Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6969] 
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I raised a point of order prior to the lunch break when you were not in the Chair—we had another presiding officer at that time. The situation was that I had brought my mug of hot Milo into the Chamber and one of the messengers had tried to wrestle it from me and take it out. I sought clarification from the then presiding officer whether that was permitted and she said that it was not. I then was issued with a statement from Speaker Jonathan Hunt dated 30 November 2002 stating articles that are not permitted. It mentioned bags umbrellas and briefcases and it said in item 5 “food or drink”. Of course we have water in here—we are allowed to drink water. We are not allowed to bring our lunch or eat a pie and I understand that is a reasonable provision. I notice that a lot of the Government members regularly chew lollies. That of course would come within the definition of food that should be banned but we have a convention that that is permitted. 
The point was that as a member of a minor party or a smaller party I am holding the fort as it were today. I needed a hot drink but I cannot be here following and participating in the debate and also having my hot drink. We are allowed to have water. What is the difference between a glass of water and a mug of Milo? I refer to Speaker’s ruling 14/1. This is a ruling brought down by Mr Braybrooke as Chairperson in 1997. It states: “Eating or drinking a cup of tea is not permitted in the Chamber.” I do not know how we can eat a cup of tea but that is what our ruling says. It does not ban the drinking of Milo in the Chamber. It only mentions eating or drinking a cup of tea. 
This is an important matter. We are under urgency. Members are under a lot of strain we are missing meals and we have to have our sustenance. I invited the former presiding officer in the Chair to consider it over the lunch break and come back with a ruling. I notice we have now had a change in presiding officer. I am wondering whether she did discuss it with you. I would certainly like a ruling on whether a mug of Milo is permitted. If it is not could I put my Milo in a glass? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Interjections are to be terse and to the point—Standing Order 84(3). I think the member has made his point. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: No there are a number of issues. One is the temperature. We can have a cold glass of water but we cannot have a hot mug of tea. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: We do not know about cocoa or Milo. If it is based on temperature what is the temperature? Hot or cold? 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: It is my practice to have a hot glass of water. I have been having a hot glass of water and steam comes off it. Being an asthmatic one finds that hot water going through one’s system is a good way of fending it off. I have been doing this for some time. There is that point. Also can one put Lemsip in the hot water? Does that take it out of the category of water? Would I not be able to drink water if it had Lemsip in it? That brings in the category of tea. What is the difference between hot water with Lemsip and hot water with tea in it? We need a very considered ruling on this matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have heard sufficient. I also listened to the episode prior to lunch. Like the Hon Ken Shirley I wish to refer to Speaker’s ruling 14/1 made by Mr Geoff Braybrooke. It provides that eating or drinking a cup of tea is not permitted in the Chamber. I consider that restriction extends to all beverages other than the water provided in the Chamber. I regard water as a speaker’s aid. If members wish to eat or drink there are areas close to the Chamber such as the lobbies or the cafeteria where they may do so. I believe that the ruling is aimed at ensuring that the Chamber does not become some sort of restaurant room or cafeteria. Members can go elsewhere if they so wish. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It had better be different. I have made my ruling. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It is just a point of clarification on your ruling which I certainly do appreciate your making. A valid point was made by Dail Jones regarding temperature—whether water of any temperature can be consumed by a member—and also whether additives can be placed in the water. If you could clarify that for us it would be helpful because someone such as Dail Jones who is an asthmatic from time to time requires not only water but additives to help him. It would be useful to seek your aid in clarifying that situation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has made a good point. The Chamber is a place for the serious conduct of the business of this House. The principle governing activities in the Chamber is whether they disrupt or have the potential to disrupt that business or demean the House in some way. After all this is Parliament a debating chamber and a place where serious business is conducted. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It had better be something different. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: It certainly is different. I appreciate that. You have given us a rule although it is not particularly clear on the beverage and water issue. I now seek clarification with regard to the food aspect in particular as it relates to lozenges Strepsils Minties and various other lollies. I notice that many of the Labour front-benchers chew their cud regularly. That would also be in breach of that Speaker’s ruling. Having dealt with beverages we now need to address the food side of the equation. The situation could arise where a member wants to dissolve an aspirin in his or her water which would take us back to the former argument. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member; he has made his point. I do not want to take points ad nauseum. I am just going to say this. I would not take exception to a member discreetly sucking a peppermint or a throat lozenge but it should go no further than that. 
Clause 1 Title 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: Undoubtedly over the course of the last hour or two while we have debated the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill there has been concern as to the clarity of the title and whether indeed it reflects appropriately the meaning and the content of that bill. Once again we have a title that refers to the Stockholm convention and that is quite proper. However it does not say anything about persistent organic pollutants. In the mind of the public persistent organic pollutants could be a whole variety of things whereas in this bill they are confined to a variety of chemicals that each has the characteristic of being environmentally persistent toxic bioaccumulative and able to be transported by movement or air water and migratory species to places far from its original point of release. They all have somewhat complicated chemical names associated with them. In speaking to this title and trying to make it have some meaning to the average New Zealander out there wondering what this debate is about I propose that it would be relevant and appropriate for the title to make some mention that this bill refers to persistent organic pollutants. We could add the words “Relating to Persistent Organic Pollutants”. 
I have been troubled by the related bill the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill which is inextricably related to this bill. The Stockholm convention is very much part of this bill but so too are the Basel convention the Waigani convention and one other convention that is important. It was made very clear in the previous debate that it would be appropriate to add to the title of the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill after “Restrictions” the words “on Hazardous Substances”. But we still have the difficulty that if we confine this title purely to the Stockholm convention which is related to the other conventions; there is still no hint of this bill being applied to persistent organic pollutants which is the whole point of it. New Zealand has used them widely in the past in the agricultural sector. There is great concern about the danger of residues to people building their houses or playing in fields close to places where persistent organic pollutants have been used in the past. But this bill’s title does not indicate that the Stockholm convention is all about persistent organic pollutants. That is somewhat unsatisfactory. 
The Minister in the chair could perhaps take a call later on to explain to us why both in the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill and in this bill no mention is made that it actually concerns persistent organic pollutants. Undoubtedly they are hugely important. The Stockholm convention has wide international support and it is right and proper that this Parliament becomes a signatory to it. The National Party is happy to support that. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: In assessing the appropriateness of the title of this bill we really have to examine what the bill does to see whether the title in any way reflects what it does. The heart of this bill is contained in clause 5. What the bill actually does is prohibit the import manufacture or use of persistent organic pollutants. If members look at the new provisions that the select committee inserted into clause 5 they will see that new section 25AB also addresses the issue of storage of persistent organic pollutants. 
The title clause states: “This Act is the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Act 2002.” Where is the link? Those of us who have studied this bill know that there is a link because we know what the Stockholm convention is all about. But the problem is that people who are not familiar with this law who have not been at the select committee for example will not know that. I was reasonably involved in international affairs for this country. I must say that I could not have told members what the Stockholm convention was all about prior to my becoming involved with this piece of legislation. So we have a problem. How is someone who uses an index of titles of bills to find New Zealand’s legislation surrounding the use of persistent organic pollutants? For people to find this piece of legislation they would have to know about the Stockholm convention. That is not reasonable. It is poor drafting again. The title should immediately lead someone to know what the bill is about. If members go to the heart of the bill they will see quite clearly that it is about persistent organic pollutants. The title should state that. It should make clear what it is about. 
That is why I will move that clause 1 be amended by omitting the words “(Stockholm Convention)” in the title and substituting the words “(Persistent Organic Pollutants)”. Anyone looking for New Zealand law on persistent organic pollutants would then know immediately that this is the legislation that tells people what they can and cannot do in respect of those things. 
That is quite important. A scientist may want to know whether a certain substance can be used in a research project in New Zealand. The scientist may not know anything about the Stockholm convention but may be aware that the substance he or she is dealing with is a persistent organic pollutant. A scientist who seeks to find out what the law says about it—and it is a bit confusing; from memory it is covered by clause 8 but we will come to that later on—to find out whether he or she can do research involving a substance and who does not know that those matters are covered by the Stockholm convention will not know that this is the legislation he or she should be looking at. That is why the title is inadequate. It is inappropriate and it would be so simple to fix it. What is wrong with spelling out what the bill does? 
There is another reason for doing that. If the bill implemented in toto the Stockholm convention maybe there would be a better argument for this title but it does not. I hope members realise that the bill does not implement the Stockholm convention in toto. I think article 5 in annex C is not implemented by this legislation at all. With regard to other aspects of the Stockholm convention the Committee should note that the bill covers only matters of importation use and storage of persistent organic pollutants. It does not cover issues of export of such pollutants yet the Stockholm convention applies in respect of all aspects of those pollutants including the export of them. Of course that issue is handled in separate legislation which we have spent some hours discussing today. 
