Collins Judith: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Collins Judith: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7004] 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: The National Party supports this bill. However we have some reservations. Unfortunately we were not able to find a Minister in the chair during the Committee stage who could come up with some answers to some very sensible questions we posed; questions that arose from a tremendous amount of concern from all the Opposition. In particular I have asked—and have been left wanting an answer—which other countries have signed up to the particular conventions that this bill relates to. No Minister in the chair has been able to tell us and that is a concern. 
Undoubtedly this bill will place restrictions on New Zealand business and New Zealand exporters. We need to know and we should have known which other countries are also signing up to these agreements and that should have been part of the commentary on the bill. We are left with a certain amount of cynicism in relation to this bill. Some countries are well known for their ability to pollute other countries—for instance countries like the Prime Minister’s friend France. Have the French signed up to this bill? Have the French said that they will no longer ship plutonium all around the world and through our waters? The answer is that no Minister in the chair has bothered to answer that question which is a question that the people of New Zealand I am sure would like to know the answer to. 
In addition one of the major concerns we have with this bill apart from the stated conventions that have been signed up to by New Zealand’s officials—note not by this Parliament—is clause 6 which inserts paragraph (e) into section 2(1) of the principal Act. Paragraph (e) states: “any other international obligation that is or becomes binding on New Zealand and that provides for the restriction on or the prohibition of the exportation of certain chemicals products organisms wastes or other substances that pose a risk to human health or to the environment”. Those obligations will in fact become the law of New Zealand and that is a real concern. At the end of the day we must retain in this House the ability to make laws for New Zealanders and by New Zealanders. We should not ever say that some official and a Minister on a jaunt may decide between them that we will sign up to some convention and impose on the business people of New Zealand and all the other people all sorts of restrictions that they have not agreed to. None of those officials are going to end up during an election having to say what they have done for New Zealand or what they intend to do. 
It is not fair on the people of New Zealand that we are being asked to vote for this particular clause clause 6 and say that we are going to be bound by things in the future when we have absolutely no knowledge no understanding of what will be contained in that. Some of the chemicals or products that we might be talking about that pose a risk to human health and to the environment would be things such as tobacco alcohol and illegal drugs. 
As I am from a conservative party I am obviously very opposed to illegal drugs but there are perhaps members who feel that some drugs that are currently illegal should have some of the limitations on them relaxed. I wonder whether they are concerned as to what this bill does. It tries to say that New Zealand officials and the Minister could go overseas and tie us into obligations about the use for instance of tobacco alcohol or any other substance. What if we had a Minister and officials who thought we should be signing away the right to use fertilisers on farms? There is certainly an argument that some of those fertilisers if incorrectly used on farms might pose a risk to some part of the environment. I think we have to be very concerned about that. It is the potential for harm that is the concern rather than always the actual harm. 
At the end of the day we do not always get these bills into the House on a timely basis. This bill has been languishing with the Government for the last year. That is how important the Government thought it was. The Government then shoves it through under urgency with no particular thought. That is the sort of thing that happens—we might not be able to address this issue if it becomes a concern. 
I would like to take up some of the thoughts from the Green member who spoke previously. Of course the Green Party always comes from its angle but having said that I think that she did make some good points and I would like to acknowledge that. I think one of the things she talked about was the issue of car batteries being exported to the Philippines and the lack of facilities in the Philippines to deal with its recycling. If one looks at the countries of the world where the worst pollution happens one sees that it happens in countries where there is the most corruption. That is what it is all about. It is politicians—obviously not in this country—who get paid off to be able to take in illegal products in any other country. It is that sort of thing. 
 I am not talking specifically about any particular country; I am aware of the concern over that but when we look at some of the worst polluters in the world we know that there is corruption in officialdom we know that there is corruption in politics and we know that there is in fact a real concern over it. That is one of the reasons that I would really like to know which countries have signed up to this convention and which countries will be actually required to look at it—because I do not think that it will make a scrap of difference. I do not think that New Zealand signing up to these sorts of agreements and passing this bill tonight—as we will because we have all agreed that we will make sure it is passed—will make a scrap of difference to countries like the Philippines and Indonesia or countries in which there are all sorts of issues surrounding the issue. 
Until we have a world that is a fairer place and until we have politicians who commit to a parliamentary democracy—with its woes problems and everything else—we will continue to have some of the worst pollution in the world; worse than we have ever seen before because the chemicals have got significantly more sophisticated the land available for the disposal of chemicals has become less because of the world’s growing population and the problems have become so much more. So it might seem slightly strange to people to find me a National Party politician agreeing with the Greens but I find that I often agree with Sue Kedgley my colleague on the Health Committee. We often agree on things. It is nice that in Parliament we can—certainly on this side of the House—look to each other and say: ‘That is a good point and I am going to agree with it.” 
It is just a jolly shame that no Minister in the chair this afternoon—I have been in the Chamber all afternoon; most of the day—has taken any of these issues seriously or has in fact asked—I certainly have not seen one—any officials for any comments. In fact they have treated the views of the Opposition in unison I would have to say with a certain amount of derisory comment which is very very unfortunate. Certainly I can say that the other parties in the House have been very supportive of statements that we have made. We are all at the end of the day in Parliament for the benefit of New Zealand and I am very pleased to be able to support this bill.