VZCZCXYZ0000
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHWL #0128/01 0480515
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 170515Z FEB 06
FM AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 2399
INFO RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA PRIORITY 4299
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHHMUNA/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI PRIORITY
RHHJJAA/JICPAC HONOLULU HI PRIORITY
RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHDC PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L WELLINGTON 000128 
 
SIPDIS 
 
NOFORN 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR D (FRITZ), EAP/FO, AND EAP/ANP 
NSC FOR VICTOR CHA 
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISA LIZ PHU 
PACOM FOR JO1E/J2/J233/J5/SJFHQ 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/17/2016 
TAGS: PREL PGOV NZ
SUBJECT: NATIONAL CONTEMPLATES CHANGE ON NUCLEAR BAN STANCE 
 
REF: 05 WELLINGTON 702 
 
Classified By: Acting DCM Katherine B. Hadda, 
for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) 
 
¶1.  (C) Summary: The opposition National Party is considering 
changing its policy regarding New Zealand's anti-nuclear ban, 
hoping to thereby remove one of Labour's strongest weapons 
against National. Senior Party officials have explained to us 
behind the scenes that the modification would only clarify 
existing policy by removing any reference to a possible 
referendum on whether to repeal the legislation.  While at 
first glance the potential change seems significant, it 
reality it was always unlikely National could meet the 
current policy's pre-condition of public support for a vote. 
It was even less likely the result would be a majority vote 
in favor of removing what many see as an iconic piece of 
legislation.   End Summary. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) At a recent National Party caucus retreat held 
prior to the start of the parliamentary year, two issues 
dominated the agenda: a possible challenge to the current 
leadership and a proposed change to the party's anti-nuclear 
policy. Although the eye of the media was fixed upon the 
leadership issue, a more critical issue largely flew beneath 
the radar: During the caucus retreat, National's Foreign 
Affairs spokesman Murray McCully moved that the party drop 
its current nuclear ban policy, which states that a National 
Government would only support a change to the anti-nuclear 
legislation if it had a clear public mandate by means of a 
referendum. 
 
¶3.  (C) McCully has, at this stage, only sought caucus 
approval for a discussion on the nuclear ban issue at a later 
date. However, he has told DCM and others that he wants 
National's policy to grant unconditional support to the 
status quo, i.e. to say the party supports maintaining the 
anti-nuclear legislation. Despite party leader Don Brash 
refusing to publicly state where he stands on the proposal, 
Post believes that he supports removing the possible 
referendum from the party's policy. 
 
Why the potential change? 
------------------------- 
 
¶4.  (SBU) National rightly believes that the referendum 
provision has been deliberately misrepresented by Labour to 
create confusion and doubt in the public's mind. The strategy 
of constantly attacking National over the issue was largely 
successful for Labour during the last general election, as it 
repeatedly put Brash on the defensive when he tried to 
explain his party's policy. Although Brash insisted National 
had "no intention of removing the ban," confusion remained as 
to why the party was mooting the possibility of a referendum 
if they did not intend to change the law.  Brash's difficulty 
in mounting a convincing argument was also compounded by 
Labour's repeated (and deliberately misleading) claims that 
Brash told a visiting CODEL that the nuclear ban would be 
"gone by lunchtime" if National were returned to power under 
his premiership. 
 
¶5.  (C) The resulting confusion over the referendum pledge 
has led much of the public to forget that National's policy 
actually supports maintaining the existing nuclear 
legislation absent a referendum called as a result of public 
demands. Confusion mounted when National also said that it 
would consider it had a mandate to change the legislation if 
elected on a platform to do so.  After Labour made hay from 
that policy as well, National hastily added it had no 
intention of including a proposed nuclear ban change in its 
platform any time soon. 
 
Pragmatic rationale 
-------------------- 
 
¶6.  (C) The proposal to re-calibrate National's nuclear 
position is part of a broad review of the National's election 
campaign. McCully confided to visiting EAP/ANP Director 
Howard Krawitz that the party's polling shows the nuclear 
issue definitely cost it votes. 
 