So there are two problems. One is that someone looking in future for New Zealand’s law on persistent organic pollutants will not be led to this legislation by its name because he or she will not necessarily know that that is what the Stockholm convention is about. That is the first problem. The second problem is that the bill does not implement the Stockholm convention in its entirety. It gives effect to only certain parts of it. That is why National argues that the title is not appropriate. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: I would like to continue to elaborate on the concerns Dr Smith put to the Committee. I look forward to the Hon Dr Smith tabling his amendment and I am glad that he has done that. As a trade Minister involved in all sorts of issues to do with conventions overseas and signing treaties he has a better understanding than most. I am happy to say—he cannot say this himself—that he has a better understanding than most of what it is to sign up to a convention and the significance of it. We look at the title of this bill the “Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill” and we know that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith and other senior members here and a very few members of the public—perhaps even the Minister in the chair—will know what the Stockholm convention is. However I have to concede that many members in this House do not know what the Stockholm convention is or what it covers. The Stockholm convention is in the title so I would like to make it clear what it is. 
New Zealand signed that very convention on 23 May 2001. It knew what it was signing and did that with its eyes open. The convention seeks to protect human health and the environment—not just the environment in New Zealand but the world environment and particularly the environments of countries that signed up to the convention. That is done firstly by banning the production use and trade of certain persistent organic pollutants. It does that by minimising the emissions of 10 highly dangerous substances— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is a narrow debate. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I am talking about the title. The Stockholm convention is in the title. The convention minimises the emissions of 10 highly dangerous substances eight of which are also covered by the Rotterdam convention. Only Dr Lockwood Smith myself Judith Collins member of Parliament from Auckland and maybe a scattering of others would know that. The Stockholm convention in the title also refers to protecting health in the environment by taking measures to reduce emissions of two further products—and perhaps the Minister in the chair should tell us what those products are—and by also providing for financial contributions and for the appointment of a designated national authority. 
I want the Minister in the chair who believes that this bill should be called the “Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill”—what a tongue-twister—to tell us very clearly what that refers to. I have given members a brief about the Stockholm convention but there are holes. It talks about 10 highly dangerous substances. What are they? People who are looking for information on those particular substances will not know that they are particularly related to the Stockholm convention. I would like to know what reducing emissions of two further by-products is and what are they? I would like the Minister in the chair to take a call to tell us what those are. 
These are my concerns. The Stockholm convention being mentioned in the title of the bill does not give any member of Parliament—apart from those as I say who have had a long history in this Parliament involved with trade and treaties—any idea of what the bill addresses in particular. We know that it does address persistent organic pollutants but they are not mentioned in the title. They are mentioned in the background three times and the interpretation three times. They are mentioned in the definition once. They are mentioned 12 times under the title “Continuation of PCB exemptions” yet they are not mentioned in the title at all. I put it to the Committee and I put a high degree of pressure on the Minister to take a call to explain to us why the words “Stockholm Convention” should enlighten people and “PCBs” not enlighten people. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: In addressing the title I think that the point has been made very clearly; however I would like to re-emphasise in relation to the title and ask the Minister in the chair why indeed the reference to new organisms is there. It is all about addressing the provisions of the Stockholm convention and allowing us to be able to ratify it. That of course relates specifically to persistent organic pollutants—the “POPs” as they are known—and the schedules name those persistent organic pollutants covered by it. But nowhere in the bill—and I have looked at it and if I am wrong the Minister should take a call to show me—is there any reference whatsoever or addressing of new organisms. The bill has nothing to do with new organisms. It is about hazardous substances so why on earth has the “new organisms” reference been put in the title? We have other legislation such as the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act but that is no explanation or reason to put it in the title of this stand-alone separate legislation. It simply does not make sense. 
I do not know what Cabinet committees do these days but I would have thought that that sort of problem would have been picked up there. Perhaps it just takes its leave from officials and does not give it adequate scrutiny. That is why legislation is brought to Parliament. It is so that Opposition members do scrutinise it. There is no reference whatsoever to new organisms so why on earth put it in the title? It is understandable that a person who picks up the title or reads a reference to the title will expect something to do with new organisms. [ 
Interruption 
] I will not respond to that member’s interjection. There is no reference to new organisms whatsoever. Indeed parties are indicating their support for this legislation in an overall sense that the persistent organic pollutants are a concern— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Keep to the title. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: It is being addressed and that is why that aspect does belong in the title but certainly not the new organisms. It is not too late. We can make a change here. That is why we have the Committee stage. Perhaps the Minister needs to consult the Leader of the House who I notice is here and to take his leave from him because the title is wrong. It is a misnomer. It is very bad to pass into legislation something that carries the wrong name. It can only create confusion. It would be very inappropriate. We will be debating the aspects of this when we get to Parts 1 and 2 and the schedules but let us start off on the right foot and get the title right. If we cannot get the title right it will be very difficult as we move on through the latter stages of this legislation. 
I think we can get this debate completed by about 11 or 12 o’clock tonight if we apply ourselves. Let us get off on the right foot by getting the title right. This title is not appropriate and once again I urge the Minister to take a call. If she cannot explain to us why there should be a reference to new organisms in this bill which has nothing to do with new organisms will she please indicate that she is prepared to have it deleted and adopt the very good amendments that are being proposed by Opposition members. 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: Let us start again on this access-to-justice issue. All the points that have been made by members on this side of the Chamber about the title and the very strange things in it—which have very little to do with the bill—deal with this access-to-justice issue. We make laws day after day in Parliament year after year and we have to have laws where the title reflects the contents of the bill. Otherwise we would not bother having a title; we would just call them “Bill No 2” or “Bill No 3”. The purpose of having a title is to let people who are looking for the law be able to find the jolly thing. With words like “New Organisms” in this bill one would think it had something to do with new organisms. But it does not. The honourable member Lockwood Smith my colleague has put forward an amendment to omit the words “(Stockholm Convention)” and to substitute the words “(Persistent Organic Pollutants)”. That change would reflect a lot of what this bill is about. But I also have to wonder about what “New Organisms” is doing in this particular bill. 
I make a plea to get rid of the jargon used in these bills. This is yet another bill that is full of jargon and the name itself is just jargon. This title includes the words “Stockholm Convention” but what do those words mean? Most people looking at that would sit there and say: “Has this got something to do with that new prostitution bill?”; that is exactly what they would be thinking. Then they would say: “What’s this about ‘new organisms and hazardous substances’?”. That would absolutely confirm it in their minds. This bill is not supposed to be about that yet we have once again some sort of jargon. 
Why do we have to refer to it as the “Stockholm Convention” because that is something that only those in the know are allowed to know about? Yet again it is all about access to justice. We have laws and I say: “For goodness’ sake! Make it easy for people to find them and thereby live by them.” Most people actually do want to go through life living by the laws of the land and they expect Parliament to take some notice of the names of bills and what is in them. That is why it is great that in our party and in the Opposition we read the bills; we look at these issues and we actually understand them. I would really like to hear from the Minister because she has always struck me as someone who will listen when we bring up issues; and the Leader of the House is normally quite good at listening. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We’re good listeners. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: They are the only two on that side who do listen. So that is quite good. The Minister of Education could listen occasionally and that might do him some good. When we have bills like this which are going to be almost impossible for anyone to find other than a few lawyers who are involved in this area then it will make it harder and harder for manufacturers scientists and people like that who actually do the work in the country and make the money for us—and make the money that pays the taxes that pay the wages of everyone here—to be able to find legislation. 
Why do we have to have such silly titles? This title bears very little relationship to the bill. What sort of drafting is this? I am appalled this issue was not picked up on in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. I am sure the people on the committee did their very best but at the end of the day it obviously was not good enough. There is a feeling in the Parliament that we are all supportive of the bill and its contents except for a few amendments. One concern would have to be the title. I really would like to hear from the Minister. I know she wants to tell us which hazardous substances and new organisms are in this bill and why the words “Stockholm Convention” are included rather than substituting the words “Persistent Organic Pollutants”. That change would make some sense to people who are looking in this particular area. I am sure the Minister would like to tell us about it. I can see she wants to tell us. I would really like to hear from her. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next speaker there is too much conversation going on. Members should not conduct conversations in the Chamber unless it is necessary to do so; and then so as not to disturb the proceedings. I find it somewhat difficult at times to concentrate on the member speaking when there are so many conversations going on. For those who are wandering around the Chamber I refer them to Standing Order 82. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: Mr Chairman I would like to join in your general round of condemnation of members who chat idly in the Chamber when issues such as the title to a bill are being discussed. It is not often the case that we are drawn to look at legislation of this importance nor that we are drawn into a debate touching on the critical importance of a title. In starting any discussion on the issue of a title one would surely start with the proposition that the title should first be legally accurate and secondly that it be factually appropriate. As other speakers have said there are real doubts in this regard about this title. I am frankly surprised with the calibre of the members who were on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which reported back on the bill that insufficient or perhaps no time at all was given to consideration of the title. If one looks at page 7 of the explanatory note to see who those members were—and I instance the Hon Peter Dunne and Graham Kelly—one would have thought this would be a consideration at the very forefront of their minds. Instead it is not the subject of commentary in the bill and the issue comes before us afresh or as lawyers would say on a de novo basis. 
