Jones Dail: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6988] 
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.