A Modest Proposal: Ron Smith discusses New Zealand nuclear attitudes and the prospects for nuclear power.

• Author: Smith, Ron

In this article I shall make some general observations about New Zealand's attitudes to things nuclear and then make some more specific points on why we should consider nuclear power for New Zealand: what I call 'A Modest Proposal'.

New Zealand is famously (or notoriously) anti-nuclear. For many it is a matter of national pride and the stance is seen to bestow a sense of moral virtue (superiority) and the satisfaction of 'standing up to the big guy'. Anti-nuclearism may be the closest thing we have to a state religion, with the 1987 Act our sacred text and David Lange as our first saint. This gives rise to a certain rigidity in our policy responses, which means that the things we say and the stands we take may not always be in our best interests.

The reality is that our anti-nuclear policy is naive and frequently contrary to our other interests; our simplistic and ignorant comments on nuclear matters tend to make us look foolish in more sophisticated circles. This applies not just to activist groups and fringe political organisations but also to our political leaders and public servants and those who represent us abroad. There are many examples of this. Early in her prime ministership, Jenny Shipley paid an official visit to Japan. Before she set off, it was announced that she would certainly be raising with the Japanese New Zealand's concerns about its nuclear industry. Now, this is a nuclear industry that has no adverse effect on New Zealand and its people whatsoever but which is crucial to the energy security of what is a major trading partner. Japan's 55 power reactors also represent 70 million tons of oil it does not burn.

In a similar way, our present Prime Minister has publicly farewelled protest ships aiming to intercept ships servicing the Japanese nuclear industry, which occasionally pass through the Tasman, despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of any danger from these shipments. In this she may have been following the advice of her sometime Minister of Science, Pete Hodgson, who pronounced on these matters whilst still a shadow spokesman. Of the 1992 shipment of plutonium oxide from Europe to Japan, he said: 'if the ship sank passing by New Zealand, New Zealand would have to be evacuated ... the alternative would be death'. (1)

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

In fact there would have been no perceptible effect. If Hodgson (or anyone else) had asked the then director of our radiological laboratory (Andrew McEwan), he would have been told that it was 'highly improbable that there would be any leakage of material and if there was it would sink to the ocean floor because of its density'. (2) The fact that Hodgson did not publicly retract his comments and subsequently became Minister of Energy speaks volumes for the level of public debate about these matters. New Zealand's attitude is also reflected in the fact that, despite a continuing issue with safety of the ships that occasionally pass through the Tasman, its permanent representatives repeatedly decline opportunities to look over the ships and see the safety and security provisions for themselves. They apparently respond that they have all the information they need.

Not nuclear-free

New Zealand is not nuclear free. There are nuclear materials in our rocks, soils, waters and air. We, ourselves, are radioactive and we are subjected to radiation from above and below all through our lives. None of this can be legislated away. In addition, our hospitals, universities and industrial enterprises use radioactive isotopes and radiation-producing devices and many of our homes contain isotopes in fire-alarms. The accumulated nuclear waste from some of these activities is stored in a repository in Christchurch. We have our own nuclear waste 'dump' (albeit a small one) right here in 'nuclear free' New Zealand. Nuclear materials also pass though our ports in the shape of containers of' 'yellow cake' (uranium oxide). Some, or all, of these activities could be prohibited, but there would be a considerable cost in doing so, and it would not make any sense.

The proclamation of a 'nuclear free' New Zealand in the 1987 Act, and else-where, is vacuous gesture-politics. In this it follows the 1985 South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (The Treaty of Rarotonga). Australia, which is also a party to the treaty, even has a nuclear reactor, which is, incidentally, the source of many of our medical isotopes, as well the source of semi-conductor material of the kind that goes into our computers. Other treaties of a like kind, such as those covering South and Central America and Africa, as well as South-east Asia, are nuclear weapon free zone treaties. (3) It is clear from the preamble to the Rarotonga Treaty that the. principal concern in that case, too, was with nuclear weapons. It is a great pity that the treaty title does not reflect that.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Nuclear ships

We have a law banning...