sector. I believe in free markets, actually. I believe one has to pay one’s bills, but I also believe, as most Kiwis do, that there has to be a degree of social responsibility.

The Government responded in, I think, a reasonably logical way. We would have been pilloried had we rushed in and decided to legislate, or called the House back to ram through a bill or do whatever else, as some who were trying to politicise the show said we should do. What we did was to look at the guidelines—and that is what they are; guidelines. The guidelines recommend that a State-owned enterprise should provide information to victims if they are in the mire and cannot pay their bills. The record, I am told, shows that over the 5 to 7 years that this family had some problems, that basic information—that recommendation—was not taken up and the information may not have been passed on. The Government has moved to say that it will strengthen the guidelines. Instead of insisting that it is recommended to State-owned enterprises that they provide information, we have simply done this. We have said they must advise consumers who may have difficulty paying their bills of the assistance available from Government agencies and community service providers.

In essence, actually, State-owned enterprises are to do what most companies in the private sector that are good corporate citizens do anyway—that is, talk to their customers. They want to be paid, and the way to be paid is to talk to customers and work through the proposition, not to pull the pin or flick the switch. But we have deemed it appropriate to ensure there are some compulsory safeguards in place, so it will be a requirement that that information is furnished to those people. We say that retailers must take steps to identify vulnerable consumers who are having difficulty in paying their bills, and must consult with the Ministry of Social Development before disconnecting power from any vulnerable consumer. At no time during that process, we say, can a retailer disconnect power from a vulnerable consumer.

I would have thought that is a pretty good package to put in place. It goes from a recommendation to a requirement. It states that once people are identified as being vulnerable—and, of course, I am sure the Opposition and others will say there will be those who will try to pull the wool and abuse the system, but it is better to have that than to have a repeat of the tragedy we are debating today—there is a default position of referring them to our social agencies, which can then, hopefully, do a deal and assist those people. The power keeps flowing, the budget advice goes in or whatever else is needed, the power company is paid, and by doing that, firstly, everybody stays alive and, secondly, the problem is resolved.

Mr Brownlee has said to me on air that there is too much regulation. Well, I think that this is actually a very logical and common-sense proposition. Many companies that I have worked for in the private sector actually exhibit social responsibility, and do members know why? It is because it makes damn good business sense to treat one’s customers well. It ensures that they pay their bills, it ensures that the company receives the money, and it gives the company a good name as a decent corporate citizen. Social responsibility makes sense. It is not some sort of PC, kaftans-and-sandals type of concept that wanders around the ether. It makes corporate sense to look after and communicate with customers, and to go the extra mile sometimes to ensure that customers are looked after, so that they pay their bills. This is a logical commercial business proposition.

I just conclude by saying that history will judge those who have participated in this debate, and it will judge them on the way they acted publicly. I share the grief of the family. As I say, I do not know whether I would have had the generosity of spirit that its members have shown in a terrible time of tragedy. I suspect I would not have had it; to be honest, I probably would not have had it. But they have shown a generosity of spirit. The Prime Minister and the Government have tried to move to that space and resolve a problem swiftly, so that we do not have another tragedy like this one, which should have never happened and should never happen again. I think that is a position of logic and of compassion, and at the end of the day Kiwis will judge it as such.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) : I add my condolences and sympathies to those expressed by my colleagues in this Parliament to the Muliagafamily at this tragic time. I think that the hearts of New Zealanders went out to this family because this was a hard-working Kiwi family. This was not people bludging off the system; this was a family with four children that was trying to make ends meet and, we understand, earning a low income.

That is what I want to ask the Government about this afternoon, because I believe that it is a hugely important issue. In New Zealand, over many years now, New Zealanders have come to take some pride in the fact that where people in this country make the effort to help themselves and to take care of their families, we are prepared to step in and support them. That is the basis of family support, which was started as a policy in this country many years ago by a Labour Government. It is the basis of this Labour Government’s flagship Working for Families policy, so one question that I think needs to be answered in the debate this afternoon is whether this family was benefiting from that policy. From what we read, we are led to believe that this hard-working family was trying to make ends meet on $400 a week—that is what I read in the media somewhere—which is $20,000 a year, assuming the income earner is working full time. No family of four can live on that; it is simply not possible to live on that amount. That is why, over the years, a whole series of policies to support hard-working families has been put in place, and supported by successive Governments, to make sure that no working family has to try to survive on $400 a week, because it simply is not possible.

This afternoon in this debate I heard the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon David Benson-Pope, crowing about the Government’s wonderful Working for Families policy and the amount of money the Government has put into it. That is fine; I guess that a Labour Minister will do that. I heard the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, who has just finished speaking, criticise my colleague Gerry Brownlee for asking whether this family was in receipt of all it was entitled to, under New Zealand’s systems to support our low-income, hard-working families. I believe that there are questions this Labour Government should answer, because the Working for Families package is one of its flagship policies. At the last election, people may recollect that taxpayers in this country poured another $800 million, I think, into the Working for Families package in order to help low-income, hard-working families. Over the next little while I want Labour members to make it clear to the public whether this flagship family support policy is working.

We know from what we are told that the Muliaga family is a proud family, and I congratulate it on that. This family did not want to be on a benefit, which perhaps it could have been on. So I presume that the father of this family is working independently of the benefit system and, we are told, trying to survive on $400 a week. The salary or wage this family is earning is $20,000 a year; I asked the Minister of Revenue not that long ago what kind of support under the new Working for Families package such a family would receive. One of the four children is, I believe, beyond the age of being called dependent, so let us say that three of the children are dependent. I do not know the facts for certain, because I do not want to get too specific in relation to the particular family’s circumstances.

The Minister of Revenue told me that a family with three dependent children, independent of the primary benefit system and earning $20,000 a year—that is, $400 a week—would be entitled to the following tax support. It would receive a family tax credit of about $1,300. In addition to that it would receive family support after abatement—although, in fact, at that level of income there would be no abatement—of $10,192. In addition to that $20,000 of earned income, if the family were independent of the benefit system, it would also receive $1,320 of in-work payment after abatement.

So on $20,000 of earned income, after PAYE had been deducted, and after the proper tax credits had been paid under the Government’s flagship Working for Families policy, that family should not have been trying to live off $20,000 a year, but it should have been getting well over 50 percent more than that—and I presume, living in Auckland, that it would have been entitled to the accommodation supplement as well. This means that it should have been entitled to something more like twice the level of income it was getting, without having to go on to standard benefits or into the standard benefit system. Just through the tax credit system alone it should have been entitled to support of more than 50 percent of its earned income—that is, its net support, which does not include an accommodation supplement.

I believe that Government Ministers must make it very clear whether this family was in receipt of those entitlements. If that family was legally employed in this country—and I have no reason to doubt that it was—then there has been a major, major policy failure that far exceeds issues around the cost of electricity. It is a major policy failure if the flagship family support policy failed to look after a family in this country that was working—working hard, and working for income that seems extraordinarily and sadly low. I have not heard that question answered, because it is possible that the family was not receiving that level of support. I think that members of this Labour Government should make it clear whether their flagship policy was working, because if that hard-working family that suffered this unthinkable tragedy was not getting that full level of support, then that is a major, major failure of policy by this Labour Government and we should know whether that failure has happened.

