Discussion has been limited because both major political parties want nothing to do with it. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon quickly ruled out any change ‘‘while I’m prime minister’’.
Civis is disappointed that there can’t even be a proper debate.
They may share an energy source, but confusing them is a classic ‘‘category error’’. A nuclear-powered vessel is no more a weapon than a coal-fired power station is a bomb.
Few New Zealanders consider the distinction, and because the legislation is tied to national pride, any discussion has a very short half-life.
The issue will return because Australia is buying nuclear-powered submarines. Even if they arrive in the 2040s, New Zealand cannot sensibly bar key parts of an ally’s navy.
Even David Lange once tried to distinguish weapons from propulsion before riding the anti-nuclear wave.
The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act effectively ended the Anzus alliance with the United States.
Neither major party will risk disturbing the symbolism of a small, plucky nation standing up for itself, especially when little can be gained. Go along with prevailing sentiments and keep the waters smooth, even if, logically, the propulsion issue should be separated.
Pacific nuclear testing and the Rainbow Warrior bombing reinforced these feelings, and New Zealand’s remoteness means little strategic need to host nuclear-capable vessels.
Further arguments for keeping the ban can be made. Verification is one issue; confirming a vessel carries no nuclear weapons was a sticking point in the 1980s.
Public sentiment and symbolic integrity also matter. Might the coherence of the nuclear-free position start to unravel? Reactor safety is another concern: unlikely accidents could still be disastrous.
The nuclear-free policy made moral and strategic sense in 1987, and nuclear weapons remain an abomination.
But the blanket exclusion of nuclear-powered vessels in 2026 is harder to defend. Nuclear power has a role in fighting climate change, though not for economic or practical reasons in small New Zealand, which has other energy options. And the Pacific strategic environment is becoming more complex.
* * *
Pat Duffy, from Opoho, offers a ‘‘classic breath of cute child insight’’.
She taught French at the University of Otago and was amused by a video of French children’s definitions for household items.
‘‘One child was asked for her definition of ‘un suppositoire’ (a suppository), and she brightly announced, with her uniquely expert knowledge of pharmaceuticals at an early age, that it was ‘un bonbon pour les fesses’ (a bottom lolly). Hard to argue with that honest assessment.’’
Pat adds that, ‘‘Children have a wonderful talent for getting to the heart of the matter, before they are trained by society to lie and/or obfuscate.’’ She wonders whether real children would have made better decisions than the Dunedin City Council during its latest ‘‘spendathon’’.
Indeed, a majority of councillors couldn’t make hard spending calls during the annual plan.
ODT reporter Grant Miller listed last Saturday several votes that would have trimmed the city’s rate increase; four failed eight to seven. Another vote to reduce capital spending from $240 million to $220m was lost by the same margin.
Of course, the projects and causes are always worthy: keeping the Peninsula Connection Project and the Toitū energy-efficiency investment, freezing community house rent increases, and not reducing contestable grants by $200,000.
If just one of the spending councillors had been absent, the mayor’s casting vote could have applied five times. In each case, bar one (community housing), she was with that majority.
