Smith Lockwood: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6933] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: This is a fairly simple bill as the Associate Minister of Commerce has just said. Clause 9 is the clause that provides the mechanism for the control of exports. Even though it is a simple bill none the less it is an important one. It is important that people understand exactly what we are doing here. 
In the past New Zealand had an Import Control Act but that did not enable us to fulfil the requirements of several international conventions to which this country is a party—the Rotterdam convention the Stockholm convention and the Basel convention not to mention the Waigani convention. So it is obvious that we have to amend that old Import Control Act to enable us to put in place some controls around the export of hazardous substances. That is why this bill is needed. To enable us to comply with the requirements of those international conventions following our ratification of them this bill on its own does not do all that we need to do. That is why it needs to be considered in conjunction with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill because together once they are enacted we will be able to comply with the Stockholm convention. 
I suppose one of the issues that caused a wee bit of concern and was a worry to some of the people who made submissions was the possibility that the export of some hazardous substances—for example polychlorinated biphenyls which are bad substances—for environmentally sound disposal might be prohibited by this legislation. Obviously that would not be a good move. If we can dispose of some of these hazardous substances in an environmentally more appropriate way through exporting them to a place that specialises in the disposal of them that makes a lot of sense. That issue was raised at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee by Transpower New Zealand because I think polychlorinated biphenyls are produced by some of its activities. Transpower finds it necessary to export those polychlorinated biphenyls for environmentally sound disposal. 
So we had a very good look at the details of clause 9 which is the clause that enables the Government to put in place the prohibition on certain exports. I must say my having gone through that in some detail I think the National Party is satisfied that the provisions are flexible enough to enable the environmentally sound export of hazardous substances. If one looks at the various new sections to be inserted in the principal Act—sections 3A and 3B in clause 9—one will see that there can be conditional prohibition of exports. A licence or permit can be granted by the Minister or a prescribed person and that licence or permit can prescribe conditions for the export of certain substances. We in the National Party are satisfied that the concerns expressed by some of the submitters to the select committee are met in the wording of clause 9 and that it will be possible once this legislation is passed for hazardous substances to be exported without this law being breached if they are being exported for environmentally sound disposal. That was the main concern of those who took a particular interest in this bill. 
It is interesting that one controversial bit did come up. One will note that this bill also enables us to meet our obligations under the Basel convention which New Zealand signed way back in 1989 and ratified in 1994; so the Basel convention has been around for a fair while. But some countries are trying to expand the Basel convention with something they call the Basel ban amendment. Some members of this House I think the Green Party members in particular tried to use this bill as a vehicle to push their interest in the Basel ban amendment. I do give some credit to the Government—and of course the National Party supported the Government in this—for not allowing this legislation to be used as a vehicle to push the Green party’s particularly extreme views on the Basel ban amendment. 
I think that what is important though is that should the Basel Convention be modified in the future—and it is possible that any of these conventions could be modified as we learn more about hazardous substances and their handling—I am satisfied that the way this bill is drafted is such that it enables the Minister to make appropriate regulation under this legislation to meet any commitments New Zealand might enter into in the future. The bill does not put those commitments into law; it enables the Minister through an Order in Council to put in place appropriate regulation to meet changes to those international conventions. I think the drafting of the legislation is sensible in that regard. 
I have no doubt we will hear from the Green Party. I am sure its members will be pushing their desire to see the Basel ban amendment given greater consideration by New Zealand. They have prepared a minority report from the select committee. I must say I think it wise that the amendment not be included in this legislation. As I said it is not excluded because if New Zealand does ever commit to changes to any of the main conventions that this bill enables us to give effect to then the wording of this legislation will enable us to do that. 
I think a lot of people when they hear the words “Rotterdam convention” “Stockholm convention” and “Basel convention” wonder what they are all about. All that the Rotterdam convention does is require parties to it to exchange information about certain chemicals that are considered hazardous. The convention currently lists 31 chemicals about which all parties to the convention must notify import requirements. If countries that are party to the convention are notifying import requirements then obviously that requires them to be able to have regulations around the export of those 31 chemicals. The Rotterdam convention requires that exchange of information which makes good sense. 
The Stockholm convention on the other hand focuses on persistent organic pollutants. From memory I think 10 substances are currently covered by the Stockholm convention and eight of them are also covered by the Rotterdam convention. The Stockholm convention requires a ban on the production and use of dangerous persistent organic pollutants. This bill on its own of course will not do that. That is why we need the sister legislation the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill because that will enable us to meet the requirements of the Stockholm convention that we ban or prevent the use of persistent organic pollutants. 
Those are the major conventions and that is the effect they have. Members can see that this legislation is required for us to give effect to them just as the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill is also required for us to give effect to them. National supports the bill. I think the legislation is sensibly drafted and it is sound legislation.