Volume 609 Week 29 - Tuesday 1 July 2003(continued on Thursday 3 July 2003) 
Volume 609 Week 29 - Tuesday 1 July 2003(continued on Thursday 3 July 2003) 
[Volume:609;Page:6919] 
Tuesday 1 July 2003 
( 
continued on Thursday 3 July 2003 
) 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 This might be a convenient time for me to seek leave for a valedictory statement by Graham Kelly to be set down for 5.30 p.m. on 22 July. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not. It will appear on the Order Paper. 
Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed. 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: At the adjournment of the House last night we were debating the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3). I start my comments this morning by saying that National supports this bill. A large part of it relates to strengthening or ensuring the enforcement of pyramid selling as illegal. We believe in that because a lot of innocent New Zealanders might be caught within pyramid selling to their financial disadvantage. But we would wish that it be monitored to ensure that the Commerce Commission is proactive in that area. 
It was a disappointment to National that although we support the bill and our colleagues put forward a number of very sensible amendments that would have enhanced the legislation the Labour Government continued to adopt a very arrogant approach in not accepting them. So we promise that in 2005 when we become the Government we will introduce those amendments to make the legislation even better. 
We have some areas of concern. As my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall pointed out there is some inconsistency around the various penalties attached to the business law and that is an area that needs tidying up since that business law has been in existence for a long time. For example in this particular legislation we have doubled the penalties for pyramid selling and other offences but in other legislation similar offences might not attract the same level of fines or penalties. It is high time that we looked at for consistency and streamlined this legislation to make sure that a consistent message is sent out to potential offenders about the seriousness with which we will treat those criminal offences. 
The other area of concern related to the powers given to the Commerce Commission. It can request information or documents that are not readily available from the companies concerned. The Commerce Commission should be asked to take into consideration that if the documents are not readily available it would cost the company to produce them. We are also concerned that when the Commerce Commission issues an interim injunction and that injunction turns out to be wrong it will not be liable for damages. That seems to us to be sending the wrong message to the Commerce Commission. We want the Commerce Commission which has the advantage already of being a Government department and is armed with all sorts of authority to be particularly careful in making sure that interim injunctions would not be readily used on companies given that it would not incur damages if injunctions were issued incorrectly. 
Finally I express disappointment that there is no compliance cost statement included in this bill. It is all very well for the Hon Judith Tizard to say that there is no significant compliance cost issue. I think that if in 2003 we have a Government that claims to be very concerned about compliance cost statements then we should see a more specific compliance cost statement included in this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 109 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a third time. 
Third Readings 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: I move  
That the Commerce Amendment Bill the Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill the Fair Trading Amendment Bill and the Sale of Goods Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. 
The overriding purpose of this legislation is to create level playing fields. Firstly it corrects some anomalies that saw certain utility suppliers having no statutory obligation to deliver value for money and good service to consumers. This legislation ensures that the Consumer Guarantees Act applies to all products and services that are ordinarily supplied in trade for domestic consumer use now and into the future. Secondly it ensures that the consumer in the supply chain who is best placed to manage the risk of product failure is liable to the end consumers for defects. Until now it has been possible for some traders to contract strategically in order to avoid liability to consumers. Thirdly it ensures that the definitions of the Commerce Act the Fair Trading Act and the Consumer Guarantees Act are consistent with each other. That aligns New Zealand legislation and the definitions across all trade practices legislation as happens in the jurisdictions of our main trading partners. 
The legislation has been in train for a long time. The Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill from which these bills have arisen was introduced in August 2001. It was scrutinised by two Commerce Committees the first chaired by Kevin Campbell the Alliance list MP and the second chaired by Mark Peck. I welcome the legislation as an important enhancement that will make consumer law more comprehensive and give incentives to industry to manage and meet consumers’ legitimate expectations reasonably and sensibly. It is very robust legislation that has had a lot of work done on it. 
A number of questions were asked in the course of the select committee’s deliberations and I want to put to rest some of the fears that Opposition members raised. For example they were very worried about the cost of local authorities bringing their water supplies up to a reasonable standard. I tell them that the Ministry of Health officials who are working on the proposed Health (Drinking Water Standards) Bill estimate that the total cost for all local authorities across New Zealand to provide infrastructure to meet that bill would perhaps be about $400 million but that would be over time and they would have a 5-year lead-in period to bring services up to standard. 
I do not think anyone in this House accepts that local authorities are entitled to under-invest on infrastructure particularly infrastructure that is vital to our health like water. This is a sensible amendment and I urge those local authorities that have not done that—because of course most of them have—to get on with bringing their water quality up and to make sure that the service delivery is reliable. 
The other thing we had a great deal of debate on from Opposition members was the ownership that one has over software CDs or other things where intellectual property is involved. The interest that the consumer receives in software is no different from the interest received in any other intellectual property item for example music CDs videos and all those sorts of things. Consumers can use that and they can on-sell it within the licence that they have bought but they cannot reproduce it or sell multiple copies. 
This is good legislation. It brings all those Acts that we are looking at up to modern times but it also as Mr Franks pointed out retains the inherent good sense and clear language of the Sale of Goods Act. A couple of the amendments that went in use very ancient language. Just as New Zealand is moving to include far more Maori into both law and practice this language comes from the English common law which often used Norman French because those were the terms that had been tested in the courts and in common law. I think MPs will be mildly amused—and I know that Mr Worth would be—that we are replacing the word “things” with “choses” as in the French “chose”. So I think this is good legislation that looks at what has been good legislation over the years and brings it up to date. This is an excellent amendment. The Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill as broken out into its four parts will be a great addition for the protection of consumers in New Zealand. 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: It would be fair to say from reading the commentary on the legislation that it is apparent it simply was not given the level of consideration by the select committee that it should have been given. There are quite considerable issues in this legislation that make a mockery of it and I will be touching on those during this report back to the House. 
It is disappointing that even though we had about 2½ hours’ debate on this legislation last night the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard took only one call to respond to any of the Opposition parties’ concerns. Frankly I do not think that is the way a Minister who is supposed to be on top of her portfolio and able to address the issues and concerns raised in Parliament should behave. 
This legislation seeks to include electricity gas and water in various consumer legislation: the Commerce Amendment Bill the Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill the Sale of Goods Amendment Bill and the Fair Trading Amendment Bill. The National Party will be opposing the progression of this legislation because it will cost consumers dearly. It will require providers to invest significant new amounts of money into upgrading the provision and quality of the services that they provide for customers even though many of the customers may not want to pay extra money to get a level of quality they do not desire. 
For example let us look at electricity. As the select committee was advised but seemed to do absolutely nothing about retail companies now have an extended liability under the Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill. Previously their liability was limited to ensuring there was no negligence or limits to availability. Now electricity needs to be of an acceptable quality. So what does that actually mean? Electricity cannot be delivered perfectly. We cannot have a perfect level of electricity with continuous supply and no interruptions and with consistent voltage frequency and waveform. It is simply not possible to offer that level of assurance in electricity. If it were possible to do that it would be extremely expensive. 
The consequence of this legislation will be to push up the price of electricity on top of the power tax that this Government is implementing which is one of the new 15 taxes and levies that it has introduced in the last 4 years. The Government said it would have only one increase but in fact it has had 15 increases in levies and taxes completely contrary to what it promised—and the electricity tax is another. Electricity manufacturers who previously had a duty of care will now also have to guarantee electricity of an acceptable quality. That will require a significant investment by them and again will cost taxpayers dearly. 
Then we come to the extraordinary circumstance of the Government’s decision to include water as a good under the Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs advised the select committee about the guarantees consumers will now have in the supply of water. I would like to recite those guarantees to the House and members can decide whether the Government has been foolish—as the Opposition says—in providing some of them. There is going to be a guarantee of acceptable quality reasonable care and skill employed; a guarantee that water complies with its description; a guarantee that goods such as water comply with the sample; and a guarantee as to price. But here is one of the ridiculous things: there is going to be a guarantee as to title. There will have to be a certificate of title for water and electricity. But here is the weirdest thing. Why would a member move an amendment to the Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill to say that when it comes to water and electricity there is now a guarantee of repairs and spare parts? The Government is guaranteeing that people who purchase water will now have a guarantee of repairs and spare parts. 
John Key 
: It’s ridiculous 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is ridiculous but that is what this legislation does. The suppliers of water must now be cognisant of the fact that they must give a guarantee to repairs and spare parts. That is absolutely ridiculous. 
What is the consequence of making that decision whereby local authorities and other water suppliers will now have to have water that is of an acceptable quality? We got out the Ministry of Health documents which state that it has gone through and tested the water supplies in a myriad of regions throughout New Zealand. It is clear that it is going to be expensive. My colleague Georgina te Heuheu tabled a report that shows that to get water supplies in New Zealand to an acceptable quality which will be required once the Governor-General signs this legislation will cost up to $750 million. 
We tabled the report. The Minister stood in the House and said: “I’ve looked at the report and I can’t see the figure.” That is because she had not turned over the page. The figure was on the second page but she said: “I can’t see the figure.” 
Stephen Franks 
: Too long; no pictures. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That is right; no cartoons. We say it will cost up to $750 million. Why were local authorities not allowed to have time to get their water supplies to an acceptable standard? Local Government New Zealand reported to the select committee that local government will have to spend $400 million over the next 5 years to get the quality of water up to acceptable standards. We also know that the Dunedin City Council is budgeting $30 million over the next 2 years to get its water standards up to an acceptable level. This is important because the legislation states that water must be of an acceptable quality. The fact is that much of the water supplied to New Zealanders is not of an acceptable quality. If councils are to provide a guarantee under the consumer guarantees legislation then it will be very very difficult indeed. We have moved a number of amendments that would have provided for a much more realistic way of dealing with that. 
It is very easy for the Government to say that this is nonsense but we also have reports given to the select committee by the Government’s advisers that people will be able to take action against councils on the quality of water. Government departments say that if they are faced with this liability which they do not want to incur they can stop supplying water to their customers. The councils can turn off the taps. That is ridiculous. 
We also raised an issue that this Minister glossed over and I can understand why—the issue of computer software. This legislation provides for the apparent avoidance of doubt. Computer software will now be defined as a good under the Sale of Goods Act of 1908. That Act requires some actual validity to the title that is being passed on in order to complete a sale. What the Opposition said—with the support of the New Zealand Law Society—is that no one has title to various pieces of computer software. What people actually buy is a licence to buy the software. The Government is proposing that titles can actually be bought from Bill Gates. Bill Gates is not going to transfer the title of Windows but he will give people a licence to use that program. So we cannot have legislation that says people are buying computer software when in fact they are not. They will be buying a licence to use the computer software. Whereas other legislation refers to the licence to use computer software the Government is proposing in its amendments to the Sale of Goods Act that people can purchase computer software when in most cases they cannot. 
The National Party has moved amendments and says that this legislation will be back before the House within the next 2 years because the silly decision on computer software will cost consumers dearly. The ridiculous decision to include electricity gas and water in the legislation will also have to be revisited by the House simply because of the expense to consumers. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: On behalf of United Future I am glad to rise and support the third readings of the bills. United Future is always pleased and happy to support sensible legislation. Unlike the previous speaker I am very glad that if a power company inadvertently sends a huge spike down the lines to my computer and blows it all up it will have a responsibility for it. That in itself can be a very expensive exercise for businesses. 
The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that the Consumer Guarantees Act applies to all goods and services that are ordinarily required for personal domestic or household use or consumption. The legislation as we have heard covers the Commerce Act the Fair Trading Act and the Sale of Goods Act and specifically amends the definitions of goods and services in those Acts to ensure that computer software electricity gas telecommunications water and services related to their supply are included within the scope of the legislation. 
The Commerce Committee made a number of technical changes to the original legislation. Notably those changes included the removal of telecommunication signals from the proposed new definition of goods in the Consumer Guarantees Act Fair Trading Act and the Commerce Act. The reason for the removal of “telecommunications signals” is that the definition in the legislation was deemed by several submitters to be wide enough to cover the actual content of telecommunications. This caused controversy and unease within the industry. For example Internet service providers were concerned that they would be liable for emails that did not get through for reasons beyond their control such as a problem on an overseas network. The committee agreed that it was never intended that suppliers of telecommunications signals should be liable for the content of those signals and therefore recommended removing them from the definition of goods but left them in the definition of services. 
One widely publicised aspect of the legislation is that it will give consumers the right to claim compensation from electricity companies when spikes or power surges damage computers or other equipment. Electricity suppliers will become liable for direct losses and reasonably foreseeable consequential losses to domestic consumers caused by problems for which the suppliers are responsible. 
The legislation was originally designed to clear up an anomaly caused by a 1998 court ruling in a case between the Electricity Supply Association and the Consumers Institute which held that electricity network services were neither goods nor services. The legislation also closes a legal loophole that has meant that companies or individuals selling computer software packages who misrepresent their products have not necessarily been obligated to offer refunds or replacements to unhappy customers. United Future is very happy to support the legislation. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this legislation because we feel it tidies up a lot of loose ends within the area of consumer protection. I would like to touch on a few points. Telecommunications being excluded as a good is an issue that we looked at very strongly and for a long time during the debate at the select committee. It was considered that perhaps telecommunications should be included as a good but we considered the prospect of having undesirable issues coming down the line. I refer to things that Internet service providers are not responsible for coming from overseas and we really felt that it was impossible to continue leaving telecommunications in there as a good. It is included as a service but not as a good as we could not expect Internet service providers to be responsible for unexpected events coming into their networks and being passed on. They would certainly try to prevent those from happening but there are ways of getting them through without detection. So it was decided to remove that. 
Computer software is another issue that we looked at and I think that we made a mistake unfortunately by leaving it in the legislation as a good. It is not an actual physical item that one can sell on. One buys only the licence to computer software. Computer software does not really fall under the original Act of 1908 because it is only the licence that people buy and people do not have a right under that licence to then on-sell that good. The end user cannot on-sell the licence to another person. So we have made a mistake in the legislation by leaving computer software in as a good. 
Electricity is another item that we looked at in depth and I think that if we had incorporated the generators into the legislation it would have strengthened the whole electricity industry but the electricity industry is very complex and it is an industry that perhaps will have to be revisited when the inquiry into electricity is carried out. 
We have heard a lot about water quality and local councils being responsible if water quality drops below an acceptable standard. I suggest that all New Zealanders would like to drink fresh clear water of acceptable quality. But many councils have allowed their water quality to drop. In some cases that is due to poor maintenance and in other cases it is due to the particular water supply that the area receives and sometimes councils cannot—particularly one that Stephen Franks mentioned last night; he was referring to water in Rotorua I think it was. 
Stephen Franks 
: Paekakariki. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Sorry; Paekakariki Rotorua also I think and certainly Taupo have the same problem in that the water cuts out the washers in the taps mainly due to the pumice content. That is something that is very difficult to extract from water particularly at source. So water quality really has to be considered and councils need to be responsible for the maintenance of their pipe work; and if it is the pipe work that is the problem then I think the councils should be responsible. 
I was particularly disappointed in the number of Supplementary Order Papers that the National Party put on the Table. National was trying to have water and waste water removed from this legislation. The reason I am disappointed is that the people out in Kawakawa Bay in the Clevedon electorate are desperate to have a waste-water reticulation system put in. Their septic tanks continually overflow out on to the beach and people are unable to swim at that beach. There is a fish farm nearby and the quality of the water has dropped there and they are no longer able to operate that fish farm. 
The people of Kawakawa Bay were promised last year by the Mayor of Manukau City that they would have a waste-water system in place by the end of this year. That has subsequently been withdrawn and they are now not expecting to have that waste water for another 3 years. It has been postponed and that is unacceptable. The people of Kawakawa Bay desperately need their waste-water system. They are in the same position as Beachlands was about 5 or 6 years ago—they fought for years to try to have their waste-water system put in place. It was finally done by the Manukau City Council during the 1990s and they are now satisfied with it. But Kawakawa Bay people are fighting and desperate to have their waste-water system put in place. So if this bill supports the needs of the people of Kawakawa Bay in the Clevedon electorate then I will most definitely support it and New Zealand First supports it as well. 
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: This is good legislation and I am pleased to support it. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: This is more legislation from the Labour Government that loads extra and unnecessary costs on to hard-working New Zealanders. It is legislation born out of the electricity crisis that Auckland alone experienced a few years back in the late 1990s when there was a meltdown in the cables that took electricity into the city area. Even if this legislation had been in place at the time it would never have stopped that. It would never have done anything to encourage the sort of investment that was needed to prevent that happening—investment I might say that has now taken place. 
The National Party was concerned that electricity was being classed as a good and particularly perplexed at the concept of electricity being something that could be considered to have a spare part could be improved or delivered as the good itself with some greater level of quality. Everyone knows that it is service delivery around electricity that is most important. One cannot improve the quality of electricity; it is either electricity or it is not. As my colleague Dr Nick Smith pointed out last night what are consumers to do—bottle up some of the electricity that they have been supplied and take it down to the local power company and complain about its quality? That is not possible. There are some very silly aspects in this legislation that should not see it proceed. 
We have also expressed at some length our concerns about water being included in this legislation. My reasons for that are very simple. I come from the city of Christchurch where we have about the best natural drinking water of anywhere in New Zealand. We have deep aquifers that bubble the water up through the shingle; and it comes out of the tap completely untreated with any chemicals at all most of the time. 
However if one were to ask the city council what grade its water is considered to be when it is measured against the so-called New Zealand standard for water quality it is not an A grade it is a B grade. It gets that B grade because it does not have certain chemical additives that the standard requires to reach A grade. We could now have a situation where consumers are unhappy with that ignorant of the fact that they have the very best water in the world. We go to our city council and say to them that it must improve the quality of that water by adding those chemicals. We would end up like many other parts of New Zealand turning on the tap to be greeted with the smell of chlorine or any other purifiers that are added to the water. That is very sad. 
Is it a real prospect? I think that it is. I look at the Christchurch City Council annual plan and the submissions to that plan and I note that when it comes to indicators of satisfaction with water supply in the year 2002 it received only an 82 percent rating. Therefore 12 percent of the population out there were unhappy with things. If they had been able to specify that they were unhappy with the pressure unhappy with the colour of the water because of the quality of the pipes then I would understand that and so would the city council. That is why according to the council’s plan in the next 12 months the council intends to spend some $5.5 million to improve pipe work other facilities pumps and improving security around the source of the water supplies as well. The council did not need this legislation to be encouraged to do that. 
The other issue that really does perplex us is telecommunications being left out of the legislation. This is a Government that has Ministers running up and down the country making speeches and being photographed where there is anything to do with the new technology that is being touted as the great saviour for the New Zealand economy in the future. Would members not think that with such a desire to promote the so-called knowledge wave there might be some understanding that telecommunications broadband capacity and so on is very much part of how that progresses? 
I would have thought it not unreasonable that everyone in New Zealand at some point should expect to have access to broadband communication. I would have thought that it was quite reasonable for rural communities to expect that over time they would have broadband in their communities to such an extent that they would be able to connect very very speedily with the rest of the world. These days farming is very much part of the technological advances that we see. In fact the Government is so confident that it can get technological advance out of farming that we are now to levy cows sheep goats pigs and any other thing that moves on four legs for the so-called flatulence tax. 
John Key 
: What about chickens? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There we go: the two-legged anomaly! Apparently that money will go into research to try to reduce those emissions. I am not sure how one goes about that but for a country that grows grass very well it is a little bit concerning that the Government is doing research into how we might give animals other types of feed to prevent that particular exhaust problem. 
So on the one hand the Government says: “Yes we understand the capacity that technology has to advance the nation.” then on the other hand says: “We’re not going to see the engine of that technology the broadband telecommunications network subject to consumer protection subject to consumer guarantee and subject to consumer expectation of access and quality delivery.” 
A number of my colleagues have raised the issue of computer software. I have noted that the legislation very specifically talks about computer software being a good—in other words people go down to the computer adviser buy a disc it has a programme on it and according to this legislation that is the good. It is not. All people get is a licence. I do not think there is any indication in the legislation that those who sell licences to any product have an obligation to the people who purchase that licence. That was never explained by the Minister in the Committee stage. That explicit question was asked of her and we did not get an answer. That leaves us in a position of concluding that this legislation does very little for New Zealand consumers other than to guarantee that their costs for electricity water and potentially computer software will go up very considerably. 
Finally we note the irony of computer software being considered a good but the means by which one uses it one’s telecommunications network broadband facilitates and suchlike are not considered a good. So the National Party finds itself quite unable to support this legislation. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: I am pleased to rise to take a short call on this legislation—eminently sensible legislation I must say—and I compliment the Minister and her officials on progressing it to this point. Just in brief response to some of the comments that have been raised by the Opposition I am somewhat astonished by the crocodile tears I see from the National Party in particular about this wonderful new relationship it has just rediscovered with local government. I was a member of the Dunedin City Council when the then National Government tried to sell the nation’s roads. I was a member of the Dunedin City Council when that council was forced to privatise its electricity generation facility. For people from the National Party to stand up in this House shed crocodile tears and trumpet their new-found relationship with local government leads me to say: “Well yeah right!” because I know what members of local government throughout this country think of that party and its discredited policies. 
In terms of the extraordinary comments made by the Opposition last night about the difference between the intellectual property involved in computer software and the good itself I say to Opposition members that they should pick up a book and think about the fact that it is a good and there is intellectual property involved in the creation of the author concerned. It is no different. There is no great new precedent here and it is only the actual dearth of intellectual capacity in that party that causes it to go down such a tortuous and pathetic route. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: Sometimes one joins a debate feeling that one is demeaning oneself by being in it. The Committee stage debate on this legislation and the third reading debate are such debates. I just hope that no lawyers or economists ever have reason to look back at the idiotic comments that have been made about what the legislation does. Laws that interfere with contracts simply assign and reassign risk. Risk is currently carried in the way that the parties agree. Admittedly with most utilities individual consumers will not have a lot of choice about what they agree to but collectively they have a great deal of choice. Collectively in many cases they own the supplier. In the case of electricity 80 percent of the generation capacity and still most of the lines in this country in distance are owned by the Government local authorities local trusts or entities that must respond to their local communities. 
This legislation simply says that decisions on the standard of service will not be made by the representatives by democratic vote or by democratic representation or by the customers be they big or small. They will be made by judges and lawyers. The legislation states that acceptability now becomes a matter not of competent adults agreeing but of what lawyers in hindsight say it ought to have been. That is simply a change; a reallocation of risk. It is a risk that is very easily displaced by the supplier on to the customer. 
It is a risk that has to be displaced on to the customer in the long run. When I listen to United Future and New Zealand First talk about that they seem to believe that a Father Christmas comes out of the air when a bill is passed that somehow makes all those desirable things like clean water and drinkable sewage come out of a law book. The Karekare case Mr Catchpole used as an example is a classic instance of a community burying itself in consultation and not wanting to find the money. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the law says that waste should be a matter of consumer guarantee. So it is sad to hear this debate and to hear all the discussion without recognising that what this Parliament is now doing is reallocating some risk allocating cost and allocating it probably from the people who can best afford to carry and bear it to those who cannot. 
Take for example the computer spike that Mr Adams from United Future mentioned. He is saying that he does not like a power spike affecting his computer. He can easily use a spike protector to cover it or he can back up his disk. He wants his cost covered by everyone in his community and in particular those who do not even have a computer. So we get the gold plating of a system because the law now says that acceptability must be what any reasonable consumer wants. Well the reasonable consumer might think; “I am going to have a computer and I would quite like not to have spikes.” So irrespective of the economic logic of it we now have the prospect of a judge saying in hindsight that suppliers should have spent the amount of money required to upgrade a system to avoid cost that Mr Adams could have easily avoided himself with a plug and a simple piece of equipment. 