So how is it that this title fits within those two tests that I have suggested? Is it legally accurate? I would say no. Is it factually appropriate? Clearly it is not. Other members have made the good and strong point that the full title of the bill is misleading and that is because it is titled Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill. And one looks in vain I suggest in the content of the bill to find any reference at all to new organisms. 
Sure there are preliminary provisions. Sure there are amendments to the principal Act made by Part 2. Sure there are two schedules. But not in any of that material is there reference to new organisms. That is really the first point. 
The second point I would like to make is the reference to the Stockholm convention. As a starting point there have been a number of conventions in Stockholm in the last few years and they have ranged across considerable activity in that country. There have been meetings convened and called for a wide variety of purposes which have a convention quality. In looking at the use of the phrase “Stockholm Convention” in this case I would have thought that the Government would go to the trouble to identify which particular convention in Stockholm had been singled out for reference in this bill. That is not done in the heading and instead one needs to grope—I suggest that that is the appropriate word—through the legislation to Part 2 to see that “Stockholm Convention” is given a starkly narrowed meaning. 
 It has been defined there as meaning the Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants done at Stockholm on 23 May 2001 and the annexes to the convention—a copy of the English text of which is set out in schedule 1AA. So the drafters have gone to some trouble it seems to identify in this particular paragraph—albeit not in the title of the bill—the convention that is to be accorded recognition in the context of the legislation. What this bill does and what should be reflected in the title should be drawn from clause 3. It is apparent reading clause 3 that the purpose of the Act is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Why does the title not say that? This is simply a piece of domestic legislation that incorporates a foreign treaty instrument. 
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “(Stockholm Convention)” and substitute the words “(Persistent Organic Pollutants)”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 81 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: It is extraordinary that we are in our third day of urgency—technically it is 1 July in this bizarre place in which we work—giving importance to passing legislation that will enable New Zealand to comply with a convention that was signed more than 2 years ago. What sort of Mickey Mouse Parliament are we running that under urgency we are being asked to advance legislation that Parliament did not see for more than 20 months after the convention to which it relates was signed by the Government? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It’s bizarre. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is bizarre. If we had a matter of some urgent environmental need that required Parliament to be in urgency then there might be some justification. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Larry Baldock tells me to sit down. Actually I take seriously the role of Parliament and I do not mind Parliament being in urgency when there are urgent issues. But I ask United Future members what is so urgent about passing the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill when that convention was signed more than 2 years ago and when nobody has ever contacted me or anybody else I know of in this Parliament saying that it has got to be passed today? [ 
Interruption 
] My colleague Paul Hutchison is a very competent member and he has given some excellent speeches on this bill. But even he would be of the view that one could not possibly justify Parliament pretending that the date is 1 July and being in urgency to pass legislation of this sort. It is indeed a joke. 
I want to come to a substantive issue. I feel very strongly about the sovereignty of the New Zealand Parliament and about making sure that when we pass laws New Zealanders have the opportunity to comment on those laws and on what Parliament writes in them. What concerns me in Part 1 as it relates to the convention is what happens if—and this is a question for the Minister—the rules of the Stockholm convention are changed as they apply to organochlorine pollutants. Will the New Zealand Parliament have the opportunity to revisit any subsequent amendments? That would be perfectly proper. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: No it will not. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My colleague Lockwood Smith says that it will not. I have respect for international institutions and I believe we should be part of agreements such as this but it must finally be the decision of the democratically elected Parliament of New Zealand to make the laws of the land. If the rules of the Stockholm convention are subsequently changed—if there are subsequent amendments—then those amendments should come back to this Parliament. It worries me that in Part 1 we are effectively giving carte blanche to an international institution that is not democratically elected the opportunity to affect the rights of people who should have a chance to have a say. It worries me that we are to pass legislation that allows someone else to make decisions for New Zealand. 
So while I am in favour and supportive of the Stockholm convention as it currently sits I do not believe that the New Zealand Parliament is creating good law by saying that whatever is decided at the Stockholm convention in future automatically becomes part of New Zealand law. I do not think that is good law. We must come back to the people of New Zealand and say that no we want to make that the law of the land; we will not simply ride off with somebody else and say that effectively we will abrogate our job as the Parliament of New Zealand to make the law of the land. So I would like the Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs to answer the question specifically in respect of clause 3 about whether under this bill if there are subsequent amendments to the Stockholm convention we are automatically bound by them. Or will the Government of the day come back to the New Zealand Parliament put that bill through a proper select committee and public process and give New Zealanders the opportunity to determine the law of our land? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: I am pleased to speak to Part 1 of this important bill which includes the commencement and the purpose clauses. The way that the Labour Government has handled both those issues has troubled me considerably with regard to this very important bill. Firstly we should go to clause 2 “Commencement” which obviously states that the Act comes into force on a day to be appointed by the Governor-General. As the Hon Dr Nick Smith has pointed out the Stockholm convention was signed 2 years ago. But perhaps even more relevant is the fact that this bill was put on the Order Paper on 21 May 2002. 
Here we are in urgency dealing with a bill that has languished because of this dilatory Labour Government unnecessarily for a great deal of time. We have a Minister in the chair the Hon Marian Hobbs who says that she is interested in environmental concerns yet she has been extraordinarily dilatory when it comes to progressing New Zealand’s involvement with the Stockholm convention a convention which does enjoy an almost unparalleled level of support amongst United Nations countries. So here we are with a dilatory Labour Government and a lackadaisical Minister who is really just cruising along. I must say that in the earlier part of this debate the Hon Peter Dunne from the United Future party was concerned that I might have been critical of him for not progressing this bill. That is not the case at all. Mr Dunne is a highly competent chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. Once he finally got the bill in February he made sure that it was progressed expeditiously. It is undoubtedly the Government a Government that purports to be interested in the environment that has unfortunately delayed this bill’s passage and finally out of sheer convenience has suddenly after a knee-jerk reaction—and we cannot understand why—decided to bring it through under urgency. 
But more important than that is the purpose of the bill. Again I ask as did the Hon Dr Nick Smith whether the chance is available for New Zealanders to have a say if the Stockholm convention is changed. After all we are a sovereign nation. Surely as the Parliament of a sovereign nation it is absolutely important that where international conventions that we are signatory to are passed through our Parliament and there are changes to the parent convention we in this country are able to have a say in those situations if the changes are significant to us—and when a convention is to do with importing and exporting that can be profoundly significant to us. I hope that the Minister who has shown a fair amount of dilatoriness in terms of bringing this important bill to the Committee will take a call and assure us that that will be possible. 
The purpose of this bill is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. I believe that my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith will move an important amendment—and I will not go on to say very much about it—to insert after the word “with” the words “certain requirements of” because the purpose here is inflexible. It means in many respects that we would have to abide by the whole Stockholm convention whether or not it applied to New Zealand. I hope the Minister will take notice of that important amendment. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: I want to briefly answer the questions that have been raised about the possibility that the Stockholm convention could be amended after an internal process with all the international experts involved by adding a new persistent organic pollutant to the list. Under clause 13 of the bill—and not under Part 1 which we are debating now—it actually states that we would add that pollutant to the list of persistent organic pollutants as specified in the Stockholm convention and add it into the text of the Stockholm convention set out in the schedule of the bill by Order in Council. I tell members that whenever we are doing anything as serious as an Order in Council—and I make this absolute commitment—we will be out there consulting with the chemical industry which up to this time absolutely supports both internationally and inside New Zealand the number of pollutants that are listed here. We will work with that industry internationally and in New Zealand if we were ever to consider ourselves in line with an amended Stockholm convention should that happen. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: I do not know how naive that Minister the Hon Marian Hobbs actually thinks we are. She is trying to sort of mollycoddle us and say we should not worry because if ever at some subsequent stage when she is still the Minister—she has only a couple of years to run but be that as it may—she will by Order in Council engage in consultation with everyone and everything will be done right. Well let us look what has already happened under this urgency motion. We can see the Government has rammed through legislation without any consultation with no calling for submissions and with no referral of bills to the select committees. So it is a bit rich for the Minister to say we should trust the Government to always consult and follow due process. We know that this Government does not follow due process; it fails to do that at every turn. So I am sorry but that reply from the Minister was very hollow and very unconvincing and she will have to do a lot better than that if she is to address the very real concerns that have been raised. 
The irony again is that we generally support this legislation. We signed the Stockholm convention 2 years ago and I understand we have to pass this legislation before we can ratify it. That is what this legislation is all about but why on earth are we debating it under urgency? This legislation has been ticking away on the slow burner simmering away and bouncing along at the bottom of the Order Paper. The Government did not have the presence of mind to bring it up the Order Paper but has then put it in the urgency motion and tried to ram it through the House under urgency. I put it to members that this bill would have gone through the House a lot easier and a lot less acrimoniously if the Government had put it through the House in normal parliamentary time and not under urgency. Understandably the Opposition parties become suspicious when these sorts of issues are put through urgency and bypass the due process. 
