Baldock Larry: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Baldock Larry: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7012] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: I rise to make a brief contribution to the third reading of this bill. As I said in my speech on the second reading this bill was reported back from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee with largely uncontroversial changes. However a Green Party member said that that was not the case and that some of these things were very controversial. I think that reveals that the Green Party sees a lot more things as controversial than most others do. 
The debate has so far been very interesting. Some MPs have complained about how long this very basic legislation sat waiting for its time in this House and to be passed into law. I have not yet heard anybody point out that the select committee in the last Parliament reviewed the Stockholm treaty and reported to the House in February 2002. This legislation was then drafted from that report. The bill was introduced into the House in 2003 and had been going through its stages in a normal way until this week. 
Others in the debate have very eloquently tried to suggest that because this legislation is based on a treaty it is somehow a foreign takeover of our nation. I am afraid that even though they have been very eloquent in their argument they have failed to convince me that there is any danger to us as a nation inherent in this legislation. 
Others have asked why it is being rushed through in urgency and that is something worth considering. To those outside this Chamber all legislation is urgent. Some legislation though is more urgent than others and I believe that those of us in this Chamber should remember that fact. To the people waiting for legislation to be passed through this House so that it can be enacted into law every minute we waste in this House is of importance. When I first came to this Chamber last year I was informed of the cost of delaying legislation in this Chamber: every 5 minutes costs somewhere in the region of $80000 and that is of concern to the taxpayers of New Zealand. So when we make our speeches it is important for us to remember that there is urgency in relation to all legislation; all legislation should go through in the most expeditious way. 
Nick Smith spoke of the importance of democracy and of debating all legislation and I agree with him: it is important and we should not rush things through without doing the job properly. However the debate needs to be sensible. The public and taxpayers want robust debate but we must focus on what we are debating about. There have been some very good contributions during this debate—and I do not discount those at all—but if the public heard some of the contributions in this Committee stage they would have wondered what on earth we are being paid to do in this Chamber. They would have been disappointed because some of the contributions have simply been time-wasting. 
On the other hand some have said that this legislation is being rammed through the House. I only wish that were true! We can only hope that in the future legislation as straightforward and as simple as this will be passed through the House with a lot less fuss so that we can get on to other things that are of huge importance. This bill had its first reading and was then referred to the select committee in February 2003. There were three submissions on this bill; the public have had a chance to have their say. Now it is being passed through this House and will finally be enacted into law and that is something that United Future is pleased to give its support to.