That is what the legislation does. It is the same as rent control. This is that kind of consumer deception bill that says to people: “Vote for us. We’ll vote you rich. We’ll vote you happy. We’ll vote you benefits that you wouldn’t want to pay for if you were given the choice. We’ll vote you what you haven’t been choosing when you do have the choice.” That is exactly what we are getting. It is choices we are making. 
The cervical-smear campaign goes uncompleted cancer patients are sent to Australia and heart patients are dying because this Government has run down salaries for medical specialists and demoralised the hospitals. The same Government is telling local authorities in this legislation that they may have to spend as much as $400 million on a water-quality upgrade that people have not bothered to vote for. 
It is in their hands. In this country water supply is still in the hands of local authorities. If they wanted better water there has been nothing to stop them voting for it and nothing to stop local authorities spending the money to obtain that. But now it will not be their decision. Now it will be the decision of lawyers and judges who do not have to bear the cost. That is what this Government is doing. It is taking choice away from adults. 
What does it do in regard to the acceptable quality for electricity? According to the select committee acceptability is a difficult issue: “We understand the intended effects of the inclusion of electricity as goods in the principal Act are that electricity generators will potentially be responsible as manufacturers of electricity but they will not be responsible for failures that result from the acts of third parties or events beyond human control provided the manufacturer manages the risk of the occurrence adequately.” 
Is that not an absolute picnic for a bunch of lawyers? Was it “adequate” for a Government-owned generator to decide that it would not generate over Christmas because it wanted to wait for its Indonesian coal supply to arrive? Was it “adequate” that that company should decide? I believe that it was doing what it ought to have been in terms of company law and the duty of the directors but when the lawyers get into this what will they think in hindsight the next time that one of those inadequacies those unacceptabilities does materialise—this Government has been rescued by the rain but when it does happen will it be adequate? [ 
Interruption 
]. Mr Peck is ashamed of himself. He sat on the committee and came up with an absolutely fatuous report that did not deal with any of the issues so now he is saying that this country is temperate and we do not have to worry about the acceptability; we do not have to worry about water supply—it will rain. Well it did rain. 
Whether something is beyond human control and whether a risk has been managed adequately is now something that is no longer for political decision. The legislation makes it a decision by the courts. There is absolutely no doubt that the courts are not an appropriate place to make priority decisions. The courts should not be forced to decide as in fact they will be by this between people dying of heart operations and people complaining about their water. I do not know whether anyone in Paekakariki has suffered any health effect from its water supply. Yet this legislation now says that probably millions will have to be spent upgrading a water supply that people would not vote for when at the same time those same people may be at greater risk of dying on Centennial Parade because of the roading. Those are political prioritisations. They are political decisions. This turns them into the decisions of lawyers and courts. It is bad law but worse has been the debate we have had about it and the comfort that people seem to feel in making speeches on a piece of law without even touching any of the provisions that it imposes on New Zealanders who until now in this area have been able to make the kind of deal that ordinary competent adults should be free to make. 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: One of the good things about doing some university work recently is that I have been able to read a little bit about political science and I know exactly where that member comes from. He comes from a right-wing public-choice school of thought that tends to suggest that if people find themselves with some particular problems with consumer goods and things like that it is their own fault. That is what he thinks. He would have people drink sewage if he could. He would have them without electricity and he would have them being responsible for all of their daily living and functions with no understanding of market failure or the role of the State. 
 The ACT party will have quite a bit of explaining to do once this debate is over as to why it does not support consumer protection or fair trading. I think it has a lot to do with Pipitea Street. The party is embarrassed about that. It is embarrassed about its pyramid seller who is no longer in the House. It is also embarrassed about Rodney Hide. It is time ACT grew up and learnt there is more to the State than a Government sitting back and hoping that citizens will behave decently and contribute to society. I say to the previous speaker that we reject his philosophy absolutely. We believe in a decent society and that is what we are about providing for our citizens. 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: I rise on behalf of the National Party to oppose the legislation. Before I start on the issues let me say to Mr Peck that that was a wonderful speech of sorts but his attacking Mr Franks in such a manner was incorrect and totally inaccurate. He is not backed up by the New Zealand Law Society either. Mr Peck can call Mr Franks lots of names if he likes but I suggest he read the ruling from the Law Society which sets out quite clearly that the view he just gave the House was incorrect. 
This legislation as Mr Franks said was introduced with good intentions. It is laudable in many aspects but in my opinion it has the look about it of law of unintended consequences. It is likely to create more issues and more claims than before. Mr Catchpole said it would tidy up a lot of loose ends. I highly doubt that statement will prove to be correct over time. The legislation as everyone is probably aware by now seeks to amend four critical pieces of New Zealand’s consumer legislation. They are the Commerce Act the Consumer Guarantees Act the Fair Trading Act and the Sale of Goods Act. It attempts to define electricity water gas and computer software as goods and services. 
The very question we need to ask ourselves is whether this legislation is the right way of addressing those goods and services and whether in fact they are goods and services. The Law Society tells us very clearly they are not. It says that although the society supports the idea and supports the objective the concern simply is that extending the definitions of goods services and suppliers in specific Acts is not the most effective way of achieving that. One of the very reasons the Law Society drew that conclusion is that it went to the Consumer Guarantees Act and looked at the specific provisions that would now apply to the likes of electricity water and gas if they were defined as a good. 
I refer members to what the ongoing liability is when something such as electricity is defined as a good. It will carry with it a guarantee as to title. I know that the House and the country are going through a lot of debate at the moment about title of specific aspects of New Zealand and I recognise that. But electricity is not a commodity not a good that is likely normally to carry a title. Nor can it necessarily have a guarantee as to its fitness for a purpose. We saw the problem with applying that definition to water. There are lots of ways that water can be defined. For instance most New Zealanders would understand what defining potable water and drinking water as a good means but there are various grades of water that may be acceptable to one consumer but not acceptable to another. Water that is used for mass irrigation may be acceptable at one level but not another. Water used to fill a swimming pool may be acceptable at one level but not another. Similar are the guarantee that goods comply with a sample of the goods or the guarantee as to repairs and spare parts. It is simply not practical to apply those definitions under the Consumer Guarantees Act to water and electricity as this law attempts to do. 
One of the reasons I said earlier that I believe this law will be a law of unintended consequences that brings about the rulings required by judges the Law Society and the courts of New Zealand is simply that the Consumer Guarantees Act requires that an objective test of a reasonable consumer is defined. That is a very broad and woolly statement if I may say so. For instance it is understood that a reasonable consumer would not expect a gold-plated supply of electricity. One of the issues that came up for discussion last night in the Committee stage was the practicality of this. Is one consumer the same as another consumer when it comes to the continuity of supply of electricity for instance at a dinner party? 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: You would bring that up. 
JOHN KEY 
: I did bring that up. I thought it was a good point and I thought I would raise it again. I slept on it and I still think it is a good point. 
Another instance would be continuity of supply of electricity for fridge-freezers. The response from the Government in putting up this legislation and attempting to have it passed is that this legislation is the way to deal with that problem. I say it is not the most simple and effective way. There is a far more logical way to deal with that problem—that is by relying on third-party insurance. 
Mr Franks pointed out what will happen and he is quite correct. There is no free lunch. Every single consumer in New Zealand will have to pick up the tab in the same way that consumers will pick up the tab for the Government’s recently announced back-up electricity generation. That is not free. It is going to cost $200 million and all consumers in New Zealand will have to pay for it irrespective of whether they want it. There are lots of other mechanisms that could be applied in this consumer legislation but we are using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut. 
I turn to the issue of computer software for just a moment and its definition as a good. Mr Benson-Pope stood up and said it was silly to disagree with its definition as a good despite the Law Society having said it did not believe it was a good ruling. Mr Benson-Pope said the equivalent was a book—that one could pick up a book. Well there is no reason to define computer software as a good because what are we defining? Is it the CD-ROM that one buys and puts in one’s machine or the actual equipment and the licence to run that particular service? I say the same could apply to a DVD or a CD. What are we defining as a good? 
I turn for a moment to the likely costs of this legislation. There has been quite a lot of discussion in this House about the potential cost to local government and that cost will certainly be passed down to consumers. Amounts in the order of $400 million to $750 million have been bandied around. When news of this legislation hit the media it met with very realistic assessments. The  
Nelson Mail 
 stated: “Water study carries costs”. The  
Southland Times 
 stated: “Upgrade will cost”. The Christchurch  
Press 
 stated that the council was preparing for a huge water upgrade that will cost consumers. 
There are many ways to address issues that face this country. I recognise that the intention of this legislation was to look at defining electricity and other commodities as a service so that people could not contract out and the full vertical supply chain could be addressed. I recognise that consumers do have demands in terms of the supply of water and electricity. This legislation is not the best way of addressing those issues. There are other ways of doing it that would add more clarity more simplicity and I believe less cost. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Commerce Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 82 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 82 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Fair Trading Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 82 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Sale of Goods Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 82 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a third time. 
Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Commerce) 
: I move  
That the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee carefully considered the bill and reported it back in April. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Import Control Act in order to provide for the making of export control regulations that will enable New Zealand to ratify the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade. This bill together with certain amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act will also enable ratification of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. The bill will also give effect to any other international obligation that is or will become binding on New Zealand that provides for restrictions on or the prohibition of the exploitation of certain chemicals products organisms wastes or other substances that pose a risk to human health or to the environment. 
New Zealand signed the Rotterdam convention on 11 September 1998 and the Stockholm convention in May 2001. The Rotterdam convention requires information about trade in hazardous chemicals to be exchanged between parties before any trading takes place. Once parties are informed of potential trade and their attention is drawn to any related health or environmental risks they may consent to importation with or without conditions or not consent to the trade at all. The Stockholm convention seeks to protect human health and the environment by banning the production use or trade of certain persistent organic pollutants. These persistent organic pollutants—or “POPs” as they are called—are highly toxic. These pollutants can accumulate in living tissues and pose a threat to the quality of food particularly meat products. 
The key measure in this bill mirrors the Import Control Act’s import control mechanism and provides for the Governor-General by Order in Council to make regulations that prohibit the exploitation of specified goods. The bill also includes provision for export controls to be made to meet the requirements of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal and of the Waigani Convention to Ban the Importation into Forum Island Countries of Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes and to Control the Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within the South Pacific Region. New Zealand ratified the Basel convention in 1994 and the Waigani convention in 2000. Currently export controls to meet New Zealand’s obligations under these conventions are in place through an Order in Council under the Customs and Excise Act that must be reviewed every 3 years. The bill provides a more durable mechanism to meet the obligations under those conventions and will consolidate these existing export controls with those required to implement the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions. 
The select committee considered an amendment to clause 6 to incorporate the trade ban amendment to the Basel convention. The trade ban amendment would ban hazardous wastes exports for final disposal or recycling from what are known as OECD countries to non-OECD countries. Currently a study is being undertaken—which New Zealand supports within the Basel convention process—that is considering the likely social economic and environmental impacts of the trade ban amendment. There is an expectation that the question of whether to ratify this amendment can be presented to the Government once the study is completed at the end of 2004. This bill is not the place to determine the issue and as the Associate Minister of Commerce I do not intend to enter into the debate. I would however draw the attention of the House to paragraph (c) of section 2(1) of the principal Act in clause 6(1) which automatically includes any amendments to the conventions when they become binding on New Zealand. Therefore by supporting this legislation the House is putting in place a framework that would facilitate a decision either way. 
In conclusion the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill together with certain amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act will enable New Zealand to ratify the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions thereby adding value to efforts to protect the health of New Zealanders and the quality of our food and demonstrating a commitment to multilateral solutions to global problems. The bill provides a durable mechanism to meet the obligations in these conventions and consolidates export controls for implementing international obligations relating to certain chemicals products organisms wastes or other substances that pose a risk to human health or to the environment. 
Finally I wish to thank the members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for their work in considering this bill. I would also like to acknowledge the submitters of submissions both written and oral. I commend the bill to the House. More particularly I commend members of the Opposition who in the first reading debate and in the select committee supported this bill without amendment. It is great to stand up in Parliament and note that everyone is of one mind on this bill and it will be passed rapidly. Kia ora. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: This is a fairly simple bill as the Associate Minister of Commerce has just said. Clause 9 is the clause that provides the mechanism for the control of exports. Even though it is a simple bill none the less it is an important one. It is important that people understand exactly what we are doing here. 
In the past New Zealand had an Import Control Act but that did not enable us to fulfil the requirements of several international conventions to which this country is a party—the Rotterdam convention the Stockholm convention and the Basel convention not to mention the Waigani convention. So it is obvious that we have to amend that old Import Control Act to enable us to put in place some controls around the export of hazardous substances. That is why this bill is needed. To enable us to comply with the requirements of those international conventions following our ratification of them this bill on its own does not do all that we need to do. That is why it needs to be considered in conjunction with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill because together once they are enacted we will be able to comply with the Stockholm convention. 
I suppose one of the issues that caused a wee bit of concern and was a worry to some of the people who made submissions was the possibility that the export of some hazardous substances—for example polychlorinated biphenyls which are bad substances—for environmentally sound disposal might be prohibited by this legislation. Obviously that would not be a good move. If we can dispose of some of these hazardous substances in an environmentally more appropriate way through exporting them to a place that specialises in the disposal of them that makes a lot of sense. That issue was raised at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee by Transpower New Zealand because I think polychlorinated biphenyls are produced by some of its activities. Transpower finds it necessary to export those polychlorinated biphenyls for environmentally sound disposal. 
So we had a very good look at the details of clause 9 which is the clause that enables the Government to put in place the prohibition on certain exports. I must say my having gone through that in some detail I think the National Party is satisfied that the provisions are flexible enough to enable the environmentally sound export of hazardous substances. If one looks at the various new sections to be inserted in the principal Act—sections 3A and 3B in clause 9—one will see that there can be conditional prohibition of exports. A licence or permit can be granted by the Minister or a prescribed person and that licence or permit can prescribe conditions for the export of certain substances. We in the National Party are satisfied that the concerns expressed by some of the submitters to the select committee are met in the wording of clause 9 and that it will be possible once this legislation is passed for hazardous substances to be exported without this law being breached if they are being exported for environmentally sound disposal. That was the main concern of those who took a particular interest in this bill. 
It is interesting that one controversial bit did come up. One will note that this bill also enables us to meet our obligations under the Basel convention which New Zealand signed way back in 1989 and ratified in 1994; so the Basel convention has been around for a fair while. But some countries are trying to expand the Basel convention with something they call the Basel ban amendment. Some members of this House I think the Green Party members in particular tried to use this bill as a vehicle to push their interest in the Basel ban amendment. I do give some credit to the Government—and of course the National Party supported the Government in this—for not allowing this legislation to be used as a vehicle to push the Green party’s particularly extreme views on the Basel ban amendment. 
I think that what is important though is that should the Basel Convention be modified in the future—and it is possible that any of these conventions could be modified as we learn more about hazardous substances and their handling—I am satisfied that the way this bill is drafted is such that it enables the Minister to make appropriate regulation under this legislation to meet any commitments New Zealand might enter into in the future. The bill does not put those commitments into law; it enables the Minister through an Order in Council to put in place appropriate regulation to meet changes to those international conventions. I think the drafting of the legislation is sensible in that regard. 
I have no doubt we will hear from the Green Party. I am sure its members will be pushing their desire to see the Basel ban amendment given greater consideration by New Zealand. They have prepared a minority report from the select committee. I must say I think it wise that the amendment not be included in this legislation. As I said it is not excluded because if New Zealand does ever commit to changes to any of the main conventions that this bill enables us to give effect to then the wording of this legislation will enable us to do that. 
I think a lot of people when they hear the words “Rotterdam convention” “Stockholm convention” and “Basel convention” wonder what they are all about. All that the Rotterdam convention does is require parties to it to exchange information about certain chemicals that are considered hazardous. The convention currently lists 31 chemicals about which all parties to the convention must notify import requirements. If countries that are party to the convention are notifying import requirements then obviously that requires them to be able to have regulations around the export of those 31 chemicals. The Rotterdam convention requires that exchange of information which makes good sense. 
The Stockholm convention on the other hand focuses on persistent organic pollutants. From memory I think 10 substances are currently covered by the Stockholm convention and eight of them are also covered by the Rotterdam convention. The Stockholm convention requires a ban on the production and use of dangerous persistent organic pollutants. This bill on its own of course will not do that. That is why we need the sister legislation the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill because that will enable us to meet the requirements of the Stockholm convention that we ban or prevent the use of persistent organic pollutants. 
Those are the major conventions and that is the effect they have. Members can see that this legislation is required for us to give effect to them just as the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill is also required for us to give effect to them. National supports the bill. I think the legislation is sensibly drafted and it is sound legislation. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: I stand to support the legislation. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: I had the privilege of speaking on the first reading of this bill on behalf of New Zealand First. At that time I made only the one point and that was with regard to clause 9 and the fact that it was so wide and allowed various rules to be made in terms of Orders in Council. I am interested to see that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee did consider clause 9 and made a comment that I wish to read into the record. The report under the heading “Orders in Council making provisions to give effect to International obligations” states: “We considered amendments to clause 9 of the bill. We note that there is the potential in clause 9 for the Government in making Orders in Council to give effect to an international obligation to establish a higher threshold than the international obligations as defined in the bill. However we are advised that the Government has no intention to exceed the requirements of the international obligations listed in clause 6. Moreover in making Orders in Council related to export prohibitions the Government is constrained by both the requirement that the prohibition be “necessary” to give effect to the international obligation and its other international trade obligations.” 
That is the only point I wished to make. I wanted to have it written into the record so that we had the select committee’s view on the record for any future reference. New Zealand First supports the bill. 
Bill read a second time. 
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for the Environment 
: I move  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill amends the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act in order to give effect to the requirements of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Enacting this bill together with the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill will enable New Zealand to ratify the convention. 
The purpose of the Stockholm convention is to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants or “POPs” as they are commonly referred to. The current list of 10 persistent organic pollutants listed in schedule 2A of the bill includes DDT Dieldrin Aldrin and Chlordane. Apart from limited exemptions recognised in the convention New Zealand does not use these chemicals and does not need them. They are environmentally persistent toxic bioaccumulative and can be transported great distances from their original place of release by the movement of air water and migratory species. 
 This bill will protect the health of New Zealanders and the environment by prohibiting the import use manufacture and storage of persistent organic pollutants with only the specific and limited exemptions permitted under the convention. The export-control requirements of the convention are addressed under the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill which has been given its second reading in this House. This bill is a welcome addition to New Zealand’s regulation of hazardous substances and it signals our international commitment to ensuring the global prohibition of these toxic and bioacccumulative substances. I thank the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for its careful checking of the provisions of this bill and its constructive improvements to it. 
I now turn to some of the issues arising from the committee’s consideration of the bill. Only three submissions were received and heard by the committee but the concerns raised by the submitters did lead to significant drafting improvement in some clauses of the bill. First the definition of “environmentally sound disposal” has been amended and new clause 4A has been inserted. That new clause requires the Environmental Risk Management Authority to provide directions regarding the collection and disposal of waste persistent organic pollutants. Importantly disposal must now be consistent with the convention’s requirements. Second changes to the bill will permit the continued use of polychlorinated biphenyls for holders of current use-of-storage exemptions granted under the Toxic Substances Regulations. Existing exemptions can be extended by the authority until the end of 2016. The convention recognises that polychlorinated biphenyls are still used in some countries particularly in the electricity industry but their replacement with more environmentally friendly substances must be undertaken in accordance with managed replacement plans. 
Another issue worth noting is that the bill contains an Order in Council mechanism to allow for the updating of the list of persistent organic pollutants in schedule 2A. As new substances are designated as persistent organic pollutants under the convention they can be added to schedule 2A. Similarly any specified use for a persistent organic pollutant substance can be amended if the convention is so amended. Importantly any new Order in Council must be consistent with New Zealand’s obligations under the Stockholm convention. I must stress that before any new substance is listed in the Stockholm convention as a persistent organic pollutant or any other change is made to the convention it must pass through a rigorous and internationally pair-reviewed process of assessment. The parties to the convention then need to agree to it and finally New Zealand can agree to or decline the change. 
The Stockholm convention will come into force following ratification by 50 countries. Thirty-three countries have ratified it to date. New Zealand is committed to being in the first 50 countries that ratify and are hence responsible for bringing the convention into force. The bill will enable that and I recommend it to the House. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: I am pleased to speak in the second reading debate on this bill. It is interesting legislation because it provides for an absolute prohibition on the manufacture import or use of persistent organic pollutants. It is obviously a very strong measure and therefore one does need to be absolutely satisfied that it is necessary. 
It is interesting to look at schedule 2A which identifies the 10 currently listed persistent organic pollutants. I have to say that they are not nice things and I think most people would have to agree with that in respect of some of these substances like Dieldrin and Aldrin. In my earlier life I had a fair bit to do with those chemicals because of course sheep dips used to contain them. Those of us involved in the agricultural industry will know what those substances can do to the ground. They turn it into a bare patch pretty quickly. Although some people might be concerned at legislation that is as draconian as this—it absolutely bans the importation use and manufacture of certain substances—I think we all have to accept that the process that is gone through for substances to be added to the Stockholm convention is a powerful and robust process. I think that any concerns people have can be eased in that regard. 
The legislation mentions one group of chemicals in particular and that is the polychlorinated biphenyls which I mentioned a moment ago in relation to the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill. They are in fact produced here in New Zealand. The select committee had a look at this issue in some detail because whether or not we like it polychlorinated biphenyls are currently widely used in the electricity industry inside such things as transformers and light fittings. Although I think everyone including the electricity industry itself is in agreement that over time polychlorinated biphenyls should be removed from electrical equipment it is obviously going to take time to do that. 
The bill as introduced included in schedule 2A a requirement that the extension of the expiry of the exemption being given to polychlorinated biphenyls be 2014. The select committee looked at that in some detail and came to the conclusion after listening to evidence from Transpower New Zealand Ltd in particular that 2014 was too short a time to impose on the electricity industry to get rid of polychlorinated biphenyls from its products. So the select committee has recommended in schedule 2A that the date be extended to 2016. We consider that to be a sensible amendment because it does enable a sensible time frame for the replacement plan that Transpower New Zealand Ltd has in place to complete the replacement of polychlorinated biphenyls in those electrical products. The way the bill is now those 10 substances that form schedule 2A will be banned from use storage or manufacture in New Zealand. One substance the polychlorinated biphenyls has an exemption to continue to be able to be used in New Zealand and the expiry of that exemption has been extended out to 2016. 
There are of course some other small exemptions in the legislation. I think it is important that people understand that some substances are used in research and there is the need for their use in research to continue. The legislation does not ignore that. In fact clause 8 appropriately covers this issue. Clause 8 provides that as long as small-scale research on hazardous substances does not create or involve a persistent organic pollutant there is the possibility of an exemption from the Act. 
Most issues that were of concern to those who appeared before the select committee have been covered. I think that the bill in its final form as it comes back to this Parliament is satisfactory. The final thing I would say is that when further substances are added to the Stockholm convention we will be able with the way the provisions in this bill are drafted to include those substances without any further amendment to this legislation. The National Opposition is totally supportive of this bill. The fact that it is moving through the House in conjunction with the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill is sensible. We will be supporting this bill as it progresses through the House today. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in the second reading debate of this bill. The bill as reported back from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee is not substantially different from how it was for its first reading although a few changes have been made and those changes were addressed very ably by the speaker before me. They are largely uncontroversial and technical in nature. 
The bill amends the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to give effect to the requirements of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants by prohibiting the manufacture use and importation of such pollutants unless a specific use is permitted or an exemption is granted. The convention lists 10 persistent organic pollutants including polychlorinated biphenyls and DDT and has a requirement to reduce emissions of two by-product dioxins. The bill contains an Order in Council procedure to add further persistent organic pollutants to the regime if necessary. The bill allows for an application to the Environmental Risk Management Authority for approval of small amounts of persistent organic pollutants to be imported or manufactured for use in containment but only as analytical standards—that is for the comparison of a known concentration of the substance with an unknown concentration or for the purpose of laboratory research. 