I now turn to the issue of what will occur if the international convention is subsequently amended—and we know that these conventions are always amended. Someone will try to raise the barrier and add a new chemical or substance to it. That will bind us and there is no safeguard here. The Minister is saying that that will go through under an Order in Council. That does not involve having the scrutiny of Parliament. It abrogates our sovereignty. The danger is that our bureaucrats go off to these UN conventions and committees—and there is one held every week somewhere in the world; it is as though they decide to meet somewhere in the spring. Those committees meet all over the world at huge cost. The bureaucrats and non-governmental organisations that have no mandate and no accountability go off to them and play a huge influence in these environmental conventions. Countries sign up to them and that abrogates their sovereignty because if there are changes then we will have to be bound by them. 
The bill is quite helpful with regard to this issue because it actually has the convention attached to it. If members look at article 21 of the convention in Schedule 1AA they will see it covers the situation of amendments to the convention. It states: “Amendments to this Convention shall be adopted at a meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to the Parties by the Secretariat at least six months before the meeting at which it is proposed for adoption.” So in other words all the unelected unaccountable non-governmental groups that control the processes in terms of such UN conventions can through the back door impose controls and restrictions on New Zealand law. I say to the Minister Marian Hobbs that that is bad. Her explanation when she leapt to her feet previously failed to satisfy us because it did not address the issue. The mere fact that she says she will consult before an Order in Council is issued is very hollow words. We want some sort of assurance that it will be brought back to Parliament and referred back to the select committee so that submissions can be called for and the due process followed. 
We know that substances like dieldrin and DDT have been very widely used in this country. Dieldrin was the basis of our sheep dips and DDT was used extensively to fight grass grub so there are large residues of that. Polychlorinated biphenyls were used in electricity transformers and tipped all over the landscape for many decades. Those have been widely used common substances. Fortunately we do not use them now and that is good. However we do need to be assured that if new substances are added to the list in the convention adequate consideration will be given to that by Parliament. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: In Part 1 we are dealing principally with the commencement and purpose of the bill. A number of concerns have been raised in relation to the purpose. The problem arises whereby New Zealand’s domestic law could be changed without either this Parliament or even an Order in Council being involved in that. It is a matter of grave concern to the Opposition. I will be speaking on that point more specifically when we come to Part 2 because I know that the Regulations Review Committee raised with the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee a concern about that. I believe that the way the select committee responded to that issue was inadequate and I will go into that in some detail when we come to Part 2. 
But in respect of Part 1 I will just cover a concern I have with the purpose laid out in clause 3 which reads: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.” I say this bill does not provide for that. That purpose is wrong. This bill which will become an Act does not enable New Zealand to comply with all the requirements of the Stockholm convention. In fact it is very clear that Part V of annex C which is part of the Stockholm convention will not be implemented in New Zealand. It is an active decision of the Government not to implement Part V of annex C. So there is one part of the convention that is not being implemented in this bill. What is more this bill covers only certain issues or certain requirements of the Stockholm convention. It does cover matters concerning the importation of persistent organic pollutants their manufacture their use and their storage but it does not cover matters relating to their export. That is covered in different law—in a different Act. 
So I submit that the purpose stated in the bill is incorrect because this bill does not enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm convention. That is factually wrong. It does not enable New Zealand to implement Part V of annex C and it does not cover issues that are required by the Stockholm convention in respect of the export of persistent organic pollutants. That is why I have proposed and will be moving an amendment to add to clause 3 “Purpose” following the word “with” the words “certain requirements of”. If my amendment is incorporated the purpose clause would read: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to comply with certain requirements of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.” That is a correct statement and a correct and truthful purpose. It is honest whereas the provision in this bill is not honest. The bill simply does not enable us to comply with the Stockholm convention but only with certain requirements—or certain parts—of it. 
If the Minister does not like my words I say that all I am getting at is that this bill does not enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. It is factually wrong for the purpose clause to make that claim. What we should indicate is that the bill will enable us to comply with some aspects of the convention some requirements of it or certain aspects of it. I am easy about the words that should be used but I believe that clause 3 should be changed in order to state the purpose of this bill correctly. The way that it is currently worded is simply not correct. 
That is my main submission in respect of Part 1. I have already pointed out that I have a major concern about how the purpose is carried out in this bill and I will turn to that when we come to Part 2. I believe that the way the purpose is being given effect to in this legislation is flawed. I think it is faulty. It leaves New Zealand’s domestic law in the hands of the people who are involved in deciding changes to the Stockholm convention. From the way that this bill is worded as I read it not even the Government of New Zealand could stop changes to the convention from becoming part of New Zealand’s domestic law. I think the way that the purpose is being given effect to is a serious issue but my first concern is that the purpose statement itself is simply not correct and should be amended. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: I would like to carry on from the comments and the very very good contributions from this side of the Chamber. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The barrage from that side of the Chamber is extremely distracting when I am trying to speak on this important issue. I wonder whether you could make a ruling. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Strictly speaking members can be heard without interruption but of course the convention has been somewhat relaxed in order to elicit questions. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: This bill which is about making the Stockholm convention part of New Zealand’s law does raise some very serious issues and one of the reasons it raises serious issues is the issue of the sovereignty of New Zealand. When New Zealand signs up to international conventions it almost invariably gives up part of its sovereignty. It is a price that we are often willing to pay as a country but the country needs to know about it. That is one of the very real concerns that we on this side of the Chamber have with the fact that this bill is being rammed through under urgency without any proper discussion with the people of New Zealand. 
Our sovereignty should mean something to us. Part of that is the fact that the laws of this country should be made by Parliament not by officials going on UN junkets and other things to talk about all sorts of exciting things at conventions. If any members want to have a look that—maybe they think that Judith Collins is being just a little harsh—then they should have a look at the Stockholm convention. One clause in the convention talks about the health concerns particularly in developing countries—and I am sure that all members in the Chamber would agree on that—resulting from local exposure to persistent organic pollutants. The clause mentions in particular—and this is the part that is very annoying—the impacts upon women and through them upon future generations. I say that because men are also important. I think that is the point that is often missed by this Government and its poodle puppy dogs—that men are actually very very important and it takes more than just a woman to make a baby for future generations. The Stockholm convention starts off by talking about how women’s health is very important. What about the health of men? It is like everywhere—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Shirley that this bill is actually all about looking after women’s health. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What’s the reference for this? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is schedule 1—“Aware of the health concerns”. That in particular is worrying to me because I do not believe that women’s health should be put on such a pedestal as opposed to men’s health. Men have to live and die like the rest of us and men must be a valuable part of our society and of our world. When they are not they will become a very negative part of our society. Why is it always that this Government which says that women can be fathers wants to go along with any of those nice touchy feel-good sort of conventions? I do not trust that this Government will have proper consultation. I understand the comments from the Minister and I think that genuinely she would like to think that she is right. But unfortunately I do not think that we can trust that the Government will have proper consultation and care. Otherwise why would it be ramming this bill through under urgency on what is officially 1 July without any proper consultation with the public? 
I wonder; should the public not actually be having a say in this legislation? Should they not know this is happening? Should not 49 percent of the population know that their health does not actually count for much? That is what they should know. This purpose clause states that the bill enables New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. That sounds great—in which case why was it not stated in the title? Persistent organic pollutants could almost mean a whole range of things that are daily household things. I have serious worries about why this bill is going through under urgency. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: I too would like to speak on Part 1 “Preliminary provisions” which contains the commencement clause and purpose clause. I see that clause 2 “Commencement” states: “This Act comes into force on a day to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.” We suspect that that will be in the very very near future. The purpose of this bill is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Interestingly enough the Stockholm convention was actually signed on 23 May 2001. This Government thought it significant enough I assume to wander over to Stockholm taking copious numbers of officials with its delegation and sign that convention. Well I say: “Good on them.” But why it is that although the Government signed the convention well over 2 years ago it is only now coming into force? That is what I want to know. 
The Government thought it significant enough to go all the way over to Stockholm taking officials with it experience the thrill of signing the convention and wander back. But it has taken 2½ years for the Government to bring this bill to the House—and it has done so under urgency. Is that significant or is it not? That is the case I put before the Committee about the commencement date. It is not flash is it that the Government would do that. I raise the matter of the significance of the convention. Is it or is it not important? It is certainly not important to this Government if it takes well over 2 years before it even enshrines it in legislation. 
The purpose clause states: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.” I know that the convention covered persistent organic pollutants when the Government signed it on 23 May 2001; I know that this bill we are looking at now deals with the manufacture use and storage of persistent organic pollutants. But I also know that this bill does not deal with the export of any products organisms or anything else from this country that may contain persistent organic pollutants. I raise that point with the Committee because the purpose clause clearly states: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.” But it does not. It might enable New Zealand to comply with some of—we could even put ‘very few of’—the Stockholm convention provisions but it certainly does not require or mean that this country complies with all of them. So it does comply with certain requirements of the Stockholm convention but certainly not all of them. I think there is a degree of mistrust on this side of the Chamber about the specifics of the purpose as outlined in Part 1. 
