Heatley Phil: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6953] 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: I am intrigued by Part 1. It contains the commencement clause and the purpose clause. It is interesting that the commencement date the day the legislation comes into force is the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent. That in itself is not surprising; we have had that before. What is surprising is that this bill addresses two conventions: the Rotterdam convention signed on behalf of New Zealand by Don McKinnon on 11 September 1998 and the Stockholm convention signed on 23 May 2001. A number of years have passed since those times. It is nearly 5 years since the Rotterdam convention was signed and 2 years since the Stockholm convention was signed. This bill has been introduced at a very late date. We understand that it is to come into effect on the day after it receives the royal assent which I assume will be within the next few days or certainly within a week. That tells me that this Government is not a Government of action. 
I know we have covered the title but why is it that we do not acknowledge in the title the fact that the bill addresses the Stockholm convention and the Rotterdam convention and in terms of the commencement date why has this bill been introduced so late in the piece? Are those two conventions important to this Government or are they not? The Labour Government has been in office for 4 years and it has known about the significance of the Stockholm convention since 1998. It thinks that convention is so significant that there has not been much in the way of speeches from the Minister in the chair John Tamihere or from members on the Government side. The Government did not introduce the bill into the House until now when we are in urgency in 2003 and not until 5 years after one convention was signed and 2 years after another convention was signed. So I put it to members that although we are seeing something purposeful—the fact that the legislation comes into effect on the day after it receives the royal assent—this Government has been very sluggish indeed in the way it has brought in legislation to give effect to its obligations under those two conventions. 
I would like to see the Minister in the chair and his Labour Party colleagues address the Committee on this matter. I would like them to tell us why the Government has been so sluggish in bringing in legislation to give effect to our obligations under those conventions which it considers so very very important—so important that it brings the legislation to the House under urgency. Here we are; all of us held back from working in our constituencies with a bill that parties generally support—a bill that Government members consider so important to sign off on and get royal assent for. Yet it has been 5 years since the Stockholm convention was actually signed by Don McKinnon on behalf of New Zealand. I put that to the Minister; I would like him to address that issue. The second clause in Part 1 is the purpose clause which states: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to give better effect to its international obligations …”. Clearly this Government does not feel particularly obligated if it has taken it 5 years to act on the Stockholm convention. Clearly this Government does not take its obligations too seriously if it has taken it 2 years to act on the Rotterdam convention.