Nine of the 10 substances covered by the convention cannot currently be approved for manufacture or import in New Zealand because they were deregistered under the Pesticides Act of 1979 and no applications for import or manufacture have been submitted under the principal Act. The import and manufacture of polychlorinated biphenyls the final persistent organic pollutant has been prohibited from 1 January 1994 under the Toxic Substance Regulations 1983 Amendment No 4. The Government is already addressing the issue of dioxin emissions through the work programme of the Ministry for the Environment. However the current legislative framework does not guarantee that New Zealand will meet its obligations because it is possible that regulations could be altered or approval could be granted under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act as it currently stands. The costs to the economy of these measures are expected to be nil given the current lack of use of those substances and given their toxicity it is unlikely that New Zealand would ever wish to approve their wider usage. In any case the convention allows for the country-specific exempted use of a substance. United Future is happy to support this legislation. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: The Greens of course are happy to see any progress in getting rid of some of the worst environmental contaminants anywhere in the world. Persistent organic pollutants particularly the organo-chlorine family have already contaminated human beings and wildlife around the world including accumulating in the fat of polar bears in the Arctic many thousands of kilometres from where they have actually been used. They are in food chains and it will take a long time before that contamination eventually declines. They are in our soils and it will take a long time before they eventually break down so this legislation is not before time. The Greens have been pushing for Stockholm convention issues to be addressed for a long time so we of course support this bill. 
However there are a couple of things about it that give me concern which I want to draw to the attention of the House. A change that was made by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in the definition of environmentally sound disposal was not just an uncontroversial and technical matter. In relation to the disposal of hazardous materials the committee changed the wording “complies with article 6 of the convention” to “are not inconsistent with article 6 of the convention”. If there is no difference between those two forms of wording why did the wording have to be changed? If there is difference between them it is pretty clear that “are not inconsistent with” is a much looser standard than “complies with” so there is some respect in which the New Zealand Government wants to do something rather lesser than what is in the Stockholm convention in terms of environmentally responsible disposal and this clause is meant to allow them to do it. There is no other possible explanation for that change of wording and there is certainly legal precedent that “complies with” is a stronger and higher test than “are not inconsistent with”. 
Secondly in the change of that interpretation the words “environmentally sound disposal … does not include diluting the substance with another substance before discharge into the environment” have been struck out. It is a pretty sensible environmental principle that if our environmental standards are expressed in the form of concentration levels it is not appropriate simply to dilute a given quantity of a hazardous substance with lots of something else in order to meet concentration levels. The same amount of that substance is still discharged into the environment and one of the key characteristics of these persistent organic pollutants is that they re-concentrate up food chains. They bioaccumulate at a rapid rate so diluting them is not the answer to anything. That provision has been taken out and the explanation we are given in the committee’s report is that it was taken out because a new technology of phytoremediation may require mixing a substance with some other substance in order to then deal with it. 
I do not find that explanation very convincing because the committee also says that it is expecting that if phytoremediation works out the convention will adopt it as one of the technologies that can be used to meet environmentally sound disposal. Surely when that happens we will have no problem with the wording of the convention and the wording of the bill as it originally went to the select committee. So there is clear evidence here that there are proposals underway to dispose of those hazardous materials in ways that are not entirely as the convention foresaw and I have difficulties with that. We have not really had any adequate disposal for them and I would certainly invite the Minister—in the Committee stage or in the third reading—to give us a more adequate explanation than we have had so far about why that change had to be made. 
Thirdly I note that there is nothing in the bill that implements article 5 of the convention itself which relates to dioxins. Let us not fool ourselves that getting rid of the scheduled list of persistent organic pollutants is taking a great step forward in terms of what actually happens on the ground. Most if not all of those substances have not been used in New Zealand for years. We are putting a law in place after the fact and it will not make a difference to what happens on the ground. It is simply to make sure that no one can start using those substances in the future. The issue that is really difficult for New Zealand to address concerns the by-products created in manufacturing or combustion processes not as a deliberate manufacture of a material for use but as unintentional by-products. 
Dioxins and furans are in that category. They are highly toxic highly accumulative and highly persistent and their effects are of the same nature as other chemicals that are deliberately created. They are much harder to deal with because they are unintentional by-products. We can change our manufacturing process to minimise them or change our combustion processes to minimise them. We can get rid of the low-quality incinerators that we still have around New Zealand. Those incinerators ought to be closed down in favour of much better disposal facilities because we are currently spreading dioxins and furans into the New Zealand environment and that will continue for some time. 
It is true that it is possible to implement article 5 of the convention without putting anything in this legislation to do so but it leaves open the question about how serious the Government’s intentions are on dioxins. We have provision in the law for national and environmental standards under the Resource Management Act to control things like dioxins. There are no such standards. What exists now are criteria that are used for soil and for the clean-up of contaminated sites based on the acceptable daily intake of dioxins for a human being. That tolerable daily intake is set at 10 picograms per kilogram of body weight per day. It has now been pretty universally agreed that that level is far too high. It needs to come down to one picogram per kilogram of body weight per day and I understand that the Government accepted that level last year. The trouble is that all the standards for soil and air discharges are based on the old tolerable daily intake and that they therefore need to be redone according to the new tolerable daily intake. So there is a great deal of work to do on dioxin standards and we still do not have anything much for water. They are the least developed standards of all. 
I talked earlier about bioaccumulation and biomagnification up the food chain. Dioxins are the worst offenders in that respect. Simply one step up the food chain—one trophic level—can magnify dioxins 5000 times so dilution in the environment is no help at all. We urgently need some tight dioxin standards. We urgently need to implement all of the measures in article 5 of the convention which talks about how to do it. I will be watching very closely to see whether the Ministry for the Environment proceeds with the dioxin standards or whether that will be allowed to gradually trickle away. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: I am happy to stand and support this legislation. I think it is very important legislation to give protection from the persistent organic pollutants that are a risk to our environment and the health of our people. I am happy to support the legislation. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: New Zealand First supports this legislation. It is an example of New Zealand First’s continuing care and concern for the environment. The major legislation that this bill is amending was passed in 1996 and today we are just updating it. 
I was interested in a comment made by the Minister when he spoke to the bill today. He indicated that about 50 countries were needed to ratify this bill for it to have international effect. He suggested that we were still in the 1930s in terms of around-the-world support whereas I note that when the Hon Marian Hobbs introduced the bill she said that we were up to “the late 1940s”. On the face of it New Zealand is giving effect to legislation for a convention that is not yet complete international law because until 50 countries ratify it this bill will not have that international effect. I raise that point to emphasise that until the procedure set out for international law is given effect to the convention does not apply. That is confirmed by  
Principles of Public International Law 
 5th edition by Ian Brownlie. On page 611 he indicates that the second point for ratification is the international procedure that brings a treaty into force by a formal exchange or deposit of the instrument of ratification. I am just making that point to show that this convention is not yet international law. 
Similarly the Kyoto Protocol is not yet international law. That requires 55 percent of the parties named on a percentage basis to give effect to it. As yet the United States at 36 percent and I believe the Russian Federation at 17 percent have not ratified it. So the Kyoto Protocol is not yet law and I am disappointed that the Government should be taxing farmers in respect of an international convention that does not yet have international effect. If the Government adopts that approach to the Kyoto Protocol what approach will it adopt to other international conventions—such as the Stockholm convention which is not yet accepted internationally by the ratification procedures set out in the convention and in international law? On the international application basis I think all those farmers who are protesting against paying for the Kyoto Protocol are quite justified in doing so. 
In respect of this particular legislation once again New Zealand First is concerned that the Government is given Orders in Council procedures. It is all very well for the Greens to say that they are concerned about the environment but sometimes the most important clause in legislation of this kind is the Orders in Council provision which occasionally gives the Government excessive powers to do things that might not have been contemplated at the very beginning. I notice that it is proposed to have an amendment at the Committee stage along similar lines as Orders in Council. That amendment will have a delegation-by-authority provision. The Minister could have told us a little bit more about that at the second reading stage but I expect he will tell us a bit more when he takes the chair in the Committee stage. 
New Zealand First is fundamentally opposed to Orders in Council and sub-delegation of authority to officials—in this case the power to grant an extension of exemption order to any employee of a person specified in section 97 or if there is no employee with relevant experience to any other person with relevant experience. That provision seems a bit wide and sweeping but it is there because of the constitutional provision that one should never delegate anything to another person without having a specific delegation power in the legislation— 
delegatus non potest delegare 
 if I can throw off a useless Latin phrase that I learnt during my law degree. However we need some explanation for this delegation to a law official. Before we can support it we must have a clearer indication that it is a good way of implementing this convention. 
Generally many of the things referred to in this bill do not get used in New Zealand now anyway. The overall view of all members of Parliament and all political parties with a concern for the environment—a concern that goes back over 100 years and is not necessarily something that has just been invented in the last 25 years—has made sure of that. New Zealand First supports the bill and looks forward to it proceeding through the select committee shortly. 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: I wish to support this bill on this reading and the introduction of the Stockholm convention. Can I assure the member who has just spoken that any Order in Council must be consistent with New Zealand’s obligations under the Stockholm convention. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: ACT New Zealand will be supporting this legislation. It will allow New Zealand to ratify the Stockholm convention addressing the global problems of persistent organic pollutants. This country has had widespread use of some of these substances with our agricultural base: dieldrin widely used in sheep dips through New Zealand and the residues of that are still in our soils; DDT used very extensively in this country to combat grass grub and other applications; and the polychlorinated biphenyls widely used in the electricity industry with transformers etc. It is not many decades since we drained transformer oil on the side of a road or into a ditch without recognising that we were releasing concentrated polychlorinated biphenyls and there are substantial sites around New Zealand that hold serious levels of that. 
Most of these substances are no longer in use. We are really talking about passing laws to stop them being reused. I think in most instances that that is most unlikely. But let us not be too harsh in beating up on them. If we look at DDT yes it is persistent but it is not particularly toxic. People do not actually die from DDT. It just hangs around for a long time. It does not hang around as DDT; it degenerates to DDD and then DDE which I understand has a half-life of about 20000 years so it does stay about for a while. That is the problem: its persistency and its accumulation in food chains and the like. 
But also let us remember the role that DDT has played in combating malaria globally. Millions of people have died from malaria. More people died from malaria in the First World War than died from the fighting. A lot of people forget that. It is the use of DDT on a global basis that has saved the lives of millions of people—we must remember that at all times when we tend to get harsh and judgmental on the use of these chemicals. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons mentioned her concern with regard to dioxins and furans as the products of combustion and the bioaccumulation and biomagnification of those substances. I am always a bit curious though about our Minister for the Environment because I believe that the solution is high temperature incineration. That does break down these substances. It removes them and destroys them utterly yet our Ministry for the Environment seems to be constantly opposing any proposal for high-temperature incineration to dispose of them. Instead it seems to favour landfills. Landfills are actually a major source of dioxins in this country yet the Ministry for the Environment seems to choose that option in preference to high-temperature incineration. I always find that rather curious. 
ACT will certainly support this bill. Generally we are very careful when we look at ratification of United Nations conventions and at importing those into our law but this one is really consistent with what has become practice in this country. There are alternatives to the use of some of those synthetic substances. We have phased them out in most instances and we now have the safeguards in this bill as it came back from the select committee that allow for the continued use controlled use and phase-out of those for which we have yet to find suitable alternatives. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: I am pleased to support this legislation and I commend it to the House. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: National supports this bill as do all the other parties in the House—and quite rightly. But I note that it has been on the Order Paper since 21 May 2002; although the Government purports to have some interest in the environment the bill has languished for quite some time under this somewhat dilatory Labour Government. It concerns me that this bill comes under the very Minister who was responsible for not using her call-in powers—I may be wrong; the Hon Chris Carter is looking at me closely but I understood that the bill was under the Hon Marian Hobbs. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: The member is correct. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: She did not use her call-in powers to exercise some degree of balance in the consents that led to New Zealand’s largest landfill at Hampton Downs being given the go-ahead. That will be a very big blight in the future on the Labour Government because there was an opportunity to have some form of balance in terms of ensuring that rigour was applied to the argument and it was lost by a Government that purports to be interested in environmental matters but unfortunately and as exemplified by this bill is clearly somewhat dilatory since the bill has been left to lie on the Order Paper for a very long time. 
Nevertheless the main purpose of this bill is to provide for the absolute prohibition on the manufacture import or use of persistent organic pollutants otherwise known as “POPs”—not to be confused with elderly people. As I noted in  
Hansard 
 considerable doubt was cast upon that at one stage of events. Persistent organic pollutants are chemicals that have the quality of being incredibly environmentally persistent and as the Hon Ken Shirley pointed out they can lie around for over 20000 years and their half-lives may still not have been diminished. They are toxic bioaccumulative and able to be transported by the movement of air water and migratory species to places far from their original point of release. There is no doubt that having a United Nations - sponsored bill such as this where a convention is put into place and signed up to by as many countries as possible is absolutely appropriate. In fact I understand that the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants enjoys an almost unparalleled level of support among United Nations countries. 
Submissions on this bill came from three important sources. One was from Geocycle Ltd a subsidiary of Holcim. The Holcim group of companies is perhaps the world’s leading supplier of cement. The other ones came from Transpower New Zealand Ltd and the National Council of Women. It is worth spending a little time on the Geocycle submission because it pointed out that Geocycle’s focus is at present on the collection of used oil nationwide. Again it supports the intent of the bill but states: “However the bill does not implement Article 5 or Annex C of the Stockholm convention which concerns the unintentional production of dioxins and furans.” It submitted that the Government should provide for those in the bill or at least in additional legislation. “Geocycle’s view is that national environmental standards and extended producer responsibility policies need to be implemented to give effect to the Stockholm convention.” It certainly requested that the Government develop those so I am hoping that the Government will take note of that. It also stated that the bill should “provide for the use of waste and hazardous waste in the manufacture of cement and lime where appropriate environmental standards can be achieved and recognise the positive environmental benefits of co-processing. That will obviously assist the New Zealand cement industry to remain competitive with other countries.” 
Geocycle maintains that there are no national guidelines for dioxin emissions and that they need to be enforced. At present they are enforced variably. Again I agree with the co-leader of the Greens that it is important to have robust national guidelines for the treatment of dioxins in New Zealand. Hopefully that is something the Government will get on with. The commentary on the bill makes the point that “Dioxin is a by-product of some combustion processes and is not a substance that is used in a process. Therefore dioxin is outside the jurisdiction of the Act and is not addressed in the bill.” 
I put it to the Government that this is something to which it should give some attention. Geocycle’s submission states: “It is unfortunate that the cement industry is labelled as a potentially high dioxin producer by the Stockholm convention. The cement industry in general has been proactive in measuring dioxin emissions and operating in a manner to control emissions.” It goes on to say that there is a need for national environmental standards to be developed to cover all industry not specific industry sectors; and that they should be based on discharge standards applying to all discharges not to specific industries. 
The next important submission came from Transpower and indeed the committee dealt with its requests which were basically to phase out the current usage of polychlorinated biphenyls which are a form of persistent organic pollutants that are very much used in the power industry. Transpower operates high-voltage electrical protection equipment that contains small hand-sized sealed capacitors known or suspected to contain polychlorinated biphenyls. Transpower states that there are approximately 2000 of those items in use but they are labelled and contained within 
inside cabinets in controlled substation environments. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Transformers? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I understand that that is where they can be found and there are many of them around the country. The point Transpower made is that the removal of polychlorinated biphenyls is subject to a replacement plan that reflects shareholder requirements on Transpower to manage the transmission system economically under the requirements for a State-owned enterprise. When Transpower obtained an exemption for continued use in 2000 premature replacement of the equipment was expected to involve a cost in the range of $20 million to $30 million. So its request was that an extension programme up to 2016 was accommodated in the bill and that has been possible provided those provisions are agreed to in the Committee stage. So this is a very important aspect of gradual sensible disposal of persistent organic pollutants or polychlorinated biphenyl in a practical sense that affects the New Zealand economy. 
The third and somewhat interesting submission came from the National Council of Women of New Zealand Inc. They also supported the intention of the bill but were concerned about some of the aspects that unfortunately have been addressed during the briefing processes. So this is a bill that is supported by National and supported by the House and I commend its progress. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
:  
I was not going to take a call in this debate but I am prompted to do so to protect the honour and the integrity of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee following a very grave attack by the member who preceded me. He talked about the dilatory consideration of this measure. I need to put on record on behalf of the members of that select committee—of whom that member was one for the purposes of this debate—the very processes by which we considered this legislation. It came to the select committee on 20 February this year. We immediately acted by calling for public submissions which we received by 21 March. We received three submissions which the member has canvassed in detail. We then spent some 53 minutes hearing evidence from those witnesses and a further 1 hour and 7 minutes considering the implications of that evidence. We then reported the bill back to the House on 29 April. 
Contrary to any allegations of dilatory consideration we spent more time dealing with the submissions than we did hearing the witnesses we dealt with the bill speedily in a period of 2 months and we have been waiting with eager anticipation the fate of these two pieces of legislation since that time. I need say no more other than that the select committee worked well and constructively together now looks forward to the measures passing and resists absolutely any allegation that we did not discharge our responsibilities fully and thoroughly. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
:I want to address a number of important issues in this bill but firstly I want to respond to the issues raised by the chair of the committee. I think he rightly says that the bill has been turned around in a very efficient time by the select committee and I commend committee members. I simply want to point out the point that has been misinterpreted by him from my very competent colleague Paul Hutchison: it is a very long time from the point when the agreements were made by New Zealand to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and when this bill arrived before the House and progressed. My colleague Paul Hutchison is absolutely right to question the Government on why it took so long. 
I would like to address three substantive issues in the second reading of this bill. The first of those is that this Parliament has spent an inordinate amount of time on writing primary law dealing with issues of hazardous substances—the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Act 1996 and repeated amendments have come through for the Stockholm convention and others. 
But my problem is that one can have all the first-order law that one likes but it is the second-order law and particularly the regulations that come from our Environmental Risk Management Authority that are going to deliver the real benefits for the environment. In that regard the process has been extremely tardy. There is a huge lack of proper standards for dealing with contaminated sites for dealing with pentachlorophenol and other chemicals dealt with by this legislation. If we spent as much time on those standards as we did on the law then our environment would be substantially better served. I want to challenge both the Ministry for the Environment and the Environmental Risk Management Authority in that regard. 
The second issue I wish to raise with respect to the bill as it has been reported back from the select committee goes to the core of issues between Parliament and international organisations and their respective roles. It is a good thing that New Zealand plays its role as a responsible nation and that it joins other countries in the development of conventions and international law. But this Parliament needs to be quite determined that it finally is sovereign over this country. I must note with some concern that if we provide legislation that states that parties to the Stockholm convention can go on and make further changes and amendments—and they will and that is quite proper—then this Parliament must have the final say on any amendments that flow from that. 
I worry that when we make changes to clause 4 in the Committee stage and we include the convention and any subsequent amendments to it in some respects we are abrogating our responsibilities in terms of ensuring that it is we who write the law for New Zealand and that here is the opportunity for New Zealand citizens who may be impacted on to have some say which would be unlikely in a United Nations or international forum such as the body that has responsibility for the implementation of the Stockholm convention. While of course we should be open-minded about further changes that may be made to this convention before any of those changes take legal effect they should come back to this Parliament so that we can endorse or reject them and give New Zealand citizens and businesses the opportunity to have a say. 
The third area in which I have an interest in the Stockholm convention and this bill is the way New Zealand is able to deal in a sensible and efficient way with previous chemicals organic pollutants and their disposal. The international community quite properly wants to provide some restriction on rich countries producing dangerous chemicals and then shipping them off to Third World nations where there is not the regulatory control where there is bribery and corruption and where the result is an inappropriate disposal of such chemicals in those countries. 
So it makes good sense for the international community to come up with rules like the Stockholm convention to put restrictions on that and to say to developed rich countries that if they make those dangerous chemicals they must be responsible for their disposal. 
But one of my concerns is that large countries such as European countries or Japan or the United States have sufficient volumes to be liable to economically dispose of those chemicals. Whereas small countries like New Zealand whether it is the transformer pentachlorophenol that is used—which has been referred to by my colleague Paul Hutchison the member for Port Waikato—or whether it is those chemicals used in the niche horticultural industries in my own area and we say that those chemicals have to be dealt with in New Zealand then we actually make a very high price for those. 
It makes sense for us to work with Australia and with other Pacific countries on the disposal of those chemicals quite simply because it is practical and efficient. My point is that we need to be pragmatic about it. If we allow those restrictions to be excessive then we take away good practical solutions that can be found in combination with Pacific countries with Australia in providing appropriate ways and technologies for the disposal of those chemicals. So I initiate a word of caution in that regard. 
 The last point I wish to make concerns the role of the Environmental Risk Management Authority in implementing these latest amendments to the Stockholm convention. We note that the authority is years behind. Its latest report to the select committee is that the provisions of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act which was passed by this Parliament 6 years ago are not going to be fully implemented until after 2006. In fact the authority’s latest programme is suggesting 2008. That is glacial pace. That is ridiculously slow. Why does this Parliament go to all the effort of passing new laws if the Government is going to drag its feet to that extent in terms of implementing these laws? I will want to know from the Minister during the Committee deliberations whether we will get the same sort of snail’s-pace implementation of these provisions from the Stockholm convention that we are seeing with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. 
I also say that Parliament has to ask some tough questions with regard to the performance of the Environmental Risk Management Authority around the issues concerning new genetic organisms. There are articles in our newspaper this very day that raise serious questions about the authority’s capacity to be able to deliver the goods. If we are going to pass these sorts of provisions I want to make sure at the Committee stage that the Environmental Risk Management Authority has the capacity the resources and the drive to actually be able to give these sorts of provisions meaning. Passing all the laws in the world and participating in all the international conventions we like is not worth it if we do not have the local body—in this case the New Zealand body the Environmental Risk Management Authority—getting on and doing its job. I leave the House with those points and I look forward to the Committee stage of this bill. 
Bill read a second time. 
Business of the House 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: Earlier in the day leave was sought and granted by the House for Graham Kelly’s valedictory address to occur on Tuesday 22 July at 5.30. I seek leave to change that date to Wednesday 23 July at the same time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. It will be so set down. 
Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Commerce) 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: The title of this bill might sound quite simple but again we run into problems with the meaning of a title. Those who are familiar with the principal Act that this bill amends will know that the Act is not involved in exactly the same things as this amendment bill is. The title does not make clear exactly what this bill is doing. When there is such a title as “Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill” the restrictions could be for any reason at all. This legislation does not make clear the fact that we are adding to the old Import Control Act 1988 a whole new dimension in the control of exports. The reason that is being done is to control the export of hazardous substances. The problem with the title is that one would not pick that up from reading it at all. The restrictions being applied could be restrictions on exports for any reason. A restriction might be being applied for example to trout. In Zealand people are not allowed to export trout. They are not a hazardous substance. [ 
Interruption 
] My colleague says people are allowed to export them but are not allowed to sell them. The point I make is that quite clearly there are restrictions that this title could refer to that are not covered at all by this bill. 
The bill is very specific. The bill in fact covers only certain hazardous substances. It is even more specific than that. It gives effect to particular conventions: the Rotterdam convention the Stockholm convention the Basel convention and the Waigani convention. If people read the title “Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill” they will have no notion that that is what the bill does. The restrictions could be for any purpose at all. My colleague Pansy Wong will be putting forward an amendment to the title to make it clear that the restrictions being referred to are restrictions on hazardous substances. I think the Committee would have to agree that that was a sensible amendment because it will assist someone looking through our statutes and trying to find the law relating to controls on the exports of hazardous substances. People would see from the title that that is what this legislation does. With the current title someone reading through our statutes and checking the indexes would have no notion that the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Act in fact controlled the export of hazardous substances. 
