1 What is the anti-nuclear policy of the New Zealand Government? The New Zealand anti-nuclear policy is that under the 1987 Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act, navel vessels are not admitted into New Zealand waters unless they declare that they are not nuclear-powered or carrying nuclear weapons (“Anti-nuclear policy should have ended with the Cold War”, 2002).
2. How (in what areas and to what extent) is this policy affecting the NZ-US relationship? “New Zealand is being penalized in trade negotiations with the US worth $1 billion dollars a year because of its anti nuclear policy” (Espiner, 2002, P 8).
“As long as the anti nuclear legislation remains, New Zealand will not enjoy as full a relationship with the US as do its allies, including Australia” (Espiner, 2002, P 14).
3.
What are the “costs” for NZ in retaining this policy? The US has the words largest economy and it’s not discussing free trade with New Zealand. “New Zealand exporters will miss out on billions of dollars in extra income, with all that implies for the rest of our economy and society” (Robson, 2003, P 10).
4. What are the “benefits” for NZ in retaining this policy? The main benefit that I see from New Zealand’s anti nuclear policy is that it helps our national pride, and defines who we are as a nation because, we have stood up for what we believed in, even though it cost us billions of dollars in trade relations. We are proud of the fact that we stood up to the US, and set a standard for countries to follow suit. And the US is fearful the nuclear ban disease could spread to Japan (Gamlin, 2002, P 4).
The Term Paper on Anti-Nepotism Policy
1. Describe the issues in the case On November 2, 2006 Journeyman Mechanic Keith Walton was discharged for violating the anti-nepotism policy of the Company. Mr. Walton had been employed by the Company since April 30, 1999. The Company has a strict standing no-relative rule to prevent nepotism in the work place that predates World War II but wasn’t officially published in the employee handbook ...
5. Do you think that the NZ Government should review this policy? Why / Why not? I think New Zealanders should stick to guns and keep their policy after all our economy hasn’t been doing to badly as of late. We don’t need the US to use our ports for a haven for their weapons of mass destruction. Also “having US nuclear powered and armed vessels in our harbours is now more likely to attract terrorism to our shores than deter it. This makes our anti-nuclear policy more relevant than in 1986” (Mcdiarmid, 2003, P 15).
For this reason we shouldn’t change our policy.
References Anti-nuclear policy should have ended with cold war. (2002, April 3).
The New Zealand Herald, p. 3. Espiner, G. (2002, October 6).
Anti-nuclear stance hurts US trade deal. The Sunday Star Times, p. 1. Gamlin, J. (2002, October 18).
Anti-nuke stand hobbles Kiwi independence.
The National Business Review. P. 3. Mcdiarmid, B. (2003, August 17).
Should New Zealand’s anti-nuclear policy be relaxed? Sunday Star Times, p.
9. Robson, S. (2003, April 12).
You want free trade? The Press, p. 1.
