Smith Lockwood: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6955] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: In speaking to Part 1 I think it is important to focus on the second clause and that is the purpose clause. What has become of concern to National while this debate has progressed is the fact that the purpose the Government intends is not clear on the face of this bill at all. The Government claims that the purpose of this legislation is to enable it to implement its international obligations under those various conventions: the Stockholm convention the Rotterdam convention the Basel convention and the Waigani convention. If that is the case it should be stated in the purpose. That is why I am moving an amendment to clause 3. My amendment inserts after the words “international obligations” the words “as specified in section 2(1) of the principal Act.” The effect of inserting those words would be to establish that the purpose of this legislation is to restrict the exportation of certain goods in relation to the international obligations specified in section 2(1)—the section that specifies the conventions we are signed up to. It specifies the Rotterdam convention the Stockholm convention the Basel convention and the Waigani convention and it allows for any other international obligation that will become binding on New Zealand. The reason that is important is that it leaves no doubt as to the Government’s purpose and without putting that into the purpose and given the broad nature of clause 9 in Part 2 it is quite clear that the Government could use this legislation for other purposes and that is wrong. I think the Minister should take the call and tell the Committee whether it is intended that this legislation should be used only for export constraints relating to those international obligations. Otherwise it is simply open-ended legislation. 
I think it is important that the Government gives consideration to this amendment because the purpose is not sufficiently clear. The Government could claim that it is regulating to impose exportation restrictions on certain goods in relation to all kinds of perceived international obligations. Whereas if we refer to section 2(1) of the principal Act we make clear the international obligations the Government is driven by in imposing the export restriction. I think it is a perfectly sensible amendment that I am proposing. I am sure it is one that other Opposition parties would support because it does make more clear the purpose of this bill. When my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith asked the Minister to clarify to the Committee whether it was intended to use clause 9 in Part 2 of this bill for a purpose beyond the hazardous-substance requirements of these conventions the Minister would not answer. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: I did. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: No the Minister just went “Humph!” I say to the Hon John Tamihere that a young Minister should take his legislation seriously. The purpose is important. One does not have a purpose clause in a bill if it is not important. It is an important part of the legislation and it should establish the purpose very clearly. But it does not and that is why I argue that the amendment I have proposed would help clarify the purpose of the legislation. It would tie it back into the conventions that the Government claims it will be able to uphold by passing this legislation. So I strongly urge the Government to consider that simple amendment which inserts after the words “international obligations” the words “as specified in section 2(1) of the principal Act.” That then makes the purpose of this legislation much clearer. 
If the Minister does not take a call and if the Government does vote against that amendment it brings into question absolutely what the Government’s purpose is with this legislation. Either it is intended to do what it says it will do or the Government has some ulterior use. That is the worry and the select committee was concerned. At the select committee we were told that the Government has no intention to exceed the requirements of the international obligations listed in clause 6—and I cover those in my amendment because they are in section 2(1) of the principal Act. If the Government told the select committee it has no intention to exceed those obligations it should make it clear on the face of the bill.