Worth Richard: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Worth Richard: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7015] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: We are now close to the final phase of this bill. Ahead of us lies a vote the preparation of a fair copy of the legislation the signature by the Governor-General and the promulgation of this legislation upon the populace. National supports this legislation but of course as members will know who have listened to this debate we have significant reservations about at least two aspects of it. During the course of my remaining time I plan to deal with one of those reservations. 
The bill is a short bill with only 17 clauses in two parts. It has two schedules one of which annexes an international treaty the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants done at Stockholm on 23 May 2001. This legislation together with certain amendments to the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill will enable New Zealand to ratify the Stockholm convention. The purpose of the convention is to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutant chemicals. Those chemicals are identified in schedule 2 of the legislation as aldrin chlordane dieldrin endrin heptachlor hexachlorobenzene mirex toxaphene polychlorinated biphenyls and DDT. 
The bill is necessary because the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act while providing a general framework for compliance with the Stockholm convention requirements does not guarantee that prohibitions on the import manufacture and use of persistent organic pollutants will be put in place and maintained as required by the convention. Thus this amendment is required to prohibit as a matter of course the import the manufacture and the use of the persistent organic pollutants listed in the convention. Each one of the identified chemicals has the characteristics of being environmentally persistent toxic bioacccumulative and able to be transported by the movement of air water and migratory species to places far from its original point of release. With the exception of small quantities of polychlorinated biphenyls still in use by the electrical sector in New Zealand and subject to a regulated phase-out timetable New Zealand basically does not use these toxic and bioaccumulative chemicals and has no need of them. 
What does this bill do? It ratifies the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants or at least permits that possibility. It bans the importation manufacture and use of persistent organic pollutants except in particular circumstances. New Zealand must be able to use persistent organic pollutants in limited circumstances for disease vector control research and development environmentally sound disposal and trans-shipment. For example DDT is shipped to the Pacific Islands for mosquito control. The bill provides for all these uses with oversight by the Environmental Risk Management Authority. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Benson-Pope who is attempting to interject that there was an idea to ban outright DDT in New Zealand but the right decision was made to retain it as a weapon of last resort in any war on malaria-carrying mosquitoes. As I said all the persistent organic pollutants banned by the Stockholm convention have already been phased out of use in New Zealand except for polychlorinated biphenyls which are already regulated and will be phased out in 2016. 
I would like to talk about an issue that I have spoken about earlier today and it relates to the definition of “Stockholm Convention”. For members opposite clause 4 of the bill as reported back from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee is the relevant clause for them to read. I am grateful to see members shuffling their papers to turn to that page so that they can follow closely the intricacies of this argument. [ 
Interruption 
] I plan to speak slowly because as we all know the intellectual capability of some members including one member in particular who I am currently looking at are quite limited. It is proper that he have an opportunity to follow these issues in a broad and easy way. I have taken from his constant interruptions that he is struggling with some of the issues in this bill. It is not for me to enlighten him but it will be helpful perhaps if I at least give him an opportunity of understanding the issues that arise. So I turn to the definition of “Stockholm Convention”. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: For goodness’ sake this is the third reading! 
RICHARD WORTH 
: As the member opposite said this is the third reading. That is a good comment for her to make. It is an insightful comment and she is right. Clever her to note that! 
The point about this definition is that it includes the clear possibility that if there are later changes to the Stockholm convention those changes as a matter of law will pass into the domestic law of New Zealand. That surely cannot be intended. Schedule 1 contains the treaty. Although there may be many illustrations of this aspect I shall note just one such illustration in article 18. There is work yet to be done to bring this treaty to its final form. That is because in respect of a dispute mechanism possibility in article 18 there is reference to arbitration “in accordance with procedures to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties in an annex as soon as practicable;”. So further work is to be done. When that conference of the parties occurs to do that work we in New Zealand will have no control over an outcome that will see the embellishment of that multilateral instrument then its passage into domestic law in New Zealand. 
We have dealt with this issue of secondary legislation and also tertiary legislation. It is the old problem of incorporation by reference. But here the Government in its wisdom one assumes through ignorance or oversight has failed to deal with a possibility that in constitutional terms is quite significant. There exists the possibility of wholesale changes by protocol by side letters; of a new arrangement or modification of the treaty that would see substantial changes that New Zealanders would have no opportunity to deal with but would have to bear the brunt of. That can surely not be satisfactory. 
There is a printing error which members opposite will have observed in schedule 2 on page 60. It may well be that the opportunity should be taken to correct that error rather than it simply passing into the legislation. I refer to schedule 2A and the column headings in that schedule. They are “Substance” “Use or storage” then in what seems to be a misprint “Manufacture Expiry of permitted use or storage”. If one looks down the column one sees that the heading is an error. What the economic consequences of that may be who can say? But the error persists and one imagines it may have a consequence in later times.