What makes the point even more clear is this bill’s sister legislation which we are also considering today—the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill. These two pieces of legislation cover very similar issues yet the titles are totally different. From reading the titles people would have no idea that these two pieces of legislation were actually involved in New Zealand’s implementation of the Stockholm convention. That is not good law drafting. From the titles there is no guidance that these two bills together enable us to comply with the requirements of the Stockholm convention. I think we have a problem with the title. 
I think that at least at a minimum the title should be changed to what my colleague is going to recommend which is that following the word “Restrictions” we put the words “on Hazardous Substances”. That would assist because in principle clause 9 which is the main functional clause enables Orders in Council for the prohibition of the exportation of certain specified goods and classes. Those specified goods and classes of course are the substances covered by our commitments under the Rotterdam convention the Stockholm convention the Basel convention and the Waigani convention. 
I suppose that where this measure becomes more serious is over the issue of whether the Government intends to use this power more widely. That is the issue. Concern was expressed at the select committee—and we will come to this when we get to Part 2—that clause 9 gives a wider power than is absolutely necessary to meet our commitments under these conventions. Is it the Government’s intention to go wider? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: I join my colleague Lockwood Smith in expressing concern about the title because of how wide it is. I want to draw a matter to the attention of the Minister in the chair the Hon John Tamihere. In concluding my colleague Lockwood Smith asked whether the Government was intending to use this measure for some other purpose. I want to talk to John Tamihere about an issue that is close to my heart. I notice that Ken Shirley is in the House and he will know about this issue too. We now have the Minister for the Environment in the chair the Hon Marian Hobbs which makes me now even more suspicious. 
This Government in respect of the issue of sustainable native forestry has proposed to use export restrictions on wood-chip from the South Island even if it comes from sustainably managed forests. That is being used as a negotiating tool to screw down property owners—in this case Maori property owners. There has been a long sad history of High Court decisions. The use of export controls has been contested in the highest court in the land. My concern about both the title—a concern that Lockwood Smith rightly pointed out—and the purpose is that there is no mention of hazardous substances. All we have is mention of restricting the exportation of certain goods. 
I want the question that was raised by Lockwood Smith to be answered by the Minister in the chair. Will these provisions be narrowly defined to mean hazardous substances and the international obligations set out in clause 6; if so why do the title the purpose and clauses 8 and 9 take things substantially further? We do not want to see the freedom of New Zealanders to be able to export other products being inadvertently used by Big Brother State to achieve policy objectives that are outside the international conventions that we have signed up to. It is particularly relevant in terms of the Government’s own stated policy of wanting to put a ban on the export of sustainably produced timbers. 
I want to know from the Minister and from the Government just what they are up to. Can I have an absolute assurance from the Minister in the chair the Hon Marian Hobbs that this bill will not be used as a vehicle for imposing that Government policy? Is the Minister who is paid a ministerial salary and gets a ministerial car and all those services able to answer that question? Will this provision of export controls be able to be used to stop sustainably produced native forest products as is stated Government policy? The silence is deafening. Given that the old Minister in the chair was deadly silent can the new Minister in the chair the Hon John Tamihere whose South Island Maori have a very real interest in the stupid Government policy potentially to ban the export of sustainably produced native wood products give me an absolute assurance that no current or future Government could use these provisions for that purpose? 
Hon John Tamihere 
: No current Government. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I see. The Minister has just said: “We won’t but someone else could.” I say to the Committee that that is not good enough. I hope the Government will see fit to support amendments in the name of the Opposition that make it absolutely plain in the title in the purpose clause and in the operative provisions which are clauses 8 and 9 that this bill is about hazardous substances only. If it goes beyond those provisions then quite frankly members on this side of the Committee have quite a problem. This bill should not be used to restrict trade. We are a party that supports trade and supports the freedom of New Zealanders where there are not environmental or other issues to be able to trade their goods. I ask the Minister in the chair why we would pass legislation that gives power to any Government to go beyond the intent of this bill. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: I must say that I too am extremely befuddled by the Government confining the title of this bill entirely to imports and exports. Clearly in no way does that reflect the inextricable link that this bill has with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill. Those bills clearly interdigitate. I ask the Minister who is sitting opposite me to give me an assurance that anyone in New Zealand could in any way guess that this bill has anything to do with persistent organic pollutants. Yet it is inextricably linked with that. Therefore it would have been only right and proper if this Government had actually thought about it and called this bill something along the lines of the “Imports and Exports (Restrictions)”—because indeed restrictions are imposed and provided they do not go too wide are beneficial for New Zealand—and then added “and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill.” 
There is no doubt that not only the Stockholm convention but also the Rotterdam convention the Waigani convention and of course the Basel convention need to be mentioned when referring to the title of this bill. They are all interlinked with the fact that controls on imports and exports relating to persistent organic pollutants are required to be signed up to by international convention and treaty of which it is indeed right and proper that New Zealand becomes a signatory. 
The Government has been dilatory in terms of bringing this bill to the House and I must say that I was deeply concerned to hear the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee—an excellent chairman and an excellent committee—suggest that any concern should be levelled at his committee for the dilatory way that this bill has been introduced to the House. That is not the case; it has been entirely the fault of the Government. This Government says it is interested in the environment but has taken over 1½ years to bring this absolutely appropriate legislation to the House. 
But we have a bill that has an absolutely befuddling restriction in its name. I again challenge the Minister to ask anyone in New Zealand whether this title in any way suggests that the bill has anything to do with persistent organic pollutants. I hope the Minister will take a call to explain the reason that the title is so narrow and is clearly not reflective of what the bill is supposed to achieve. It is important to realise that the Stockholm convention is very much an international convention and unless a large number of countries throughout the world do sign up to it that convention will naturally fail in its use. For instance the United States has tended to comply with but not to officially ratify that sort of convention because of the difficulties it has within the different states. The US was very keen on a technically science-based convention to act as a reference to the conventions that are associated with this bill. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: In addressing the title I would have expected as would other members the Minister in the chair the Hon. John Tamihere to clarify the point that has been raised. It is a very valid point and I had not picked it up until I quickly read the bill and followed the debate thus far. The point is this: what is the scope of this legislation? We do not know that. The general sentiment of the Committee is that we generally support the broad intentions of compliance with the Stockholm convention and of limiting the trade in those hazardous substances whether they are exported or imported. Certainly we know that in the past some developed countries have taken advantage of the lack of controls and regulations in undeveloped countries and exported their pollutants and wastes to them and that is not good. The international community has adopted conventions whether they are the Basel convention or the Waigani convention to address those issues. 
However the point has been raised that the provisions of this bill are very general particularly when we look at the title and then at the clauses under the title. I put the question that Dr Smith put to the Minister of whether this bill would cover the ban on the export of beech chips in the South Island. Currently there is a ban on the export of beech chips and I ask whether the Government could use this legislation to do that. That ban is an utter nonsense because we are talking about wood chips from sustainably managed forests. Surely the issue is whether there is an environmental impact. If the forest is being grown in a sustainable way then one has complied with the environmental concerns. What one might then turn the product into whether it is chips sawn lumber or whatever else is not the business of the Government and one should be free to export it in whatever form one likes. We do not tell our sheep farmers that all their wool has to go out as woolly jumpers or tell our strawberry growers that all their strawberries have to go out as strawberry jam. So why cannot a person who is growing a beech forest sustainably export wood chips from it when that has no environmental impact whatsoever? Such people are entitled to cut down their trees and once they have cut them down the environmental impact is totally neutral. 
The Minister should take a call. This is a very important issue. This country does have certain quirky export bans for very spurious reasons and we would be aghast if the intention is to use this legislation to extend those sorts of controls. We are very suspicious of the way that the bill is worded and clearly of the way that the title has been compiled. It is not good enough to say that this Government will not use this legislation in that way but a future Government may do so. We are setting legislation in place here today. We are legislators and it is important that we get things right. I know that the National Opposition has foreshadowed an amendment to address that issue. I would like the Minister at least to give an assurance that he will support that amendment or otherwise to take a call and tell us why he will not. This is a very valid point and it has not been responded to. 
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. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: I will just add to the very good arguments made by speakers from the Opposition side of the Chamber— 
Hon member 
: Brief though. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: —brief too. I include the speakers from ACT and New Zealand First. This legislation is actually an access-to-justice issue. It is as important as that. There must now be thousands of Acts on the statute book which everybody is supposed to comply with. With that comes an obligation on everybody—from the most highly educated to the least-educated in this country and from those with the greatest access to law to those with the least access to it—to understand the law and to know what it is. That is expected because ignorance is no excuse under the law. Therefore it behoves us to help people a little bit by making sure that a title bears some relationship to the contents of a bill. 
The title “Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill” makes me think we have now gone into full socialism mode. Any exporter looking at that title on the Brookers list of statutes would think this legislation will stop them from exporting clothing shoes or something else. That is what that title looks like. It would be a simple little thing to fix the title. All that needs to be done is for this Parliament to work together as it so often does across the parties—even with Labour and the “PC party”—in the best interests of New Zealand. My colleague Pansy Wong has put up a very very sensible suggestion. It is not frivolous; it is very sensible. Her amendment would insert after the word “(Restrictions)” the words: “on Hazardous Substances” so that people looking through the statutes would know that this is the legislation that they need to look at in terms of the Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions or of anything to do with hazardous substances. 
Another argument has been put forward today about whether there is a conspiracy going on—whether the title is particularly wide and the contents are wide in order to allow some sort of restriction on the export of beech chips for example. Some people would think that is trying to come the raw prawn but I think there is a sensible argument there. I note that in Part 2 which we will address very soon there is a very wide definition about what will be included. It really worries me that when we have these sorts of concerns and when the farmers of New Zealand are asking what has gone wrong with this Government and the silly old Kyoto Protocol—because it is putting a burp tax in place—they will look at the title of this bill and wonder what it is about. That creates a tremendous amount of concern in the community and it does not need to exist if things are properly explained. 
I really do not understand why the Minister in the chair the Hon John Tamihere cannot see the sense of this amendment. He should talk to his own party and to the “PC party”. He should tell United Future that it actually is an independent party that can make up its own mind and act in the best interests of New Zealand by saying this title should be amended to “Imports and Exports (Restrictions on Hazardous Substances) Amendment Bill”. That would mean that people who are looking for bills and even the lawyers who have to deal with this area of environmental law and international law can find the jolly thing and advise people so that they do not break the law. Surely as an access-to-justice issue preventing people from breaking the law is far more beneficial to the community and to those people than allowing them to break the law and then telling them afterwards they were had—that they were fooled into thinking it was a bill about something else. It is very important when the House is dealing with legislation that when we can come up with some sensible amendments and suggestions the parties should be a little bit bigger than they normally want to be and try to think about what is in the best interests of New Zealand. 
GRAHAM KELLY (NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I just remind members there must be silence during voting otherwise it is very hard for the Clerk. All members should be sitting down during voting. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (1) by inserting after the word “Restrictions” the words “on Hazardous Substances”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I observed that after your admonition about silence immediately after one of the parties had called out its vote two members of the Opposition clearly interjected. We either have a rule that applies to everyone or we do not. I ask that it be enforced. 
John Carter 
: It will be. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Opposition whip has just assured me of that. The member is quite right. It is even worse— 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I do not know what is acceptable outside the Chamber but the gesture that has just been made to me by Ms Collins is totally unacceptable and I ask that she withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I did not see an inappropriate gesture. Would the member stand and indicate whether that happened. 
Judith Collins 
: It did not Madam Chairperson. I think the member has misinterpreted a wave. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member’s word must be accepted. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It is very unusual to wave with an upturned hand and one finger extended. I take offence and I ask for a withdrawal and an apology please. 
John Carter 
: I happened to see the wave and maybe that is because I am closer. But there were a number of fingers and it was this sort of wave rather than one hand and one finger. I suggest it was a wave of acknowledgment rather than any other sort of gesture. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member’s word is accepted but I ask members to heed the warning that was given. Certainly this would not have happened had a comment not been made. It is even worse to make a comment on the content of the voting. I really caution members again because it has happened several times and it is not good enough. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: I am intrigued by Part 1. It contains the commencement clause and the purpose clause. It is interesting that the commencement date the day the legislation comes into force is the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent. That in itself is not surprising; we have had that before. What is surprising is that this bill addresses two conventions: the Rotterdam convention signed on behalf of New Zealand by Don McKinnon on 11 September 1998 and the Stockholm convention signed on 23 May 2001. A number of years have passed since those times. It is nearly 5 years since the Rotterdam convention was signed and 2 years since the Stockholm convention was signed. This bill has been introduced at a very late date. We understand that it is to come into effect on the day after it receives the royal assent which I assume will be within the next few days or certainly within a week. That tells me that this Government is not a Government of action. 
I know we have covered the title but why is it that we do not acknowledge in the title the fact that the bill addresses the Stockholm convention and the Rotterdam convention and in terms of the commencement date why has this bill been introduced so late in the piece? Are those two conventions important to this Government or are they not? The Labour Government has been in office for 4 years and it has known about the significance of the Stockholm convention since 1998. It thinks that convention is so significant that there has not been much in the way of speeches from the Minister in the chair John Tamihere or from members on the Government side. The Government did not introduce the bill into the House until now when we are in urgency in 2003 and not until 5 years after one convention was signed and 2 years after another convention was signed. So I put it to members that although we are seeing something purposeful—the fact that the legislation comes into effect on the day after it receives the royal assent—this Government has been very sluggish indeed in the way it has brought in legislation to give effect to its obligations under those two conventions. 
I would like to see the Minister in the chair and his Labour Party colleagues address the Committee on this matter. I would like them to tell us why the Government has been so sluggish in bringing in legislation to give effect to our obligations under those conventions which it considers so very very important—so important that it brings the legislation to the House under urgency. Here we are; all of us held back from working in our constituencies with a bill that parties generally support—a bill that Government members consider so important to sign off on and get royal assent for. Yet it has been 5 years since the Stockholm convention was actually signed by Don McKinnon on behalf of New Zealand. I put that to the Minister; I would like him to address that issue. The second clause in Part 1 is the purpose clause which states: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to give better effect to its international obligations …”. Clearly this Government does not feel particularly obligated if it has taken it 5 years to act on the Stockholm convention. Clearly this Government does not take its obligations too seriously if it has taken it 2 years to act on the Rotterdam convention. 
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. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: In speaking to Part 1 I think it is important to focus on the second clause and that is the purpose clause. What has become of concern to National while this debate has progressed is the fact that the purpose the Government intends is not clear on the face of this bill at all. The Government claims that the purpose of this legislation is to enable it to implement its international obligations under those various conventions: the Stockholm convention the Rotterdam convention the Basel convention and the Waigani convention. If that is the case it should be stated in the purpose. That is why I am moving an amendment to clause 3. My amendment inserts after the words “international obligations” the words “as specified in section 2(1) of the principal Act.” The effect of inserting those words would be to establish that the purpose of this legislation is to restrict the exportation of certain goods in relation to the international obligations specified in section 2(1)—the section that specifies the conventions we are signed up to. It specifies the Rotterdam convention the Stockholm convention the Basel convention and the Waigani convention and it allows for any other international obligation that will become binding on New Zealand. The reason that is important is that it leaves no doubt as to the Government’s purpose and without putting that into the purpose and given the broad nature of clause 9 in Part 2 it is quite clear that the Government could use this legislation for other purposes and that is wrong. I think the Minister should take the call and tell the Committee whether it is intended that this legislation should be used only for export constraints relating to those international obligations. Otherwise it is simply open-ended legislation. 
I think it is important that the Government gives consideration to this amendment because the purpose is not sufficiently clear. The Government could claim that it is regulating to impose exportation restrictions on certain goods in relation to all kinds of perceived international obligations. Whereas if we refer to section 2(1) of the principal Act we make clear the international obligations the Government is driven by in imposing the export restriction. I think it is a perfectly sensible amendment that I am proposing. I am sure it is one that other Opposition parties would support because it does make more clear the purpose of this bill. When my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith asked the Minister to clarify to the Committee whether it was intended to use clause 9 in Part 2 of this bill for a purpose beyond the hazardous-substance requirements of these conventions the Minister would not answer. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: I did. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: No the Minister just went “Humph!” I say to the Hon John Tamihere that a young Minister should take his legislation seriously. The purpose is important. One does not have a purpose clause in a bill if it is not important. It is an important part of the legislation and it should establish the purpose very clearly. But it does not and that is why I argue that the amendment I have proposed would help clarify the purpose of the legislation. It would tie it back into the conventions that the Government claims it will be able to uphold by passing this legislation. So I strongly urge the Government to consider that simple amendment which inserts after the words “international obligations” the words “as specified in section 2(1) of the principal Act.” That then makes the purpose of this legislation much clearer. 
If the Minister does not take a call and if the Government does vote against that amendment it brings into question absolutely what the Government’s purpose is with this legislation. Either it is intended to do what it says it will do or the Government has some ulterior use. That is the worry and the select committee was concerned. At the select committee we were told that the Government has no intention to exceed the requirements of the international obligations listed in clause 6—and I cover those in my amendment because they are in section 2(1) of the principal Act. If the Government told the select committee it has no intention to exceed those obligations it should make it clear on the face of the bill. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: I would like to indicate at the outset ACT New Zealand’s support for the amendment just outlined by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. It is a very sensible amendment and it should be right up there in clause 3 the purpose clause which is in Part 1. That is where it must be spelt out. The clause as it is at present states: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to give better effect to its international obligations …”. But that is a vague statement. We have all manner of international obligations and if it is the case that Part 2 as it suggests is confined to the Basel convention the Waigani convention and others then why should we not say so in the purpose clause? That is where people will take their lead. 
It is a very serious matter when Governments start imposing restrictions and controls on trade. Trade is the lifeblood of prosperity—a wealth generation. Through the ages trade has occurred between clans tribal chieftainships and kingdoms. In the modern global market economy trade between nations is critical and the freer the better. All the evidence in the world suggests that the more unrestricted the trade the greater the mutual benefit for both parties engaging in the trade. So restrictions are serious. One does not do them lightly. I fear this Government’s natural tendency to be a control freak—to enjoy controlling everything. It is a worry. It is the socialist way of course. Socialists tend not to like trade. They think there is something dirty about commerce and trade. But it is the lifeblood of prosperity. 
We therefore call on the Minister to spell it out for us. We raised an example in the debate on the title and we raise it again here in this debate on Part 1. The example was outlined by Dr Smith and I support him on it. Will the legislation be confined to the conventions in the bill? If the answer is yes then the legislation should state that it is. We see under clause 6—I know it is in Part 2 but it relates to this aspect of Part 1—that it just says “any other international obligation”. It does not confine the legislation to the conventions outlined. That is what we are asking for. 
 We are concerned about some of these international obligations. Increasingly bureaucrats and Government officials go to committee meetings all around the world. Often the non-governmental community without any mandate or any accountability has a huge influence on some UN committees. One would not believe some of the nonsense that bureaucrats sign up to and commit us to at these international fora. We are then at risk of importing those commitments into our domestic law through the back door. I drafted a member’s bill that covered this issue and Keith Locke had a parallel one also expressing concern but for quite different reasons. My concern is that we get all sorts of wacky lobby groups that capture UN committees then impose controls on what should be unfettered trade. We accept that we support the intentions of the Basel convention the Stockholm convention and the Waigani convention. We are not arguing against that. But if the legislation is confined to that—if the answer is yes it is—then the Minister should say so and put it in the purpose clause. That is what Dr Smith’s amendment does so I ask the Committee to please support it. If the answer is no then we have very great cause to be concerned. The very problem that we are outlining would prevail and in the future we could have all manner of Governments and people using this legislation to try to control restrict and limit trade. 
The woodchip case is exactly one such example. We can say we can produce woodchips from sustainably managed beech only but then have an export restriction on woodchips. There is no logic in that. There is no point in that. We are fearful that a Government that is captured by lobby groups and powerful non-governmental groups could very well inappropriately use these sorts of measures for no good purpose and in fact for considerable harm to the economy. I say to the Minister that it is a very straight issue. Could he please hop up on his hind trotters and tell us whether it is confined to those conventions—yes or no. If “Yes” it should vote for the amendment; if “No” then we have to be very worried. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: I have three quick points in response to members’ queries. Firstly I acknowledge and commend members for supporting the bill to the extent that it aligns our legislation with our international conventions. Secondly the export controls can relate only to the international obligations as defined in the bill. The simple answer to the question raised by the Hon Nick Smith and colleagues is no. The final point I make is that there is a very strong protection mechanism notwithstanding and that is with regard to the Order in Council process. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: It was indeed interesting to hear the Minister and I am glad that he commends the support from the Opposition parties for this bill which generally indeed is appropriate. But in focusing on Part 1 which deals with both the commencement and the purpose I would particularly like to support my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith’s amendment that clause 3 be amended by inserting after the words “international obligations” the words “as specified in section 2(1) of the principal Act.” 
There is absolutely no doubt that the purpose which as stated is to enable New Zealand to give better effect to its international obligations to restrict the exportation of certain goods does not in any way enlighten us as to what those obligations are or the depth and width of them and it is very important that we do have a bit of precision. After all if we look at the commencement date we see that this bill was introduced to the House in May 2002. This is a non-controversial bill that if passed would show the goodwill and the compliance of New Zealand to its international obligations. But sadly this dilatory Labour Government just waited and waited before finally bringing it to the House under urgency. That is an indictment on the way it does business. 
I reiterate the point that it is almost an instinctive impulse of a socialist Labour Government to have the word “restrictions” in the title of a bill. As I think the Hon Ken Shirley pointed out is this again the Pavlovian dog rethinks coming out once more—control restrict? This is the Labour Government that we know of old. Its true instincts are once again coming out. The amendment suggested by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith is eminently sensible because after all one of the international conventions we are concerned about is the Rotterdam convention which was signed by New Zealand as long ago as September 1998. It requires New Zealand to exchange information between parties about trade in hazardous chemicals before any trading takes place. Parties may consent to allow importation impose conditions on imports or not consent to the trade at all control exports and notify an international secretariat of all additional chemicals currently banned or severely restricted at national level. The convention currently lists 31 chemicals and of course there is the ability to add to or subtract from that list as is appropriate. The other two conventions that are appropriate are the Stockholm convention and the Waigani convention which was signed in Papua New Guinea as long ago as 1995. The Waigani convention bans the importation into forum island countries of hazardous and radioactive wastes and controls the transboundary movement and management of hazardous wastes within the South Pacific region. That convention was finalised by Pacific forum countries Australia and New Zealand as long ago as 16 September 1995. 
Once again we see here a hugely important aspect of this legislation that is not at all implied in the title or the purpose clause. I must say that it is wonderful to have in the Chamber people like Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith who has such a tremendous sense of knowledge and institutional experience that he can make such eminently good amendments. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: I speak in relation to Part 1. Clearly clause 2 “Commencement” simply states that the Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent. Clause 3 then goes on to talk about the purpose of the bill. The purpose as stated is to enable New Zealand to give better effect to its international obligations to restrict the exportation of certain goods. Unfortunately those “certain goods” are not stated anywhere and therefore it has given us tremendous cause for concern. I wonder at the end of the day whether we should be supporting all of this bill. Obviously some of us will be making further suggestions for amendments to the bill. 
I note Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has moved that clause 3 be amended by inserting after the words “international obligations” the words “as specified in section 2(1) of the principal Act.” I think that is very important because it is during urgency that all sorts of bills come before the House and invariably get passed in one form or the other and not a lot of thought goes into all of the clauses. Quite often there are catch-all clauses and catch-all phrases that are supposed to save the time and effort of coming back to the House to amend bills. 
