NATIONAL CONTEMPLATES CHANGE ON NUCLEAR BAN STANCE

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