Collins Judith: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6951] 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: I will just add to the very good arguments made by speakers from the Opposition side of the Chamber— 
Hon member 
: Brief though. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: —brief too. I include the speakers from ACT and New Zealand First. This legislation is actually an access-to-justice issue. It is as important as that. There must now be thousands of Acts on the statute book which everybody is supposed to comply with. With that comes an obligation on everybody—from the most highly educated to the least-educated in this country and from those with the greatest access to law to those with the least access to it—to understand the law and to know what it is. That is expected because ignorance is no excuse under the law. Therefore it behoves us to help people a little bit by making sure that a title bears some relationship to the contents of a bill. 
The title “Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill” makes me think we have now gone into full socialism mode. Any exporter looking at that title on the Brookers list of statutes would think this legislation will stop them from exporting clothing shoes or something else. That is what that title looks like. It would be a simple little thing to fix the title. All that needs to be done is for this Parliament to work together as it so often does across the parties—even with Labour and the “PC party”—in the best interests of New Zealand. My colleague Pansy Wong has put up a very very sensible suggestion. It is not frivolous; it is very sensible. Her amendment would insert after the word “(Restrictions)” the words: “on Hazardous Substances” so that people looking through the statutes would know that this is the legislation that they need to look at in terms of the Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions or of anything to do with hazardous substances. 
Another argument has been put forward today about whether there is a conspiracy going on—whether the title is particularly wide and the contents are wide in order to allow some sort of restriction on the export of beech chips for example. Some people would think that is trying to come the raw prawn but I think there is a sensible argument there. I note that in Part 2 which we will address very soon there is a very wide definition about what will be included. It really worries me that when we have these sorts of concerns and when the farmers of New Zealand are asking what has gone wrong with this Government and the silly old Kyoto Protocol—because it is putting a burp tax in place—they will look at the title of this bill and wonder what it is about. That creates a tremendous amount of concern in the community and it does not need to exist if things are properly explained. 
I really do not understand why the Minister in the chair the Hon John Tamihere cannot see the sense of this amendment. He should talk to his own party and to the “PC party”. He should tell United Future that it actually is an independent party that can make up its own mind and act in the best interests of New Zealand by saying this title should be amended to “Imports and Exports (Restrictions on Hazardous Substances) Amendment Bill”. That would mean that people who are looking for bills and even the lawyers who have to deal with this area of environmental law and international law can find the jolly thing and advise people so that they do not break the law. Surely as an access-to-justice issue preventing people from breaking the law is far more beneficial to the community and to those people than allowing them to break the law and then telling them afterwards they were had—that they were fooled into thinking it was a bill about something else. It is very important when the House is dealing with legislation that when we can come up with some sensible amendments and suggestions the parties should be a little bit bigger than they normally want to be and try to think about what is in the best interests of New Zealand.