Wong Pansy: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6950] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: The explanatory note of this bill states that the key measures provide for the Governor-General by Order in Council to make regulations that prohibit the exportation of specific goods. Any prohibition may be general limited absolute or conditional. That makes me even more worried. The first part of the explanatory note makes it very clear that the restrictions are on hazardous substances but later on it states that the bill gives the Governor-General the power to impose any prohibition. I think that is too wide. I believe that my amendment to add the words “on Hazardous Substances)” after the word “(Restrictions” would make it very clear to the public what we are debating here today. It would also make the life of the Governor-General a lot easier. She would know in effect that Parliament wants her to exercise her authority to prohibit only the exportation of hazardous substances. 
Unfortunately we are debating this legislation under the urgency motion and I did not have time to give plenty of notice that I would be putting forward my very sensible amendment. I know that I can count on my National colleagues to support me. I have discussed my amendment with New Zealand First members and they can see its sense. Immediately the Hon Ken Shirley who is always quick off the mark and can focus concisely on an issue said that of course he would support my amendment. Then I approached the two United Future members Marc Alexander and Paul Adams and I said that I believed that United Future should see fit to support such a sensible amendment. However I was concerned that before those two good members even had the opportunity to open their mouths the Labour senior whip David Benson-Pope stared at me and said I was wasting my time because the United Future members would not vote for it. I thought I was talking to United Future; I was not seeking the support of the Labour Party whip for my amendment. 
That was an abuse of the parliamentary process. I thought that this was a democratic House where the public has voted us all in and that we should be able to exercise our own judgment and independence and to stand up for what we believe in. So the challenge is out this morning for the United Future members to demonstrate once and for all that they are not doormats for the Labour Party. 
Opposition Member 
: Puppets! 
PANSY WONG 
: I have always defended United Future and said that surely all those labels are too harsh for that party which believes in integrity and values. This morning is an opportunity for United Future to show its supporters and the public that it can indeed exercise its independence in voting and will not be subject to coercion by the Labour whip. 
It seems to me that the Minister in the chair the Hon John Tamihere should appreciate that the year is now 2003 and that we believe in being concise and upfront in terms of the purposes and titles of bills. The title “Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill simply does not fit into the contemporary modern parliamentary process. The Labour Government always says that it believes in transparency and claims that it keeps the public informed. The favourite statement of the Prime Minister Helen Clark is that she likes to tell it as it is. I hope that the Labour caucus will listen to its leader and agree to this very sensible amendment to add the words “on Hazardous Substances”. That would make the debate very clear and focused and members of the Committee would not drift on to debate restrictions on imports and exports on salmon trout or any other goods.