Smith Lockwood: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7016] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: That short speech from that Government member is a good example of the problem we have had today with this legislation and its passage through the House. Earlier on today in the second reading I told the House that National would be supporting this legislation and we do support it. It is important legislation. However the way it has been handled by Parliament in the select committee and in the Committee stage has been inadequate. The processes that have been applied to this legislation have been absolutely inadequate. 
I want to share with the House just three things in particular in relation to the bill in its third reading. The first one is not major. During the Committee stage it was pointed out that the purpose of the bill as spelt out in clause 3 is not strictly correct. Clause 3 states: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.” The bill does not do that. No one can claim that it does that. In fact very clearly it does not do that. As we all know sister legislation that we have been working on today is necessary to help us comply with that Stockholm convention. This bill does not do that. It is not a big issue but it is careless law to make a statement in the purpose clause of a bill that is wrong. It is simply careless law drafting. 
But that is not the biggest problem with the bill. Again I come back to the careless way in which a quite simple bill has been handled. Quite a while back the Regulations Review Committee of Parliament had a look at the bill because of its regulatory implications. That committee raised with the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which was examining the bill its concern that—to use the words of the report of the select committee—amendments to the Stockholm convention could apply automatically in New Zealand’s domestic law if this bill was not amended. That is a serious issue. My colleague Richard Worth has just referred to that. I cannot think of any other legislation that I am familiar with whereby decisions that are made elsewhere and that New Zealand may not even agree with become part of our law. Where a country is party to a convention such as the Stockholm convention it only takes the agreement of a certain number of the parties to that convention for it to be amended. Those changes could be made off shore somewhere in another country. The Regulations Review Committee was concerned that those changes would then apply in New Zealand domestic law without this Parliament or even the Government of New Zealand being able to do anything about that. Sure the Government may have been involved in discussions about changes to the Stockholm convention but it may not have agreed to the changes. But from the way this legislation is drafted they will apply in New Zealand law. Members of this House have to be concerned about that. 
The select committee was advised of that issue by the Regulations Review Committee at the end of the process of our looking at the bill. I remember it well. I expressed my concern to the chair of the committee saying that I was not convinced that we had dealt with the concerns of the Regulations Review Committee. If members read our report they will see that our response is almost inept. Sadly I was away when the report was finalised. However in response to the Regulations Review Committee saying it was concerned that amendments to the convention may apply automatically in New Zealand’s domestic law and therefore proposing an amendment to the definition of “Stockholm Convention” the select committee said—and I am quoting directly here—“Rather than amend this definition we have substituted a new definition of environmentally sound disposal so that the rules about disposal are set by ERMA rather than being set directly by the Convention.” 
That is almost an inept response to the concern raised by the Regulations Review Committee. There is nothing wrong with what the select committee did there. There is nothing wrong with the amendment the select committee recommended that we add a new definition of “environmentally sound disposal” so that rules for disposal can be set by the Environmental Risk Management Authority. There is nothing wrong with that but it does not address the concern raised by the Regulations Review Committee. One has only to read what I have quoted to the House to see that it does not address the concern raised with the select committee by the Regulations Review Committee. 
In my view the first problem was that the select committee did not deal with the legislation seriously enough. The select committee did not engage with the concern raised by the Regulations Review Committee and the way we have handled it in our report back to Parliament shows that we did not understand the issue properly at all. The rest of the process has resulted in what I think is unsatisfactory legislation going through on an important issue that we support. The way in which the bill is worded is unsatisfactory. 
Of course the process involved now is urgency in this Parliament; the Committee stage is being dealt with in urgency. I think the Minister in the chair was aware of the problem and understood it but felt that it was not possible to deal with such a complex problem today under urgency in this Parliament during the Committee stage of the bill. That is no way to handle legislation as important as this. This legislation involves putting international obligations in our domestic law and the way to deal with that is not simply to say that OK it may not be right it may be that any changes to the Stockholm convention will automatically become part of our domestic law and we may not be able to do anything about it but because we are debating the Committee stage under urgency we cannot do anything about it. The bill has gone through two bad processes. The select committee process was inadequate and the Committee stage being heard in urgency was also inadequate. That means that faulty law will go through this House. 
My final concern is about clause 8. Everyone knows that research is being conducted on persistent organic pollutants to improve their handling and disposal because they are going to be around for a while yet despite this legislation. It will be 2016 before polychlorinated biphenyls go and research on how best to dispose of them is important. I point out to the House that from my reading of clause 8 it makes it impossible for research to be carried out on persistent organic pollutants. That seems to be exactly the opposite from what was intended. When I asked the Minister to explain to the House why I was wrong in my reading of the bill the Minister could not do that. The dilemma is that if the face of the legislation is so obtuse that it conveys the wrong meaning then there is a real problem with the law. 
Although National supports the bill we are saddened that its wording is sloppy and inadequate and that is not good enough. When Parliament passes legislation as important as this the wording should be more properly and soundly thought through. We support the bill but are not happy with some of the detail of it. 
Bill read a third time.