I put it to this Labour Government that in the legislation recently introduced following the Budget—the Taxation (Annual Rates, Business Taxation, KiwiSaver, and Remedial Matters) Bill—those various elements of support for working families have had their names changed. Whoopee do—they have had their names changed! For example, a family tax credit now becomes a minimum family tax credit, etc. But what has not changed is how these family support elements are made to work.

The Taxation (Annual Rates, Business Taxation, KiwiSaver, and Remedial Matters) Bill will now require employers, when they employ someone legally, to go through a whole new rigmarole of enrolling them in a savings scheme. Would it be beyond the wit of a Government to come up with an implementation policy that enabled employers to make sure that when they employ people, they actually get them on the various tax credit support systems they are entitled to, without there being a risk of a low-income family like that falling through the cracks?

Judging by the way Government members are hanging their heads, I suspect that this family did fall through the cracks. I suspect that this family was probably not in receipt of the support entitlements it was entitled to, and I believe that that is a grave failure in policy. This Labour Government should be thinking about how it makes sure that someone who is legally employed in this country should be legally entitled automatically to receive the various tax credits to which he or she is entitled.

Of course, the moment that that does not happen, people have to have the knowledge to apply for those credits. Some hard-working families may not know that they have the opportunity to apply for them, or they may not have the wherewithal to do so. If it is good enough for people legally employed now to be able automatically to be put into savings schemes, it ought to be good enough for our hard-working, low-income people in this country automatically to get the tax credits to which they are entitled. Sadly, I feel that this family probably did not get those credits.

• The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control) : I move, That this House note that 8 June 2007 is the 20th anniversary of the passing by this House of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 and resolve that New Zealand should continue to work for a nuclear weapon – free world; and that, in striving for a world free of nuclear weapons, the House call for: the implementation and strengthening of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including the unequivocal undertaking made by nuclear weapon States in 2000 to move towards the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals; the expansion and strengthening of nuclear weapon – free zones and a nuclear weapon – free Southern Hemisphere; the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty; the enactment of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty; and the universal implementation of nuclear non-proliferation instruments such as the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540.

Twenty years ago this month, on 8 June 1987, the fourth Labour Government passed through this House legislation that committed New Zealand to being nuclear-free. In moving the third reading of the legislation, Prime Minister David Lange said that it represented “a fundamental reassessment of what constitutes our security.” He said that nuclear weapons did not guarantee New Zealand’s security but were detrimental to it.

The legislation at the time was controversial. It was bitterly opposed by the National Opposition. National leader Jim Bolger called it “an exercise in futility”. Periodically since then, political parties opposed to being nuclear-free, or political parties that adopt a non-nuclear stance as an opportunistic position rather than an article of faith, have attempted to challenge the legislation. But Lange was prophetic when he stated that “The bill will not allow any successive New Zealand Government to reverse that policy without first going through the test of democratic opinion at the general election and, secondly, without subjecting its legislative process for repeal to the scrutiny of an informed House of Representatives and the general public.” With the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders supporting this country’s nuclear-free status, our being clean, green, and non-nuclear has become an essential part of our identity. The policy has stayed—it was Don Brash who was gone by lunchtime.

The Labour Party opposition to nuclear weapons is, of course, longstanding. At the height of the cold war in 1959 the then Prime Minister Walter Nash, at the United Nations, stood apart from our ANZUS partners to support a treaty to ban nuclear testing. In 1973 Norman Kirk proudly sent a frigate up to the testing zone at Mururoa to protest at French nuclear testing. Martyn Finlay took a case to the International Court of Justice to end atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons—and shortly thereafter that testing did indeed cease.

The fourth Labour Government passed the legislation we are commemorating today—the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act—to set out in statute a prohibition on nuclear weapons in New Zealand and visits by nuclear-powered ships. It was the strongest way we could express our view that far from providing security, the nuclear arms race posed a threat to humanity. Human history, of course, has been marked by conflict, but never before had human beings possessed the ability to entirely destroy their own planet and, with it, humanity—an ability we gained with the possession of nuclear weapons.

This legislation showed two things. First, it showed that New Zealand was prepared to lead the world in opposition to the existence and the build up of nuclear arms. Secondly, it showed our readiness as a small but proudly independent nation to speak out for the values we believed in. In that sense, the nuclear-free legislation has come not only to embody our strong opposition to weapons of mass destruction but also to represent the assertion of our right to promote our firmly held beliefs, without the need first to seek the concurrence of stronger friends or allies.

Twenty years on, is this legislation still relevant and necessary? The answer, I believe, is an unequivocal “Yes”. There continues to be the need for New Zealand to provide a strong voice for nuclear disarmament and against proliferation. The cold war may be over, with some reduction in stockpiles of nuclear weapons, but we have not yet achieved the elimination of those weapons. Indeed, today there is still a stockpile of over 27,000 nuclear warheads, each with an explosive force between eight and 40 times greater than that of the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945.

Just last week, in response to the United States’ plans for a nuclear missile defence shield, Russia tested new long-range missiles. President Putin went as far as declaring that the nuclear arms race had restarted. This year China fired a missile into space to destroy a satellite, and progress has not yet been made on preventing the extension of an arms race into outer space. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty has still not come into effect, negotiations have not even begun on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, and the conference on disarmament in Geneva has not progressed for more than a decade. Thousands of nuclear weapons remain on a hair-trigger alert. There would be little time to prevent retaliation if a missile were fired by accident or miscalculation.

The number of countries possessing nuclear weapons has increased by at least three—India, Pakistan, and North Korea—and probably four, with Israel as well. Just 4 years ago two of those countries, India and Pakistan, were on the brink of a conflict that could have become a nuclear conflict. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, 30 more countries are capable of going nuclear in a short period. Iran has given the international community grounds for believing that it is seeking nuclear weapons capability, which adds new dangers to an already volatile region, given its hostile relationship with Israel. Terrorist groups are openly acknowledging that their quest is for weapons of mass destruction, thereby creating new nightmare scenarios in the post- 9/11 environment.

Not only does our nuclear-free legislation remain relevant but the leadership stance that New Zealand took in 1987 continues to be necessary. Together with likeminded countries—Ireland, Sweden, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, and Egypt—New Zealand makes up the New Agenda Coalition, which continues to push initiatives in vital multilateral negotiations, such as the non-proliferation treaty. With Brazil we are at the forefront of a push to bring nuclear weapon – free zones together into a Southern Hemisphere nuclear weapon – free zone. We strongly support efforts to stop proliferation through active participation in the Proliferation Security Initiative. Under the G8 global partnership we have contributed to projects to destroy chemical weapons in Russia, and to close down the last plutonium-producing nuclear reactor in Siberia. This year we are embarking on a new project to help stop the smuggling of fissile material across the Russia-Ukraine border.

