Shirley Ken: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6956] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: I would like to indicate at the outset ACT New Zealand’s support for the amendment just outlined by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. It is a very sensible amendment and it should be right up there in clause 3 the purpose clause which is in Part 1. That is where it must be spelt out. The clause as it is at present states: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to give better effect to its international obligations …”. But that is a vague statement. We have all manner of international obligations and if it is the case that Part 2 as it suggests is confined to the Basel convention the Waigani convention and others then why should we not say so in the purpose clause? That is where people will take their lead. 
It is a very serious matter when Governments start imposing restrictions and controls on trade. Trade is the lifeblood of prosperity—a wealth generation. Through the ages trade has occurred between clans tribal chieftainships and kingdoms. In the modern global market economy trade between nations is critical and the freer the better. All the evidence in the world suggests that the more unrestricted the trade the greater the mutual benefit for both parties engaging in the trade. So restrictions are serious. One does not do them lightly. I fear this Government’s natural tendency to be a control freak—to enjoy controlling everything. It is a worry. It is the socialist way of course. Socialists tend not to like trade. They think there is something dirty about commerce and trade. But it is the lifeblood of prosperity. 
We therefore call on the Minister to spell it out for us. We raised an example in the debate on the title and we raise it again here in this debate on Part 1. The example was outlined by Dr Smith and I support him on it. Will the legislation be confined to the conventions in the bill? If the answer is yes then the legislation should state that it is. We see under clause 6—I know it is in Part 2 but it relates to this aspect of Part 1—that it just says “any other international obligation”. It does not confine the legislation to the conventions outlined. That is what we are asking for. 
 We are concerned about some of these international obligations. Increasingly bureaucrats and Government officials go to committee meetings all around the world. Often the non-governmental community without any mandate or any accountability has a huge influence on some UN committees. One would not believe some of the nonsense that bureaucrats sign up to and commit us to at these international fora. We are then at risk of importing those commitments into our domestic law through the back door. I drafted a member’s bill that covered this issue and Keith Locke had a parallel one also expressing concern but for quite different reasons. My concern is that we get all sorts of wacky lobby groups that capture UN committees then impose controls on what should be unfettered trade. We accept that we support the intentions of the Basel convention the Stockholm convention and the Waigani convention. We are not arguing against that. But if the legislation is confined to that—if the answer is yes it is—then the Minister should say so and put it in the purpose clause. That is what Dr Smith’s amendment does so I ask the Committee to please support it. If the answer is no then we have very great cause to be concerned. The very problem that we are outlining would prevail and in the future we could have all manner of Governments and people using this legislation to try to control restrict and limit trade. 
The woodchip case is exactly one such example. We can say we can produce woodchips from sustainably managed beech only but then have an export restriction on woodchips. There is no logic in that. There is no point in that. We are fearful that a Government that is captured by lobby groups and powerful non-governmental groups could very well inappropriately use these sorts of measures for no good purpose and in fact for considerable harm to the economy. I say to the Minister that it is a very straight issue. Could he please hop up on his hind trotters and tell us whether it is confined to those conventions—yes or no. If “Yes” it should vote for the amendment; if “No” then we have to be very worried.