Carter John: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Carter John: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3666] 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to take a call on this bill because there are three important issues that I have picked up on. 
Rodney Hide 
: What does your mother think? 
JOHN CARTER 
: I am sure my mother would be distressed if she could read some of these things. [ 
Interruption 
] I will explain very shortly. My mother is well read and she worries about those sorts of things. I will tell the House of the three things that are of concern not only to my mother but indeed to a whole number of New Zealanders.  
The first thing that Parliament will want to consider is on page 2 of the explanatory note of the bill. In the paragraph headed “Stockholm Convention” we find that parties are required to provide financial contributions. I carried on reading the bill and I thought that I would find a clause that told Parliament what specifically that meant. If we are under an agreement—a world agreement—signed in Stockholm one assumes seeing as it is called the Stockholm convention— 
Rodney Hide 
: It’s a worldwide tax. 
JOHN CARTER 
: What does that mean for New Zealand taxpayers? I would have thought that we would have heard an explanation of that because we know in this country that although the Government’s coffers are going to be quite full this year—[ 
Interruption 
] No quite full. 
Richard Worth 
: They’re going to be plump. 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is right. Indeed it is estimated that the Minister’s expectations will be fulfilled and more. The worry is that in the next year or two the slump in world commodity prices the droughts that we are experiencing the energy crisis the possible loss of the America’s Cup and the possibility of a war in Iraq will impact on the Government’s income. I ask the Government this: if those things come upon us in the next year or two or three what does that mean with regard to the providing of financial contributions as the parties are required to do?  
Rodney Hide 
: Does “Boo Boo” know? 
JOHN CARTER 
: I cannot answer that question. I am not sure whether anyone in the House can. The Minister may well be able to. I would have seriously thought that the Minister would want to give quite an explanation about that aspect. Given that that explanation has not been made I thought it was my responsibility to bring that to the attention of the House. I expect that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee will want to pay a whole lot of attention to that issue of providing financial contributions. That is point No. 1.  
The second thing I want to draw to the House’s attention is also in the paragraph headed “Stockholm Convention’’ in the explanatory note of the bill. Are members listening? It states: “10 POPs”. When I read that I wondered why the Minister did not explain to us what “10 POPs” means. I thought it was quite extraordinary. I have seen all sorts of terminology and hieroglyphics used in this Parliament but—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes I do know what “10 POPs” means but we need to make sure that the public knows. 
Rodney Hide 
: I don’t know. 
JOHN CARTER 
: See? There is the problem. Here we have a member of Parliament who is listening to the debate and does not know what “10 POPs” means. Was it explained what “10 POPs” means? 
Rodney Hide 
: No. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Does it mean the hit parade? Does it mean a convention of grandfathers? It worried me when I read it. Then I read the first paragraph of the explanatory note which mentions “Persistent Organic Pollutants” and I thought that maybe it did mean a convention of grandfathers! I looked through this bill for an explanation and I could not find one. What is more I wondered why we ended up with 10. What is so significant about 10 POPs? Why can it not be 12 POPs? [ 
Interruption 
] My very good colleague Richard Worth has just pointed out that although there are 10 POPs in the explanatory note there are only nine in the schedule. 
Richard Worth 
: A POP has been added.  
JOHN CARTER 
: No it has not; a POP has been lost. We have lost a grandfather! I ask the Minister to explain to the House why there are 10 POPs in one part but only nine in another. 
Shane Ardern 
: 10. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Oh is it 10? Well it was a good point while I was making it. We have just had a recount and found out that there are 10. My final point is something that does worry me—on all sorts of legislation particularly legislation relating to this Government. The explanatory note states: “The Bill contains an Order in Council mechanism”. One of the things this Government said when it came to power was that it would be open and accountable. 
Rodney Hide 
: The member didn’t believe it though did he? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well one is always hopeful that a Government means what it says. Here is a Government that stands on the world stage and on stages around the country and says that it is open and accountable. What is it about to do? It is going to do things by Order in Council—which has become an absolute habit with this Government—which is merely a sneaky way for Cabinet to pass laws without telling the public. It gives more power to a small select group of people selected by the Prime Minister which then carries out her every wish and requirement. Did the public get an opportunity to have a say? Not on your nelly! That whole issue of Orders in Council really worries me. I accept that there are occasions when it is sensible to have an Order in Council mechanism for urgent reasons or emergencies but it has been done far too often. I urge the select committee to take that point on board and study it deeply to make sure that there is a necessity for that Order in Council mechanism.  
I refer to the wider issues of the bill. My very good friend and colleague Shane Ardern made a very good address with regard to the whole issue of biosecurity and we must make certain that the legislation fits in with the whole issue of biosecurity. Shane Ardern has already made that point. He is not sure whether this legislation does dovetail neatly into the current situation. He is uncertain as to whether this is going to be of assistance to our rural sector. 
Shane Ardern 
: The backbone of New Zealand. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes the backbone of New Zealand; the people who keep this country going. If there is anyone who knows about these issues it is Shane Ardern and if he is questioning this then it really really worries me. Shane Ardern knows more about issues like biosecurity than Phil Goff has ever heard about. 
Shane Ardern 
: That’s right. He doesn’t know what it means. 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is the problem. We have a Government that is uncertain but here we have a member who knows about it lives in the community works in the community and understands these issues and he is raising questions about it. I have to say that members on this side of the House will be perturbed. If Shane Ardern is perturbed about it we will be perturbed. Absolutely so! 
Rodney Hide 
: If the National Party is perturbed the country will be perturbed. 
JOHN CARTER 
: There we are. If the National Party is perturbed the country will be perturbed. We should be concerned about this bill. There is a lot of work for the select committee. I hope it is able to spend enough time on this bill because it is an important piece of legislation. It is not one of those sorts of bills that members can get up and speak on for 10 minutes not knowing what they are talking about. It is an absolutely important piece of legislation that this Parliament should take seriously. I hope that others can make a contribution of the quality of the one that has just been made.