New Zealand contributes to and implements the policies of all export control groups, designed to prevent the proliferation of nuclear goods and technologies. We comply with all United Nations Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency resolutions relating to weapons of mass destruction. We also acknowledge that conventional weapons have killed literally tens of millions of people since the Second World War, in localised conflicts. As Kofi Annan has said, their effect has been to act as weapons of mass destruction. We have played a key role in opposition to landmines and cluster munitions, and in support of an arms trade treaty.

I believe that New Zealand can be proud of its role in disarmament and non-proliferation, as well as the specific legislation we are celebrating the 20th anniversary of in the House today. Our greatest challenge may be that having survived six decades with nuclear weapons, the world has become complacent about the dangers they pose. I believe that Albert Einstein’s warning remains relevant. He said: “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

It is with real pride that I stand up as part of a Government that has followed on from our predecessor fourth Labour Government, which passed legislation that made New Zealand a leader in the area of opposing the madness of the stockpiling of nuclear weapons and proliferation. We believed it then; we have believed it ever since. We will continue until we achieve the goal of the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction, and most particularly of those weapons that are nuclear weapons. Thank you.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) : The National Party endorses and supports the motion moved by the honourable Minister of Defence today. The fact that both major political parties represented in this Parliament are able to support such a resolution should be, and, I believe, will be, welcomed by the vast majority of New Zealanders. We are a small country with vital interests to advance in relation to trade, security, and international affairs. Where possible, we should speak with one voice on the international stage. I therefore welcome the fact that this motion will enjoy the overwhelming support of the House today.

I take this opportunity to reflect not just on the wider challenges outlined by the Minister’s motion but also on the unresolved issues that remain as a consequence of the legislation that was passed 20 years ago. Few in this House will disagree with the assertion in the motion to “resolve that New Zealand should continue to work for a nuclear weapon free world;”.

The nuclear-free legislation emerged a generation ago from New Zealanders’ concerns over the cold war nuclear arms race. It was a terrifying thought that two nuclear superpowers, the United States and the former Soviet Union, engaged in an arms race seemingly without end, could make a frightful miscalculation with unimaginable consequences for the future of mankind. Only recently there has been some minor skirmishing around that theme, in the lead-up to the recent G8 summit. But only a complete pessimist could survey the stated US-Russia strategic relations today and reach any conclusion other than that we seem to have decisively moved in the right direction. The threat of nuclear holocaust, although still there, has been vastly reduced over the last 15 to 20 years, and we should all celebrate that.

However, the threat of nuclear weaponry has not gone away; it has simply changed its face. Indeed, a rather different agenda of nuclear issues now occupies centre stage—what the pundits call “horizontal proliferation”, or the acquiring of nuclear weapons and nuclear-capable delivery mechanisms by an increasing number of States. Some of these States are deeply unstable. There is, therefore, widespread support in this House for New Zealand’s role in promoting the non-proliferation cause. Domestically, there is agreement between the two major political parties in this House that the nuclear-free legislation passed 20 years ago should be retained. Some would argue that we have come full circle, to the era of largely bipartisan foreign policy of 25 years ago. Certainly, there is very substantial room for us now to find a way forward that allows this country to chart its own foreign policy course, and pursue its interests in trade, security, and defence in a manner that is bipartisan, durable, principled, and worthy of international respect.

It is important, as the House pauses to note the passing of this legislation 20 years ago, that we use this opportunity to look forward. The people of New Zealand did not elect this Parliament to wallow in the memories of the past 20 years, but rather to establish a framework of relationships and understandings that will serve our national interest for the next 20 years.

The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 was created 20 years ago in a somewhat controversial circumstance. Students of history have recounted in some detail the events that led to the passing of the 1987 Act. It would be fair to say that the Act, however awkward or maladroit its origins, now enjoys the support of the majority of New Zealanders as a central plank of our foreign policy. At the heart of this issue lies the fact that the legislation passed 20 years ago was the first significant assertion of an independent foreign policy by this country. It spelt the end of our participation in the ANZUS alliance, which had, until that time, been the cornerstone of our defence and foreign policy approach. The 1987 legislation is often referred to as iconic. I believe that this is not just because of its specific content but because of the independence of thought and judgment that it asserts for our young country.

My own party, the National Party, which had seen the ANZUS Treaty as the cornerstone of this country’s security arrangements for 50 years, did not easily embrace the nuclear-free legislation. However, the Bolger administration in the 1990s endorsed it, and for 9 years of a National-led Government the legislation was retained. The National Party today endorses the legislation and pledges to retain it. John Key, in the first days of his leadership of the National Party, made that commitment clear.

There is acceptance on both sides, I believe, that a cost is attached to the maintenance of the legislation. That is a simple fact of life. The presidential directive of 20 years ago that responded to New Zealand’s nuclear-free legislation with restrictions on the access of New Zealand forces to US intelligence, technology, and joint training opportunities remains in force today. New Zealand does not have a free-trade agreement with the United States, unlike our nearest neighbour, Australia, which, 3 years into the implementation of its free-trade agreement, will provide an increasingly powerful magnet for New Zealand capital and skill. There is a cost associated with the New Zealand policy. It is a cost that New Zealanders are, in the significant majority, happy to bear, but it is also a cost they look to their political leaders to minimise through skilful diplomacy, forceful advocacy, and the exercise of good judgment.

So the retention of this legislation that is called iconic, and that is symbolic of our independence of thought and judgment in international affairs, is not in question. What is in question is how we might best deal with the challenges that remain as a consequence of its somewhat tortured history, and how we might best re-establish the relationships, especially in the vital areas of trade and security, that a country with our heritage, our language, our history of shared sacrifice, and our outlook should be able to have with those who were once our allies and who are nominally—but not quite yet in the fullest operational sense—our very, very good friends. That is the unfinished business of the nuclear-free debate.

For those reasons, the National Party has sought to work with the Government to improve our relationship with the United States. Our previous leader, Dr Brash, Mr Groser, and I were in Washington last year for the United States - New Zealand Partnership Forum, along with Mr Goff, and we took the opportunity to emphasise the bipartisanship of our approach. We have pledged to do what we can to achieve a free-trade agreement between this country and the United States. We have pledged to do what we can to see modification—and, over time, possibly more than modification—of the presidential directive of 20 years ago, which restricts the capacity of New Zealand forces to train with US forces or to have access to high-level technology and intelligence. We have supported the Minister of Defence in his assertion that it is hardly right that New Zealand and US forces should work together in some of the trouble spots of the world, yet be restricted in their ability to train together.

Both of those objectives—in trade and in security—are very much in our national interest. We cannot afford to leave their fortunes to the vagaries of the domestic political cycle. New Zealanders are entitled to see that their elected representatives, regardless of political allegiance, will work together in these matters to serve the national interest. In the spirit of serving that national interest, National members join in supporting the resolution that is before the House today.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : I listened to that speech from the Hon Murray McCully with interest. He did not even crack a smile, and he certainly said it as if he believed what he was saying. But the National Party, if I am correct—and I am sure somebody will correct me if I am wrong—opposed this legislation in 1987. Then National came to power in 1990 and stuck with the legislation. Yet when it got into Opposition in 1999, it said it would be gone by lunch time. Is this not the legislation that the National Party was talking about? Am I correct?

