Wong Pansy: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Wong Pansy: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6998] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: National supports the third reading of this bill. I started to wonder whether something was happening out there that we were not aware of in the light of the very short contribution made by the Hon Paul Swain. It must mean that the Labour Government is really finding it necessary to pass this legislation in a hurry—except nobody is telling us why. We are still struggling to understand why this bill has to be rushed through its Committee stage and third reading during urgency. The National Party made it very clear at the outset during the first and second readings that we support this bill. 
According to the explanatory note on the bill it amends the Import Control Act to provide for the making of export control regulations by Orders in Council “to give effect to the requirements of—the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade: … the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants: … any other international obligation that provides for the restriction on or the prohibition of the exportation of certain chemicals products organisms wastes or other substances that pose a risk to human health or to the environment.” The National Party is in agreement with that amending legislation and we therefore express our disappointment that in view of our cooperation in support of the legislation some of the very sensible amendments we have worked through diligently and conscientiously in order to make a better bill have been largely rejected by the Labour Government. I would like to go through some of the amendments—to put them on record—that National believes would have made this a much better bill. 
I started with proposing an amendment to the title to insert the words “on Hazardous Substances”. Therefore the title would have read much better as “Imports and Exports (Restrictions on Hazardous Substances) Amendment Bill”. We believe that in the modern Parliament titles need to be specific so that when people read legislation they know its intention from the first glance. When we started to examine the bill we found it even more necessary to make the title clear and specific because some provisions in the legislation could have led to all sorts of interpretation or could have interpreted the power given by Parliament to make an Order in Council in a much wider way than Parliament actually intended. Unfortunately when I put that amendment forward although we had the support of New Zealand First it was not agreed to. I would like particularly to express my disappointment with United Future. That party could have made a difference by demonstrating to the public that it can exercise independence in making sure that better legislation is enacted by Parliament but apparently the senior Labour whip David Benson-Pope had also taken management of United Future’s caucus—to my disappointment—and I was told: “No way!”. They would not even consider the amendment. 
In the event of that amendment failing my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith sensibly put forward another amendment to new section 3A inserted by clause 9 “Prohibition of exports”. If I can have the indulgence of the House I will read out subsection (1) because without my colleague’s amendment the public will not appreciate that the interpretation of this clause can be very wide: “The Governor-General if satisfied that it is necessary to give effect to an international obligation may by Order in Council prohibit the exportation from New Zealand of—(a) specified goods; (b) goods of a specified class or classes.” It goes on to state in subsection (2): “A prohibition may be—(a) general: (b) limited to the exportation of goods to a specified place or class of places: (c) limited to the exportation of goods to a specified person or class of persons: (d) limited to the exportation of goods by a specified person or class of persons: (e) absolute: (f) conditional.” 
I think we get the picture now. This prohibition of exports can indeed be very wide because it can give effect to any international obligation. So my colleague proposed an amendment to insert after the words “international obligations” the words “specified in section 2(1)” which refers to the principal Act. That means that if ever we were caught in being challenged by any entity the court with the words of the amendment inserted would understand that a prohibition order could be issued only if it did not contradict the principal Act. I think that amendment would have made this legislation a lot clearer. Unfortunately our proposal seemed to fall on deaf ears. 
However the National Party never gives up when we believe that legislation needs to be amended. We believe in making good legislation so my very capable colleague Judith Collins proposed another amendment which hopefully the Labour Government would take heed of. She sensibly considered clause 6 “Interpretation” under which the meaning of “international obligation”—which we just touched on in clause 9—is spelt out. Clause 6 states: “international obligation means—(a) the Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure …: (b) the Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants …: (c) the Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal …:” and so on. About four conventions are spelt out under clause 6 which we might take some comfort from. Unfortunately the fifth paragraph paragraph (e) states: “any other international obligation that is or becomes binding on New Zealand …”. I think that the amendment my colleague proposed saying that we should remove that paragraph is an eminently sensible one. This Parliament should not try to make binding legislation on international obligations in the future without even knowing the type of obligation we might find ourselves bound to. 
The last thing I want to point out is that the bill has a statement about compliance costs but it did not try too hard. I find it interesting that that statement which is meant to spell out the costs and benefits of implementing this legislation simply goes on to say that the bill is good legislation—that it is good for the health of New Zealanders anyway—so we should pass it. The bill seems to suggest there will be no additional costs apart from those in respect of the Ministry for the Environment and some secretariat contribution to the public sector. I do not take too much comfort from that because as I have just mentioned quite a bit of the legislation actually binds us to future convention obligations and I cannot see how one can come up with specific current costs in relation to such obligations.