Heatley Phil: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6982] 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: I too would like to speak on Part 1 “Preliminary provisions” which contains the commencement clause and purpose clause. I see that clause 2 “Commencement” states: “This Act comes into force on a day to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.” We suspect that that will be in the very very near future. The purpose of this bill is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Interestingly enough the Stockholm convention was actually signed on 23 May 2001. This Government thought it significant enough I assume to wander over to Stockholm taking copious numbers of officials with its delegation and sign that convention. Well I say: “Good on them.” But why it is that although the Government signed the convention well over 2 years ago it is only now coming into force? That is what I want to know. 
The Government thought it significant enough to go all the way over to Stockholm taking officials with it experience the thrill of signing the convention and wander back. But it has taken 2½ years for the Government to bring this bill to the House—and it has done so under urgency. Is that significant or is it not? That is the case I put before the Committee about the commencement date. It is not flash is it that the Government would do that. I raise the matter of the significance of the convention. Is it or is it not important? It is certainly not important to this Government if it takes well over 2 years before it even enshrines it in legislation. 
The purpose clause states: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.” I know that the convention covered persistent organic pollutants when the Government signed it on 23 May 2001; I know that this bill we are looking at now deals with the manufacture use and storage of persistent organic pollutants. But I also know that this bill does not deal with the export of any products organisms or anything else from this country that may contain persistent organic pollutants. I raise that point with the Committee because the purpose clause clearly states: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.” But it does not. It might enable New Zealand to comply with some of—we could even put ‘very few of’—the Stockholm convention provisions but it certainly does not require or mean that this country complies with all of them. So it does comply with certain requirements of the Stockholm convention but certainly not all of them. I think there is a degree of mistrust on this side of the Chamber about the specifics of the purpose as outlined in Part 1. 
I am also concerned—and we will no doubt further on in the debate be putting forward some amendments to fix the problem—that by passing this bill today we will run roughshod over members of Parliament who are sitting in the Chamber and listening because Parliament will not have a say at all. In fact one could say that the purpose of this bill is to run roughshod over members of Parliament because Parliament will not have a say at all on this convention which was signed off well over 2 years ago. Even the provision “by Order in Council” will be bypassed as well I believe through the passing of this bill. I know that Judith Collins brought in an amendment for the last bill we discussed in the House and I hope that she brings in a similar amendment to address the issues in this bill.