John Armstrong: Tiptoeing in a nuclear minefield

Gone by lunchtime? Assuming it intends rewriting New Zealand's anti-nuclear law, a National-led Government would be working until long after dinnertime to do so.

National's first big hurdle would be securing majority backing for legislation setting up a referendum on removing the ban on visits by nuclear-powered warships - the sticking-point in normalising defence relations with the United States.

National is stipulating that any alteration of the 1987 law - it would retain the clause banning nuclear weapons - must enjoy a public mandate, either by referendum or by National making an explicit manifesto commitment.

Only Act is definitive in seeking to wipe the ban on nuclear propulsion. Another potential ally, United Future, wants to maintain New Zealand's nuclear-free status and is not interested in a referendum.

That leaves NZ First. Winston Peters is pushing for greater use of referendums - but NZ First also remains "strongly committed" to the anti-nuclear policy. It is unclear whether it would support a referendum if it was the difference between there being one and not being one.

Such uncertainty will only reinforce the likelihood of National proceeding extremely cautiously - if it moves at all.

Worried about frightening voters, it is not saying whether it would push for a referendum if it wins power next month, making its pre-election stance somewhat ambiguous.

National insists it has no intention of changing the law. Yet, in its next breath, it says it will not do so without holding a referendum, begging the question of why it is mentioning referendums if it is not planning to amend the law.

Three pivotal figures - leader Don Brash, deputy Gerry Brownlee and foreign affairs spokesman Lockwood Smith - personally favour ending the ban on nuclear propulsion. It is not clear whether that is the majority opinion of the National caucus.

Even if it is, National MPs may be reluctant to tackle such an explosive issue head-on.

A new government with a small majority would not want to court unpopularity early in its term by deconstructing something so iconic, thereby gifting a defeated centre-left with a means to rally public opinion.

Instead, National would wish to undertake a lengthy softening-up exercise persuading voters that a change would make no practical difference to the country's non-nuclear status.

The mundane reality is that the Americans would be in no hurry to send any ships here, let alone a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.

One option would be for National to set up a committee of inquiry to look at all aspects of the argument - trade repercussions, defence ties, nuclear reactor safety and so on - to try to defuse the politics. National could then pick up any recommendation for a law change.

Another option is the initiative of departing US ambassador Charles Swindells, who has suggested both countries get into a serious dialogue about their relationship, rather than always sidestepping the irritant.

That would offer a National-led government an excuse to get a possible law change on to the political agenda without having to commit itself to a change or be seen to be driving one.

It would also link the debate more tightly to foreign policy and what is in New Zealand's best interests. But it would re-expose National to the charge it has been trying to shrug off - that it is selling out to the Americans.