Smith Lockwood: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6980] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: In Part 1 we are dealing principally with the commencement and purpose of the bill. A number of concerns have been raised in relation to the purpose. The problem arises whereby New Zealand’s domestic law could be changed without either this Parliament or even an Order in Council being involved in that. It is a matter of grave concern to the Opposition. I will be speaking on that point more specifically when we come to Part 2 because I know that the Regulations Review Committee raised with the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee a concern about that. I believe that the way the select committee responded to that issue was inadequate and I will go into that in some detail when we come to Part 2. 
But in respect of Part 1 I will just cover a concern I have with the purpose laid out in clause 3 which reads: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.” I say this bill does not provide for that. That purpose is wrong. This bill which will become an Act does not enable New Zealand to comply with all the requirements of the Stockholm convention. In fact it is very clear that Part V of annex C which is part of the Stockholm convention will not be implemented in New Zealand. It is an active decision of the Government not to implement Part V of annex C. So there is one part of the convention that is not being implemented in this bill. What is more this bill covers only certain issues or certain requirements of the Stockholm convention. It does cover matters concerning the importation of persistent organic pollutants their manufacture their use and their storage but it does not cover matters relating to their export. That is covered in different law—in a different Act. 
So I submit that the purpose stated in the bill is incorrect because this bill does not enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm convention. That is factually wrong. It does not enable New Zealand to implement Part V of annex C and it does not cover issues that are required by the Stockholm convention in respect of the export of persistent organic pollutants. That is why I have proposed and will be moving an amendment to add to clause 3 “Purpose” following the word “with” the words “certain requirements of”. If my amendment is incorporated the purpose clause would read: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to comply with certain requirements of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.” That is a correct statement and a correct and truthful purpose. It is honest whereas the provision in this bill is not honest. The bill simply does not enable us to comply with the Stockholm convention but only with certain requirements—or certain parts—of it. 
If the Minister does not like my words I say that all I am getting at is that this bill does not enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. It is factually wrong for the purpose clause to make that claim. What we should indicate is that the bill will enable us to comply with some aspects of the convention some requirements of it or certain aspects of it. I am easy about the words that should be used but I believe that clause 3 should be changed in order to state the purpose of this bill correctly. The way that it is currently worded is simply not correct. 
That is my main submission in respect of Part 1. I have already pointed out that I have a major concern about how the purpose is carried out in this bill and I will turn to that when we come to Part 2. I believe that the way the purpose is being given effect to in this legislation is flawed. I think it is faulty. It leaves New Zealand’s domestic law in the hands of the people who are involved in deciding changes to the Stockholm convention. From the way that this bill is worded as I read it not even the Government of New Zealand could stop changes to the convention from becoming part of New Zealand’s domestic law. I think the way that the purpose is being given effect to is a serious issue but my first concern is that the purpose statement itself is simply not correct and should be amended.