 It is very important that whatever we put through in these times we have to take particular care with it. A lot of these bills have been languishing and this bill has been languishing since last year. I note that the bill itself is well over a year overdue since the date of the Stockholm agreement yet nowhere in the bill does it actually state what the exportation of those certain goods are. Later on the bill tells us that maybe certain goods means the things referred to in Part 2 which seem to be “certain chemicals products organisms wastes or other substances that pose a risk to human health or to the environment”. 
But almost anything can pose a risk to the environment—even the Minister for the Environment. We would say that plastic bags are certainly a risk to the environment if they are uncontrolled and not dealt with in a sensible way. Yet will this bill in fact be used to stop the export of goods that are packed in plastic bags or polystyrene or all those sorts of things? None of the polystyrene or plastic goods do any good at all for the environment—certainly not in their current form. So this sort of bill could be used to stop that. Is that a sensible use of the Stockholm or Rotterdam conventions? I say that it is not. The purpose clause of this bill should be extended to include exactly what we are talking about with these “certain goods”. 
In addition the Hon Ken Shirley posed the question about beech chip that supposedly will be stopped from being exported. In my opinion that matter could come under new paragraph (e) in section 2(1) of the principal Act inserted by clause 6(1) as one of the “certain goods” referred to in clause 3 “Purpose”. I am sure that somebody in the Government would say that that was a risk to the environment to human health or to both. Consequently it is very important that we put in place bills that are finite because at the end of the day this Parliament should not be trying to restrict trade. It should be about encouraging trade and doing business but at the same time promoting a healthy and decent environment in which we our children—for those of us fortunate enough to have children—and hopefully one day our grandchildren can grow up in. So that those of us who feel— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Some of us do already. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I hear that several members are grandparents. Well done! It is important that we do this and it is absolutely important— 
Ron Mark 
: And I am a father. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Mr Ron Mark wants it noted in  
Hansard 
 that he is a father. Well done! I come back to the purpose of the bill. I say that it should be very strictly defined. 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to insert after the words “international obligations” the words “ as specified in section 2(1) of the principal Act”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to Acts 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: I wish to speak specifically on two issues found in new sections 3A and 3B inserted by clause 9 concerning the prohibition of exports and the conditional prohibition of exportation. I know that my colleagues have some very thoughtful and considered amendments for those sections which I would like to speak on later. 
I ask members to think of this situation: a lawful activity occurs in New Zealand that results in the production of the goods to be exported. We then have to ask why we would be lawfully producing these goods in New Zealand but then prohibiting their export. It seems a far more sensible and proper approach if there is a concern about the environment—and this is in essence what this legislation is about—to prohibit the production of the goods in the first instance. That presumably is where the mischief is caused. I cannot believe that it would be the intent of the Government to allow New Zealand businesses to produce goods for internal and domestic consumption or to use those goods within the industrial process but then not to allow those goods to be exported. 
Surely we should have a principled approach that says if the goods are permissible in New Zealand then they are permissible for export. If that is not the position then I feel we have done exactly what the Hon Ken Shirley raised—signed up to a series of international conventions that on the face of it look well intentioned. I note that they specifically focus on persistent organic products that get bound into the food chain in particular and I guess most people would recognise the dangers of those; that seems rational. But surely those goods are also prohibited from being manufactured in New Zealand. That is the question I would like the Minister to address. 
What are we trying to do here? Are we trying to prevent exports or are we trying to prevent the production of those goods? There should be a single test and that test should be: if the goods are genuinely dangerous to the environment in any shape or form then the production itself should be banned. I can think of dioxin as a particularly good example of that as it is a persistent organic product that one would want to prevent from being produced or admitted into the environment. After all the explanatory note states that: “Persistent organic pollutants (POPs)”—and dioxins and those kinds of products are included in that category—“are amongst the most highly toxic substances on Earth. They are transported by ocean and air currents and bioaccumulate in the tissues of living organisms. There are clear human health and environmental advantages to their substantial reduction and elimination where feasible.” 
That is all very well and good and I think generally acknowledged as a desirable outcome. The approach that I would commend to the Committee is to ban their production. Thereby that will necessarily mean we do not get exports because we cannot export something we cannot create in the first instance. What is now raised by the structure of the legislation is the prospect that we can quite lawfully produce things in New Zealand but we cannot export them. 
I turn to another point. The view is often taken that for instance plastic bags are a terrible pollutant but in fact they are not. They are an efficient use of resources. The mass of an individual plastic bag is vastly less than a paper bag. It is hugely less. It would be in the order of one-twentieth in weight terms. Plastic bags take less energy to produce they are more useful for the purpose for which they are manufactured and when they are disposed of—presumably in a landfill—we have lost virtually no resources at all. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: Part 2 of the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill is the part that has the action in it. Clause 9 in particular empowers the Government by Order in Council to set regulations and prohibitions on exports. It is quite informative to go back to the Act we are amending—the old Import Control Act of 1988. I have it right here. That Act does not have anything to do with hazardous substances. It has nothing to do with the conventions we are talking about today. The old Import Control Act empowers the Government to control imports to prohibit the import of goods of any specified class or classes—and it goes on. That is why we are so concerned about the width of the powers that this amendment to the Act gives the Government under clause 9. If we look at clause 9 we see that it is a very broad power. 
Under new section 3A “Prohibition of exports” inserted by clause 9 it is stated: “(1) The Governor-General if satisfied that it is necessary to give effect to an international obligation may by Order in Council prohibit the exportation from New Zealand …”. I have proposed an amendment to that clause to tie it in more tightly to the international obligations spelt out in section 2(1) of the principal Act. I know that some could say that that is not totally necessary but it makes it far clearer. If there were no confusion about this matter why was the select committee concerned about it? The select committee noted that the powers being given to the Government in that provision enabled it to exceed what was required by those conventions. The select committee was concerned about that and that is why the committee questioned the Government on it. I am not sure though that we should be satisfied with the answer which is “that the Government has no intention to exceed the requirements … listed in clause 6 of the bill”. 
Let me summarise my concerns. The Act we amend the Import Control Act is very broad powerful legislation that enables the Government to ban any imports. We are amending that very wide empowering legislation with this amendment bill which although it will not give quite such broad powers with regard to restricting exports will still give very broad powers. There are two possibilities the Government could choose to overcome these concerns. One is my proposed amendment to clause 9 which would limit the powers the Government is being given under clause 9 to set regulations very tightly back to the international obligations in clause 6. Another possibility which I think my good colleague Judith Collins will be proposing is to delete new paragraph (e) inserted by clause 6(1) because that provision again gives the Government far broader power. I will not say too much about that because I want Judith Collins to be able to describe her proposed amendment but I think the fact that we are both putting up amendments to try to limit the breadth of the power that clause 9 is giving the Government shows the extent of concern about that. 
I tell the Committee that it was something the select committee was concerned about. Members will notice that its report on the bill does not say: “The minority on the select committee were concerned about it.” It was a general select committee concern. In fact my notes on the day record that we talked about it. I noted that we had quite a lot of debate at the select committee over this issue of whether the legislation intended to provide for prohibition of exports beyond that required by those conventions. At the select committee that day Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials told us that that would risk constraining trade. They did not say it could not be done but my notes here record that they reminded us that it would risk constraining trade. What happens if we get a Government that is even more left wing than this one and does not care about trade? This legislation would enable such a Government to constrain trade. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials went on to say that the legislation might risk breaching our trade obligations but those trade obligations are not the tightest given where international agreements have got to. 
So there is a genuine concern and I commend the Government to consider the two amendments to Part 2 that the National Party is putting forward. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: This debate on Part 2 is becoming quite repetitive. I do not mean that in an obstructive or unhelpful way but I believe the debate is on the same theme. We want to support this legislation; I get that from all parties. We are telling the Government we are right behind the legislation because it is sensible and successive Governments have engaged in those international agreements—the Waigani the Rotterdam the Stockholm and so on and so forth. But I say to the Minister that it is clear we are concerned that the legislation will be extended to cover substances other than those specified in those international agreements. Amendments have been proposed not to go against the Government’s policy direction or upset it in any way but to spell out and make quite clear what we as legislators intend to do. 
Again in Part 2 it is directly applicable. Section 3A “Prohibition of exports” inserted by clause 9 states: “(1) The Governor-General if satisfied”—in other words restrictions can be removed if the Governor-General is satisfied—“that it is necessary to give effect to an international obligation …”. I emphasise the word “an”. That could be any international obligation. We are saying it should specify those international obligations outlined earlier on in the bill. That is all we are asking for; that would spell it out very clearly. 
We have had well-drafted amendments and I suggest that the Minister should just admit that the Opposition has made some very valid points here. It is not really a question of pride because I know that the Minister is bigger than that. We are from the Opposition we are here to try to help the Minister and we ask her to adopt our amendments. I call upon United Future to see the logic of that please even if the Minister does not. United Future members should not be doormats. They should not just roll on their backs with their legs in the air and say “Tickle my tummy.” They should stand up for what they believe in because it is so obvious that this amendment is sensible. 
We see it there in new section 3A inserted by clause 9 and also in section 2(1)(e) in clause 6 “Interpretation”: “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”—that is everything. It could be plastic bags. It speaks of any future obligation so one of those wacky non-governmental organisation - controlled UN forums could adopt a ban on plastic bags. We had a very good speech about plastic bags being friendlier to the environment than paper bags; that is the reality—but it could be on fat on sugar or on oxygen. Oxygen is potentially very dangerous to the human body in its pure form—very very dangerous. This is the nonsense we get into when we have these omnibus-type clauses expressed as generally as that so I think the suggestion of deleting the proposed new paragraph (e) is sensible. That provision is not necessary. 
The other recommendation which is the repeated theme is that we specify and confine the restriction to those substances covered by the international agreements which the Government itself has acknowledged that it intends to do. Opposition parties say that we should make the bill state what we are all in agreement on. We all agree that it should be restricted to those substances covered by those international agreements and that the bill should say so. The Government can understand our worry particularly when we see the generality contained in that new paragraph (e) inserted by clause 6(1). It speaks of any substance and of any future obligation. We do not know what the future holds for some of those UN forums and we really are tying our hands in an unnecessary way. 
The solution looks very clear. Perhaps the Minister should have a chat with her officials and talk to her colleagues. Perhaps she should give the Leader of the House Michael Cullen a ring. I am sure he would see the logic of this sensible amendment. We would give the Minister credit for recognising the merits of these amendments rather than just arrogantly refusing to accept them and leaving the problem in the legislation. The Government has the numbers. We accept that but often in life the more power one has the more responsible one has to be: the greater the power the greater the humility. This is a good example of when the Government should recognise a good idea when the idea is presented to it. I urge the Government to adopt it then we can move forward. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: I would like to speak to Part 2 of the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill and in particular to propose that new paragraph (e) amending section 2(1) of the principal Act contained in clause 6(1) of the bill be deleted. I ask that that happen because I believe it is very important that no matter what we in Parliament do and no matter what the Government does New Zealand does not get landed with international obligations decided by a group of non-governmental organisations as mentioned by the previous speaker that never come before the House. That is one of the real problems we have. Paragraph (e) includes as an international obligation “any other international obligation”—that is in addition to the conventions that have been mentioned—“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 the environment”. 
We have talked about plastic bags and beech chips—or chipped beeches—this morning. We could also talk not only about oxygen but also about things used by defence forces around the world. I understand there is an industry in New Zealand that supplies items of defence to the defence forces around the world. Of course our own Defence Force cannot afford them. I would hate to see that sort of industry in peril because some wacky Minister either in this Government or in another Government decides that some wacky overseas group’s view sounds like a really good idea. It is very important that no matter what we do in Parliament we are here to do the best for New Zealand in our own way. Clearly New Zealand does not want us passing wide-ranging Acts that state that Governments or officials who work for Governments can sign us up to obligations that Parliament is bound by. 
I have talked to members of other parties whom I thought would see some sense and I have been heartened by the support from ACT New Zealand—the liberal party—and New Zealand First as well as my own National Party. I was very disappointed with United Future. The reason I was particularly disappointed was that United Future members told me they have a 2-day rule which means one has to give them an amendment 2 days before the bill comes to the House. I explained to them that they could not do that sort of thing because they are supporting the Government that has put us into urgency and no doubt it has discussed with them the bills that it will put forward but we in the Opposition do not get the chance to know what is in the Government’s mind. I am sure the Government does not even know what is in the Government’s mind most of the time. Here we have an amendment that clearly is for the betterment of New Zealand and this bill. We would all be very happy to support the bill absolutely and unreservedly if we could get some sensible amendments to it. 
We do worry about what could happen. The Government has sat on this stuff for the last 4 or 5 years without doing anything about it and is now rushing it through. We are being told it might take some time to fix up any other agreement so we must have this omnibus provision that means that anything is included as long as we can say it could pose a risk to human health or the environment. Anything can do that. Does it include tobacco being exported? I presume it would. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: We used to grow a lot of tobacco. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: We still do. There are all sorts of things we could talk about here. Alcohol would certainly be something that can pose a risk to human health and I am sure that some members here would agree with me on that one—not naming anyone in particular. This is an important issue. We should be making law that is very very specific. It should identify the problem and deal with it specifically. We do not need a Parliament to provide laws that are wishy-washy go on for ever and have no end and are just there in general terms; we could just get rid of it and have a dictator. 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: Thank you for the opportunity— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member. It is a point of clarification as to what our House rules are. I was enjoying my hot cup of Milo and I was advised by one of the messengers that the rules are that we can have glasses of cold water but we cannot have mugs of hot Milo. Is that the ruling? I am not trying to dob the messenger in; I am just trying to get clarification of what the restrictions might be. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is certainly my understanding that water only is allowed in the Chamber. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Thank you for that. I had better leave then. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Part 2 of the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill. I want to commend to the Committee the sensible amendment proposed by Judith Collins the member for Clevedon who is a very good and very perceptive member. She realises that it is very very important to ensure from time to time that we are not too restrictive. If her suggestion is not applied New Zealand could be put in a situation of signing up to any other international obligation. The Government has a great opportunity to realise that her amendment is common sense. 
As for United Future which is pivotal in determining whether that constructive suggestion does indeed amend the bill the Hon Ken Shirley said that this is where United Future can really show its true colours as to whether it is a party of common sense that exercises practical good judgment. I can see Paul Adams over there nodding away. Here is an invitation to United Future to do exactly that and support Judith Collins’ very sensible amendment which would delete new paragraph (e) of section 2(1) in clause 6(1): “any other international obligation that is or becomes binding on New Zealand and that provides for the restriction on” etc. Clearly it is quite inappropriate for New Zealand to be put in a position in which suddenly out of left field there comes a binding international obligation that is inappropriate for New Zealand. We would then have to undo this sort of legislation. The point is that the public should realise that United Future is facing a test to show whether it is true to its record of being a common-sense party. I hope its members will take up the suggestion by the National member for Clevedon Judith Collins that paragraph (e) be deleted. 
The other really important amendment is obviously that of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith relating to new section 3A in clause 9. It amends it by inserting after the words “international obligation” the words “specified in section 2(1)”. That would indeed confine the requirements to the conventions that all of us understand are relevant to this bill: the Stockholm convention the Basel convention the Waigani convention and the Rotterdam convention. They are both highly important and eminently sensible amendments that would make this legislation appropriately tight for the purposes it serves for New Zealand. 
I note that the original Act that is being amended the Import Control Act 1988 is of course being changed under this legislation. After the commencement of this measure the principal act will be called the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Act 1988. That is sensible and appropriate because it is indeed inappropriate for it to be called just the Import Control Act. Even more sensible if we are going to follow that line would be if the Government on this occasion took note of the sensible and constructive suggestion made by National. Here is an opportunity to make this much more lasting and relevant legislation— 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
:  
It is frustrating for members on this side of the Chamber because I thought we had shown a lot of consideration and goodwill and the amendments that we have proposed have been consistent. I saw that we even got a lovely smile from the Minister in the chair the Hon John Tamihere which actually was quite disturbing because I think this is a very serious issue and the way he smiled at it means he is not taking it seriously. Maybe I can make a serious plea to him and take him slowly through our argument again to see whether we can convince him. I think if the Minister has ambitions to be the leader of the Labour Party he has to show a lot more willingness to listen to the public and to the Opposition parties because this is a very important issue. 
I myself have put an amendment to the title to clarify the scope of this legislation. I have proposed that instead of just calling this legislation the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill we actually change it to the “Imports and Exports (Restrictions on Hazardous Substances) Amendment Bill”. If that amendment had been accepted—and I was disappointed that United Future would not take an independent stand on this—then at least the members on this side of the House could have felt slightly comforted and would not be voting against particular provisions in paragraph (e) of section 2(1)—in clause 6(1)—and in clause 9. 
I plead for the Minister to accept the sensible amendment to new section 3A in clause 9 put by my learned colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. When we read new section 3A(1) we see it states: “The Governor-General if satisfied that it is necessary to give effect to an international obligation”. It does not even mention the international obligation that we are told in the explanatory note by Order in Council can prohibit the exportation from New Zealand of specified goods or goods of a specified class or classes. I think Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith’s amendments make so much sense. All the Minister had to do was say yes to four little words: “specified in section 2(1)”. It is a very very crucial but simple amendment that would not delay the passage of this legislation yet would clarify its purpose. 
I would like to think the Minister wanted to pass good legislation. Far too many times we have seen legislation being rushed through this Parliament and before there has even been time to implement it properly the officials have come back to request amendments to it. To avoid this type of problem the Minister just needs to have a quiet word with the officials. We can assure him that the officials would say that if the Opposition cooperated making that change would not lead to a delay in the passage of this legislation. It makes much more sense to accept the amendment proposed by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. All that the amendment says is that clause 9 should not go against the intention of the principal Act. 
Why is the Labour Government so suspicious of the Opposition parties? We have already indicated clearly at the outset that we are going to support this legislation. I think these pleas are falling on deaf ears. I will make a promise in the House like I did with the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3): we support the legislation but it could have been made much better so in 2005 when National comes back to this House as the Government we will definitely make these amendments. I am just trying to reassure the public and people who have concerns over this legislation that we may have to accept it for the time being but we assure them that we will fix it. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madame Chairperson. You will recall that some 10 minutes back I raised the issue about whether we could drink a hot mug of Milo which is available and served in the lobbies. You were not sure but you indicated that you thought not. The messenger has just been kind enough to deliver to me a copy of the sheet that the messengers take as their instructions and it is from Mr Speaker dated 30 November 2002. Item 30 lists articles not permitted in the Chamber. It states that the following articles may not be taken into the Chamber or galleries unless approved by the Speaker and it lists bags including briefcases; satchels; haversacks; umbrellas; cameras; etc. But item 5— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to get to the point. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I will be as terse as I can. Item 5 refers to food or drink. I put to you that water is a drink. We certainly do not bring our lunch in here and we would not bring a bottle of Coke but I would like clarification of whether a hot mug of coffee is acceptable. For the smaller parties in particular—I do this on behalf of the smaller parties—there is a problem when their members are alone in the House and need a hot drink but also need to follow the debate as they can have a hot drink out in the lobby only. I would like a ruling on that matter. Perhaps over the lunch break you could consider it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: This is a new point and it is also something for you to consider over the lunch break. It might be interesting if members were to see how the Speaker felt about his interpretation with regard to practising hobby interests in the Chamber. You will recall that some time ago the Speaker ruled that knitting was permitted and indeed cleaning a carburettor on a desk would also be permitted. Perhaps the member is a hobby coffee drinker. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows very well that there has been a ruling on that. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The closure is not accepted. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: I wish to turn directly to the amendment proposed by my colleague Ms Judith Collins because as I signalled at the outset of the debate on Part 2 it is a very important amendment and one that I would like the Government to seriously consider. It is basically an issue of constitutionalism. If one looks at clause 6 one will see that paragraphs (a) through to (d) refer to specific conventions and the intent of the legislation is to enact specific conventions. For instance there is the Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade the Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants the Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal and the Convention to Ban the Importation into Forum Island Countries of Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes and to Control the Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within the South Pacific Region. All of that is reasonable and the proper way of doing it. The legislation should name the particular conventions that our Government has adhered to. 
However the Government has also added paragraph (e) which refers to “any other international obligation that is or becomes binding on New Zealand” relating to hazardous wastes. The difficulty is this: Parliament implements by statute the domestic enforcement of international conventions and those conventions should be known to parliamentarians. That is the constitutional process that is being followed and it is well understood. It is surely wrong to give a general power to the executive to add in and sign other conventions without giving notice to Parliament. I ask the Minister and his officials to reflect on that issue because I cannot believe it is the intention of a Government to bind the country through domestic legislation—and that is the key point—to conventions that are signed up to without first referring them to Parliament for re-enactment . 
I will put it this way: think of the process of entering into international law conventions. The Government sends its officials to an international convention and we sign the convention—that is the normal process that occurs and that is an executive role. It is not always necessary but where there are domestic considerations the Government then puts to Parliament that the convention should be enacted into our domestic legislation and that normally requires a specific statute. This statute today is precisely that in that it is implementing the four conventions that I referred to. The proper constitutional process is therefore that as each convention comes up a statute is created for each of them—and perhaps for a group of them—to implement that convention. To give a general power that enables the executive to just put any convention to do with hazardous wastes into law without coming back to Parliament is surely wrong. 
This Parliament is the supreme law-making authority. It is wrong for the Government to use its majority to negate the power of Parliament to transfer our fundamental obligation which is the determination of our domestic law to the executive. That is effectively what will happen. To draw a proper analogy to demonstrate the seriousness of this matter it is the equivalent of ruling by decree: the Government would be signing conventions that would say that those conventions will hereafter be the law of the land because some statute—possibly passed decades ago—provided that path. That cannot be the right approach to constitutional provisions. 
I will make one final point. The Opposition is supporting this legislation. We are asking the Government to recognise the serious intent that my colleague has drawn to the Committee’s attention and to support the amendment. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: I too am interested in clause 6 “Interpretation” and I know my colleague from Auckland Judith Collins put in an amendment to that clause. I would love to have a copy of that amendment before me but I have just loaned it to a colleague. The amendment seeks to delete paragraph (e) of clause 6(1). It is a one-sentence amendment but I believe it is of huge significance to this Parliament. Clause 6(1) seeks to amend section 2(1) of the principal Act “by inserting in their appropriate alphabetical order the following definitions” relating to “international obligation”. The obligation that this Labour Government wants us to sign up to is in paragraph (e) and states that: “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”. 
Members opposite will know that we are supporting this bill. We certainly want a prohibition on the exportation of certain chemicals products organisms wastes or other substances that pose a risk to human health—we have no argument with that. However we say let us see the mischief first because paragraph (e) refers to “any other international obligation that is or becomes binding on New Zealand …”. In other words a treaty will be signed overseas—presumably by a Minister on the advice of officials—and because of this legislation it will automatically become binding on New Zealand through the statutory process. It will go straight through the executive but it will not pass through Parliament at all. No one in this Parliament will get to look at it—members may not even be aware of it unless they are particularly vigilant and dig around to find what Ministers are doing when they traipse overseas to attend various conventions. 
Any protocol that is signed up to regarding the restriction of such chemicals and organisms could provide an opportunity for a non-tariff trade barrier which would mean other nations trading with New Zealand putting up barriers to us exporting our products and making a dollar overseas. Such conventions could be used and if this particular subsection passes they would not undergo any scrutiny in this Parliament. There might be essential chemicals that pose a health risk to people to a greater or lesser degree but it might be a lesser degree and it might be a far greater mischief if the chemical were not used and was not present in export products. One could quite easily argue that certain chemicals are used to increase the life of a product. The damage they do in terms of health risk might be very minimal and if such chemicals were not used at all the health risk could be quite excessive. Yet with this measure if someone overseas did a deal and signed certain chemicals off in a heated moment—and mercury is one such chemical—this Parliament would not get to scrutinise that action and I am concerned about that. Not only could a protocol be passed automatically before concerned members of Parliament got to see what had been signed up to but also we could not unwind it very easily. We cannot unwind those obligations. 