Hon Members: Yes.

PETER BROWN: Now, National members are saying they will stick with it. But I thought the Hon Murray McCully was hinting that they might go the other way because he was saying there was a cost—but at the moment New Zealanders are prepared to bear that cost.

New Zealand First supports this motion. There is reference to it among our 15 founding principles. In fact, there is the statement: “New Zealanders’ desire for a non-nuclear future will be respected.” That has been in our 15 founding principles since the day this party started. We have never departed from that position over the past 14 years, as I say, since our inception, and we remain committed to it today.

There is absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of New Zealand people continue to endorse the view reflected in this legislation; they want New Zealand to remain nuclear-free. Fortunately, our nuclear-free legislation is now being seen by the world for what it actually is. It was never an attempt to thumb our noses at the world but rather an opportunity to express a deeply held sentiment. It did mean that the Government of the time—and New Zealand as a whole—had to paddle its own canoe on the world stage. I thought that the Rt Hon David Lange at that time did a magnificent job. I will never forget that Oxford Union debate. It is impressed on my memory, and I thought he represented his country exceedingly well.

This is core legislation and it is about taking a step to a more idealistic world. New Zealand had the courage, under Prime Minister Lange, to take that step and to make it a reality. New Zealand First supports this motion and firmly supports New Zealand staying nuclear-free.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party strongly supports this motion. Twenty years ago New Zealand became a world power—not a world power in size, not a world power in economic terms, but a world power in moral strength. We spoke out for the majority of humanity who lived—and still live—in fear of nuclear war. We said to the most powerful nuclear-armed State—America—“No, we will not allow your nuclear ships in our ports; these are an unacceptable danger to us and a danger to the world, and we will set an example, a nuclear-free example, for other countries to follow.”

Perhaps the Government of the time did not present it in quite such bold terms, but that was the sentiment of the people. That was the sentiment among the thousands of New Zealanders who had campaigned, petitioned, and marched for the previous 25 years since the formation of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in 1959. There were people like Phil Amos, a Minister in Norm Kirk’s Government, who is being buried in Auckland this afternoon. Phil not only supported Norman Kirk in sending a frigate to Mururoa to protest French nuclear testing but in October 1976, a year after Labour lost power, he also skippered one of the small protest boats that blocked the path of the American nuclear warship, the USS Long Beach, as it tried to enter Auckland Harbour. He was arrested and convicted of obstruction but managed to win on appeal, partly because he was helped by a good lawyer—one David Lange. That was the same man who as Prime Minister later shepherded the antinuclear law through our Parliament.

New Zealanders are rightly proud of our antinuclear status and we want our Government to remain a leading campaigner for nuclear disarmament. We could do a lot more. We have to be more like how we were back in 1987 when we were the mouse that roared—the small nation standing up to the superpower America. Today the main barrier to nuclear disarmament is still the same United States Government. It not only possesses a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons but is escalating the nuclear arms race through “Star Wars” and the building of a so-called missile defence shield. Clearly such a shield will only encourage other nuclear States to increase their nuclear arsenals, so that they are less disadvantaged in any future nuclear confrontation. The nuclear disarmament process has largely stalled, as existing nuclear States go back on their promises, under the non-proliferation treaty, to get rid of all their weapons.

New Zealand has done well in promoting disarmament resolutions as part of the new agenda coalition alongside Sweden, Ireland, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, and Egypt. But we need to be more at the forefront of promoting a nuclear weapons convention where all nuclear weapons States buy into a staged process of ceasing production of fissile material and any new bombs, and step by step—but completely—disarming under a tight inspection regime. Unfortunately, New Zealand has yet to take up the offer of Costa Rica and Malaysia to support their nuclear weapons convention proposal in the General Assembly this October. The concept involved is not that radical today. Even former war hawks like George Shultz, who as US Secretary of State in 1985 tried to keep us in the pro-nuclear ANZUS alliance, and Henry Kissinger now say that “Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and practical measures towards achieving that goal would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative consistent with America’s moral heritage.” We could also play a more active leadership role in linking up the nuclear-free zones in the South Pacific, South-east Asia, Latin America, and Africa into a southern hemisphere and adjacent areas nuclear-free zone.

Although being firmly against the proliferation of nuclear weapons to new countries, we should not adopt the Bush administration’s biased view of where the main dangers come from. Surely the danger comes more from Israel—secretly nuclear-armed and often engaged in warfare with its neighbours—or the nuclear-armed Pakistani dictatorship than from Iran, which we are not yet even sure wants to acquire nuclear weapons.

New Zealand has done many creditable things since it became nuclear-free. One highlight was the successful campaign that resulted in 1996 in the World Court declaring that the use, or threat of use, of nuclear weapons was generally illegal. That campaign started with a Christchurch magistrate, Harold Evans, expanded to an active New Zealand peace group—the World Court Project—and later gained New Zealand Government backing. It was a fantastic achievement for New Zealand and shows just what we can achieve if we stick to our antinuclear principles and actually try to lead the world. Thank you.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : I want to honour the countless thousands of New Zealanders over a generation who brought about the 1987 New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act. I note in passing that the Act covers not just nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament—which, of course, is the most important part—but also nuclear energy generation, with the recognition that there is a close connection between the proliferation of nuclear energy and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that the technologies are quite closely connected.

I honour those people who wrote submissions, marched on countless marches in the street, wrote to and met with politicians, passed motions at Labour Party conferences for 10 years before the Act was passed, and sailed their little boats and even their windsurfers into the paths of visiting nuclear submarines and ships—and even stopped one in its tracks in Auckland harbour. I honour those who took part in the royal commission on nuclear power and managed to defer a technology that was about to be built, and those who organised the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Campaign for Non-Nuclear Futures . I honour Greenpeace, and those who organised Campaign Half Million and collected a third of a million signatures—the largest petition in New Zealand’s history at that stage—at street stalls, by door-knocking, in schools, in churches, in sports clubs, and in businesses.

I note in passing that that organising work was done by the Values Party in the 1970s, the ancestor of the Green Party. It was done anonymously so that the important work would not be contaminated with a political label. Nevertheless, that is where the leadership in those days came from. I want to honour those who designed posters, researched leaflets, and advocated sustainable energy alternatives.

I returned to New Zealand in 1974 after 7 years in Europe to find New Zealand in the midst of a decision as to precisely where to site New Zealand’s first nuclear power station. The citizens of New Zealand stopped that. This was a genuine citizens’ movement that compelled Parliament to act. So I commend not just Parliament and the Government of that time, whose actions were crucial, but the citizens who made it happen.

