Jones Dail: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7010] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: New Zealand First also supports this bill. The point has been made about the Government’s delay in bringing the bill to this stage and after the comments made by Clayton Cosgrove after my last third-reading speech I intend to take my full 10 minutes on this occasion. If Labour Party members want to insult those members of the House who are trying to be cooperative—especially when they speak after those members rather than before them—they can expect the full treatment the next time they stand up. I therefore attribute and commend this speech to Clayton Cosgrove. 
This bill has been long in gestation. During the Committee stage I raised my concern with the Minister about the intention in Supplementary Order Paper 97 to insert new clause 4B “Delegation by Authority”. Trying to understand where that clause fitted into the bill and into the Act of Parliament itself was something of a work of art. It would have taken about 30 seconds for the Minister in the chair to clarify it but one Minister in the chair after another just sat there woodenly. Given that I got no response from any Minister in the chair on that matter it was necessary for me to go through and have a look at the statute—fortunately I have some ability in that area—and try to work it all out for myself. 
I am concerned that that particular clause and even the legislation itself allows for a great degree of delegation to people who are not even members of the Environmental Risk Management Authority and that those people who are not even employees can make decisions. If there is no employee with relevant experience any other person with relevant experience can make decisions in terms of clause 4B which is inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 97 to amend section 19(2) of the principal Act—which in a long-winded sort of way—inserts new paragraph (ca) which refers to section 97 relating to enforcement inspection and ancillary powers. 
Those members of the Opposition who have tried to take a reasonable approach to urgency and who ask a simple question should be given some degree of respect by the Minister in the chair otherwise one is forced—through one’s own constitutional process as an Opposition MP—to make a song and dance about the situation. On behalf of the people of New Zealand one must find out what is intended by legislation and have that contribution recorded especially with legislation like this which is brought in at a late stage during urgency. 
As previous members have said this bill has been around for a long time yet here we have something dated Tuesday 1 July 2003 bringing effect to the legislation. Of course today is still Tuesday 1 July 2003— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: It is in that member’s little world. 
DAIL JONES 
: I am sorry? What did Mr Cosgrove say to extend my speech this time? He said nothing this time. Today is still Tuesday 1 July 2003 and here we are in urgency being required to debate and pass this bill. 
New Zealand First is only too pleased to make a contribution on this matter. We had meant to make a very short contribution but if the Government will not play its part by answering simple questions in the Committee stage it makes a farce of the situation. If the Government insists on having urgency on something like this surely it then has a responsibility to at least answer a simple question thereby saving a whole lot of time and trouble and speeding up the whole situation rather than delaying it. Instead members have to go away and do their homework to discover that people who are not even members of the body itself can somehow have delegated powers to do various things. When one looks at section 97 of the principal Act one sees it has various subsections going from (a) through to (h) which relate to a wide variety of areas including the Gas Act land transport safety the Commissioner of Police civil aviation marine safety and the Resource Management Act to name but a few. It is a shame that the Minister did not take the trouble to answer the question. 
As far as the point raised by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith in the Committee stage is concerned I was sufficiently concerned to have a look at it but in my mind there seems to be some confusion as to whether it relates to clause 7 or clause 8 of the bill. If members do look at it as I did I believe they will find that the point raised by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith is a valid one and we may be coming back to this House again in the not too distant future to have the matter corrected. 
Of course the Stockholm Convention which is given effect by this bill is still not international law. When the bill was introduced earlier on by Marian Hobbs she said there were a number of countries—numbering in the late forties—that had ratified the convention and that we needed 50 countries to ratify it before this bill could be regarded as international law. However when the Minister spoke on it today he said the number of countries required were in the thirties; perhaps if we wait for another 5 or 6 months the numbers will decrease even further. If we accept the words of Marian Hobbs and then the words of Chris Carter it seems to me that there is less and less international support for this legislation. 
The point is that New Zealand has been doing this for many many years anyway. New Zealand First has continuing care and concern for the environment and the type of materials that have been taken out of agricultural practice by this legislation have been out of good farming practice for some considerable time anyway. A country like New Zealand does not really need conventions to tell it what to do. Most of the conventions relate to those countries that ought to be doing these things but which never ratify the conventions and so are never bound by them whereas this Government is very very keen on conventions with this convention for example being a classic one in that it has not yet been accepted by international law but it has been given effect in New Zealand. 
That is a practice of this Government that should be drawn to the attention of the country and the same goes for the Kyoto Protocol which has not yet been approved in international law either and which is never likely to be. If we bear in mind that the Kyoto Protocol requires the ratification of 55 percent of those countries with carbon dioxide emissions who are party to it and note that the United States and the Russian federation—which respectively have 36 percent and 17 percent on their own—both oppose it we can see that it will never come into effect. However that does not stop the Government from taxing farmers and getting money from them on what are virtually false pretences in respect of international law. That is clearly the situation but the Government is still pursuing these conventions. 
I think it is a good idea to have conventions brought to Parliament and I know that Keith Locke will be delighted to see this process occurring. But there is another problem that arose in the Committee stage that should be drawn to the attention of the House which is the fact that although the convention itself is being approved by Parliament any amendments that are made to the convention will be privately—and one might almost say secretly—approved by the Government by Order in Council and will not be brought to Parliament. Successive Governments have established a process of bringing conventions to the House and it is a great shame that the minority Labour Government has decided that amendments to this convention will not be brought to the House. That seems to be an inconsistent poor and unfortunate stand. It seems logical to me that if one brings a convention to the House one should also bring any of the amendments to the convention to the House. 
On the whole with our longstanding regard for the environment New Zealand First supports this legislation and looks forward to its continuing implementation in the New Zealand scene.