I am also concerned—and we will no doubt further on in the debate be putting forward some amendments to fix the problem—that by passing this bill today we will run roughshod over members of Parliament who are sitting in the Chamber and listening because Parliament will not have a say at all. In fact one could say that the purpose of this bill is to run roughshod over members of Parliament because Parliament will not have a say at all on this convention which was signed off well over 2 years ago. Even the provision “by Order in Council” will be bypassed as well I believe through the passing of this bill. I know that Judith Collins brought in an amendment for the last bill we discussed in the House and I hope that she brings in a similar amendment to address the issues in this bill. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to insert after the word “with” the words “certain requirements of”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to principal Act 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: There are two very significant issues that I want to refer to in Part 2 which covers the amendments to the principal Act. I foreshadow that because I may not get through them in my 5-minute call I may seek a second call. I believe that they are serious issues. The first one relates to the important issue about whether in the future once this law is passed an amendment to the Stockholm convention carried by other countries that New Zealand did not agree with could become part of our domestic law. 
 This is a very serious issue and I refer members of the Committee to what the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee had to say about this. I will read straight from the commentary and it is really important that people listen to this carefully. I am reading from the paragraph headed “Definition of Stockholm Convention” which states: “We considered the definition of ‘Stockholm Convention’ in clause 4 of the bill that applies to amendments or substitutions of the Convention. The Regulations Review Committee proposed an amendment so that the definition would limit amendments to the Convention to those that had been included in Schedule 1AA. We are advised’’—this is the select committee saying this—“that the Committee’s concern”—that is the Regulations Review Committee’s concern—“is about amendments to the Convention applying automatically in New Zealand’s domestic law. Rather than amend this definition we have substituted a new definition of environmentally sound disposal so that the rules about disposal are set by ERMA rather than being set directly by the Convention.” 
I want members to read that section of the commentary carefully because it should show them that the select committee did not address the concern of the Regulations Review Committee. The select committee amended the matters relating to the disposal of persistent organic pollutants but this law that we are passing today has to do with a whole lot more than just disposal. This law covers importation manufacture use and storage—not just disposal. The way this bill is currently written all those matters relating to use importation and manufacture which could be changed by a change to the Stockholm Convention—a change that New Zealand may not even agree with—could become automatically part of our domestic law. 
The select committee failed to understand in my view the concern of the Regulations Review Committee. We need only read that part of the commentary to see how the select committee has failed to address the concern of the Regulations Review Committee. The Regulations Review Committee was saying it was concerned that amendments to the convention could apply automatically in New Zealand’s domestic law—and what does the select committee say? It says it has changed the rules about the disposal of persistent organic pollutants. This legislation covers a whole lot more than just disposal. Although New Zealand retains domestic control over disposal of persistent organic pollutants—the select committee did make that amendment to the definition of “environmentally sound disposal” in clause 4—the way I read this legislation and it seems the way the Regulations Review Committee read it New Zealand loses control over the other matters covered by the Stockholm convention such as manufacture importation and usage. If I am wrong I would appreciate the Minister getting to his feet and explaining where I am wrong. 
This is a serious serious matter and that is why I have proposed an amendment which I will foreshadow right now. My amendment is to paragraph (b) of the definition of Stockholm Convention in section 2(1) in clause 4 and it would: “omit all words from ‘are’ onwards”—that is where at present it refers to “the Annexes that are or will become binding on New Zealand”—and substitute the words “are added to schedules 1AA and 2A by the Governor-General by Order in Council”. At least then the Government of New Zealand would be making a conscious decision to add the changes to the Stockholm convention to our domestic law instead of leaving this bill so that changes are automatically made to our domestic law because of decisions made by other countries elsewhere in the world. I submit to the Government that this is a very serious issue. It worried the Regulations Review Committee. I believe the select committee failed to address it adequately and I urge the Minister to respond. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: I would like to reiterate that I too am deeply concerned about what appears to be an error in the drafting of Part 2 of this bill which my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith brought up. I would like to speak on that further but I would also like to bring to the Committee’s attention an issue in clause 8 “Exemptions from Act for small-scale research on hazardous substances”. The clause states: “Section 33 of the principal Act is amended by inserting after paragraph (b) the following paragraph: ‘(ba) the use does not create or involve a persistent organic pollutant; and’.” The National Council of Women fear that this bill as drafted may mean that research into this area will be excluded. That would clearly be very unfortunate and would require some changes. 
But perhaps even more important is that the provisions of the original Act the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the bill before us are both restricted to “small-scale” research. I believe we have no definition of what small-scale research is and again I think that the Minister in the chair David Cunliffe hopefully will be able to take a call on and clarify that issue because it is important. The National Council of Women makes a submission that supports the bill and gives particularly strong support for increased funding for research into the management and remediation of toxic waste. 
The National Council of Women also believes that it is important through clause 8 that research into persistent organic pollutants is continued. The council says that in its view clause 8 contains the inherent contradiction that research use of hazardous substances is permitted—as long as it does not involve a persistent organic pollutant. That implies that research into persistent organic pollutants cannot use persistent organic pollutants in that research and the council questions how such research can proceed without involving those substances. The council suggests strongly that this provision is clarified to enable research such as that into remediation strategies to proceed expeditiously. 
To further confuse the issue I add the question of what “small-scale” research constitutes. Certainly when I have the opportunity I will be putting forward an amendment to clarify it to mean research. We will take out the wording “small-scale” because it is confusing. Any research that goes through the Environmental Risk Management Authority or the responsible authority will be considered on a case-by-case basis using the precautionary principle. I believe that the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification got it right when it endorsed the work and activity of the Environmental Risk Management Authority in its report 2 years ago. The authority is an organisation that we should have confidence in. Perhaps it needs some sharpening but once again I believe that with wording such as “small-scale” we just have another stumbling block that may require Parliament’s interpretation. So I intend to try to amend both this bill and the parent Act in order to take out that wording. As the National Council of Women said research into persistent organic pollutants is very important and should be able to continue. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: During the second reading of this bill I asked whether the Minister would take the trouble to explain why we need clause 4B. A Supplementary Order Paper has been sprung upon us by the Minister that inserts a delegation by authority provision into the legislation. New Zealand First dislikes matters being left to Orders in Council or being dealt with by way of regulation; we dislike even more an authority to do something which is traditionally given by Parliament to a Minister or some other authority named in legislation being given to somebody else altogether. 
 From looking at the explanatory note to the bill I see that initially the Environmental Risk Management Authority was to be given the authority to do something; now instead of the authority doing it the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 97 to insert new clause 4B allows an employee to do it: “(i) any employee … with relevant experience; or (ii) if there is no employee with relevant experience any other person with relevant experience whether or not that person is a member of the Authority:”. One presumes that when the Government introduced this legislation to the House it had thought about the matter very carefully. It gave the Environmental Risk Management Authority the power to do something. Now we are finding that the Government in its arrogance is proposing to change the law so that an employee with relevant experience or possibly someone with relevant experience who is not even an employee can do it. What is “relevant experience”—making the morning tea or having a PhD? There is no definition of “relevant experience”. On what is a relatively simple bill we are being asked with no explanation at all to give over the powers of the Environmental Risk Management Authority to someone who does not work for it but has “relevant experience” whatever that might be. 
I did indicate in my speech in the second reading debate that I expected the Minister as a courtesy to give us some explanation for that. As far as I am aware no explanation has been given. That is absolutely arrogant and shows this minority Labour Government’s disregard for the principles and requirements of Parliament. 
I also raised during the second reading the point about the way in which matters can get out of hand. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants has not yet been ratified. In the Minister’s first reading speech she said that 50 countries needed to sign up before it could be ratified and that she thought the number that had signed up was somewhere in the high 40s. Then we heard from Minister Chris Carter today that it was somewhere in the 30s. It seems to be going downwards. This convention is not international law. 
We have seen what this Government does in terms of conventions that are not international law such as the Kyoto Protocol. For it to be international law countries that account for 55 percent of carbon dioxide emissions and that are party to it need to sign it and only about 40 percent is signed for. As America on 36 percent and Russia on 16 percent—totalling 52 percent—have not signed it it is not international law. But the Government is ramming it down the throats of our farmers and is trying to get money based on something that is not international law. This bill deals with another convention that is not yet international law the Stockholm convention—which we are and have been implementing for farming purposes anyway regardless of whether it is in our legislation—and the Government is giving authority to some person with “relevant experience” with no definition of what that is. 
The Opposition cannot possibly support an amendment that has not been explained at all by the Minister. The Committee deserves to hear what is meant by that particular amendment. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: I would like to take up an issue that was peripherally raised in the debate on Part 1 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill because I believe it is a truly significant issue. It may not be possible to deal with it in the Committee stage but it does need to be dealt with. Dr Lockwood Smith has an amendment that may go some way towards resolving the issue but may in fact do little more than highlight the problem. 
I do not think there are any members of the Regulations Review Committee apart from H V Ross Robertson and myself in the Chamber at the moment. 
Dail Jones 
: What about this one? 