I remember that in 1983 Helen Caldicott had been visiting and lecturing around the country about how close we were to the imminent risk of nuclear war. The Union of Concerned Scientists had moved its doomsday clock to 4 minutes to midnight. On 6 August 1983, Hiroshima Day , Aotea Square at the end of Queen Street in Auckland was crammed with people preparing to march up Queen Street. A woman turned to me and said: “What a good idea to have a march on Hiroshima Day.”, and I said: “Yes, there are certainly more people than we’ve had for the past 20 years.” She said: “Oh, do you mean people have done this before?”. It was a moment in history when the work of people for decades came together and fired the public imagination.

I also recall that in 1997, on the tenth anniversary of the legislation, as a new member of Parliament I introduced, as a member’s bill, the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Extension Bill, which set out to fill the gaps in the 1987 legislation. There are some gaps. Not many people realise that although nuclear weapons are prohibited from our 12-mile zone, one can actually station and fire a nuclear weapon 13 miles off the coast of New Zealand, or that although nuclear-powered ships are prohibited from our harbours they are not prohibited from cruising along our coast a very short distance out. We have a responsibility to protect 200 miles of our economic zone, to protect our fisheries, and to protect the environment in that area. Unfortunately, the Government at the time did not proceed with the bill, although it did allow the bill to go to a select committee, and we had an intense debate with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which hauled out all its big guns and managed to kill the bill that would have filled those gaps.

Hon Phil Goff: It had something to do with UNCLOS. It’s international law, Jeanette.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: There were many different ways of reading the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and we had very good legal advice from international lawyers that the convention was compatible with the bill.

So there is a lot of work to do to eliminate nuclear weapons, to implement the test-ban treaty, to disinvest our superannuation savings from nuclear weapons production, and to finish the job of protecting our economic zone.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) :Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnātātou te Whare . I am proud to stand here today on behalf of the Māori Party to honour all those who worked so hard to make Aotearoa nuclear-free many years ago. In doing so I wish to start by honouring Labour Cabinet Minister and Tai Tokerau MP, the Hon Matiu Rata , who sailed with a fleet of yachts to Mururoa to protest against French nuclear-testing in the Pacific. A Cabinet Minister, and a Māori one at that, sailed into a nuclear-testing zone. Me mihi ki a ia.

I express my thanks to my Pacific cousins for their strength and their support dating back more than 30 years to the Conference for a Nuclear Free Pacific in Fiji in 1975 and in Ponape in 1978. I also remember the sterling efforts of people like my mum and others who fought to broaden the scope of those conferences so that by 1983 the conference in Vanuatu produced The Peoples’ Charter for a Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific, which stated: “We, the people of the Pacific have been victimised too long by foreign powers. The western imperialistic and colonial powers invaded our defenceless region, they took over our lands and subjugated our people to their whims. This form of alien colonial political and military domination unfortunately persists as an evil cancer in some of our native territories such as Tahiti, New Caledonia, Australia, New Zealand. Our environment continues to be despoiled by foreign powers developing nuclear weapons for a strategy of warfare that has no winners, no liberators and imperils the survival of all humankind. We note in particular the recent racist roots of the world’s nuclear powers and we call for an immediate end to the oppression, exploitation and subordination of the indigenous people of the Pacific.”

I am also reminded that the call for a nuclear-free Pacific came at the same time as the Maori Land March of 1975—a natural connection arising out of colonisation, land confiscation, environmental destruction, and nuclear war. I note that Māori have always had a strong presence in the fight for a nuclear-free Aotearoa, including Matiu Rata, NgānekoMinhinnick, Pauline Tangiora, Grace and Sharon Robertson, and indeed my own wife Hilda Halkyard amongst many others. Indeed, it was not long after the first national black women’s hui held in Tau Henare’s home town of Ōtara in 1980 that the Pacific People’s Anti-Nuclear Action Committee was set up by Hilda Halkyard-Harawira and Grace Robertson. They had no money but their own, no resources save those they could appropriate, a tiny office at Kōkiri te Rāhuitanga ki Ōtara, and attitude to burn. The committee’s goals were based on The Peoples’ Charter for a Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific, and in 1980 the committee hosted Te Hui Oranga o Te Moana Nui a Kiwa, at TātaiHono Marae in Auckland. At that time, TātaiHono was the home base to the notorious Anglican activist, the Rev. Hone Kaa; the stay-over for people involved in Bastion Point occupations; the launching pad for He Taua, the War Party, that in 60 seconds ended decades of racist abuse at Auckland University; the theatre for indigenous performances like Maranga Mai; the debating chamber for the Waitangi Action Committee; the meeting place for the Patu squad during the Springbok Tour trials; the breeding ground for independent Māori thought; and a seething hotbed of Māori radicalism.

Te Hui Oranga was an extremely important hui for Māori because it dragged us, kicking and screaming, out of our own world and connected us to people facing similar issues in the Pacific. Te Hui Oranga attracted more than 120 people from all over the Pacific, who had gathered for a common purpose: “to speak of land rights movements throughout the Pacific in their broadest context, and the struggle of indigenous people everywhere to regain power over their lives and lands, and resist global military and economic interests.”

Te Hui Oranga was the first of its kind in Aotearoa, bringing four international leaders to the forum, including Charlie Ching, a Tahitian independence leader; Grace Smallwood and Mike Smith, Koori from north Queensland; and MariflorParpan of the Nuclear Free Philippines Coalition, and helping Māori to see their own plight as part of a global movement.

I also want to use this anniversary of the 1987 legislation to acknowledge others who helped shape that history; a history where Herbs expressed the nation’s anti-nuclear feelings through songs like “French Letter”, “No Nukes”, “Light of the Pacific”, and “Nuclear Waste”; a history that poet Hone Tuwhare captured in his own special ode to nuclear madness, “No Ordinary Sun”; a history that links us through the threat of nuclear destruction to the people of the Marshall Islands, who still suffer from American nuclear tests, the people of Bikini and Rongelap, evacuated and devastated by the surface testing of US nuclear weapons; our cousins from Tahiti Nui who have been killed and mutilated by French nuclear-testing on Mururoa and Fangataufa; New Zealand, Australian, and Pacific military used as guinea pigs in the British nuclear programmes on Malden Island and Christmas Island; the Koori people pushed out of the Maralinga desert for nuclear testing; the people of Kwajalein forced to host the Ronald Reagan missile test site; and the people of Guam and Hawaii who continued to enjoy the stockpiling of nuclear weapons, battleships, bombers, and military operations. It is a history that links the Pacific and a common resistance against the effects of colonisation—physical, cultural, spiritual, economic, nuclear, and military—and a history with a common struggle for self-determination and independence.

I want to acknowledge, too, the importance of the anti-nuclear protests during that time in helping to define a distinctive identity here in Aotearoa. Following on from the strident Viet Nam protests, there was the Maori Land March, the protests at Waitangi, the many land occupations throughout the country as Māori took their own place in the new world, and the protests against the Springbok Tour.

I also acknowledge the work of international organisations like Greenpeace, and I make special mention here of Fernando Pereira, whom my wife and I had the privilege to meet just hours before he was killed when the Rainbow Warrior was blown up by French agents and sunk in Auckland Harbour. I acknowledge, too, the efforts of ordinary Kiwis who raised their opposition to nuclear power, from 30 percent in 1978 to more than 90 percent by 1986.