¶7.  (C) McCully says the policy change is not a done deal, 
and apparently the party has not laid down a timetable for 
addressing the issue. But any change to National's nuclear 
policy would probably have to come sooner rather than later. 
Some senior National MPs fear that if this and other policies 
are changed closer to the election year (now scheduled for 
2008) it will look like public pandering rather than 
strategic thinking. McCully has also conceded that a 
protracted delay could create further confusion in the 
public's mind. 
 
National committed to remain pro-US despite policy shift. 
--------------------------------------------- ------------- 
 
¶8.  (C) McCully has hastened to reassure us that change to 
National's nuclear policy will not dilute National's 
commitment towards improving the bilateral relationship. He 
has argued that despite the move to unreservedly uphold the 
nuclear legislation it is possible to "still have a positive 
view about the United States."  McCully told EAP/ANP Director 
Krawitz that his party wants to focus attention on ways New 
Zealand can advance its relations with the United States in a 
nonpartisan way.  He said if National and Labour both agree 
that the ban should remain in place, National can better 
focus attention on Labour's gratuitous anti-American 
statements and overall failure to improve relations with the 
United States.  McCully claimed that former National PM Jim 
Bolger was encouraging the change in policy, apparently 
arguing that the New Zealand public will only support removal 
of the ban if compelled by a crisis. (Comment: McCully did 
not articulate what this would be, but presumably a natural 
disaster requiring an air carrier to enter New Zealand's 
waters or a terrorist attack.  End Comment.)  Until then, the 
party gains nothing by pushing for a change. 
 
¶9.  (C) McCully also says that in the short term, National 
will criticize Labour's failure to improve bilateral 
relations and will also seek ways to build on US-NZ 
cooperation in a variety of areas.  In the medium-term, it 
will try to move public opinion to be more supportive of the 
United States.  Although the policy has not yet changed, 
McCully tried out National's new strategy in a radio debate 
last week with Defense Minister Goff, who called National's 
shift a "flip flop" and said the party can't be trusted. 
McCully responded that Labour was unwilling to improve its 
relations with the U.S. because many in Government are 
anti-American. 
 
Labour's response to the proposed change. 
--------------------------------------------- ------------- 
 
¶10.  (C) Predictably, Labour has tried to capitalize on 
National's plans.  Before the National caucus had even 
discussed McCully's proposition, Defence Minister Phil Goff 
went to the media to turn the issue from being about whether 
National would keep New Zealand nuclear-free into the wider 
question of National's overall credibility. He asserted that 
given that National had made so many reversals on the issue 
of nuclear ship visits, the public would surely not believe 
the party had really changed its mind this time. Goff has 
since repeated this line of attack within the Parliamentary 
debating chamber. 
 
Comment: 
-------- 
 
¶11.  (C) While on the surface National's possible change in 
policy seems significant, in reality there is less there than 
meets the eye.  Although the party has previously 
commissioned studies questioning the logic of the 
anti-nuclear legislation, and many of its MPs have privately 
told us they support removal of the ban, National's official 
policy always was to retain the law absent a voter referendum 
to repeal it.  Given the strong and widespread support for 
the anti-nuclear legislation, such a referendum would almost 
surely fail. 
 
¶12.  (C) We know only one National MP -- the newcomer Chris 
Finlayson -- who thought a National Government should change 
the legislation right after winning an election, without a 
referendum.  But he also thought the Government should then 
shelve the issue by not encouraging or allowing any ship 
visits for a number of years.  Significantly, following the 
recent caucus even Finlayson seems resigned to the 
impossibility of changing the legislation any time soon. 
 
¶13.  (C) As we reported during the election campaign 
(reftel), a National Government would be unable to change the 
nuclear legislation over the shorter term because of strong 
public opinion in favor of the ban and because of the party's 
own reduced credibility on the issue after repeated Labour 
attacks.  But we also continue to believe a National 
Government would be better able to rebuild much of the trust 
that has eroded US-NZ relations over the past years.  For our 
part, Post will continue to tell National and others that we 
welcome the chance to build stronger bilateral relations, 
even if the extent of the improvement will remain constrained 
by the significant "unfinished business" that still remains 
between us. End Comment. 
McCormick