RICHARD WORTH 
: There are three members of the Regulations Review Committee in the Chamber at the moment so there will be shared knowledge on the question that I now raise. There is oblique reference to the problem in the commentary on the bill under the heading “Definition of ‘Stockholm Convention’ ”. The short point which others have spoken about is that if there are changes to the international treaty New Zealand will automatically see those changes fall into our domestic law without our having the opportunity of assessing whether the changes should be made. It is an issue that the Regulations Review Committee has had to grapple with in the context of regulations incorporated by reference. That has led to parliamentary counsel drafting—albeit in the setting of regulations—template materials that it is suggested should be used where incorporation by reference is sought. That is very relevant in the context of secondary and tertiary legislation that refers for example to foreign standards but it is equally applicable in the context of the situation we are talking about where multilateral foreign instruments are sought to be incorporated into domestic law. 
I invite the Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard to contemplate whether it is possible for him with the skill and guile of those who sit behind him to draft amendments that would resolve the issue. It surely cannot be appropriate to face a situation in which New Zealand domestic law can be altered at the whim of a third party—or in this case a multitude of third parties—which by protocol or amendment to a principal treaty can effect significant changes to that base document. That issue is compelling. It may be one of the core legal problems that arise in respect of Part 2. I urge Government members to give their prompt and full support to our having the Minister look at that issue. As others have said we are in real danger of drifting into a circumstance of threat to our sovereignty. 
There are other provisions in Part 2 that are well worth comment. Clearly they include the actual definition of a persistent organic pollutant in clause 4. It refers to the substances listed in schedule 2A of the principal Act which is inserted by schedule 2 of the bill. We find aldrin chlordane dieldrin endrin heptachlor hexachlorobenzene mirex toxaphene polychlorinated biphenyls and DDT included in that schedule. But there are other provisions that it is appropriate to refer to briefly. Clause 5 inserts the driving provision in the legislation and that is the provision dealing with the prohibition of the import manufacture or use of persistent organic pollutants. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: I rise to speak on Part 2 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill. There have been some very very good arguments raised on this side of the House by my National Party colleagues and also by my New Zealand First and ACT party colleagues. This bill the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and other like conventions are all about taking away bits of New Zealand’s sovereignty and signing up to deals. We on this side of the Chamber understand that; none of us want an environment that is polluted or that will not be fit for our children and grandchildren to live in. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to that member David Cunliffe in particular that no not all treaties are bad but some Labour Party members are. 
I come back to Part 2. What is particularly concerning—[ 
Interruption 
] I am really looking forward to Mark Gosche taking a call at some stage; I thought he was asleep. This particular legislation has some very good intentions but at the end of the day clause 4 because of a wish to include any amendments to the Stockholm convention allows New Zealand officials effectively to make law for New Zealand without those bills coming back here to Parliament. That is a real concern. The Government’s Regulation Review Committee raised this issue and said it is a real concern. I am sorry to say that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee under the chairmanship of the chair the Hon Peter Dunne and the deputy chair Graham Kelly has not actually considered it to be so important as to take notice. That committee wants to allow for directions to be given as to the disposal of persistent organic pollutants. 
In the newspapers this week—and I think it was the Green Party that actually raised the issue—we have seen concerns over the qualifications and experience of some of the people on the Environmental Risk Management Authority board. I think the Green Party member present would be able to confirm that there are issues concerning the Environmental Risk Management Authority and its competence. In this bill we are allowing directions to be given as to the disposal of persistent organic pollutants and somehow the Environmental Risk Management Authority—which has come under a bit of attack lately and I think its chairman has actually acknowledged that it does not necessarily have all the qualifications and experience that it needs—is to be in charge of giving directions. That is very concerning when the Regulations Review Committee which is a multiparty committee full of people who make a very good and valuable contribution to Parliament and to the country generally is saying that it is very concerned about the legislation by stealth that could take place signed up to by overanxious and eager officials and Ministers who might think they are doing the best thing. Coming from a little country like New Zealand those officials could be somewhat overawed in some circumstances by the size of the representation and the company in which they find themselves at these conventions. That is a very real concern. It is a concern that I would have thought the Green Party might like actually to comment on given its quite well publicised concerns over the Environmental Risk Management Authority and its ability to do this sort of job. 
We have raised this issue today because we do not like law being rushed through when it could actually have a very damaging effect on New Zealand. There is no particular reason why this law needs to be rushed through. There is no particular reason why the Regulations Review Committee should be ignored. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: I am taking a second call on this part of the legislation. Members may have noted that I did not speak at all in the earlier Committee stage but the attitude of this minority Labour Party Government is making me annoyed. I think we are entitled to some explanation as to why the Environmental Risk Management Authority can have its decisions made by someone who is not even an employee. They can be made by any person with relevant experience. I would have thought that the Green Party member present would stand up and express her concern about that amendment. 
We know that New Zealand First has a much more caring attitude to the environment than the Green Party does; it always did. The process of this legislation through the House is making it absolutely clear that our party is way above the Green Party on these issues. After all my involvement with the environmental movement goes back to 1973 when I went to the incorporation meeting of the Values Party which some may or may not remember. In late 1973-74 I worked with Reg Clough who was then the leader of the Values Party. I was interested in the health side of things. My interest in the environment which carries through to New Zealand First’s interest in it goes back a long way in New Zealand’s history of environmental politics. I am sure it is far superior and longer than that of any Green Party member in this House. 
That is why as a member of New Zealand First I am concerned that an environmental body will be able to give out its powers to someone who is not even a member of that body and whose experience could be greatly in doubt. In New Zealand First we are concerned about the things that are happening to the environment. I think we all have our views of the way in which the country is going. We are concerned about the overseas conventions. We talk about genetic modification we see what the Americans are trying to do to Europe and such like in that regard and here we are giving New Zealand’s Environmental Risk Management Authority the right to delegate decision making to someone with no relevant experience. 
My view on this might be totally wrong; it might be based on complete ignorance and be totally without foundation. I would like the Minister to clarify the situation and make sure that my concerns are without foundation. At this stage I do not know because the Government has sprung this amendment on us in the Committee stage in its usual arrogant way during urgency and without any consultation or discussion on the issue. For it to expect members of this Committee to support such an amendment shows that it has little regard for the environment. It does not care about the environment at all. I think in New Zealand First we are showing that we have the utmost care and concern for the environment. We want an explanation from the Government. The Green Party members are in cahoots with the Government and I am sure they will be voting for the amendment. They have no real regard for the consequences of what is an absolutely dreadful amendment. If the Green Party does not agree with me then its member can take a call to explain what it means. 
On the face of it this amendment is the worst example possible of authority being delegated. Authority should never be delegated. We have seen the problems that the Regulations Review Committee of which I am a member has with Orders in Council. I am so concerned that I will be supporting the National Party amendment in this respect because the way in which this legislation is set out allows any amendment to the Stockholm convention to become law without any consideration by Parliament and that is totally unacceptable. The Government has done the right thing—and the previous Government did the right thing too as I suspect this measure has been around for as long as that—in bringing this legislation to the House but now it is spoiling it in the sense that any amendment to it will not necessarily have to come back to Parliament. There seems to be a contradiction there. If one brings a convention to the House surely one should bring amendments to the convention to the House as well. It is a great practice to have conventions listed in statutes but that convention seems to be being broken by the Government. 
I am disappointed that neither Marian Hobbs nor Chris Carter seems to be at all interested in this matter and that no Minister is going to take the call to answer my query. I am very annoyed that that is the case. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will take one more. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
:  
These are very serious matters. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that considered this legislation I can tell members that the concerns of the Regulations Review Committee with respect to the way this legislation might enable an outside authority to import into New Zealand’s domestic law matters that this country has no say in were dealt with after the select committee really finished with this legislation. I remain concerned about that issue and it is my view that the select committee has not dealt with it adequately. When one reads the select committee’s report one can see how confused the committee was on it. 
In my last contribution I would like to address clause 8 which purports to provide exemptions from the Act for small-scale research on hazardous substances. Clause 8 has to be read in conjunction with section 33 of the principal Act. Section 33 provides for exemptions from the Act for small-scale research on hazardous substances. As I read it if we amend section 33 by adding the new paragraph (ba) in clause 8 of this bill research on persistent organic pollutants will not be possible. I do not think that is what is intended because if we cannot do any research on persistent organic pollutants how can we ever improve the way we get rid of them? They exist and like polychlorinated biphenyls they will be around for a long time and research needs to be done on how to get rid of them. 
But the select committee is very confused in what it says. The committee says it looked at clause 8 to see whether any clarification was required on the issue of research on hazardous substances in relation to persistent organic pollutants. It goes on to say that clause 8 needs to be read in the context of section 33 of the principal Act—which is quite right—and that the effect of clause 8 is that if the small-scale use of a substance in research and development creates or involves persistent organic pollutants then the provisions of the Act are deemed to apply. But the provisions of the Act say that one cannot do that. 
