Hutchison Paul: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6964] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: Thank you for the opportunity— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member. It is a point of clarification as to what our House rules are. I was enjoying my hot cup of Milo and I was advised by one of the messengers that the rules are that we can have glasses of cold water but we cannot have mugs of hot Milo. Is that the ruling? I am not trying to dob the messenger in; I am just trying to get clarification of what the restrictions might be. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is certainly my understanding that water only is allowed in the Chamber. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Thank you for that. I had better leave then. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Part 2 of the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill. I want to commend to the Committee the sensible amendment proposed by Judith Collins the member for Clevedon who is a very good and very perceptive member. She realises that it is very very important to ensure from time to time that we are not too restrictive. If her suggestion is not applied New Zealand could be put in a situation of signing up to any other international obligation. The Government has a great opportunity to realise that her amendment is common sense. 
As for United Future which is pivotal in determining whether that constructive suggestion does indeed amend the bill the Hon Ken Shirley said that this is where United Future can really show its true colours as to whether it is a party of common sense that exercises practical good judgment. I can see Paul Adams over there nodding away. Here is an invitation to United Future to do exactly that and support Judith Collins’ very sensible amendment which would delete new paragraph (e) of section 2(1) in clause 6(1): “any other international obligation that is or becomes binding on New Zealand and that provides for the restriction on” etc. Clearly it is quite inappropriate for New Zealand to be put in a position in which suddenly out of left field there comes a binding international obligation that is inappropriate for New Zealand. We would then have to undo this sort of legislation. The point is that the public should realise that United Future is facing a test to show whether it is true to its record of being a common-sense party. I hope its members will take up the suggestion by the National member for Clevedon Judith Collins that paragraph (e) be deleted. 
The other really important amendment is obviously that of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith relating to new section 3A in clause 9. It amends it by inserting after the words “international obligation” the words “specified in section 2(1)”. That would indeed confine the requirements to the conventions that all of us understand are relevant to this bill: the Stockholm convention the Basel convention the Waigani convention and the Rotterdam convention. They are both highly important and eminently sensible amendments that would make this legislation appropriately tight for the purposes it serves for New Zealand. 
I note that the original Act that is being amended the Import Control Act 1988 is of course being changed under this legislation. After the commencement of this measure the principal act will be called the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Act 1988. That is sensible and appropriate because it is indeed inappropriate for it to be called just the Import Control Act. Even more sensible if we are going to follow that line would be if the Government on this occasion took note of the sensible and constructive suggestion made by National. Here is an opportunity to make this much more lasting and relevant legislation— 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.