I acknowledge Helen Clark for pushing the bill to make Aotearoa nuclear-free, when a lot of her own party were not particularly keen on it. I acknowledge Marilyn Waring, the National MP who voted with her conscience and supported the Opposition’s nuclear-free New Zealand bill, and brought down our own Government in the process.

I acknowledge David Lange for whopping Jerry Falwell on the public stage in Oxford in a debate, “That nuclear weapons are morally indefensible”, winning the debate, and earning international admiration for our position. I particularly acknowledge all New Zealanders for not allowing our Governments to cave in when the Yanks tried to force us to back down.

Our anti-nuclear status is now an integral part of our society, something we must never forget, and something we must always be prepared to step forward on. We must never forget the courage of those who fought for our country to be nuclear-free, and we must never forget those who continue to suffer ongoing problems from nuclear testing.

In closing, let me quote from the re-versioning of Hone Tuwhare’s poem “No Ordinary Sun” as it was re-presented by Maranga Mai all over the nation, as a warning to us all that this fight is nowhere near over.

Tree—let your arms fall; don’t raise them to the bright cloud

Soon, they will lack toughness

For this is no mere axe to blunt or fire to smother you

Your sap won’t rise again to the pull of the moon

Your ears bend to the winds talk or stir to the trickle of rain

Your branches won’t be wreathed with the delightful flight of birds

Or shield lovers from the bright sun.

Tree—let your arms fall; don’t raise them to the bright cloud

For this is no ordinary sun.

No ordinary sun.

And your end is written at last …

Kia ora tātou.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) : As a member of Parliament in 1987 I was proud to vote for New Zealand’s anti-nuclear legislation, and were similar legislation to come before the House today, I would be proud to support it again. But the real significance of that legislation has only in recent years dawned upon the New Zealand consciousness, and I want to return to that theme a little later on.

I think that if we go back to the 1960s, the 1970s, and the 1980s, we can see that the anti-nuclear call was as much about New Zealand asserting its identity in the world as it was about a commitment to a genuinely anti-nuclear future. When Norman Kirk sent the frigate Otago to Mururoa in 1973, and he stood on the wharf at Devonport and said: “We may only be a small nation but we send a message to the world by this act.”, most New Zealanders at that point said that that was absolutely right. That was a mark of our position in the world; that was our statement about where we stood.

Again, when Martyn Finlay stood up at the World Court and presented the case, with the reluctant Australians in tow, that was New Zealand asserting its position. A decade later, the Lange Government did the same. The cynics may say that the anti-nuclear mantle of that Government was a convenient cloak for the economic reforms that were going on in parallel time. There may be some truth in that, but I think it is a cynical view. But there is no doubt that, as with the Kirk era earlier, David Lange and his Government were able to take on that anti-nuclear role and shape a New Zealand identity around it.

I recall being a very young—and I stress that—MP in Washington when Mr Lange passed through on his way to the Oxford Union debate. What was extraordinary was watching the way in which the local television and news services reported his presence in the United States. “Prime Minister Lange is in town”, the stories said—not “Prime Minister Lange from New Zealand, that little country down at the end of the Pacific”.

In that moment David Lange assumed a position on the world stage, in the way we talk about President Bush or Prime Minister Blair. They do not have be qualified in terms of where they are from. It was as though people knew it was Prime Minister Lange from New Zealand. Watching the way the American media reacted to this man—who was a strange man, really, because, after all, he was challenging all that was orthodox to them—their deference, respect, and curiosity made it very comforting, and made me feel very proud as a New Zealander that that was our leader, standing up for our country. It was still that identity issue.

Again, a decade later, when Jim Bolger sent not a frigate, as we did not have too many of those in those days, but a weather-research ship, or something of equivalent nature up to Mururoa, it was a part of the New Zealand story. I remember that Brian Neeson and Chris Carter drew lots to make sure they could be there together, and Mr Hodgson was there at one point, as well.

While all of those things were going on, and the anti-nuclear message was becoming implanted in the New Zealand conscience, and with it that sense of “clean, green” New Zealand and all of that spin-off, I think, if we are brutally honest, we were a little less aware of the broader global picture. The fact was that nuclear weapons were still being produced, nuclear weapons were still being targeted, and rogue States still existed—as they do today—with the capacity to inflict immense destruction with their indiscriminate and irresponsible use of such weapons. It has really only been in the years since 2000, I believe, that we have started to focus much more strongly on the international context and on the need to be active in asserting not so much New Zealand’s identity, important though that is, but the need for international agreements and limitations, and the move to disarmament.

That is why I believe the commemoration, and this resolution, is so timely. Yes, it is great to wallow in a bit of nostalgia, and a few of us did of that yesterday. We all looked considerably fresh and youthful—I know Mr Goff would agree with me, and Mr Anderton, as well—as we lined up for those photos. It was a sense of vigour, rediscovered.

That is important, in terms of history, for those of us who were there, but today the important thing is really to talk about what we do about those States that are still part of the nuclear club. Just in the last week or so we have had a reminder of how tense things are, with the byplay between Mr Putin and President Bush over whether we will have missiles relocated in parts of Europe and pointed in certain directions. It points out how fragile the international environment is. Although we can sit here, secure and confident in our status, there is still an almighty job to be done in the international community.

I remember going to the NATO headquarters in 1985, and thereby hangs a tale. I am the only New Zealander, and, I think, probably the only person ever, to have got into NATO without any form of identification, other than an old New Zealand driver’s licence—the ones that did not even have a photograph on them—but that was all I had with me. I remember the Secretary-General, a gentleman from Austria whose name temporarily escapes me, making a point somewhat sneeringly but I think truthfully. He said: “Oh, it is all very well for you in New Zealand. Of course, if we lived as far away from the scenes of international conflict as you do, we would be nuclear-free as well.”

That is the challenge. We have the luxury of isolation and we should hold on to that and the position of our nuclear-free status. But we need to be much more active, I believe, in pursuing disarmament issues internationally. I say that with no disrespect to the current Minister, but I really think the change that has occurred as a result of our anti-nuclear stand becoming mainstream is that the old mantra we used to chant about this being New Zealand’s policy and not for export—we were not trying to convince the world in those days—should be changed.

Maybe we should be trying to convince the world, and maybe we should be using that position of moral leadership more effectively than we have done over a long period of time. We used to say that this was just a New Zealander policy. We were proud of it, but we did not want to be promoting more broadly what others called the New Zealand disease. In that time we have seen Iran and Pakistan acquiring a nuclear capacity and a nuclear status, and there are ongoing questions about Israel and others.

There is a role for a country like New Zealand—that watching sentinel that Norman Kirk talked about all those years ago—to be in the forefront. We should be active in bringing other countries to account for their acquisition, maintenance, and upgrading of their nuclear arsenals. So I look on this resolution as not so much a celebration of our status and the fact that this legislation has endured for 20 years—and now has if not all-party support, most-party support—and will endure for the next 20 years and beyond, but much more a challenge of what we need to do to ensure that our children grow up in a peaceful and nuclear-free world. We can be satisfied about what we have achieved, and that is good, but the challenge from here is about what we need to do to ensure that the benefits we so confidently took upon ourselves are delivered for our children and our children’s children.