I say to the Hon Trevor Mallard that if I am wrong I am very happy to be proven to be wrong— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You’ve got to read it in the context of the rest of the Act and at that point it does not matter. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I have section 33 right in front of me and if we add what clause 8 asks us to add which is a new paragraph (ba) I cannot see how that would allow any research at all on persistent organic pollutants. That is why I have proposed an amendment to omit clause 8—we do not need it. Section 33 already covers the use of hazardous substances in research. It is already protective of New Zealand and if we do not amend the Act it enables careful research work to be done to improve the way we handle persistent organic pollutants. That is important research and I am blowed if I can see how that would be allowed. I am no lawyer; I absolutely accept that and it may be that clause 8 does in some convoluted way allow the use of persistent organic pollutants in research. 
But I say to the Hon Trevor Mallard read what the bill says. It states that: “Section 33 of the principal Act is amended by inserting after paragraph (b) the following paragraph: “(ba) the use does not create or involve a persistent organic pollutant;”. That means that the exemption that is normally provided for small-scale research under section 33 must not create or involve a persistent organic pollutant. I do not see how that can possibly allow small-scale research on persistent organic pollutants. I think it is worth the Minister taking a call to point out how the law would work to enable small-scale research on persistent organic pollutants. It is an important issue and we must be able to continue research on it. Polychlorinated biphenyls will exist in this country right through till 2016 at least and their use will be allowed right through till then so research is very valuable in terms of how we will dispose of them. 
I fail to see how clause 8 enables the use of persistent organic pollutants in research when it seems to very specifically say the opposite—which is that one cannot use persistent organic pollutants in small-scale research. I really would appreciate the Minister explaining how that would work. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question is that the question be now put.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. ACT New Zealand has not had a call on Part 2 of this legislation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is right. I looked to see whether you were seeking the call but you were not— 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I have been following the debate and I really want to address the point that was just raised. It was a very important point. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already agreed that the question be now put and therefore I cannot go back on that. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (b) of the definition of  
Stockholm Convention 
 the words “are or will become binding on New Zealand” and substitute the words “are added to Schedules 1AA and 2A by the Governor General by Order in Council”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Richard Worth be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b) from the definition of  
Stockholm Convention 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “small-scale” from the clause heading. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new subclause (1): 
(1)Section 33 of the principal Act is amended by omitting the term “small-scale” wherever it appears. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in the name of Hon Marian Hobbs to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Schedules 1 and 2 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. At the outset I want to say that I am not relitigating the closure motion; I accept that you are the sole judge of that. I raise a point of order in terms of Speakers’ ruling 54/2 that was made by Speaker Statham in 1931 and reconfirmed by Speaker Burke in 1990. It has stood the test of time and says that the chairperson is the best judge of whether the closure motion ought to be put. Both former speakers expressed the hope that the ruling would not be applied too harshly. I am raising the issue in relation to the schedules debate because Dr Lockwood Smith raised a matter with regard to the ability of researchers to work on substances such as dieldrin and DDT. My reading of it is that they cannot. I did not have a chance to debate that in relation to the appropriate clause. I was waiting my turn but I was denied it. With appropriate reference I believe I can raise the matter in the schedules and I am seeking your assurance that you will indulge me to that extent—given that I was denied the right to address Part 2 of this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I recognise the point the honourable member is making. I am sure that he will be given the opportunity to debate the issue in the schedules. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: As we move to the schedules of this bill it is the standard problem—the devil is always in the detail. Firstly in schedule 1AA we have the Stockholm convention. It is classic UN-speak. Many members would have been to various UN committees. They are horrifying experiences captured by the Non-Government Organisations around the world. All the bureaucrats gather and come up with language like this which is in every paragraph: “Recognizing that persistent …” “Aware of the health concerns of women in developing countries …” “Acknowledging that …” “Conscious of …” “Mindful of …” and “Recalling …”. It goes on and on—“acknowledging” “reaffirming” “taking full account of”. In other words it is everything to everyone. There is even something for the small islands of the Caribbean here. We end up with a mishmash of nonsense and often contradictory nonsense. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The schedule debate is a very narrow debate and it goes to whether the schedules match the substance of the bill. The member has been speaking for over a minute now and has not debated the schedules. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: To that point of order the previous Chairperson clearly used his discretion and assured Mr Shirley that he could speak to the bill in general. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I am grateful for that but I can understand the Minister wanting to close it down. I will now move on to the core issue and I want him to get up on his feet in the schedules debate and answer the question that was raised by Dr Lockwood Smith. It is that under this bill as proposed—and there is a reference to the chemicals concerned dieldrin and DDT in the schedules—research work will quite clearly not be able to be undertaken on anything that produces an organic pollutant. Moreover one cannot use one. 
I know that critical research is going on. I even have a distant relative doing a PhD on the breakdown of DDT which is vital work for this country. We have contaminated soils; we have DDT levels in some of our Canterbury meat and in some from Southland. That means that we cannot put that meat in some of our markets. It is critical that we do the research to break down these substances. Some very exciting work is being done but under the legislation that the Government has cobbled together and brought to this House it will not be possible to do that. This legislation has specifically forbidden people to do research work involving these organochloride substances. 
That issue has been raised with the Minister but we did not get a satisfactory reply and even at this late stage of the debate I ask the Minister of Education to address it. If he cannot would he please get one of his colleagues to do it—perhaps the Minister for the Environment who might be more knowledgeable about such substances. Who else? I cannot think of anyone else. 
Jill Pettis 
: That member has an awful cheek questioning anybody about it. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Perhaps the member for Whanganui knows something about the issue and could perhaps explain it. The Government has an obligation to not just dismiss the issue and treat Parliament like some perfunctory thing that goes through the motions and does not address the real issues that are raised. It is clear from the wording of that bill that absolutely no research work whatsoever can be done on these substances and that will stop important research work in its tracks. It is not just important from the research perspective; it is vital to the New Zealand economy that this work proceeds and we would like to hear from the Minister in that regard. 
Schedule 1AA lists all of the various substances that are included and all of them are chemicals that have been widely used in this country. Dieldrin a widely used insecticide has been mentioned in the debate so far. It is widely used for sheep dips—part of an industry that has been the backbone of the New Zealand economy in past years and is still a very significant component of it. DDT has been used with a lot of success for grass-grub control and many other uses but we have moved on. 
But that is not the point—we have to be assured that through hasty badly drafted legislation the Government will not prevent researchers doing the important work of addressing the residues of these widely used substances. As it stands that is the way the bill reads so I again call on the Minister in the chair to take a call to explain that. If the Minister needs more time I am sure the House would indulge him in that. We want to address this matter and get it right. We cannot just say that it is covered in the context of the bill. It is not. I do not think the Minister really knew what he was saying so I would ask him to reflect on that and answer that point directly. 
I am speaking to the schedules but the issue relates to clause 8 “Exemptions from Act for small-scale research on hazardous substances”. That is a good and sensible measure but then paragraph (ba) has been inserted in clause 8: “the use does not create or involve a persistent organic pollutant;”. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: The member asked a reasonable question and the reasonable Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith also asked one earlier as well. If I may reverse back a little bit to answer the member clause 8 as I indicated by way of interjection must be read in the context of both the Act and the whole bill. The Act applies if the use creates or involves a persistent organic pollutant. Clause 7 amends section 30 and new section 25B(3) inserted by clause 5 allows approvals to be granted by the Environment Risk Management Authority for the use of persistent organic pollutants as analytical standards and also for research in laboratories. I think that covers all the points that the member made. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: In speaking to the schedules of this very important bill I thank the Minister for his explanation but unfortunately I do not think it is sufficient. However I will first just concentrate on the schedules because they are somewhat voluminous and encompass a lot of the international obligations that we as a sovereign nation will have to make sure that we comply with. For instance the objective in article 1 states: “Mindful of the precautionary approach set forth in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development the objective of this Convention is to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants.” The National Party certainly supports that sentiment and supports this bill. But we are deeply concerned about the way that this Labour Government has forgotten to look at the detail. 
It is always the detail that is hugely important in legislation—and in this case the consistency between the bill and the principal Act. If we look at article 11 we see a heading: “Research development and monitoring”. There is nothing about small-scale research there. Highly relevant to the schedules is the fact that the amendments I have put in suggest that as we have no definition for small-scale research it would only be consistent with the schedules of this bill to omit small-scale research from both the bill and the principal Act if they are to be consistent with the schedules that we have before us. 
After all one of the most important submissions on this bill came from the National Council of Women. Members of that council said how important it was from their point of view to ensure that New Zealand as a country is promoted as being clean green etc. although the image and reality do not always match and we have many sites contaminated with persistent organic pollutants. Because of that it is important to ensure that ongoing research is carried out in order to make sure that the problem we have at present is remedied. But it is also important to explore alternative measures of mitigating the problem such as using phytoremediation and also to ensure both financial support for research to be able to be carried on and that hurdles are not put in the way by means of legislation. 
