Wong Pansy: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6965] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
:  
It is frustrating for members on this side of the Chamber because I thought we had shown a lot of consideration and goodwill and the amendments that we have proposed have been consistent. I saw that we even got a lovely smile from the Minister in the chair the Hon John Tamihere which actually was quite disturbing because I think this is a very serious issue and the way he smiled at it means he is not taking it seriously. Maybe I can make a serious plea to him and take him slowly through our argument again to see whether we can convince him. I think if the Minister has ambitions to be the leader of the Labour Party he has to show a lot more willingness to listen to the public and to the Opposition parties because this is a very important issue. 
I myself have put an amendment to the title to clarify the scope of this legislation. I have proposed that instead of just calling this legislation the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill we actually change it to the “Imports and Exports (Restrictions on Hazardous Substances) Amendment Bill”. If that amendment had been accepted—and I was disappointed that United Future would not take an independent stand on this—then at least the members on this side of the House could have felt slightly comforted and would not be voting against particular provisions in paragraph (e) of section 2(1)—in clause 6(1)—and in clause 9. 
I plead for the Minister to accept the sensible amendment to new section 3A in clause 9 put by my learned colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. When we read new section 3A(1) we see it states: “The Governor-General if satisfied that it is necessary to give effect to an international obligation”. It does not even mention the international obligation that we are told in the explanatory note by Order in Council can prohibit the exportation from New Zealand of specified goods or goods of a specified class or classes. I think Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith’s amendments make so much sense. All the Minister had to do was say yes to four little words: “specified in section 2(1)”. It is a very very crucial but simple amendment that would not delay the passage of this legislation yet would clarify its purpose. 
I would like to think the Minister wanted to pass good legislation. Far too many times we have seen legislation being rushed through this Parliament and before there has even been time to implement it properly the officials have come back to request amendments to it. To avoid this type of problem the Minister just needs to have a quiet word with the officials. We can assure him that the officials would say that if the Opposition cooperated making that change would not lead to a delay in the passage of this legislation. It makes much more sense to accept the amendment proposed by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. All that the amendment says is that clause 9 should not go against the intention of the principal Act. 
Why is the Labour Government so suspicious of the Opposition parties? We have already indicated clearly at the outset that we are going to support this legislation. I think these pleas are falling on deaf ears. I will make a promise in the House like I did with the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3): we support the legislation but it could have been made much better so in 2005 when National comes back to this House as the Government we will definitely make these amendments. I am just trying to reassure the public and people who have concerns over this legislation that we may have to accept it for the time being but we assure them that we will fix it. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madame Chairperson. You will recall that some 10 minutes back I raised the issue about whether we could drink a hot mug of Milo which is available and served in the lobbies. You were not sure but you indicated that you thought not. The messenger has just been kind enough to deliver to me a copy of the sheet that the messengers take as their instructions and it is from Mr Speaker dated 30 November 2002. Item 30 lists articles not permitted in the Chamber. It states that the following articles may not be taken into the Chamber or galleries unless approved by the Speaker and it lists bags including briefcases; satchels; haversacks; umbrellas; cameras; etc. But item 5— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to get to the point. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I will be as terse as I can. Item 5 refers to food or drink. I put to you that water is a drink. We certainly do not bring our lunch in here and we would not bring a bottle of Coke but I would like clarification of whether a hot mug of coffee is acceptable. For the smaller parties in particular—I do this on behalf of the smaller parties—there is a problem when their members are alone in the House and need a hot drink but also need to follow the debate as they can have a hot drink out in the lobby only. I would like a ruling on that matter. Perhaps over the lunch break you could consider it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: This is a new point and it is also something for you to consider over the lunch break. It might be interesting if members were to see how the Speaker felt about his interpretation with regard to practising hobby interests in the Chamber. You will recall that some time ago the Speaker ruled that knitting was permitted and indeed cleaning a carburettor on a desk would also be permitted. Perhaps the member is a hobby coffee drinker. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows very well that there has been a ruling on that.