I think that the timeliness of this resolution is a reminder of what yet needs to be done, and I hope that in 20 years’ time Parliament—and maybe some of us might still be here; who knows, because we will be youthful enough—will be able to celebrate the achievements of the next 20 years. [Interruption] I am very positive! I know that Mr Anderton wants to be here in 20 years, and I am sure there will be a few of us here to help him along the way.

But, seriously, we can celebrate what we have done to ensure that our world is better, as a result of the moves initiated in New Zealand by successive generations of politicians. So I am very pleased to support the motion, and I look forward to what the next stage of this journey will be.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) : I rise on behalf of ACT New Zealand to support the Minister’s motion. ACT supports the fact that New Zealand should continue to work for a nuclear weapon – free world and strive for a world free of nuclear weapons.

I note that the motion also draws the House’s attention to the fact that last Friday, 8 June, was the 20th anniversary of the passing of the nuclear-free legislation. That legislation has in fact been a double-edged sword, and I think we should also look at other dates in history, in particular 8 June 1942 when Japanese submarines shelled the Australian cities of Sydney and Newcastle. That should act as a timely reminder that New Zealand, perilously close to Australia, is not immune to external threat, even today.

A little bit of history, I think, is important in this whole debate. The history of New Zealand’s anti-nuclear policy is revealing. It began when the Labour Government, the Lange Government, in 1987 passed the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act. The move was very popular within the Labour Party at the time, and I think that not much has been made of that today.

Many members of the Labour Party at that time were very angry about the free-market reforms being passed to deal with the economic mess that Lange had inherited in 1984. The anti-nuclear legislation gathered the left of the party around him—something that obviously was very desirable to him at that time. It is often forgotten that he initially sought to ban only nuclear weapons but was persuaded to ban all nuclear vessels from New Zealand shores at that time. It was not a big issue, because nuclear weapons were nuclear-armed. However, the cold war was about to end surprisingly quickly, and to end in favour of the democracies. One result was a significant de-escalation of nuclear tension. Nuclear weapons were removed from surface ships, including those that were nuclear-powered.

Today, visiting warships, from whatever nation, are certain not to be nuclear-armed, but they are unwelcome in New Zealand waters anyway. This is most unfortunate, as the United States of America is New Zealand’s most important ally. Key in this debate is the fact that the issue of nuclear weapons has become confused with the issue of the peaceful use of radioactive fuel. There is an overwhelming agreement that New Zealand should not be used as a base for nuclear weapons—an agreement that ACT certainly supports—and this policy is consistent with international obligations to limit the spread of nuclear weaponry.

The use of nuclear propulsion, however, is a completely different issue and should be considered as a peaceful use of radioactive material. New Zealand is not nuclear-free. It already has a number of industries that use radioactive material. We import 3,000 radioactive material shipments each year. Kiwis have over 1 million dental x-rays and over 2 million medical x-rays every year. Radioactive material is used frequently for medical treatment, for scientific research, and in the sterilisation of food. In the energy debate, a significant minority favour nuclear power, and any informed debate would include this as an option. Even some high-profile Greens, including Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, advocate nuclear power as the environmentally acceptable power of the future.

The nuclear propulsion debate has become emotive and confused, preventing reasoned debate based on sound, scientific evidence—something that Minister Hodgson used to be in favour of, but not today, it would appear. A nuclear-powered ship’s reactor is simply a micro-reactor powering a turbine that in turn powers the ship.

Safety issues were certainly very well investigated and reported in the 1992 Somers report, a report commissioned by the Bolger Government to examine public safety and environmental concerns in relation to visits to New Zealand ports by nuclear-propelled ships. It is sad that National members did not see fit to mention that in their speeches today. Mr Bolger was keen to improve our relationship with the United States at that time, but was aware of the unpopularity of nuclear weapons. The Somers report found that no concerns justified the continuation of the legislative ban. These findings have been steadfastly ignored. I quote from the report: “The operational record of powered vessels of the United States and Britain is such that there has never been an accident to a propulsion reactor involving a significant release of radiation.”

One surprising statistic is that at the time of the writing of the report, more nuclear radiation was emitted from Auckland Hospital in one day than was emitted by the US Navy in that year. The Somers report is a very thorough investigation, well-constructed and easy to read, and I can recommend it to members of this House. It is well worth the effort for those who would like to be reliably informed.

Forgotten in this whole debate is the fact that no nuclear-propelled surface vessel carries nuclear weapons today. It is also a fact that no nuclear or conventionally powered foreign warship would ever visit New Zealand ports without the consent of the New Zealand Government. The current legislative ban is totally unnecessary and extremely offensive to our allies. Labour and National Governments, since legislation was enacted, have maintained that they want to preserve a good working relationship with our traditional allies, but the ban is akin to saying to friends: “Come for dinner, but I don’t like the sound of your car engine so don’t drive down my street.”

Former ACT MP Ken Shirley submitted a member’s bill before Parliament seeking to remove clause 11 of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act, which bans nuclear ships from entering New Zealand’s ports and territorial waters. Neither Labour nor National supported Mr Shirley’s bill. We need a reasoned debate based on sound science. Instead, we have political decisions based on hysteria and unfounded fear.

The fact is that Labour’s nuclear-free legislation has passed its use-by date. By clinging to it, we are allowing relations with our traditional allies to deteriorate. British and United States war ships, whether nuclear or conventionally powered, never visit New Zealand, and we are no longer privy to the high level of security intelligence or the joint training exercises that our defence force previously enjoyed. That has been the flipside of the nuclear legislation to this country.

New Zealand has made a huge contribution to international peace and freedom, but we have also been a recipient of foreign military assistance, particularly from the United States during the Pacific theatre of World War II. Clinging to this outdated legislation means that we may not be able to rely on such assistance ever again.

The main problem with the nuclear debate is that the anti-nuclear sentiment and the anti-American bias intrinsic within it reaches the feverish pitch of hysteria whenever the issue is raised. There is much confusion about the differences between nuclear propulsion, nuclear weapons, and nuclear power as an energy source, and the neo-pacifists find it politically convenient to deliberately blur the very clear lines of demarcation between them.

In Europe a significant core of green politicians are now promoting nuclear power as the cleanest and most efficient source of energy. Australian Prime Minister John Howard has been talking about the use of uranium in recent months. Can we now expect to see a backlash against these proponents of a safe and efficient means of energy production? I suspect not. Instead, there has been celebration of the 20th anniversary of a nuclear-free New Zealand. There will be no useful debate on our security measures for the future, no thought given to the assistance our allies have given us—such as the battle of the Coral Sea during World War II—and no discussion about how or why we enjoy the freedoms we do today.