We have a problem in article 11 of these schedules and I am very concerned that this Labour Government has not been prepared to look at the detail. We have individuals such as those in the Green Party who from time to time are concerned about detail—and quite rightly so. Sometimes I find that somewhat tedious but here we have a problem in that we have reference to small-scale research in the bill and the principal Act and the convention refers to research in general. For the sake of consistency it is absolutely important when we are dealing with international conventions such as the Stockholm convention to make sure that we as a sovereign nation are very thoughtful and pay attention to detail. We should make sure that there are no traps in signing up to this convention which we heard earlier on today could and may change without this Parliament having the opportunity to comment on it. So it is hugely important that we have consistency between our legislation and the convention. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member who is about to speak. I thought I heard you say to the Hon Ken Shirley that we are not to debate the actual contents of schedule 1 which sets out the convention itself. Have I got that right? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No. That was just a ruling that the previous Committee chairperson made in relation to Mr Shirley’s request. We are debating the schedules. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: So when I do get to speak I can speak on them? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes the member may speak on the schedules. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: There are two schedules. The first schedule is the actual Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants done at Stockholm on 23 May 2001 and the annexes to the convention; and the second schedule which surprisingly is labelled schedule 2 lists the persistent organic pollutants. If time permits I would like to talk about schedule 2 but I will confine my comments to schedule 1 and express real concern that the United Future party does not seem to have understood the significance of the debate as it has gone through the Committee stage and has been foolish in the extreme in not looking at the implications of the proposed amendments. 
It is well illustrated in article 18. Article 18 is all about settlement of disputes and for those United Future members who are present in the Chamber and may be following this issue it is set out at page 32. I will make two points about article 18. The first is to draw the attention of United Future members to article 18(2)(a) which is all about the possibility of arbitration in accordance with procedures to be adopted by the conference of the parties in an annex “as soon as practicable”. The point that speakers from this side of the Chamber have urged on the Government is that because the bill is worded in the way it is there may be later events—and here is an illustration of a later event—this annex will be developed will become part of the treaty and as a result of the clumsy drafting in the bill it will become part of New Zealand domestic law. 
It is a simple illustration and there may well be multiple illustrations within the context of the treaty. There was an opportunity for United Future members if they were thinking members of Parliament to have looked at this issue and resolved it. They failed to do that. The allusion can easily be made to their being little more than the marionettes of the current Labour Government. That is a sadness because if their role is to stand as a party that can add value to the process then they fail so significantly in this case. United Future members sit dumbly; the Labour members barrack. 
I would like to come back to the second point which is concerned with the settlement of disputes provision in article 18. A process is set out in article 18 for the settlement of disputes through negotiation or other peaceful means. It is an interesting trend in international treaties particularly environment treaties that those dispute resolution provisions are becoming increasingly common. One could not say that 10 years ago but now there are about 180 treaties of an environmental character as this one is that contain quite sophisticated dispute resolution provisions. We have a plan for negotiation or other peaceful means and the ability for parties to stipulate for one of two options. The first is arbitration and I have referred to that clause in article 18(2)(a). The second possibility is a submission of the dispute to the International Court of Justice. That is not a customary provision to find in dispute resolution provisions in environmental treaties. 
There are subtleties in the way these provisions have been developed. Clause 6 of article 18 in Schedule 1AA states that if the parties to a particular dispute have not stipulated for one of those two procedures or if they have and there is not concurrence in respect of the choice that the two disputing parties have made the dispute then goes to the conciliation commission. We see immediately the difference between that and the arbitration process. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: I would like to address the matter of the schedules and could I cast members’ minds back to the debate we had earlier regarding the Stockholm convention. Members will recall that we talked about it in the debate on the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill. We also talked about what is in Schedule 1AA “Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants”. It is good to see that arise in this bill the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill. Members will recall that at that time we put up an argument about what is listed in the schedule in the other bill and why it was not listed in the schedules of that bill. I am delighted to see that the Stockholm convention is listed as part of the schedules of this particular bill. I remember a clause in the other bill that Judith Collins requested to be removed because it stated that when conventions like the Stockholm convention were passed in future they would automatically become law without this Parliament addressing it and without even Orders in Council. We put that concern forward. 
I say that because Schedule 1AA “Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants” states things like “Recognizing that persistent organic pollutants possess toxic properties … Aware of the health concerns … Acknowledging that the Arctic ecosystems … Conscious of the need … Mindful of decision … Recalling the pertinent provisions” and on it goes: “Reaffirming” “Encouraging” “Recognizing” “Determined”. All those words are highly emotive stating activity things like “Recognizing” “Aware of” “Acknowledging” “Conscious of” and “Mindful”. 
The point made by Judith Collins was that we are not mindful we are not aware we are not recognising we are not conscious of we cannot recall we are not reaffirming we cannot encourage we are not determined to and we have not agreed to. Any convention might be passed in the future so why would one secure it in legislation for ever without members of Parliament being able to scrutinise it; and without even an Order in Council? That is what the member of Parliament for Clevedon Judith Collins was referring to. That was her concern and those schedules only build on her argument. 
I put it to the Chair and to the new Minister in the chair that the schedules simply back up what Judith Collins was putting forward to this Committee. The Minister in the chair should be mindful of that. I would like him to acknowledge that to be aware of that recognise that and recall that. I would like him to encourage that to be determined and to agree with that. I hope that the Minister takes a call and acknowledges Judith Collins’ forethought in regard to the schedules. 
I am intrigued with schedule 1AA “Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants” which talks about the Rotterdam convention and makes reference to it. It is a fascinating convention. Many members here would have lain awake at night reading about that one. We know what it says—members should know what it says. That convention was passed on 11 September 1998. Members did not have the luxury of my wisdom in this House at that time but they have it now. That convention was passed on 11 September 1998. However the Stockholm convention refers to the Rotterdam one and we have a bit of background on that. I have information on that that I have shared. However we do not have any information on the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal—that is referred to in this schedule. Does any member here recall the details of the Basel convention? Mr Prebble does not recall that. Does any member here recall the Rio declaration which has also been referred to? 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: Schedule 1 in particular has some concerns for us. I notice that the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants is contained in schedule 1AA and I have looked at that convention. Most of New Zealand will not have had a chance to look at the Stockholm convention or have had any input to it and they would be wondering what is going on when they see that it starts off with all sorts of talk about health concerns especially in developing countries resulting in local exposure to persistent organic pollutants. Of course in New Zealand we know about this. People in this country have long claimed that they have been adversely affected by persistent organic pollutants but they probably did not use those terms. They probably called them chemicals. 
It then goes on about the particular impacts on women and through them the effects upon future generations. I have made this point once and I shall make it again: why does our Government sign up to agreements that talk just about particular impacts upon women when men are also part of our population? In fact they make up 49 percent of the population and why is it that everything has to be put down like this? Why did they not just put “women and children in the lifeboats first”? What our Government is signing up to is absolute twaddle. I am quite happy to go along and I am sure everyone on this side of the House is quite happy to go along with the general feeling of the convention and a lot of its specifics but when we have this sort of wishy-washy wimpy white socialist liberal rubbish going on here—I am sorry for the Act party; I did not mean to say “liberal”. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Why does this have to go through under urgency? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Exactly. Then we go further and I see that we are acknowledging that the Arctic ecosystems and indigenous communities are particularly at risk because of the biomagnification and that it is a public health issue. Well golly gee is that not a concern of the entire world that all people need to be concerned about this? What about the people of Africa? I would have thought it was of particular concern in Africa. Is it not a particular concern in New Zealand Australia and the United States? Why is it just the Arctic ecosystems in indigenous communities and what is indigenous? It is absolute twaddle that our Government is signing up to and it has that sort of ecospeak at the start when really we should be looking at what is really important. I have raised those issues before about the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the whole ability for us to be able to deal with this convention. 
Article 2 of schedule 1AA talks about the parties to the convention and they are parties that agree to be bound by it. I would like to see annexed to that schedule a statement of which particular States have signed up to the convention. I think that would be interesting reading. 
It would be interesting to know whether our major trading partners have signed up to it. It would be interesting to know whether the major polluters of the world have signed up to it. Why is it that in little countries like New Zealand officials and Ministers become overawed when treated as though they are important for once in their lives and are always willing to sign us up to things and tie us in and give away a bit of our sovereignty just so they can feel they are doing the right thing? We could talk about the programme for sustainable development of small island developing States which is included in schedule 1AA of the hazardous substances legislation. We could say that we are pretty much a small island developing State but I would like us to have better information on this. Who has signed up to this convention? Has it been signed up to by the People’s Republic of China? Has Taiwan been given the opportunity to sign up to it? Has the USA signed up to it? Has Australia signed up to it? Has the UK signed up to it? Has Barbados signed up to it? Has Zimbabwe signed up to it? I want to know. Who else has signed up to it? I hope the Minister who is now in the chair will have that information. I am sure he could get that from the officials. 
It is important that we know what we are signing up to—who else thinks it is important that we give away a bit of our sovereignty. When I talk about that and sovereignty and treaties and conventions in general we all accept that at some times we do have to give up a bit of sovereignty to make the world a better place and a better place for a small country like ourselves. But we should never do so willy-nilly and we should never do so just because an official decides it is a good thing to do. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 76 
Labour 52; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13. 
Motion agreed to.