Collins Judith: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6974] 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: Let us start again on this access-to-justice issue. All the points that have been made by members on this side of the Chamber about the title and the very strange things in it—which have very little to do with the bill—deal with this access-to-justice issue. We make laws day after day in Parliament year after year and we have to have laws where the title reflects the contents of the bill. Otherwise we would not bother having a title; we would just call them “Bill No 2” or “Bill No 3”. The purpose of having a title is to let people who are looking for the law be able to find the jolly thing. With words like “New Organisms” in this bill one would think it had something to do with new organisms. But it does not. The honourable member Lockwood Smith my colleague has put forward an amendment to omit the words “(Stockholm Convention)” and to substitute the words “(Persistent Organic Pollutants)”. That change would reflect a lot of what this bill is about. But I also have to wonder about what “New Organisms” is doing in this particular bill. 
I make a plea to get rid of the jargon used in these bills. This is yet another bill that is full of jargon and the name itself is just jargon. This title includes the words “Stockholm Convention” but what do those words mean? Most people looking at that would sit there and say: “Has this got something to do with that new prostitution bill?”; that is exactly what they would be thinking. Then they would say: “What’s this about ‘new organisms and hazardous substances’?”. That would absolutely confirm it in their minds. This bill is not supposed to be about that yet we have once again some sort of jargon. 
Why do we have to refer to it as the “Stockholm Convention” because that is something that only those in the know are allowed to know about? Yet again it is all about access to justice. We have laws and I say: “For goodness’ sake! Make it easy for people to find them and thereby live by them.” Most people actually do want to go through life living by the laws of the land and they expect Parliament to take some notice of the names of bills and what is in them. That is why it is great that in our party and in the Opposition we read the bills; we look at these issues and we actually understand them. I would really like to hear from the Minister because she has always struck me as someone who will listen when we bring up issues; and the Leader of the House is normally quite good at listening. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We’re good listeners. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: They are the only two on that side who do listen. So that is quite good. The Minister of Education could listen occasionally and that might do him some good. When we have bills like this which are going to be almost impossible for anyone to find other than a few lawyers who are involved in this area then it will make it harder and harder for manufacturers scientists and people like that who actually do the work in the country and make the money for us—and make the money that pays the taxes that pay the wages of everyone here—to be able to find legislation. 
Why do we have to have such silly titles? This title bears very little relationship to the bill. What sort of drafting is this? I am appalled this issue was not picked up on in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. I am sure the people on the committee did their very best but at the end of the day it obviously was not good enough. There is a feeling in the Parliament that we are all supportive of the bill and its contents except for a few amendments. One concern would have to be the title. I really would like to hear from the Minister. I know she wants to tell us which hazardous substances and new organisms are in this bill and why the words “Stockholm Convention” are included rather than substituting the words “Persistent Organic Pollutants”. That change would make some sense to people who are looking in this particular area. I am sure the Minister would like to tell us about it. I can see she wants to tell us. I would really like to hear from her.