Smith Lockwood: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6946] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: The title of this bill might sound quite simple but again we run into problems with the meaning of a title. Those who are familiar with the principal Act that this bill amends will know that the Act is not involved in exactly the same things as this amendment bill is. The title does not make clear exactly what this bill is doing. When there is such a title as “Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill” the restrictions could be for any reason at all. This legislation does not make clear the fact that we are adding to the old Import Control Act 1988 a whole new dimension in the control of exports. The reason that is being done is to control the export of hazardous substances. The problem with the title is that one would not pick that up from reading it at all. The restrictions being applied could be restrictions on exports for any reason. A restriction might be being applied for example to trout. In Zealand people are not allowed to export trout. They are not a hazardous substance. [ 
Interruption 
] My colleague says people are allowed to export them but are not allowed to sell them. The point I make is that quite clearly there are restrictions that this title could refer to that are not covered at all by this bill. 
The bill is very specific. The bill in fact covers only certain hazardous substances. It is even more specific than that. It gives effect to particular conventions: the Rotterdam convention the Stockholm convention the Basel convention and the Waigani convention. If people read the title “Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill” they will have no notion that that is what the bill does. The restrictions could be for any purpose at all. My colleague Pansy Wong will be putting forward an amendment to the title to make it clear that the restrictions being referred to are restrictions on hazardous substances. I think the Committee would have to agree that that was a sensible amendment because it will assist someone looking through our statutes and trying to find the law relating to controls on the exports of hazardous substances. People would see from the title that that is what this legislation does. With the current title someone reading through our statutes and checking the indexes would have no notion that the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Act in fact controlled the export of hazardous substances. 
What makes the point even more clear is this bill’s sister legislation which we are also considering today—the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill. These two pieces of legislation cover very similar issues yet the titles are totally different. From reading the titles people would have no idea that these two pieces of legislation were actually involved in New Zealand’s implementation of the Stockholm convention. That is not good law drafting. From the titles there is no guidance that these two bills together enable us to comply with the requirements of the Stockholm convention. I think we have a problem with the title. 
I think that at least at a minimum the title should be changed to what my colleague is going to recommend which is that following the word “Restrictions” we put the words “on Hazardous Substances”. That would assist because in principle clause 9 which is the main functional clause enables Orders in Council for the prohibition of the exportation of certain specified goods and classes. Those specified goods and classes of course are the substances covered by our commitments under the Rotterdam convention the Stockholm convention the Basel convention and the Waigani convention. 
I suppose that where this measure becomes more serious is over the issue of whether the Government intends to use this power more widely. That is the issue. Concern was expressed at the select committee—and we will come to this when we get to Part 2—that clause 9 gives a wider power than is absolutely necessary to meet our commitments under these conventions. Is it the Government’s intention to go wider?