Shirley Ken: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6949] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: In addressing the title I would have expected as would other members the Minister in the chair the Hon. John Tamihere to clarify the point that has been raised. It is a very valid point and I had not picked it up until I quickly read the bill and followed the debate thus far. The point is this: what is the scope of this legislation? We do not know that. The general sentiment of the Committee is that we generally support the broad intentions of compliance with the Stockholm convention and of limiting the trade in those hazardous substances whether they are exported or imported. Certainly we know that in the past some developed countries have taken advantage of the lack of controls and regulations in undeveloped countries and exported their pollutants and wastes to them and that is not good. The international community has adopted conventions whether they are the Basel convention or the Waigani convention to address those issues. 
However the point has been raised that the provisions of this bill are very general particularly when we look at the title and then at the clauses under the title. I put the question that Dr Smith put to the Minister of whether this bill would cover the ban on the export of beech chips in the South Island. Currently there is a ban on the export of beech chips and I ask whether the Government could use this legislation to do that. That ban is an utter nonsense because we are talking about wood chips from sustainably managed forests. Surely the issue is whether there is an environmental impact. If the forest is being grown in a sustainable way then one has complied with the environmental concerns. What one might then turn the product into whether it is chips sawn lumber or whatever else is not the business of the Government and one should be free to export it in whatever form one likes. We do not tell our sheep farmers that all their wool has to go out as woolly jumpers or tell our strawberry growers that all their strawberries have to go out as strawberry jam. So why cannot a person who is growing a beech forest sustainably export wood chips from it when that has no environmental impact whatsoever? Such people are entitled to cut down their trees and once they have cut them down the environmental impact is totally neutral. 
The Minister should take a call. This is a very important issue. This country does have certain quirky export bans for very spurious reasons and we would be aghast if the intention is to use this legislation to extend those sorts of controls. We are very suspicious of the way that the bill is worded and clearly of the way that the title has been compiled. It is not good enough to say that this Government will not use this legislation in that way but a future Government may do so. We are setting legislation in place here today. We are legislators and it is important that we get things right. I know that the National Opposition has foreshadowed an amendment to address that issue. I would like the Minister at least to give an assurance that he will support that amendment or otherwise to take a call and tell us why he will not. This is a very valid point and it has not been responded to.