Jones Dail: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6985] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: During the second reading of this bill I asked whether the Minister would take the trouble to explain why we need clause 4B. A Supplementary Order Paper has been sprung upon us by the Minister that inserts a delegation by authority provision into the legislation. New Zealand First dislikes matters being left to Orders in Council or being dealt with by way of regulation; we dislike even more an authority to do something which is traditionally given by Parliament to a Minister or some other authority named in legislation being given to somebody else altogether. 
 From looking at the explanatory note to the bill I see that initially the Environmental Risk Management Authority was to be given the authority to do something; now instead of the authority doing it the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 97 to insert new clause 4B allows an employee to do it: “(i) any employee … with relevant experience; or (ii) if there is no employee with relevant experience any other person with relevant experience whether or not that person is a member of the Authority:”. One presumes that when the Government introduced this legislation to the House it had thought about the matter very carefully. It gave the Environmental Risk Management Authority the power to do something. Now we are finding that the Government in its arrogance is proposing to change the law so that an employee with relevant experience or possibly someone with relevant experience who is not even an employee can do it. What is “relevant experience”—making the morning tea or having a PhD? There is no definition of “relevant experience”. On what is a relatively simple bill we are being asked with no explanation at all to give over the powers of the Environmental Risk Management Authority to someone who does not work for it but has “relevant experience” whatever that might be. 
I did indicate in my speech in the second reading debate that I expected the Minister as a courtesy to give us some explanation for that. As far as I am aware no explanation has been given. That is absolutely arrogant and shows this minority Labour Government’s disregard for the principles and requirements of Parliament. 
I also raised during the second reading the point about the way in which matters can get out of hand. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants has not yet been ratified. In the Minister’s first reading speech she said that 50 countries needed to sign up before it could be ratified and that she thought the number that had signed up was somewhere in the high 40s. Then we heard from Minister Chris Carter today that it was somewhere in the 30s. It seems to be going downwards. This convention is not international law. 
We have seen what this Government does in terms of conventions that are not international law such as the Kyoto Protocol. For it to be international law countries that account for 55 percent of carbon dioxide emissions and that are party to it need to sign it and only about 40 percent is signed for. As America on 36 percent and Russia on 16 percent—totalling 52 percent—have not signed it it is not international law. But the Government is ramming it down the throats of our farmers and is trying to get money based on something that is not international law. This bill deals with another convention that is not yet international law the Stockholm convention—which we are and have been implementing for farming purposes anyway regardless of whether it is in our legislation—and the Government is giving authority to some person with “relevant experience” with no definition of what that is. 
The Opposition cannot possibly support an amendment that has not been explained at all by the Minister. The Committee deserves to hear what is meant by that particular amendment.