Smith Nick: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6977] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: It is extraordinary that we are in our third day of urgency—technically it is 1 July in this bizarre place in which we work—giving importance to passing legislation that will enable New Zealand to comply with a convention that was signed more than 2 years ago. What sort of Mickey Mouse Parliament are we running that under urgency we are being asked to advance legislation that Parliament did not see for more than 20 months after the convention to which it relates was signed by the Government? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It’s bizarre. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is bizarre. If we had a matter of some urgent environmental need that required Parliament to be in urgency then there might be some justification. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Larry Baldock tells me to sit down. Actually I take seriously the role of Parliament and I do not mind Parliament being in urgency when there are urgent issues. But I ask United Future members what is so urgent about passing the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill when that convention was signed more than 2 years ago and when nobody has ever contacted me or anybody else I know of in this Parliament saying that it has got to be passed today? [ 
Interruption 
] My colleague Paul Hutchison is a very competent member and he has given some excellent speeches on this bill. But even he would be of the view that one could not possibly justify Parliament pretending that the date is 1 July and being in urgency to pass legislation of this sort. It is indeed a joke. 
I want to come to a substantive issue. I feel very strongly about the sovereignty of the New Zealand Parliament and about making sure that when we pass laws New Zealanders have the opportunity to comment on those laws and on what Parliament writes in them. What concerns me in Part 1 as it relates to the convention is what happens if—and this is a question for the Minister—the rules of the Stockholm convention are changed as they apply to organochlorine pollutants. Will the New Zealand Parliament have the opportunity to revisit any subsequent amendments? That would be perfectly proper. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: No it will not. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My colleague Lockwood Smith says that it will not. I have respect for international institutions and I believe we should be part of agreements such as this but it must finally be the decision of the democratically elected Parliament of New Zealand to make the laws of the land. If the rules of the Stockholm convention are subsequently changed—if there are subsequent amendments—then those amendments should come back to this Parliament. It worries me that in Part 1 we are effectively giving carte blanche to an international institution that is not democratically elected the opportunity to affect the rights of people who should have a chance to have a say. It worries me that we are to pass legislation that allows someone else to make decisions for New Zealand. 
So while I am in favour and supportive of the Stockholm convention as it currently sits I do not believe that the New Zealand Parliament is creating good law by saying that whatever is decided at the Stockholm convention in future automatically becomes part of New Zealand law. I do not think that is good law. We must come back to the people of New Zealand and say that no we want to make that the law of the land; we will not simply ride off with somebody else and say that effectively we will abrogate our job as the Parliament of New Zealand to make the law of the land. So I would like the Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs to answer the question specifically in respect of clause 3 about whether under this bill if there are subsequent amendments to the Stockholm convention we are automatically bound by them. Or will the Government of the day come back to the New Zealand Parliament put that bill through a proper select committee and public process and give New Zealanders the opportunity to determine the law of our land?