Helen Clark has famously said that we live in a benign strategic environment. She is wrong. The reality is that New Zealand is at risk of external threats and can no longer rely on our allies to come to our aid when we have gone a long way towards alienating them. That said, ACT does support the motion before the House today. We realise that the repealing of this legislation is just a small part in this whole debate, and ACT, along with the other parties in this House, supports the motion before the House.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) : The Progressive party supports this resolution. I must say that I thought the ACT party supported it, but the previous speech must be the most amazingly half-hearted one in favour of the resolution and against nuclear proliferation that I have ever heard.

As an agricultural-based economy we need a nuclear accident like we need a hole in the head, and that was one of the driving forces originally in this legislation. The year 1987 was remarkable for New Zealand: KZ7 sailed for the America’s Cup, the All Blacks won the Rugby World Cup, and our nuclear-free laws became part of New Zealand’s identity. As we celebrate the 20th anniversary of our nuclear laws, I hope we will hear echoes of the other great achievements of 1987 later this year. There is a lot to recall when we look back down the dusty roads and winding years that brought us to the nuclear-free law.

I recall that the law, for all its popularity today, was not easily won. I recall that Fernando Pereira died aboard the Rainbow Warrior, which had been campaigning in the Pacific against nuclear tests. I remember that public opinion took its time to come around to the antinuclear view—so did the National Party, I might say. I remember the opprobrium heaped on those of us on the front lines in the battle for this law, and I remember a list that contains the names of many of my parliamentary colleagues, including the Prime Minister in this Government. Marilyn Waring showed extraordinary courage in virtually bringing down a Government over the nuclear issue.

Among the public there was more courage. I recall the sailors whom I joined, who took their boats on to our harbours in order to state their opposition. I recall going out on a 35-foot keeler when the nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed submarine Pintado came into the Waitematā Harbour. I was out there when the New Zealand Herald took a photo of a young kid on a windsurfer confronting its awesome size and power—just a kid against the might, power, and enormous black threat of a nuclear-armed submarine; just a person standing alone, saying no. The New Zealand Herald put the photo on its front page under the heading “The courage of peace”. In that same year I went to Canada and talked at the Vancouver centennial peace conference. I showed the audience that front page, and there was a spontaneous standing ovation from 80,000 people. Kids sent me cards from all over Canada thanking New Zealand for having the courage to say no to nuclear weapons.

When this law was passed, 20 years ago, I stood in this House and said that the passage of the law was the culmination of years of commitment, of an intelligent analysis of the issues involved, and of the courage on the part of thousands of New Zealanders who had protested against nuclear weapons from the time they were first used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I said that the bill was a tribute to all those New Zealanders who were loyal to their nation in their dissent, and that included tens of thousands of Labour Party members of the day, who were staunch in their opposition to nuclear weaponry. I continue to believe that the bill stands as a tribute to them today.

When we remember this bill we might remember that even inside the Labour Party at the time there were those who had to be strongly encouraged to support the law. I recollect going on television as president of the Labour Party the night after the 1984 election and insisting that this bill would be passed as a priority for the incoming Government. I recollect very clearly that a few of my colleagues thought that I should not have insisted on stating Labour policy so explicitly. David Lange rightly deserves special credit for championing New Zealand’s nuclear-free status, but I always said there was some irony in this, because his initial stance was less fulsomely opposed.

Attempts were made, of course, to bully New Zealand when we passed our legislation. I always have a strong personal regard for the way our Commonwealth cousins the Canadians respected and supported our right to make our own decisions. Many years later we have put aside the struggles of those days, and I welcome that. But the need for this law is as urgent as it ever was. The nuclear threat is as present and as desperate as it ever was. Last week we had the obscene threat of a new nuclear arms race in Europe. President Putin’s threat to aim nuclear weapons at Europe was a shameful deterioration from the brink of hope that we reached at the end of the cold war.

Just this week an international conference is under way in Miami discussing ways to prevent nuclear terrorism. The prospect that terrorists might get hold of nuclear weapons is deeply troubling, and it drives home the need to keep the pressure on against nuclear proliferation. The more nuclear weapons there are, the more certain it is that they will be used by someone, sometime. It is not only terrorists who pose a grave threat, however. When North Korea tested a nuclear bomb this year, we entered the age where nuclear weapons are in the hands of fanatics. This was a tragedy for New Zealand, too, because we had been part of the global effort to keep nuclear weapons out of North Korea’s hands.

Since our nuclear-free law was passed, the world has swooped dangerously close to nuclear confrontation. India and Pakistan came close to a conflict at the end of the 20th century. Of course, our nuclear legislation was never going to have an effect on confrontations like those, but what we could hope to do was to inspire others with the promise of peace. We can show that a country can walk outside the nuclear umbrella and still not be threatened or suffer economic pressure. It is sad for us that more countries have not followed New Zealand’s lead. Now Iran is developing a nuclear capacity. If it develops weapons, then others in that region will follow. I ask members to imagine nuclear-armed Israel being confronted by a nuclear-armed Hezbollah. If nuclear weapons proliferate, we will surely see them used again one day, and they will be used against masses of civilians. Civilisation is owed better than that.

New Zealand can stand only as a symbol of sanity. Our nuclear-free law is the best that we can offer the world. I never agreed with those who said our policy was not for export. I wanted other countries to be inspired by our example, and I saw many that were. I want the world to see that we do not need nuclear arms, that we can say no, and that we can do better. So I celebrate our nuclear-free law as the most profound contribution New Zealand can make to a more peaceful world.

When I spoke in the third reading debate on this legislation in June 1987, I said its passage through the House was a proud moment for New Zealand. It remains a proud moment today. Nuclear weapons made us rethink everything about war. We should never be afraid to rethink old ways. Today the world faces new challenges that we barely understood in 1987. The passage of the nuclear-free bill was a statement of our determination as a country to commit to the future of our planet and everyone and everything that lives on it. Our commitment to accepting the challenge of climate change is motivated by a comparable idealism, and we need equally far-sighted solutions.

The passing of this law stands as a great day in New Zealand’s modern history. I am proud of having been there to vote for it. I am proud of having fought for the policy inside this House and, earlier, inside the Labour Party, and on New Zealand streets and harbours. I believe that our confidence in the success of the law has been vindicated.

Many people all over the world, including Governments, recognise that New Zealand’s standing firm for the values of peace in a safer world is inherent in our antinuclear stance. I believe that the time will come when even our very, very good friends in the United States will thank New Zealanders for their antinuclear stance. We will see it having enhanced security in the world, including the United States itself. I believe that our friends will one day say: “Actually, you were right, and we thank you for your courage in standing firm.” That day will not come immediately but I believe it will come before the next 20th anniversary of the Act. Mr Dunne was kind enough to suggest that I might be here then; whether I should be here is another matter, of course—time will tell. But all New Zealanders will look forward to that day. In the meantime, we will continue to develop our relationships internationally and stand as people committed to the values of global peace and the progressive removal of weapons that threaten all humanity.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I seek leave to table a couple of documents that I referred to in my speech. The authors of the first document are George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn. It is entitled “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons”.

• Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

KEITH LOCKE: The second document I seek leave to table is the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention document submitted by Costa Rica to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty conference in April and May of this year.

• Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

• Motion agreed to.