Collins Judith: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6981] 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: I would like to carry on from the comments and the very very good contributions from this side of the Chamber. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The barrage from that side of the Chamber is extremely distracting when I am trying to speak on this important issue. I wonder whether you could make a ruling. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Strictly speaking members can be heard without interruption but of course the convention has been somewhat relaxed in order to elicit questions. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: This bill which is about making the Stockholm convention part of New Zealand’s law does raise some very serious issues and one of the reasons it raises serious issues is the issue of the sovereignty of New Zealand. When New Zealand signs up to international conventions it almost invariably gives up part of its sovereignty. It is a price that we are often willing to pay as a country but the country needs to know about it. That is one of the very real concerns that we on this side of the Chamber have with the fact that this bill is being rammed through under urgency without any proper discussion with the people of New Zealand. 
Our sovereignty should mean something to us. Part of that is the fact that the laws of this country should be made by Parliament not by officials going on UN junkets and other things to talk about all sorts of exciting things at conventions. If any members want to have a look that—maybe they think that Judith Collins is being just a little harsh—then they should have a look at the Stockholm convention. One clause in the convention talks about the health concerns particularly in developing countries—and I am sure that all members in the Chamber would agree on that—resulting from local exposure to persistent organic pollutants. The clause mentions in particular—and this is the part that is very annoying—the impacts upon women and through them upon future generations. I say that because men are also important. I think that is the point that is often missed by this Government and its poodle puppy dogs—that men are actually very very important and it takes more than just a woman to make a baby for future generations. The Stockholm convention starts off by talking about how women’s health is very important. What about the health of men? It is like everywhere—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Shirley that this bill is actually all about looking after women’s health. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What’s the reference for this? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is schedule 1—“Aware of the health concerns”. That in particular is worrying to me because I do not believe that women’s health should be put on such a pedestal as opposed to men’s health. Men have to live and die like the rest of us and men must be a valuable part of our society and of our world. When they are not they will become a very negative part of our society. Why is it always that this Government which says that women can be fathers wants to go along with any of those nice touchy feel-good sort of conventions? I do not trust that this Government will have proper consultation. I understand the comments from the Minister and I think that genuinely she would like to think that she is right. But unfortunately I do not think that we can trust that the Government will have proper consultation and care. Otherwise why would it be ramming this bill through under urgency on what is officially 1 July without any proper consultation with the public? 
I wonder; should the public not actually be having a say in this legislation? Should they not know this is happening? Should not 49 percent of the population know that their health does not actually count for much? That is what they should know. This purpose clause states that the bill enables New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. That sounds great—in which case why was it not stated in the title? Persistent organic pollutants could almost mean a whole range of things that are daily household things. I have serious worries about why this bill is going through under urgency.