 I would hope the Ministers overseas traipsing about the world signing up to this that and the other thing as this Labour Government has done would take it very very seriously; that signing up to something is one thing but passing it through legislation statutory requirements is quite another. To unwind on those obligations is quite a task. To have it automatically passed through this Parliament via this clause is of great concern. Process is very very important. 
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Judith Collins to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (1) by omitting paragraph (e) from the definition of  
international obligation 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question That thea 
mendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to amend new section 3A(1) by inserting after the words “international obligation” the words “specified in section 2(1)”. 
A party vote was called for on the question That thea 
mendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I raised a point of order prior to the lunch break when you were not in the Chair—we had another presiding officer at that time. The situation was that I had brought my mug of hot Milo into the Chamber and one of the messengers had tried to wrestle it from me and take it out. I sought clarification from the then presiding officer whether that was permitted and she said that it was not. I then was issued with a statement from Speaker Jonathan Hunt dated 30 November 2002 stating articles that are not permitted. It mentioned bags umbrellas and briefcases and it said in item 5 “food or drink”. Of course we have water in here—we are allowed to drink water. We are not allowed to bring our lunch or eat a pie and I understand that is a reasonable provision. I notice that a lot of the Government members regularly chew lollies. That of course would come within the definition of food that should be banned but we have a convention that that is permitted. 
The point was that as a member of a minor party or a smaller party I am holding the fort as it were today. I needed a hot drink but I cannot be here following and participating in the debate and also having my hot drink. We are allowed to have water. What is the difference between a glass of water and a mug of Milo? I refer to Speaker’s ruling 14/1. This is a ruling brought down by Mr Braybrooke as Chairperson in 1997. It states: “Eating or drinking a cup of tea is not permitted in the Chamber.” I do not know how we can eat a cup of tea but that is what our ruling says. It does not ban the drinking of Milo in the Chamber. It only mentions eating or drinking a cup of tea. 
This is an important matter. We are under urgency. Members are under a lot of strain we are missing meals and we have to have our sustenance. I invited the former presiding officer in the Chair to consider it over the lunch break and come back with a ruling. I notice we have now had a change in presiding officer. I am wondering whether she did discuss it with you. I would certainly like a ruling on whether a mug of Milo is permitted. If it is not could I put my Milo in a glass? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Interjections are to be terse and to the point—Standing Order 84(3). I think the member has made his point. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: No there are a number of issues. One is the temperature. We can have a cold glass of water but we cannot have a hot mug of tea. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: We do not know about cocoa or Milo. If it is based on temperature what is the temperature? Hot or cold? 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: It is my practice to have a hot glass of water. I have been having a hot glass of water and steam comes off it. Being an asthmatic one finds that hot water going through one’s system is a good way of fending it off. I have been doing this for some time. There is that point. Also can one put Lemsip in the hot water? Does that take it out of the category of water? Would I not be able to drink water if it had Lemsip in it? That brings in the category of tea. What is the difference between hot water with Lemsip and hot water with tea in it? We need a very considered ruling on this matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have heard sufficient. I also listened to the episode prior to lunch. Like the Hon Ken Shirley I wish to refer to Speaker’s ruling 14/1 made by Mr Geoff Braybrooke. It provides that eating or drinking a cup of tea is not permitted in the Chamber. I consider that restriction extends to all beverages other than the water provided in the Chamber. I regard water as a speaker’s aid. If members wish to eat or drink there are areas close to the Chamber such as the lobbies or the cafeteria where they may do so. I believe that the ruling is aimed at ensuring that the Chamber does not become some sort of restaurant room or cafeteria. Members can go elsewhere if they so wish. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It had better be different. I have made my ruling. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It is just a point of clarification on your ruling which I certainly do appreciate your making. A valid point was made by Dail Jones regarding temperature—whether water of any temperature can be consumed by a member—and also whether additives can be placed in the water. If you could clarify that for us it would be helpful because someone such as Dail Jones who is an asthmatic from time to time requires not only water but additives to help him. It would be useful to seek your aid in clarifying that situation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has made a good point. The Chamber is a place for the serious conduct of the business of this House. The principle governing activities in the Chamber is whether they disrupt or have the potential to disrupt that business or demean the House in some way. After all this is Parliament a debating chamber and a place where serious business is conducted. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It had better be something different. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: It certainly is different. I appreciate that. You have given us a rule although it is not particularly clear on the beverage and water issue. I now seek clarification with regard to the food aspect in particular as it relates to lozenges Strepsils Minties and various other lollies. I notice that many of the Labour front-benchers chew their cud regularly. That would also be in breach of that Speaker’s ruling. Having dealt with beverages we now need to address the food side of the equation. The situation could arise where a member wants to dissolve an aspirin in his or her water which would take us back to the former argument. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member; he has made his point. I do not want to take points ad nauseum. I am just going to say this. I would not take exception to a member discreetly sucking a peppermint or a throat lozenge but it should go no further than that. 
Clause 1 Title 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: Undoubtedly over the course of the last hour or two while we have debated the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill there has been concern as to the clarity of the title and whether indeed it reflects appropriately the meaning and the content of that bill. Once again we have a title that refers to the Stockholm convention and that is quite proper. However it does not say anything about persistent organic pollutants. In the mind of the public persistent organic pollutants could be a whole variety of things whereas in this bill they are confined to a variety of chemicals that each has the characteristic of being environmentally persistent toxic bioaccumulative and able to be transported by movement or air water and migratory species to places far from its original point of release. They all have somewhat complicated chemical names associated with them. In speaking to this title and trying to make it have some meaning to the average New Zealander out there wondering what this debate is about I propose that it would be relevant and appropriate for the title to make some mention that this bill refers to persistent organic pollutants. We could add the words “Relating to Persistent Organic Pollutants”. 
I have been troubled by the related bill the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill which is inextricably related to this bill. The Stockholm convention is very much part of this bill but so too are the Basel convention the Waigani convention and one other convention that is important. It was made very clear in the previous debate that it would be appropriate to add to the title of the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill after “Restrictions” the words “on Hazardous Substances”. But we still have the difficulty that if we confine this title purely to the Stockholm convention which is related to the other conventions; there is still no hint of this bill being applied to persistent organic pollutants which is the whole point of it. New Zealand has used them widely in the past in the agricultural sector. There is great concern about the danger of residues to people building their houses or playing in fields close to places where persistent organic pollutants have been used in the past. But this bill’s title does not indicate that the Stockholm convention is all about persistent organic pollutants. That is somewhat unsatisfactory. 
The Minister in the chair could perhaps take a call later on to explain to us why both in the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill and in this bill no mention is made that it actually concerns persistent organic pollutants. Undoubtedly they are hugely important. The Stockholm convention has wide international support and it is right and proper that this Parliament becomes a signatory to it. The National Party is happy to support that. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: In assessing the appropriateness of the title of this bill we really have to examine what the bill does to see whether the title in any way reflects what it does. The heart of this bill is contained in clause 5. What the bill actually does is prohibit the import manufacture or use of persistent organic pollutants. If members look at the new provisions that the select committee inserted into clause 5 they will see that new section 25AB also addresses the issue of storage of persistent organic pollutants. 
The title clause states: “This Act is the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Act 2002.” Where is the link? Those of us who have studied this bill know that there is a link because we know what the Stockholm convention is all about. But the problem is that people who are not familiar with this law who have not been at the select committee for example will not know that. I was reasonably involved in international affairs for this country. I must say that I could not have told members what the Stockholm convention was all about prior to my becoming involved with this piece of legislation. So we have a problem. How is someone who uses an index of titles of bills to find New Zealand’s legislation surrounding the use of persistent organic pollutants? For people to find this piece of legislation they would have to know about the Stockholm convention. That is not reasonable. It is poor drafting again. The title should immediately lead someone to know what the bill is about. If members go to the heart of the bill they will see quite clearly that it is about persistent organic pollutants. The title should state that. It should make clear what it is about. 
That is why I will move that clause 1 be amended by omitting the words “(Stockholm Convention)” in the title and substituting the words “(Persistent Organic Pollutants)”. Anyone looking for New Zealand law on persistent organic pollutants would then know immediately that this is the legislation that tells people what they can and cannot do in respect of those things. 
That is quite important. A scientist may want to know whether a certain substance can be used in a research project in New Zealand. The scientist may not know anything about the Stockholm convention but may be aware that the substance he or she is dealing with is a persistent organic pollutant. A scientist who seeks to find out what the law says about it—and it is a bit confusing; from memory it is covered by clause 8 but we will come to that later on—to find out whether he or she can do research involving a substance and who does not know that those matters are covered by the Stockholm convention will not know that this is the legislation he or she should be looking at. That is why the title is inadequate. It is inappropriate and it would be so simple to fix it. What is wrong with spelling out what the bill does? 
There is another reason for doing that. If the bill implemented in toto the Stockholm convention maybe there would be a better argument for this title but it does not. I hope members realise that the bill does not implement the Stockholm convention in toto. I think article 5 in annex C is not implemented by this legislation at all. With regard to other aspects of the Stockholm convention the Committee should note that the bill covers only matters of importation use and storage of persistent organic pollutants. It does not cover issues of export of such pollutants yet the Stockholm convention applies in respect of all aspects of those pollutants including the export of them. Of course that issue is handled in separate legislation which we have spent some hours discussing today. 
So there are two problems. One is that someone looking in future for New Zealand’s law on persistent organic pollutants will not be led to this legislation by its name because he or she will not necessarily know that that is what the Stockholm convention is about. That is the first problem. The second problem is that the bill does not implement the Stockholm convention in its entirety. It gives effect to only certain parts of it. That is why National argues that the title is not appropriate. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: I would like to continue to elaborate on the concerns Dr Smith put to the Committee. I look forward to the Hon Dr Smith tabling his amendment and I am glad that he has done that. As a trade Minister involved in all sorts of issues to do with conventions overseas and signing treaties he has a better understanding than most. I am happy to say—he cannot say this himself—that he has a better understanding than most of what it is to sign up to a convention and the significance of it. We look at the title of this bill the “Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill” and we know that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith and other senior members here and a very few members of the public—perhaps even the Minister in the chair—will know what the Stockholm convention is. However I have to concede that many members in this House do not know what the Stockholm convention is or what it covers. The Stockholm convention is in the title so I would like to make it clear what it is. 
New Zealand signed that very convention on 23 May 2001. It knew what it was signing and did that with its eyes open. The convention seeks to protect human health and the environment—not just the environment in New Zealand but the world environment and particularly the environments of countries that signed up to the convention. That is done firstly by banning the production use and trade of certain persistent organic pollutants. It does that by minimising the emissions of 10 highly dangerous substances— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is a narrow debate. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I am talking about the title. The Stockholm convention is in the title. The convention minimises the emissions of 10 highly dangerous substances eight of which are also covered by the Rotterdam convention. Only Dr Lockwood Smith myself Judith Collins member of Parliament from Auckland and maybe a scattering of others would know that. The Stockholm convention in the title also refers to protecting health in the environment by taking measures to reduce emissions of two further products—and perhaps the Minister in the chair should tell us what those products are—and by also providing for financial contributions and for the appointment of a designated national authority. 
I want the Minister in the chair who believes that this bill should be called the “Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill”—what a tongue-twister—to tell us very clearly what that refers to. I have given members a brief about the Stockholm convention but there are holes. It talks about 10 highly dangerous substances. What are they? People who are looking for information on those particular substances will not know that they are particularly related to the Stockholm convention. I would like to know what reducing emissions of two further by-products is and what are they? I would like the Minister in the chair to take a call to tell us what those are. 
These are my concerns. The Stockholm convention being mentioned in the title of the bill does not give any member of Parliament—apart from those as I say who have had a long history in this Parliament involved with trade and treaties—any idea of what the bill addresses in particular. We know that it does address persistent organic pollutants but they are not mentioned in the title. They are mentioned in the background three times and the interpretation three times. They are mentioned in the definition once. They are mentioned 12 times under the title “Continuation of PCB exemptions” yet they are not mentioned in the title at all. I put it to the Committee and I put a high degree of pressure on the Minister to take a call to explain to us why the words “Stockholm Convention” should enlighten people and “PCBs” not enlighten people. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: In addressing the title I think that the point has been made very clearly; however I would like to re-emphasise in relation to the title and ask the Minister in the chair why indeed the reference to new organisms is there. It is all about addressing the provisions of the Stockholm convention and allowing us to be able to ratify it. That of course relates specifically to persistent organic pollutants—the “POPs” as they are known—and the schedules name those persistent organic pollutants covered by it. But nowhere in the bill—and I have looked at it and if I am wrong the Minister should take a call to show me—is there any reference whatsoever or addressing of new organisms. The bill has nothing to do with new organisms. It is about hazardous substances so why on earth has the “new organisms” reference been put in the title? We have other legislation such as the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act but that is no explanation or reason to put it in the title of this stand-alone separate legislation. It simply does not make sense. 
I do not know what Cabinet committees do these days but I would have thought that that sort of problem would have been picked up there. Perhaps it just takes its leave from officials and does not give it adequate scrutiny. That is why legislation is brought to Parliament. It is so that Opposition members do scrutinise it. There is no reference whatsoever to new organisms so why on earth put it in the title? It is understandable that a person who picks up the title or reads a reference to the title will expect something to do with new organisms. [ 
Interruption 
] I will not respond to that member’s interjection. There is no reference to new organisms whatsoever. Indeed parties are indicating their support for this legislation in an overall sense that the persistent organic pollutants are a concern— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Keep to the title. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: It is being addressed and that is why that aspect does belong in the title but certainly not the new organisms. It is not too late. We can make a change here. That is why we have the Committee stage. Perhaps the Minister needs to consult the Leader of the House who I notice is here and to take his leave from him because the title is wrong. It is a misnomer. It is very bad to pass into legislation something that carries the wrong name. It can only create confusion. It would be very inappropriate. We will be debating the aspects of this when we get to Parts 1 and 2 and the schedules but let us start off on the right foot and get the title right. If we cannot get the title right it will be very difficult as we move on through the latter stages of this legislation. 
I think we can get this debate completed by about 11 or 12 o’clock tonight if we apply ourselves. Let us get off on the right foot by getting the title right. This title is not appropriate and once again I urge the Minister to take a call. If she cannot explain to us why there should be a reference to new organisms in this bill which has nothing to do with new organisms will she please indicate that she is prepared to have it deleted and adopt the very good amendments that are being proposed by Opposition members. 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: Let us start again on this access-to-justice issue. All the points that have been made by members on this side of the Chamber about the title and the very strange things in it—which have very little to do with the bill—deal with this access-to-justice issue. We make laws day after day in Parliament year after year and we have to have laws where the title reflects the contents of the bill. Otherwise we would not bother having a title; we would just call them “Bill No 2” or “Bill No 3”. The purpose of having a title is to let people who are looking for the law be able to find the jolly thing. With words like “New Organisms” in this bill one would think it had something to do with new organisms. But it does not. The honourable member Lockwood Smith my colleague has put forward an amendment to omit the words “(Stockholm Convention)” and to substitute the words “(Persistent Organic Pollutants)”. That change would reflect a lot of what this bill is about. But I also have to wonder about what “New Organisms” is doing in this particular bill. 
I make a plea to get rid of the jargon used in these bills. This is yet another bill that is full of jargon and the name itself is just jargon. This title includes the words “Stockholm Convention” but what do those words mean? Most people looking at that would sit there and say: “Has this got something to do with that new prostitution bill?”; that is exactly what they would be thinking. Then they would say: “What’s this about ‘new organisms and hazardous substances’?”. That would absolutely confirm it in their minds. This bill is not supposed to be about that yet we have once again some sort of jargon. 
Why do we have to refer to it as the “Stockholm Convention” because that is something that only those in the know are allowed to know about? Yet again it is all about access to justice. We have laws and I say: “For goodness’ sake! Make it easy for people to find them and thereby live by them.” Most people actually do want to go through life living by the laws of the land and they expect Parliament to take some notice of the names of bills and what is in them. That is why it is great that in our party and in the Opposition we read the bills; we look at these issues and we actually understand them. I would really like to hear from the Minister because she has always struck me as someone who will listen when we bring up issues; and the Leader of the House is normally quite good at listening. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We’re good listeners. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: They are the only two on that side who do listen. So that is quite good. The Minister of Education could listen occasionally and that might do him some good. When we have bills like this which are going to be almost impossible for anyone to find other than a few lawyers who are involved in this area then it will make it harder and harder for manufacturers scientists and people like that who actually do the work in the country and make the money for us—and make the money that pays the taxes that pay the wages of everyone here—to be able to find legislation. 
Why do we have to have such silly titles? This title bears very little relationship to the bill. What sort of drafting is this? I am appalled this issue was not picked up on in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. I am sure the people on the committee did their very best but at the end of the day it obviously was not good enough. There is a feeling in the Parliament that we are all supportive of the bill and its contents except for a few amendments. One concern would have to be the title. I really would like to hear from the Minister. I know she wants to tell us which hazardous substances and new organisms are in this bill and why the words “Stockholm Convention” are included rather than substituting the words “Persistent Organic Pollutants”. That change would make some sense to people who are looking in this particular area. I am sure the Minister would like to tell us about it. I can see she wants to tell us. I would really like to hear from her. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next speaker there is too much conversation going on. Members should not conduct conversations in the Chamber unless it is necessary to do so; and then so as not to disturb the proceedings. I find it somewhat difficult at times to concentrate on the member speaking when there are so many conversations going on. For those who are wandering around the Chamber I refer them to Standing Order 82. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: Mr Chairman I would like to join in your general round of condemnation of members who chat idly in the Chamber when issues such as the title to a bill are being discussed. It is not often the case that we are drawn to look at legislation of this importance nor that we are drawn into a debate touching on the critical importance of a title. In starting any discussion on the issue of a title one would surely start with the proposition that the title should first be legally accurate and secondly that it be factually appropriate. As other speakers have said there are real doubts in this regard about this title. I am frankly surprised with the calibre of the members who were on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which reported back on the bill that insufficient or perhaps no time at all was given to consideration of the title. If one looks at page 7 of the explanatory note to see who those members were—and I instance the Hon Peter Dunne and Graham Kelly—one would have thought this would be a consideration at the very forefront of their minds. Instead it is not the subject of commentary in the bill and the issue comes before us afresh or as lawyers would say on a de novo basis. 
So how is it that this title fits within those two tests that I have suggested? Is it legally accurate? I would say no. Is it factually appropriate? Clearly it is not. Other members have made the good and strong point that the full title of the bill is misleading and that is because it is titled Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill. And one looks in vain I suggest in the content of the bill to find any reference at all to new organisms. 
Sure there are preliminary provisions. Sure there are amendments to the principal Act made by Part 2. Sure there are two schedules. But not in any of that material is there reference to new organisms. That is really the first point. 
The second point I would like to make is the reference to the Stockholm convention. As a starting point there have been a number of conventions in Stockholm in the last few years and they have ranged across considerable activity in that country. There have been meetings convened and called for a wide variety of purposes which have a convention quality. In looking at the use of the phrase “Stockholm Convention” in this case I would have thought that the Government would go to the trouble to identify which particular convention in Stockholm had been singled out for reference in this bill. That is not done in the heading and instead one needs to grope—I suggest that that is the appropriate word—through the legislation to Part 2 to see that “Stockholm Convention” is given a starkly narrowed meaning. 
 It has been defined there as meaning the Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants done at Stockholm on 23 May 2001 and the annexes to the convention—a copy of the English text of which is set out in schedule 1AA. So the drafters have gone to some trouble it seems to identify in this particular paragraph—albeit not in the title of the bill—the convention that is to be accorded recognition in the context of the legislation. What this bill does and what should be reflected in the title should be drawn from clause 3. It is apparent reading clause 3 that the purpose of the Act is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Why does the title not say that? This is simply a piece of domestic legislation that incorporates a foreign treaty instrument. 
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “(Stockholm Convention)” and substitute the words “(Persistent Organic Pollutants)”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 81 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: It is extraordinary that we are in our third day of urgency—technically it is 1 July in this bizarre place in which we work—giving importance to passing legislation that will enable New Zealand to comply with a convention that was signed more than 2 years ago. What sort of Mickey Mouse Parliament are we running that under urgency we are being asked to advance legislation that Parliament did not see for more than 20 months after the convention to which it relates was signed by the Government? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It’s bizarre. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is bizarre. If we had a matter of some urgent environmental need that required Parliament to be in urgency then there might be some justification. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Larry Baldock tells me to sit down. Actually I take seriously the role of Parliament and I do not mind Parliament being in urgency when there are urgent issues. But I ask United Future members what is so urgent about passing the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill when that convention was signed more than 2 years ago and when nobody has ever contacted me or anybody else I know of in this Parliament saying that it has got to be passed today? [ 
Interruption 
] My colleague Paul Hutchison is a very competent member and he has given some excellent speeches on this bill. But even he would be of the view that one could not possibly justify Parliament pretending that the date is 1 July and being in urgency to pass legislation of this sort. It is indeed a joke. 
I want to come to a substantive issue. I feel very strongly about the sovereignty of the New Zealand Parliament and about making sure that when we pass laws New Zealanders have the opportunity to comment on those laws and on what Parliament writes in them. What concerns me in Part 1 as it relates to the convention is what happens if—and this is a question for the Minister—the rules of the Stockholm convention are changed as they apply to organochlorine pollutants. Will the New Zealand Parliament have the opportunity to revisit any subsequent amendments? That would be perfectly proper. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: No it will not. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My colleague Lockwood Smith says that it will not. I have respect for international institutions and I believe we should be part of agreements such as this but it must finally be the decision of the democratically elected Parliament of New Zealand to make the laws of the land. If the rules of the Stockholm convention are subsequently changed—if there are subsequent amendments—then those amendments should come back to this Parliament. It worries me that in Part 1 we are effectively giving carte blanche to an international institution that is not democratically elected the opportunity to affect the rights of people who should have a chance to have a say. It worries me that we are to pass legislation that allows someone else to make decisions for New Zealand. 
So while I am in favour and supportive of the Stockholm convention as it currently sits I do not believe that the New Zealand Parliament is creating good law by saying that whatever is decided at the Stockholm convention in future automatically becomes part of New Zealand law. I do not think that is good law. We must come back to the people of New Zealand and say that no we want to make that the law of the land; we will not simply ride off with somebody else and say that effectively we will abrogate our job as the Parliament of New Zealand to make the law of the land. So I would like the Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs to answer the question specifically in respect of clause 3 about whether under this bill if there are subsequent amendments to the Stockholm convention we are automatically bound by them. Or will the Government of the day come back to the New Zealand Parliament put that bill through a proper select committee and public process and give New Zealanders the opportunity to determine the law of our land? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: I am pleased to speak to Part 1 of this important bill which includes the commencement and the purpose clauses. The way that the Labour Government has handled both those issues has troubled me considerably with regard to this very important bill. Firstly we should go to clause 2 “Commencement” which obviously states that the Act comes into force on a day to be appointed by the Governor-General. As the Hon Dr Nick Smith has pointed out the Stockholm convention was signed 2 years ago. But perhaps even more relevant is the fact that this bill was put on the Order Paper on 21 May 2002. 
