Collins Judith: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6963] 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: I would like to speak to Part 2 of the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill and in particular to propose that new paragraph (e) amending section 2(1) of the principal Act contained in clause 6(1) of the bill be deleted. I ask that that happen because I believe it is very important that no matter what we in Parliament do and no matter what the Government does New Zealand does not get landed with international obligations decided by a group of non-governmental organisations as mentioned by the previous speaker that never come before the House. That is one of the real problems we have. Paragraph (e) includes as an international obligation “any other international obligation”—that is in addition to the conventions that have been mentioned—“that is or becomes binding on New Zealand and that provides for the restriction on or the prohibition of the exportation of certain chemicals products organisms wastes or other substances that pose a risk to human health or the environment”. 
We have talked about plastic bags and beech chips—or chipped beeches—this morning. We could also talk not only about oxygen but also about things used by defence forces around the world. I understand there is an industry in New Zealand that supplies items of defence to the defence forces around the world. Of course our own Defence Force cannot afford them. I would hate to see that sort of industry in peril because some wacky Minister either in this Government or in another Government decides that some wacky overseas group’s view sounds like a really good idea. It is very important that no matter what we do in Parliament we are here to do the best for New Zealand in our own way. Clearly New Zealand does not want us passing wide-ranging Acts that state that Governments or officials who work for Governments can sign us up to obligations that Parliament is bound by. 
I have talked to members of other parties whom I thought would see some sense and I have been heartened by the support from ACT New Zealand—the liberal party—and New Zealand First as well as my own National Party. I was very disappointed with United Future. The reason I was particularly disappointed was that United Future members told me they have a 2-day rule which means one has to give them an amendment 2 days before the bill comes to the House. I explained to them that they could not do that sort of thing because they are supporting the Government that has put us into urgency and no doubt it has discussed with them the bills that it will put forward but we in the Opposition do not get the chance to know what is in the Government’s mind. I am sure the Government does not even know what is in the Government’s mind most of the time. Here we have an amendment that clearly is for the betterment of New Zealand and this bill. We would all be very happy to support the bill absolutely and unreservedly if we could get some sensible amendments to it. 
We do worry about what could happen. The Government has sat on this stuff for the last 4 or 5 years without doing anything about it and is now rushing it through. We are being told it might take some time to fix up any other agreement so we must have this omnibus provision that means that anything is included as long as we can say it could pose a risk to human health or the environment. Anything can do that. Does it include tobacco being exported? I presume it would. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: We used to grow a lot of tobacco. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: We still do. There are all sorts of things we could talk about here. Alcohol would certainly be something that can pose a risk to human health and I am sure that some members here would agree with me on that one—not naming anyone in particular. This is an important issue. We should be making law that is very very specific. It should identify the problem and deal with it specifically. We do not need a Parliament to provide laws that are wishy-washy go on for ever and have no end and are just there in general terms; we could just get rid of it and have a dictator.