Shirley Ken: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6961] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: This debate on Part 2 is becoming quite repetitive. I do not mean that in an obstructive or unhelpful way but I believe the debate is on the same theme. We want to support this legislation; I get that from all parties. We are telling the Government we are right behind the legislation because it is sensible and successive Governments have engaged in those international agreements—the Waigani the Rotterdam the Stockholm and so on and so forth. But I say to the Minister that it is clear we are concerned that the legislation will be extended to cover substances other than those specified in those international agreements. Amendments have been proposed not to go against the Government’s policy direction or upset it in any way but to spell out and make quite clear what we as legislators intend to do. 
Again in Part 2 it is directly applicable. Section 3A “Prohibition of exports” inserted by clause 9 states: “(1) The Governor-General if satisfied”—in other words restrictions can be removed if the Governor-General is satisfied—“that it is necessary to give effect to an international obligation …”. I emphasise the word “an”. That could be any international obligation. We are saying it should specify those international obligations outlined earlier on in the bill. That is all we are asking for; that would spell it out very clearly. 
We have had well-drafted amendments and I suggest that the Minister should just admit that the Opposition has made some very valid points here. It is not really a question of pride because I know that the Minister is bigger than that. We are from the Opposition we are here to try to help the Minister and we ask her to adopt our amendments. I call upon United Future to see the logic of that please even if the Minister does not. United Future members should not be doormats. They should not just roll on their backs with their legs in the air and say “Tickle my tummy.” They should stand up for what they believe in because it is so obvious that this amendment is sensible. 
We see it there in new section 3A inserted by clause 9 and also in section 2(1)(e) in clause 6 “Interpretation”: “any other international obligation that is or becomes binding on New Zealand and that provides for the restriction on or the prohibition of the exportation of certain chemicals products organisms wastes or other substances that pose a risk to human health or to the environment”—that is everything. It could be plastic bags. It speaks of any future obligation so one of those wacky non-governmental organisation - controlled UN forums could adopt a ban on plastic bags. We had a very good speech about plastic bags being friendlier to the environment than paper bags; that is the reality—but it could be on fat on sugar or on oxygen. Oxygen is potentially very dangerous to the human body in its pure form—very very dangerous. This is the nonsense we get into when we have these omnibus-type clauses expressed as generally as that so I think the suggestion of deleting the proposed new paragraph (e) is sensible. That provision is not necessary. 
The other recommendation which is the repeated theme is that we specify and confine the restriction to those substances covered by the international agreements which the Government itself has acknowledged that it intends to do. Opposition parties say that we should make the bill state what we are all in agreement on. We all agree that it should be restricted to those substances covered by those international agreements and that the bill should say so. The Government can understand our worry particularly when we see the generality contained in that new paragraph (e) inserted by clause 6(1). It speaks of any substance and of any future obligation. We do not know what the future holds for some of those UN forums and we really are tying our hands in an unnecessary way. 
The solution looks very clear. Perhaps the Minister should have a chat with her officials and talk to her colleagues. Perhaps she should give the Leader of the House Michael Cullen a ring. I am sure he would see the logic of this sensible amendment. We would give the Minister credit for recognising the merits of these amendments rather than just arrogantly refusing to accept them and leaving the problem in the legislation. The Government has the numbers. We accept that but often in life the more power one has the more responsible one has to be: the greater the power the greater the humility. This is a good example of when the Government should recognise a good idea when the idea is presented to it. I urge the Government to adopt it then we can move forward.