Opposition parties taking bead on anti-nuke policy

By FRAN O'SULLIVAN

The foreign policy consensus that has sustained New Zealand for more than a decade is on a knife-edge.

The anti-nuclear policy is set to be the first casualty as opposition parties prepare to mount a case to change legislation banning visits by nuclear-propelled ships.

The two parties are now inching towards a new consensus on nuclear issues.

Act Leader Richard Prebble, whose party has legislation ready, sees the nuclear propulsion issue from a security relationship perspective.

"The key objective is to reactivate our involvement in Anzus," Prebble said.

"In the state of transition we are in from nation states to interdependent market states regional security is as important if not more important than it ever has been and I think strategically our best positioning is still alongside Australia and the United States."

National Leader Bill English confirms he is "open to changing the position."

English has commissioned former National Deputy Prime Minister Wyatt Creech to undertake a policy review.

' Prebble's deputy, Ken Shirley, has prepared a private member's bill - but may face difficulties getting it on to Parliament's Order Paper.

Both politicians were members of the Lange Labour Government which passed the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act.

"What we did in 1987 in the run-up to that election because it had been a promise was just utter bullshit," said Shirley.

The MP argues the legislation was not necessary because New Zealand was already a party to the 1985 Treaty of Rarotonga which created a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the South Pacific.

"A, it wasn't necessary to do it because we were already covered and, B, we went a step too far with the propulsion issue."

Shirley claimed there had been delays to finalising the Creech review: "They've got the hawks and the doves and they just peck at each other."

Pinning English down to absolutes on National's Iraq stance is not easy.

"Our position is that we support our friends and allies in war.

"With the US having got on the road to Baghdad the best result for global stability and also for our long-term interests is that the US prosecutes this war quickly and effectively and is seen to have a core of international support for doing it.

"We should be where National says it should - supporting these guys."

Herald: With Troops?

English: Yes, we are open to that.

Herald: Would you have committed troops if you were Prime Minister?

English: We would have had a range of options from troops to logistical and medical support. In the last similar war, the Gulf War, we committed medical support and logistical. ... In principle we would have been willing to commit troops.