Here we are in urgency dealing with a bill that has languished because of this dilatory Labour Government unnecessarily for a great deal of time. We have a Minister in the chair the Hon Marian Hobbs who says that she is interested in environmental concerns yet she has been extraordinarily dilatory when it comes to progressing New Zealand’s involvement with the Stockholm convention a convention which does enjoy an almost unparalleled level of support amongst United Nations countries. So here we are with a dilatory Labour Government and a lackadaisical Minister who is really just cruising along. I must say that in the earlier part of this debate the Hon Peter Dunne from the United Future party was concerned that I might have been critical of him for not progressing this bill. That is not the case at all. Mr Dunne is a highly competent chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. Once he finally got the bill in February he made sure that it was progressed expeditiously. It is undoubtedly the Government a Government that purports to be interested in the environment that has unfortunately delayed this bill’s passage and finally out of sheer convenience has suddenly after a knee-jerk reaction—and we cannot understand why—decided to bring it through under urgency. 
But more important than that is the purpose of the bill. Again I ask as did the Hon Dr Nick Smith whether the chance is available for New Zealanders to have a say if the Stockholm convention is changed. After all we are a sovereign nation. Surely as the Parliament of a sovereign nation it is absolutely important that where international conventions that we are signatory to are passed through our Parliament and there are changes to the parent convention we in this country are able to have a say in those situations if the changes are significant to us—and when a convention is to do with importing and exporting that can be profoundly significant to us. I hope that the Minister who has shown a fair amount of dilatoriness in terms of bringing this important bill to the Committee will take a call and assure us that that will be possible. 
The purpose of this bill is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. I believe that my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith will move an important amendment—and I will not go on to say very much about it—to insert after the word “with” the words “certain requirements of” because the purpose here is inflexible. It means in many respects that we would have to abide by the whole Stockholm convention whether or not it applied to New Zealand. I hope the Minister will take notice of that important amendment. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: I want to briefly answer the questions that have been raised about the possibility that the Stockholm convention could be amended after an internal process with all the international experts involved by adding a new persistent organic pollutant to the list. Under clause 13 of the bill—and not under Part 1 which we are debating now—it actually states that we would add that pollutant to the list of persistent organic pollutants as specified in the Stockholm convention and add it into the text of the Stockholm convention set out in the schedule of the bill by Order in Council. I tell members that whenever we are doing anything as serious as an Order in Council—and I make this absolute commitment—we will be out there consulting with the chemical industry which up to this time absolutely supports both internationally and inside New Zealand the number of pollutants that are listed here. We will work with that industry internationally and in New Zealand if we were ever to consider ourselves in line with an amended Stockholm convention should that happen. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: I do not know how naive that Minister the Hon Marian Hobbs actually thinks we are. She is trying to sort of mollycoddle us and say we should not worry because if ever at some subsequent stage when she is still the Minister—she has only a couple of years to run but be that as it may—she will by Order in Council engage in consultation with everyone and everything will be done right. Well let us look what has already happened under this urgency motion. We can see the Government has rammed through legislation without any consultation with no calling for submissions and with no referral of bills to the select committees. So it is a bit rich for the Minister to say we should trust the Government to always consult and follow due process. We know that this Government does not follow due process; it fails to do that at every turn. So I am sorry but that reply from the Minister was very hollow and very unconvincing and she will have to do a lot better than that if she is to address the very real concerns that have been raised. 
The irony again is that we generally support this legislation. We signed the Stockholm convention 2 years ago and I understand we have to pass this legislation before we can ratify it. That is what this legislation is all about but why on earth are we debating it under urgency? This legislation has been ticking away on the slow burner simmering away and bouncing along at the bottom of the Order Paper. The Government did not have the presence of mind to bring it up the Order Paper but has then put it in the urgency motion and tried to ram it through the House under urgency. I put it to members that this bill would have gone through the House a lot easier and a lot less acrimoniously if the Government had put it through the House in normal parliamentary time and not under urgency. Understandably the Opposition parties become suspicious when these sorts of issues are put through urgency and bypass the due process. 
I now turn to the issue of what will occur if the international convention is subsequently amended—and we know that these conventions are always amended. Someone will try to raise the barrier and add a new chemical or substance to it. That will bind us and there is no safeguard here. The Minister is saying that that will go through under an Order in Council. That does not involve having the scrutiny of Parliament. It abrogates our sovereignty. The danger is that our bureaucrats go off to these UN conventions and committees—and there is one held every week somewhere in the world; it is as though they decide to meet somewhere in the spring. Those committees meet all over the world at huge cost. The bureaucrats and non-governmental organisations that have no mandate and no accountability go off to them and play a huge influence in these environmental conventions. Countries sign up to them and that abrogates their sovereignty because if there are changes then we will have to be bound by them. 
The bill is quite helpful with regard to this issue because it actually has the convention attached to it. If members look at article 21 of the convention in Schedule 1AA they will see it covers the situation of amendments to the convention. It states: “Amendments to this Convention shall be adopted at a meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to the Parties by the Secretariat at least six months before the meeting at which it is proposed for adoption.” So in other words all the unelected unaccountable non-governmental groups that control the processes in terms of such UN conventions can through the back door impose controls and restrictions on New Zealand law. I say to the Minister Marian Hobbs that that is bad. Her explanation when she leapt to her feet previously failed to satisfy us because it did not address the issue. The mere fact that she says she will consult before an Order in Council is issued is very hollow words. We want some sort of assurance that it will be brought back to Parliament and referred back to the select committee so that submissions can be called for and the due process followed. 
We know that substances like dieldrin and DDT have been very widely used in this country. Dieldrin was the basis of our sheep dips and DDT was used extensively to fight grass grub so there are large residues of that. Polychlorinated biphenyls were used in electricity transformers and tipped all over the landscape for many decades. Those have been widely used common substances. Fortunately we do not use them now and that is good. However we do need to be assured that if new substances are added to the list in the convention adequate consideration will be given to that by Parliament. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: In Part 1 we are dealing principally with the commencement and purpose of the bill. A number of concerns have been raised in relation to the purpose. The problem arises whereby New Zealand’s domestic law could be changed without either this Parliament or even an Order in Council being involved in that. It is a matter of grave concern to the Opposition. I will be speaking on that point more specifically when we come to Part 2 because I know that the Regulations Review Committee raised with the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee a concern about that. I believe that the way the select committee responded to that issue was inadequate and I will go into that in some detail when we come to Part 2. 
But in respect of Part 1 I will just cover a concern I have with the purpose laid out in clause 3 which reads: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.” I say this bill does not provide for that. That purpose is wrong. This bill which will become an Act does not enable New Zealand to comply with all the requirements of the Stockholm convention. In fact it is very clear that Part V of annex C which is part of the Stockholm convention will not be implemented in New Zealand. It is an active decision of the Government not to implement Part V of annex C. So there is one part of the convention that is not being implemented in this bill. What is more this bill covers only certain issues or certain requirements of the Stockholm convention. It does cover matters concerning the importation of persistent organic pollutants their manufacture their use and their storage but it does not cover matters relating to their export. That is covered in different law—in a different Act. 
So I submit that the purpose stated in the bill is incorrect because this bill does not enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm convention. That is factually wrong. It does not enable New Zealand to implement Part V of annex C and it does not cover issues that are required by the Stockholm convention in respect of the export of persistent organic pollutants. That is why I have proposed and will be moving an amendment to add to clause 3 “Purpose” following the word “with” the words “certain requirements of”. If my amendment is incorporated the purpose clause would read: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to comply with certain requirements of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.” That is a correct statement and a correct and truthful purpose. It is honest whereas the provision in this bill is not honest. The bill simply does not enable us to comply with the Stockholm convention but only with certain requirements—or certain parts—of it. 
If the Minister does not like my words I say that all I am getting at is that this bill does not enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. It is factually wrong for the purpose clause to make that claim. What we should indicate is that the bill will enable us to comply with some aspects of the convention some requirements of it or certain aspects of it. I am easy about the words that should be used but I believe that clause 3 should be changed in order to state the purpose of this bill correctly. The way that it is currently worded is simply not correct. 
That is my main submission in respect of Part 1. I have already pointed out that I have a major concern about how the purpose is carried out in this bill and I will turn to that when we come to Part 2. I believe that the way the purpose is being given effect to in this legislation is flawed. I think it is faulty. It leaves New Zealand’s domestic law in the hands of the people who are involved in deciding changes to the Stockholm convention. From the way that this bill is worded as I read it not even the Government of New Zealand could stop changes to the convention from becoming part of New Zealand’s domestic law. I think the way that the purpose is being given effect to is a serious issue but my first concern is that the purpose statement itself is simply not correct and should be amended. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
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. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: I too would like to speak on Part 1 “Preliminary provisions” which contains the commencement clause and purpose clause. I see that clause 2 “Commencement” states: “This Act comes into force on a day to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.” We suspect that that will be in the very very near future. The purpose of this bill is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Interestingly enough the Stockholm convention was actually signed on 23 May 2001. This Government thought it significant enough I assume to wander over to Stockholm taking copious numbers of officials with its delegation and sign that convention. Well I say: “Good on them.” But why it is that although the Government signed the convention well over 2 years ago it is only now coming into force? That is what I want to know. 
The Government thought it significant enough to go all the way over to Stockholm taking officials with it experience the thrill of signing the convention and wander back. But it has taken 2½ years for the Government to bring this bill to the House—and it has done so under urgency. Is that significant or is it not? That is the case I put before the Committee about the commencement date. It is not flash is it that the Government would do that. I raise the matter of the significance of the convention. Is it or is it not important? It is certainly not important to this Government if it takes well over 2 years before it even enshrines it in legislation. 
The purpose clause states: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.” I know that the convention covered persistent organic pollutants when the Government signed it on 23 May 2001; I know that this bill we are looking at now deals with the manufacture use and storage of persistent organic pollutants. But I also know that this bill does not deal with the export of any products organisms or anything else from this country that may contain persistent organic pollutants. I raise that point with the Committee because the purpose clause clearly states: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.” But it does not. It might enable New Zealand to comply with some of—we could even put ‘very few of’—the Stockholm convention provisions but it certainly does not require or mean that this country complies with all of them. So it does comply with certain requirements of the Stockholm convention but certainly not all of them. I think there is a degree of mistrust on this side of the Chamber about the specifics of the purpose as outlined in Part 1. 
I am also concerned—and we will no doubt further on in the debate be putting forward some amendments to fix the problem—that by passing this bill today we will run roughshod over members of Parliament who are sitting in the Chamber and listening because Parliament will not have a say at all. In fact one could say that the purpose of this bill is to run roughshod over members of Parliament because Parliament will not have a say at all on this convention which was signed off well over 2 years ago. Even the provision “by Order in Council” will be bypassed as well I believe through the passing of this bill. I know that Judith Collins brought in an amendment for the last bill we discussed in the House and I hope that she brings in a similar amendment to address the issues in this bill. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to insert after the word “with” the words “certain requirements of”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to principal Act 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: There are two very significant issues that I want to refer to in Part 2 which covers the amendments to the principal Act. I foreshadow that because I may not get through them in my 5-minute call I may seek a second call. I believe that they are serious issues. The first one relates to the important issue about whether in the future once this law is passed an amendment to the Stockholm convention carried by other countries that New Zealand did not agree with could become part of our domestic law. 
 This is a very serious issue and I refer members of the Committee to what the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee had to say about this. I will read straight from the commentary and it is really important that people listen to this carefully. I am reading from the paragraph headed “Definition of Stockholm Convention” which states: “We considered the definition of ‘Stockholm Convention’ in clause 4 of the bill that applies to amendments or substitutions of the Convention. The Regulations Review Committee proposed an amendment so that the definition would limit amendments to the Convention to those that had been included in Schedule 1AA. We are advised’’—this is the select committee saying this—“that the Committee’s concern”—that is the Regulations Review Committee’s concern—“is about amendments to the Convention applying automatically in New Zealand’s domestic law. Rather than amend this definition we have substituted a new definition of environmentally sound disposal so that the rules about disposal are set by ERMA rather than being set directly by the Convention.” 
I want members to read that section of the commentary carefully because it should show them that the select committee did not address the concern of the Regulations Review Committee. The select committee amended the matters relating to the disposal of persistent organic pollutants but this law that we are passing today has to do with a whole lot more than just disposal. This law covers importation manufacture use and storage—not just disposal. The way this bill is currently written all those matters relating to use importation and manufacture which could be changed by a change to the Stockholm Convention—a change that New Zealand may not even agree with—could become automatically part of our domestic law. 
The select committee failed to understand in my view the concern of the Regulations Review Committee. We need only read that part of the commentary to see how the select committee has failed to address the concern of the Regulations Review Committee. The Regulations Review Committee was saying it was concerned that amendments to the convention could apply automatically in New Zealand’s domestic law—and what does the select committee say? It says it has changed the rules about the disposal of persistent organic pollutants. This legislation covers a whole lot more than just disposal. Although New Zealand retains domestic control over disposal of persistent organic pollutants—the select committee did make that amendment to the definition of “environmentally sound disposal” in clause 4—the way I read this legislation and it seems the way the Regulations Review Committee read it New Zealand loses control over the other matters covered by the Stockholm convention such as manufacture importation and usage. If I am wrong I would appreciate the Minister getting to his feet and explaining where I am wrong. 
This is a serious serious matter and that is why I have proposed an amendment which I will foreshadow right now. My amendment is to paragraph (b) of the definition of Stockholm Convention in section 2(1) in clause 4 and it would: “omit all words from ‘are’ onwards”—that is where at present it refers to “the Annexes that are or will become binding on New Zealand”—and substitute the words “are added to schedules 1AA and 2A by the Governor-General by Order in Council”. At least then the Government of New Zealand would be making a conscious decision to add the changes to the Stockholm convention to our domestic law instead of leaving this bill so that changes are automatically made to our domestic law because of decisions made by other countries elsewhere in the world. I submit to the Government that this is a very serious issue. It worried the Regulations Review Committee. I believe the select committee failed to address it adequately and I urge the Minister to respond. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: I would like to reiterate that I too am deeply concerned about what appears to be an error in the drafting of Part 2 of this bill which my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith brought up. I would like to speak on that further but I would also like to bring to the Committee’s attention an issue in clause 8 “Exemptions from Act for small-scale research on hazardous substances”. The clause states: “Section 33 of the principal Act is amended by inserting after paragraph (b) the following paragraph: ‘(ba) the use does not create or involve a persistent organic pollutant; and’.” The National Council of Women fear that this bill as drafted may mean that research into this area will be excluded. That would clearly be very unfortunate and would require some changes. 
But perhaps even more important is that the provisions of the original Act the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the bill before us are both restricted to “small-scale” research. I believe we have no definition of what small-scale research is and again I think that the Minister in the chair David Cunliffe hopefully will be able to take a call on and clarify that issue because it is important. The National Council of Women makes a submission that supports the bill and gives particularly strong support for increased funding for research into the management and remediation of toxic waste. 
The National Council of Women also believes that it is important through clause 8 that research into persistent organic pollutants is continued. The council says that in its view clause 8 contains the inherent contradiction that research use of hazardous substances is permitted—as long as it does not involve a persistent organic pollutant. That implies that research into persistent organic pollutants cannot use persistent organic pollutants in that research and the council questions how such research can proceed without involving those substances. The council suggests strongly that this provision is clarified to enable research such as that into remediation strategies to proceed expeditiously. 
To further confuse the issue I add the question of what “small-scale” research constitutes. Certainly when I have the opportunity I will be putting forward an amendment to clarify it to mean research. We will take out the wording “small-scale” because it is confusing. Any research that goes through the Environmental Risk Management Authority or the responsible authority will be considered on a case-by-case basis using the precautionary principle. I believe that the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification got it right when it endorsed the work and activity of the Environmental Risk Management Authority in its report 2 years ago. The authority is an organisation that we should have confidence in. Perhaps it needs some sharpening but once again I believe that with wording such as “small-scale” we just have another stumbling block that may require Parliament’s interpretation. So I intend to try to amend both this bill and the parent Act in order to take out that wording. As the National Council of Women said research into persistent organic pollutants is very important and should be able to continue. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: During the second reading of this bill I asked whether the Minister would take the trouble to explain why we need clause 4B. A Supplementary Order Paper has been sprung upon us by the Minister that inserts a delegation by authority provision into the legislation. New Zealand First dislikes matters being left to Orders in Council or being dealt with by way of regulation; we dislike even more an authority to do something which is traditionally given by Parliament to a Minister or some other authority named in legislation being given to somebody else altogether. 
 From looking at the explanatory note to the bill I see that initially the Environmental Risk Management Authority was to be given the authority to do something; now instead of the authority doing it the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 97 to insert new clause 4B allows an employee to do it: “(i) any employee … with relevant experience; or (ii) if there is no employee with relevant experience any other person with relevant experience whether or not that person is a member of the Authority:”. One presumes that when the Government introduced this legislation to the House it had thought about the matter very carefully. It gave the Environmental Risk Management Authority the power to do something. Now we are finding that the Government in its arrogance is proposing to change the law so that an employee with relevant experience or possibly someone with relevant experience who is not even an employee can do it. What is “relevant experience”—making the morning tea or having a PhD? There is no definition of “relevant experience”. On what is a relatively simple bill we are being asked with no explanation at all to give over the powers of the Environmental Risk Management Authority to someone who does not work for it but has “relevant experience” whatever that might be. 
I did indicate in my speech in the second reading debate that I expected the Minister as a courtesy to give us some explanation for that. As far as I am aware no explanation has been given. That is absolutely arrogant and shows this minority Labour Government’s disregard for the principles and requirements of Parliament. 
I also raised during the second reading the point about the way in which matters can get out of hand. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants has not yet been ratified. In the Minister’s first reading speech she said that 50 countries needed to sign up before it could be ratified and that she thought the number that had signed up was somewhere in the high 40s. Then we heard from Minister Chris Carter today that it was somewhere in the 30s. It seems to be going downwards. This convention is not international law. 
We have seen what this Government does in terms of conventions that are not international law such as the Kyoto Protocol. For it to be international law countries that account for 55 percent of carbon dioxide emissions and that are party to it need to sign it and only about 40 percent is signed for. As America on 36 percent and Russia on 16 percent—totalling 52 percent—have not signed it it is not international law. But the Government is ramming it down the throats of our farmers and is trying to get money based on something that is not international law. This bill deals with another convention that is not yet international law the Stockholm convention—which we are and have been implementing for farming purposes anyway regardless of whether it is in our legislation—and the Government is giving authority to some person with “relevant experience” with no definition of what that is. 
The Opposition cannot possibly support an amendment that has not been explained at all by the Minister. The Committee deserves to hear what is meant by that particular amendment. 
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. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: I rise to speak on Part 2 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill. There have been some very very good arguments raised on this side of the House by my National Party colleagues and also by my New Zealand First and ACT party colleagues. This bill the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and other like conventions are all about taking away bits of New Zealand’s sovereignty and signing up to deals. We on this side of the Chamber understand that; none of us want an environment that is polluted or that will not be fit for our children and grandchildren to live in. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to that member David Cunliffe in particular that no not all treaties are bad but some Labour Party members are. 
I come back to Part 2. What is particularly concerning—[ 
Interruption 
] I am really looking forward to Mark Gosche taking a call at some stage; I thought he was asleep. This particular legislation has some very good intentions but at the end of the day clause 4 because of a wish to include any amendments to the Stockholm convention allows New Zealand officials effectively to make law for New Zealand without those bills coming back here to Parliament. That is a real concern. The Government’s Regulation Review Committee raised this issue and said it is a real concern. I am sorry to say that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee under the chairmanship of the chair the Hon Peter Dunne and the deputy chair Graham Kelly has not actually considered it to be so important as to take notice. That committee wants to allow for directions to be given as to the disposal of persistent organic pollutants. 
In the newspapers this week—and I think it was the Green Party that actually raised the issue—we have seen concerns over the qualifications and experience of some of the people on the Environmental Risk Management Authority board. I think the Green Party member present would be able to confirm that there are issues concerning the Environmental Risk Management Authority and its competence. In this bill we are allowing directions to be given as to the disposal of persistent organic pollutants and somehow the Environmental Risk Management Authority—which has come under a bit of attack lately and I think its chairman has actually acknowledged that it does not necessarily have all the qualifications and experience that it needs—is to be in charge of giving directions. That is very concerning when the Regulations Review Committee which is a multiparty committee full of people who make a very good and valuable contribution to Parliament and to the country generally is saying that it is very concerned about the legislation by stealth that could take place signed up to by overanxious and eager officials and Ministers who might think they are doing the best thing. Coming from a little country like New Zealand those officials could be somewhat overawed in some circumstances by the size of the representation and the company in which they find themselves at these conventions. That is a very real concern. It is a concern that I would have thought the Green Party might like actually to comment on given its quite well publicised concerns over the Environmental Risk Management Authority and its ability to do this sort of job. 
We have raised this issue today because we do not like law being rushed through when it could actually have a very damaging effect on New Zealand. There is no particular reason why this law needs to be rushed through. There is no particular reason why the Regulations Review Committee should be ignored. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: I am taking a second call on this part of the legislation. Members may have noted that I did not speak at all in the earlier Committee stage but the attitude of this minority Labour Party Government is making me annoyed. I think we are entitled to some explanation as to why the Environmental Risk Management Authority can have its decisions made by someone who is not even an employee. They can be made by any person with relevant experience. I would have thought that the Green Party member present would stand up and express her concern about that amendment. 
We know that New Zealand First has a much more caring attitude to the environment than the Green Party does; it always did. The process of this legislation through the House is making it absolutely clear that our party is way above the Green Party on these issues. After all my involvement with the environmental movement goes back to 1973 when I went to the incorporation meeting of the Values Party which some may or may not remember. In late 1973-74 I worked with Reg Clough who was then the leader of the Values Party. I was interested in the health side of things. My interest in the environment which carries through to New Zealand First’s interest in it goes back a long way in New Zealand’s history of environmental politics. I am sure it is far superior and longer than that of any Green Party member in this House. 
That is why as a member of New Zealand First I am concerned that an environmental body will be able to give out its powers to someone who is not even a member of that body and whose experience could be greatly in doubt. In New Zealand First we are concerned about the things that are happening to the environment. I think we all have our views of the way in which the country is going. We are concerned about the overseas conventions. We talk about genetic modification we see what the Americans are trying to do to Europe and such like in that regard and here we are giving New Zealand’s Environmental Risk Management Authority the right to delegate decision making to someone with no relevant experience. 
My view on this might be totally wrong; it might be based on complete ignorance and be totally without foundation. I would like the Minister to clarify the situation and make sure that my concerns are without foundation. At this stage I do not know because the Government has sprung this amendment on us in the Committee stage in its usual arrogant way during urgency and without any consultation or discussion on the issue. For it to expect members of this Committee to support such an amendment shows that it has little regard for the environment. It does not care about the environment at all. I think in New Zealand First we are showing that we have the utmost care and concern for the environment. We want an explanation from the Government. The Green Party members are in cahoots with the Government and I am sure they will be voting for the amendment. They have no real regard for the consequences of what is an absolutely dreadful amendment. If the Green Party does not agree with me then its member can take a call to explain what it means. 
On the face of it this amendment is the worst example possible of authority being delegated. Authority should never be delegated. We have seen the problems that the Regulations Review Committee of which I am a member has with Orders in Council. I am so concerned that I will be supporting the National Party amendment in this respect because the way in which this legislation is set out allows any amendment to the Stockholm convention to become law without any consideration by Parliament and that is totally unacceptable. The Government has done the right thing—and the previous Government did the right thing too as I suspect this measure has been around for as long as that—in bringing this legislation to the House but now it is spoiling it in the sense that any amendment to it will not necessarily have to come back to Parliament. There seems to be a contradiction there. If one brings a convention to the House surely one should bring amendments to the convention to the House as well. It is a great practice to have conventions listed in statutes but that convention seems to be being broken by the Government. 
