Hide Rodney: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hide Rodney: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3655] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 Once again Jill Pettis has made an erudite and insightful contribution to a debate— 
Jill Pettis 
: At least I win my seat. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: —and I was thanking her for that contribution. I should point out that the ACT party will be voting to send these two bills that work together to the select committee— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: How many of them? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Seven of them will be voting today. But I want to pick up on a point that Clayton Cosgrove raised in saying that the Minister the Hon John Tamihere had done such a fine job in managing this bill’s process. My colleague on this side of the House Dr Nick Smith queried that. I think that John Tamihere might have done a great job because here is the point: we are passing this bill so that we can ratify the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in September 2002. It is now February 2003 and I have to hand it to John Tamihere—if he pulled all that off. So here is my first question for the Minister. Did we sign those conventions in September 2002?  
Hon Paul Swain 
: We ask the questions.  
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well I will ask Jill Pettis. Did the Government sign those conventions in 2002? Did it ratify them? Here is Marian Hobbs to tell us.  
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I have just come into the House. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: We did not ratify them in 2002 so when are we going to ratify them? 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: As soon as we have the bill passed.  
RODNEY HIDE 
: Ah! [ 
Interruption 
] No no. This is an important point because when a Minister brings a bill to the House and says: “We have to pass this so we can ratify two conventions in September 2002.” members on this side of the House say: “Say that again?”. We think that that is toying with the House because clearly the reason is wrong. The Minister for the Environment has now explained that the management of Mr Tamihere has not been all that it might have been or all that Mr Clayton Cosgrove has cracked it up to be. [ 
Interruption 
] She did not say that; I am saying that. She said that we failed to ratify the conventions back in September 2002. That was what the Minister said was it not? We failed to ratify them in 2002 because this legislation had not been passed. But Mr Clayton Cosgrove got up there—typical of Labour’s spin—and said that Mr John Tamihere had done a great job. But by their own purpose for this bill he actually failed.  
So now we hear and I am getting the picture now that we are busy passing this legislation because we failed to ratify in September last year. Did anyone hear the Minister explain that in his introductory speech? Here again are the Opposition members doing their job—calling this Government to account. I ask the honourable member John Tamihere whether he read this introduction where it says “the purpose”.  
Hon John Tamihere 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is the member yielding? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I do not think the member is yielding at all. That is not a point of order.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it might be helpful and I seek leave for the Minister to give an explanation about the date and timing as set out in the explanatory note. I think it would be helpful for the bill.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister can seek leave on his own behalf if he so wishes; other members cannot do it for him.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave for the Government to provide an explanation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. I call the honourable member Rodney Hide. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I appreciate the Speaker pointing out that if the Minister who failed to explain these dates in his introductory speech wanted to explain it to this House he does not need me to yield; all he needs to do is to seek leave and explain it. So when I have finished my speech the Minister can stand up and make this correction. But I do make the point: it is trifling with the House to come down here and say that we have to pass this bill so that we can ratify something that clearly we could not have ratified because the bill was not passed at that time. I ask the Minister whether he had read that before his speech today. There is silence. We know that the reason there is silence is that he had not read it. He had not bothered to read the reason we are passing this jolly bill so that he could explain it to the House. He came along with the stuff that his officials fed to him and expects everyone else to go along with that.  
They clearly wrote that speech before September 2002 expecting that the Minister would have had it done. They are rummaging around there because the Government does not know what bill it is going to pass and they pulled out the speech they had prepared for the Minister. He walked down and gave that speech and it is clearly at least 6 months out of date. I say to the Minister that if he is to succeed he had better get a bit more up to date than that. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: He’s more successful than you. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I understand from Mr Cosgrove who also read his speech and was talking about these conventions and all the rest of it— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the member explain it? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I ask Mr Clayton Cosgrove whether he could explain why the Government is passing the bill now when it was meant to ratify something in September last year. I think the answer is no. Mr Cosgrove is sitting here having been fed the same notes from the officials. He got up and explained this then said a curious thing. He said that it was to stop these toxic chemicals. We do have an issue with organochlorines which this bill deals with because they are persistent in the environment but I ask Mr Clayton Cosgrove why he thinks they are toxic. Why does he think that organochlorines are toxic and what are they toxic to? There is complete silence. That member gets up in the House talks about these chemicals and says that they are toxic and when I ask him what they are toxic to he cannot explain. So now we have already on the first reading of this bill a failure by the Government to make the most obvious points which are all on the first page of the explanatory note.  
I point out to Government members that the concern we have with these chemicals is their persistence in the environment not their toxicity. The Greens understand that. The ACT party understands that. I expect the Government to do a bit better job.  
My final question—and I am so pleased that John Tamihere has indicated a willingness to seek leave to give the explanation he failed to give in his first reading speech—is: given that the Government did not ratify the conventions at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in September 2002 when is it intending to ratify these conventions? 
Bill read a first time.