Mapp Wayne: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6954] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: My concern about Part 1 is threefold. The Rotterdam convention relates to the exchange of hazardous chemicals and is really about sustainability. The concern I have about this whole concept is that there is a fundamental belief that pervades the left—that trade is unsustainable; that one does not build prosperity without building trade—and it seems to be unable to take the steps that enables a free flow of trade. 
We have heard very eloquent speeches and addresses from a former Prime Minister Mike Moore on the importance of trade. However the very first thing this Government did was to restrict trade by increasing the tariffs on clothing and footwear. That harmed New Zealand consumers and it harmed international trade. Thus it harms welfare generally—both in the developing countries that want to sell those goods and for ourselves as the consumers who want to buy them cheaply. So it is a fundamentally flawed philosophy. 
I know that the Minister in the chair John Tamihere who has been carefully analysing this bill—because people are mooting him as a future Minister for Economic Development—will be noting that. But the bill is not really about that; it is about hazardous chemicals. That of course is true and no one is going to suggest we should be freely releasing into the environment polychlorinated biphenyls persistent organic pollutants and so on. But if we have too great a number of restrictions on trade that are multilaterally driven then we end up limiting trade. It is all very easy to sign up to these conventions one by one—all of which look perfectly reasonable on the face of it and I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge that it was National that signed up on them but we also have to step back and ask whether overall this is promoting trade. That is one of the points I wish to make. 
My second point is about the use of urgency to deal with legislation that to be honest most members support. I find it something of an abuse of the Government process that the Government is using urgency for quite specious reasons; to put through what I would call largely machinery-type legislation. In fact I would go further. 
 If the Government had chosen not to deal with this legislation in urgency and had dealt with it in the normal course of events there might well be a shorter debate. The Government might therefore ask why we are raising the issue. We are raising it because there is a point of principle. Urgency is supposed to be used for matters that are in the eyes of the Government urgent and in the public good. Obviously the Opposition will not agree with that generally but at least in the eyes of the Government that is what urgency is supposed to be used for. This use of urgency would have to be the most frivolous use of urgency that I have seen in the 6 years I have been in Parliament. Almost all the legislation—with the exception of the immigration legislation that was dealt with yesterday and the health professionals legislation—is essentially non-contentious. I would say to the Government that when it is thinking about good parliamentary process it should reserve urgency for the issues for which it can put up a genuine case. It should not use it just as the machinery of good Government. I accept that the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill even though it is poorly named as my colleague pointed out is essentially good Government machinery but I think it is an abuse of the urgency process. 
My third point is that I note that the Ministry of Economic Development is New Zealand’s competent authority in relation to this legislation. I note that we have in the chair a Minister who has been widely touted in the media as being the next Minister for Economic Development. So I would like to hear from the Minister today where he sets out his philosophy for economic development. I have been reading articles that he has written and he must have a coherent philosophy on that.