Jones Dail: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Dail: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6939] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: New Zealand First supports this legislation. It is an example of New Zealand First’s continuing care and concern for the environment. The major legislation that this bill is amending was passed in 1996 and today we are just updating it. 
I was interested in a comment made by the Minister when he spoke to the bill today. He indicated that about 50 countries were needed to ratify this bill for it to have international effect. He suggested that we were still in the 1930s in terms of around-the-world support whereas I note that when the Hon Marian Hobbs introduced the bill she said that we were up to “the late 1940s”. On the face of it New Zealand is giving effect to legislation for a convention that is not yet complete international law because until 50 countries ratify it this bill will not have that international effect. I raise that point to emphasise that until the procedure set out for international law is given effect to the convention does not apply. That is confirmed by  
Principles of Public International Law 
 5th edition by Ian Brownlie. On page 611 he indicates that the second point for ratification is the international procedure that brings a treaty into force by a formal exchange or deposit of the instrument of ratification. I am just making that point to show that this convention is not yet international law. 
Similarly the Kyoto Protocol is not yet international law. That requires 55 percent of the parties named on a percentage basis to give effect to it. As yet the United States at 36 percent and I believe the Russian Federation at 17 percent have not ratified it. So the Kyoto Protocol is not yet law and I am disappointed that the Government should be taxing farmers in respect of an international convention that does not yet have international effect. If the Government adopts that approach to the Kyoto Protocol what approach will it adopt to other international conventions—such as the Stockholm convention which is not yet accepted internationally by the ratification procedures set out in the convention and in international law? On the international application basis I think all those farmers who are protesting against paying for the Kyoto Protocol are quite justified in doing so. 
In respect of this particular legislation once again New Zealand First is concerned that the Government is given Orders in Council procedures. It is all very well for the Greens to say that they are concerned about the environment but sometimes the most important clause in legislation of this kind is the Orders in Council provision which occasionally gives the Government excessive powers to do things that might not have been contemplated at the very beginning. I notice that it is proposed to have an amendment at the Committee stage along similar lines as Orders in Council. That amendment will have a delegation-by-authority provision. The Minister could have told us a little bit more about that at the second reading stage but I expect he will tell us a bit more when he takes the chair in the Committee stage. 
New Zealand First is fundamentally opposed to Orders in Council and sub-delegation of authority to officials—in this case the power to grant an extension of exemption order to any employee of a person specified in section 97 or if there is no employee with relevant experience to any other person with relevant experience. That provision seems a bit wide and sweeping but it is there because of the constitutional provision that one should never delegate anything to another person without having a specific delegation power in the legislation— 
delegatus non potest delegare 
 if I can throw off a useless Latin phrase that I learnt during my law degree. However we need some explanation for this delegation to a law official. Before we can support it we must have a clearer indication that it is a good way of implementing this convention. 
Generally many of the things referred to in this bill do not get used in New Zealand now anyway. The overall view of all members of Parliament and all political parties with a concern for the environment—a concern that goes back over 100 years and is not necessarily something that has just been invented in the last 25 years—has made sure of that. New Zealand First supports the bill and looks forward to it proceeding through the select committee shortly.