Worth Richard: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6986] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: I would like to take up an issue that was peripherally raised in the debate on Part 1 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill because I believe it is a truly significant issue. It may not be possible to deal with it in the Committee stage but it does need to be dealt with. Dr Lockwood Smith has an amendment that may go some way towards resolving the issue but may in fact do little more than highlight the problem. 
I do not think there are any members of the Regulations Review Committee apart from H V Ross Robertson and myself in the Chamber at the moment. 
Dail Jones 
: What about this one? 
RICHARD WORTH 
: There are three members of the Regulations Review Committee in the Chamber at the moment so there will be shared knowledge on the question that I now raise. There is oblique reference to the problem in the commentary on the bill under the heading “Definition of ‘Stockholm Convention’ ”. The short point which others have spoken about is that if there are changes to the international treaty New Zealand will automatically see those changes fall into our domestic law without our having the opportunity of assessing whether the changes should be made. It is an issue that the Regulations Review Committee has had to grapple with in the context of regulations incorporated by reference. That has led to parliamentary counsel drafting—albeit in the setting of regulations—template materials that it is suggested should be used where incorporation by reference is sought. That is very relevant in the context of secondary and tertiary legislation that refers for example to foreign standards but it is equally applicable in the context of the situation we are talking about where multilateral foreign instruments are sought to be incorporated into domestic law. 
I invite the Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard to contemplate whether it is possible for him with the skill and guile of those who sit behind him to draft amendments that would resolve the issue. It surely cannot be appropriate to face a situation in which New Zealand domestic law can be altered at the whim of a third party—or in this case a multitude of third parties—which by protocol or amendment to a principal treaty can effect significant changes to that base document. That issue is compelling. It may be one of the core legal problems that arise in respect of Part 2. I urge Government members to give their prompt and full support to our having the Minister look at that issue. As others have said we are in real danger of drifting into a circumstance of threat to our sovereignty. 
There are other provisions in Part 2 that are well worth comment. Clearly they include the actual definition of a persistent organic pollutant in clause 4. It refers to the substances listed in schedule 2A of the principal Act which is inserted by schedule 2 of the bill. We find aldrin chlordane dieldrin endrin heptachlor hexachlorobenzene mirex toxaphene polychlorinated biphenyls and DDT included in that schedule. But there are other provisions that it is appropriate to refer to briefly. Clause 5 inserts the driving provision in the legislation and that is the provision dealing with the prohibition of the import manufacture or use of persistent organic pollutants.