I am disappointed that neither Marian Hobbs nor Chris Carter seems to be at all interested in this matter and that no Minister is going to take the call to answer my query. I am very annoyed that that is the case. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will take one more. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
:  
These are very serious matters. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that considered this legislation I can tell members that the concerns of the Regulations Review Committee with respect to the way this legislation might enable an outside authority to import into New Zealand’s domestic law matters that this country has no say in were dealt with after the select committee really finished with this legislation. I remain concerned about that issue and it is my view that the select committee has not dealt with it adequately. When one reads the select committee’s report one can see how confused the committee was on it. 
In my last contribution I would like to address clause 8 which purports to provide exemptions from the Act for small-scale research on hazardous substances. Clause 8 has to be read in conjunction with section 33 of the principal Act. Section 33 provides for exemptions from the Act for small-scale research on hazardous substances. As I read it if we amend section 33 by adding the new paragraph (ba) in clause 8 of this bill research on persistent organic pollutants will not be possible. I do not think that is what is intended because if we cannot do any research on persistent organic pollutants how can we ever improve the way we get rid of them? They exist and like polychlorinated biphenyls they will be around for a long time and research needs to be done on how to get rid of them. 
But the select committee is very confused in what it says. The committee says it looked at clause 8 to see whether any clarification was required on the issue of research on hazardous substances in relation to persistent organic pollutants. It goes on to say that clause 8 needs to be read in the context of section 33 of the principal Act—which is quite right—and that the effect of clause 8 is that if the small-scale use of a substance in research and development creates or involves persistent organic pollutants then the provisions of the Act are deemed to apply. But the provisions of the Act say that one cannot do that. 
I say to the Hon Trevor Mallard that if I am wrong I am very happy to be proven to be wrong— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You’ve got to read it in the context of the rest of the Act and at that point it does not matter. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I have section 33 right in front of me and if we add what clause 8 asks us to add which is a new paragraph (ba) I cannot see how that would allow any research at all on persistent organic pollutants. That is why I have proposed an amendment to omit clause 8—we do not need it. Section 33 already covers the use of hazardous substances in research. It is already protective of New Zealand and if we do not amend the Act it enables careful research work to be done to improve the way we handle persistent organic pollutants. That is important research and I am blowed if I can see how that would be allowed. I am no lawyer; I absolutely accept that and it may be that clause 8 does in some convoluted way allow the use of persistent organic pollutants in research. 
But I say to the Hon Trevor Mallard read what the bill says. It states that: “Section 33 of the principal Act is amended by inserting after paragraph (b) the following paragraph: “(ba) the use does not create or involve a persistent organic pollutant;”. That means that the exemption that is normally provided for small-scale research under section 33 must not create or involve a persistent organic pollutant. I do not see how that can possibly allow small-scale research on persistent organic pollutants. I think it is worth the Minister taking a call to point out how the law would work to enable small-scale research on persistent organic pollutants. It is an important issue and we must be able to continue research on it. Polychlorinated biphenyls will exist in this country right through till 2016 at least and their use will be allowed right through till then so research is very valuable in terms of how we will dispose of them. 
I fail to see how clause 8 enables the use of persistent organic pollutants in research when it seems to very specifically say the opposite—which is that one cannot use persistent organic pollutants in small-scale research. I really would appreciate the Minister explaining how that would work. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question is that the question be now put.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. ACT New Zealand has not had a call on Part 2 of this legislation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is right. I looked to see whether you were seeking the call but you were not— 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I have been following the debate and I really want to address the point that was just raised. It was a very important point. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already agreed that the question be now put and therefore I cannot go back on that. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (b) of the definition of  
Stockholm Convention 
 the words “are or will become binding on New Zealand” and substitute the words “are added to Schedules 1AA and 2A by the Governor General by Order in Council”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Richard Worth be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b) from the definition of  
Stockholm Convention 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “small-scale” from the clause heading. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new subclause (1): 
(1)Section 33 of the principal Act is amended by omitting the term “small-scale” wherever it appears. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in the name of Hon Marian Hobbs to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Schedules 1 and 2 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. At the outset I want to say that I am not relitigating the closure motion; I accept that you are the sole judge of that. I raise a point of order in terms of Speakers’ ruling 54/2 that was made by Speaker Statham in 1931 and reconfirmed by Speaker Burke in 1990. It has stood the test of time and says that the chairperson is the best judge of whether the closure motion ought to be put. Both former speakers expressed the hope that the ruling would not be applied too harshly. I am raising the issue in relation to the schedules debate because Dr Lockwood Smith raised a matter with regard to the ability of researchers to work on substances such as dieldrin and DDT. My reading of it is that they cannot. I did not have a chance to debate that in relation to the appropriate clause. I was waiting my turn but I was denied it. With appropriate reference I believe I can raise the matter in the schedules and I am seeking your assurance that you will indulge me to that extent—given that I was denied the right to address Part 2 of this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I recognise the point the honourable member is making. I am sure that he will be given the opportunity to debate the issue in the schedules. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: As we move to the schedules of this bill it is the standard problem—the devil is always in the detail. Firstly in schedule 1AA we have the Stockholm convention. It is classic UN-speak. Many members would have been to various UN committees. They are horrifying experiences captured by the Non-Government Organisations around the world. All the bureaucrats gather and come up with language like this which is in every paragraph: “Recognizing that persistent …” “Aware of the health concerns of women in developing countries …” “Acknowledging that …” “Conscious of …” “Mindful of …” and “Recalling …”. It goes on and on—“acknowledging” “reaffirming” “taking full account of”. In other words it is everything to everyone. There is even something for the small islands of the Caribbean here. We end up with a mishmash of nonsense and often contradictory nonsense. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The schedule debate is a very narrow debate and it goes to whether the schedules match the substance of the bill. The member has been speaking for over a minute now and has not debated the schedules. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: To that point of order the previous Chairperson clearly used his discretion and assured Mr Shirley that he could speak to the bill in general. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I am grateful for that but I can understand the Minister wanting to close it down. I will now move on to the core issue and I want him to get up on his feet in the schedules debate and answer the question that was raised by Dr Lockwood Smith. It is that under this bill as proposed—and there is a reference to the chemicals concerned dieldrin and DDT in the schedules—research work will quite clearly not be able to be undertaken on anything that produces an organic pollutant. Moreover one cannot use one. 
I know that critical research is going on. I even have a distant relative doing a PhD on the breakdown of DDT which is vital work for this country. We have contaminated soils; we have DDT levels in some of our Canterbury meat and in some from Southland. That means that we cannot put that meat in some of our markets. It is critical that we do the research to break down these substances. Some very exciting work is being done but under the legislation that the Government has cobbled together and brought to this House it will not be possible to do that. This legislation has specifically forbidden people to do research work involving these organochloride substances. 
That issue has been raised with the Minister but we did not get a satisfactory reply and even at this late stage of the debate I ask the Minister of Education to address it. If he cannot would he please get one of his colleagues to do it—perhaps the Minister for the Environment who might be more knowledgeable about such substances. Who else? I cannot think of anyone else. 
Jill Pettis 
: That member has an awful cheek questioning anybody about it. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Perhaps the member for Whanganui knows something about the issue and could perhaps explain it. The Government has an obligation to not just dismiss the issue and treat Parliament like some perfunctory thing that goes through the motions and does not address the real issues that are raised. It is clear from the wording of that bill that absolutely no research work whatsoever can be done on these substances and that will stop important research work in its tracks. It is not just important from the research perspective; it is vital to the New Zealand economy that this work proceeds and we would like to hear from the Minister in that regard. 
Schedule 1AA lists all of the various substances that are included and all of them are chemicals that have been widely used in this country. Dieldrin a widely used insecticide has been mentioned in the debate so far. It is widely used for sheep dips—part of an industry that has been the backbone of the New Zealand economy in past years and is still a very significant component of it. DDT has been used with a lot of success for grass-grub control and many other uses but we have moved on. 
But that is not the point—we have to be assured that through hasty badly drafted legislation the Government will not prevent researchers doing the important work of addressing the residues of these widely used substances. As it stands that is the way the bill reads so I again call on the Minister in the chair to take a call to explain that. If the Minister needs more time I am sure the House would indulge him in that. We want to address this matter and get it right. We cannot just say that it is covered in the context of the bill. It is not. I do not think the Minister really knew what he was saying so I would ask him to reflect on that and answer that point directly. 
I am speaking to the schedules but the issue relates to clause 8 “Exemptions from Act for small-scale research on hazardous substances”. That is a good and sensible measure but then paragraph (ba) has been inserted in clause 8: “the use does not create or involve a persistent organic pollutant;”. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: The member asked a reasonable question and the reasonable Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith also asked one earlier as well. If I may reverse back a little bit to answer the member clause 8 as I indicated by way of interjection must be read in the context of both the Act and the whole bill. The Act applies if the use creates or involves a persistent organic pollutant. Clause 7 amends section 30 and new section 25B(3) inserted by clause 5 allows approvals to be granted by the Environment Risk Management Authority for the use of persistent organic pollutants as analytical standards and also for research in laboratories. I think that covers all the points that the member made. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: In speaking to the schedules of this very important bill I thank the Minister for his explanation but unfortunately I do not think it is sufficient. However I will first just concentrate on the schedules because they are somewhat voluminous and encompass a lot of the international obligations that we as a sovereign nation will have to make sure that we comply with. For instance the objective in article 1 states: “Mindful of the precautionary approach set forth in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development the objective of this Convention is to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants.” The National Party certainly supports that sentiment and supports this bill. But we are deeply concerned about the way that this Labour Government has forgotten to look at the detail. 
It is always the detail that is hugely important in legislation—and in this case the consistency between the bill and the principal Act. If we look at article 11 we see a heading: “Research development and monitoring”. There is nothing about small-scale research there. Highly relevant to the schedules is the fact that the amendments I have put in suggest that as we have no definition for small-scale research it would only be consistent with the schedules of this bill to omit small-scale research from both the bill and the principal Act if they are to be consistent with the schedules that we have before us. 
After all one of the most important submissions on this bill came from the National Council of Women. Members of that council said how important it was from their point of view to ensure that New Zealand as a country is promoted as being clean green etc. although the image and reality do not always match and we have many sites contaminated with persistent organic pollutants. Because of that it is important to ensure that ongoing research is carried out in order to make sure that the problem we have at present is remedied. But it is also important to explore alternative measures of mitigating the problem such as using phytoremediation and also to ensure both financial support for research to be able to be carried on and that hurdles are not put in the way by means of legislation. 
We have a problem in article 11 of these schedules and I am very concerned that this Labour Government has not been prepared to look at the detail. We have individuals such as those in the Green Party who from time to time are concerned about detail—and quite rightly so. Sometimes I find that somewhat tedious but here we have a problem in that we have reference to small-scale research in the bill and the principal Act and the convention refers to research in general. For the sake of consistency it is absolutely important when we are dealing with international conventions such as the Stockholm convention to make sure that we as a sovereign nation are very thoughtful and pay attention to detail. We should make sure that there are no traps in signing up to this convention which we heard earlier on today could and may change without this Parliament having the opportunity to comment on it. So it is hugely important that we have consistency between our legislation and the convention. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member who is about to speak. I thought I heard you say to the Hon Ken Shirley that we are not to debate the actual contents of schedule 1 which sets out the convention itself. Have I got that right? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No. That was just a ruling that the previous Committee chairperson made in relation to Mr Shirley’s request. We are debating the schedules. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: So when I do get to speak I can speak on them? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes the member may speak on the schedules. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: There are two schedules. The first schedule is the actual Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants done at Stockholm on 23 May 2001 and the annexes to the convention; and the second schedule which surprisingly is labelled schedule 2 lists the persistent organic pollutants. If time permits I would like to talk about schedule 2 but I will confine my comments to schedule 1 and express real concern that the United Future party does not seem to have understood the significance of the debate as it has gone through the Committee stage and has been foolish in the extreme in not looking at the implications of the proposed amendments. 
It is well illustrated in article 18. Article 18 is all about settlement of disputes and for those United Future members who are present in the Chamber and may be following this issue it is set out at page 32. I will make two points about article 18. The first is to draw the attention of United Future members to article 18(2)(a) which is all about the possibility of arbitration in accordance with procedures to be adopted by the conference of the parties in an annex “as soon as practicable”. The point that speakers from this side of the Chamber have urged on the Government is that because the bill is worded in the way it is there may be later events—and here is an illustration of a later event—this annex will be developed will become part of the treaty and as a result of the clumsy drafting in the bill it will become part of New Zealand domestic law. 
It is a simple illustration and there may well be multiple illustrations within the context of the treaty. There was an opportunity for United Future members if they were thinking members of Parliament to have looked at this issue and resolved it. They failed to do that. The allusion can easily be made to their being little more than the marionettes of the current Labour Government. That is a sadness because if their role is to stand as a party that can add value to the process then they fail so significantly in this case. United Future members sit dumbly; the Labour members barrack. 
I would like to come back to the second point which is concerned with the settlement of disputes provision in article 18. A process is set out in article 18 for the settlement of disputes through negotiation or other peaceful means. It is an interesting trend in international treaties particularly environment treaties that those dispute resolution provisions are becoming increasingly common. One could not say that 10 years ago but now there are about 180 treaties of an environmental character as this one is that contain quite sophisticated dispute resolution provisions. We have a plan for negotiation or other peaceful means and the ability for parties to stipulate for one of two options. The first is arbitration and I have referred to that clause in article 18(2)(a). The second possibility is a submission of the dispute to the International Court of Justice. That is not a customary provision to find in dispute resolution provisions in environmental treaties. 
There are subtleties in the way these provisions have been developed. Clause 6 of article 18 in Schedule 1AA states that if the parties to a particular dispute have not stipulated for one of those two procedures or if they have and there is not concurrence in respect of the choice that the two disputing parties have made the dispute then goes to the conciliation commission. We see immediately the difference between that and the arbitration process. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: I would like to address the matter of the schedules and could I cast members’ minds back to the debate we had earlier regarding the Stockholm convention. Members will recall that we talked about it in the debate on the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill. We also talked about what is in Schedule 1AA “Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants”. It is good to see that arise in this bill the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill. Members will recall that at that time we put up an argument about what is listed in the schedule in the other bill and why it was not listed in the schedules of that bill. I am delighted to see that the Stockholm convention is listed as part of the schedules of this particular bill. I remember a clause in the other bill that Judith Collins requested to be removed because it stated that when conventions like the Stockholm convention were passed in future they would automatically become law without this Parliament addressing it and without even Orders in Council. We put that concern forward. 
I say that because Schedule 1AA “Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants” states things like “Recognizing that persistent organic pollutants possess toxic properties … Aware of the health concerns … Acknowledging that the Arctic ecosystems … Conscious of the need … Mindful of decision … Recalling the pertinent provisions” and on it goes: “Reaffirming” “Encouraging” “Recognizing” “Determined”. All those words are highly emotive stating activity things like “Recognizing” “Aware of” “Acknowledging” “Conscious of” and “Mindful”. 
The point made by Judith Collins was that we are not mindful we are not aware we are not recognising we are not conscious of we cannot recall we are not reaffirming we cannot encourage we are not determined to and we have not agreed to. Any convention might be passed in the future so why would one secure it in legislation for ever without members of Parliament being able to scrutinise it; and without even an Order in Council? That is what the member of Parliament for Clevedon Judith Collins was referring to. That was her concern and those schedules only build on her argument. 
I put it to the Chair and to the new Minister in the chair that the schedules simply back up what Judith Collins was putting forward to this Committee. The Minister in the chair should be mindful of that. I would like him to acknowledge that to be aware of that recognise that and recall that. I would like him to encourage that to be determined and to agree with that. I hope that the Minister takes a call and acknowledges Judith Collins’ forethought in regard to the schedules. 
I am intrigued with schedule 1AA “Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants” which talks about the Rotterdam convention and makes reference to it. It is a fascinating convention. Many members here would have lain awake at night reading about that one. We know what it says—members should know what it says. That convention was passed on 11 September 1998. Members did not have the luxury of my wisdom in this House at that time but they have it now. That convention was passed on 11 September 1998. However the Stockholm convention refers to the Rotterdam one and we have a bit of background on that. I have information on that that I have shared. However we do not have any information on the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal—that is referred to in this schedule. Does any member here recall the details of the Basel convention? Mr Prebble does not recall that. Does any member here recall the Rio declaration which has also been referred to? 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: Schedule 1 in particular has some concerns for us. I notice that the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants is contained in schedule 1AA and I have looked at that convention. Most of New Zealand will not have had a chance to look at the Stockholm convention or have had any input to it and they would be wondering what is going on when they see that it starts off with all sorts of talk about health concerns especially in developing countries resulting in local exposure to persistent organic pollutants. Of course in New Zealand we know about this. People in this country have long claimed that they have been adversely affected by persistent organic pollutants but they probably did not use those terms. They probably called them chemicals. 
It then goes on about the particular impacts on women and through them the effects upon future generations. I have made this point once and I shall make it again: why does our Government sign up to agreements that talk just about particular impacts upon women when men are also part of our population? In fact they make up 49 percent of the population and why is it that everything has to be put down like this? Why did they not just put “women and children in the lifeboats first”? What our Government is signing up to is absolute twaddle. I am quite happy to go along and I am sure everyone on this side of the House is quite happy to go along with the general feeling of the convention and a lot of its specifics but when we have this sort of wishy-washy wimpy white socialist liberal rubbish going on here—I am sorry for the Act party; I did not mean to say “liberal”. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Why does this have to go through under urgency? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Exactly. Then we go further and I see that we are acknowledging that the Arctic ecosystems and indigenous communities are particularly at risk because of the biomagnification and that it is a public health issue. Well golly gee is that not a concern of the entire world that all people need to be concerned about this? What about the people of Africa? I would have thought it was of particular concern in Africa. Is it not a particular concern in New Zealand Australia and the United States? Why is it just the Arctic ecosystems in indigenous communities and what is indigenous? It is absolute twaddle that our Government is signing up to and it has that sort of ecospeak at the start when really we should be looking at what is really important. I have raised those issues before about the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the whole ability for us to be able to deal with this convention. 
Article 2 of schedule 1AA talks about the parties to the convention and they are parties that agree to be bound by it. I would like to see annexed to that schedule a statement of which particular States have signed up to the convention. I think that would be interesting reading. 
It would be interesting to know whether our major trading partners have signed up to it. It would be interesting to know whether the major polluters of the world have signed up to it. Why is it that in little countries like New Zealand officials and Ministers become overawed when treated as though they are important for once in their lives and are always willing to sign us up to things and tie us in and give away a bit of our sovereignty just so they can feel they are doing the right thing? We could talk about the programme for sustainable development of small island developing States which is included in schedule 1AA of the hazardous substances legislation. We could say that we are pretty much a small island developing State but I would like us to have better information on this. Who has signed up to this convention? Has it been signed up to by the People’s Republic of China? Has Taiwan been given the opportunity to sign up to it? Has the USA signed up to it? Has Australia signed up to it? Has the UK signed up to it? Has Barbados signed up to it? Has Zimbabwe signed up to it? I want to know. Who else has signed up to it? I hope the Minister who is now in the chair will have that information. I am sure he could get that from the officials. 
It is important that we know what we are signing up to—who else thinks it is important that we give away a bit of our sovereignty. When I talk about that and sovereignty and treaties and conventions in general we all accept that at some times we do have to give up a bit of sovereignty to make the world a better place and a better place for a small country like ourselves. But we should never do so willy-nilly and we should never do so just because an official decides it is a good thing to do. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 76 
Labour 52; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13. 
Motion agreed to. 
Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Commerce: I move  
That the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill has been discussed in the Committee stage at some length together with its companion. I believe that all the issues have been thoroughly debated. I do not intend to delay its passage any further. However I would like to thank the officials who have worked on it and the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for its consideration of both the bill and the international agreements underlying it. I commend the bill to the House. 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: National supports the third reading of this bill. I started to wonder whether something was happening out there that we were not aware of in the light of the very short contribution made by the Hon Paul Swain. It must mean that the Labour Government is really finding it necessary to pass this legislation in a hurry—except nobody is telling us why. We are still struggling to understand why this bill has to be rushed through its Committee stage and third reading during urgency. The National Party made it very clear at the outset during the first and second readings that we support this bill. 
According to the explanatory note on the bill it amends the Import Control Act to provide for the making of export control regulations by Orders in Council “to give effect to the requirements of—the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade: … the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants: … any other international obligation 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.” The National Party is in agreement with that amending legislation and we therefore express our disappointment that in view of our cooperation in support of the legislation some of the very sensible amendments we have worked through diligently and conscientiously in order to make a better bill have been largely rejected by the Labour Government. I would like to go through some of the amendments—to put them on record—that National believes would have made this a much better bill. 
I started with proposing an amendment to the title to insert the words “on Hazardous Substances”. Therefore the title would have read much better as “Imports and Exports (Restrictions on Hazardous Substances) Amendment Bill”. We believe that in the modern Parliament titles need to be specific so that when people read legislation they know its intention from the first glance. When we started to examine the bill we found it even more necessary to make the title clear and specific because some provisions in the legislation could have led to all sorts of interpretation or could have interpreted the power given by Parliament to make an Order in Council in a much wider way than Parliament actually intended. Unfortunately when I put that amendment forward although we had the support of New Zealand First it was not agreed to. I would like particularly to express my disappointment with United Future. That party could have made a difference by demonstrating to the public that it can exercise independence in making sure that better legislation is enacted by Parliament but apparently the senior Labour whip David Benson-Pope had also taken management of United Future’s caucus—to my disappointment—and I was told: “No way!”. They would not even consider the amendment. 
In the event of that amendment failing my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith sensibly put forward another amendment to new section 3A inserted by clause 9 “Prohibition of exports”. If I can have the indulgence of the House I will read out subsection (1) because without my colleague’s amendment the public will not appreciate that the interpretation of this clause can be very wide: “The Governor-General if satisfied that it is necessary to give effect to an international obligation may by Order in Council prohibit the exportation from New Zealand of—(a) specified goods; (b) goods of a specified class or classes.” It goes on to state in subsection (2): “A prohibition may be—(a) general: (b) limited to the exportation of goods to a specified place or class of places: (c) limited to the exportation of goods to a specified person or class of persons: (d) limited to the exportation of goods by a specified person or class of persons: (e) absolute: (f) conditional.” 
I think we get the picture now. This prohibition of exports can indeed be very wide because it can give effect to any international obligation. So my colleague proposed an amendment to insert after the words “international obligations” the words “specified in section 2(1)” which refers to the principal Act. That means that if ever we were caught in being challenged by any entity the court with the words of the amendment inserted would understand that a prohibition order could be issued only if it did not contradict the principal Act. I think that amendment would have made this legislation a lot clearer. Unfortunately our proposal seemed to fall on deaf ears. 
However the National Party never gives up when we believe that legislation needs to be amended. We believe in making good legislation so my very capable colleague Judith Collins proposed another amendment which hopefully the Labour Government would take heed of. She sensibly considered clause 6 “Interpretation” under which the meaning of “international obligation”—which we just touched on in clause 9—is spelt out. Clause 6 states: “international obligation means—(a) the Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure …: (b) the Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants …: (c) the Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal …:” and so on. About four conventions are spelt out under clause 6 which we might take some comfort from. Unfortunately the fifth paragraph paragraph (e) states: “any other international obligation that is or becomes binding on New Zealand …”. I think that the amendment my colleague proposed saying that we should remove that paragraph is an eminently sensible one. This Parliament should not try to make binding legislation on international obligations in the future without even knowing the type of obligation we might find ourselves bound to. 
The last thing I want to point out is that the bill has a statement about compliance costs but it did not try too hard. I find it interesting that that statement which is meant to spell out the costs and benefits of implementing this legislation simply goes on to say that the bill is good legislation—that it is good for the health of New Zealanders anyway—so we should pass it. The bill seems to suggest there will be no additional costs apart from those in respect of the Ministry for the Environment and some secretariat contribution to the public sector. I do not take too much comfort from that because as I have just mentioned quite a bit of the legislation actually binds us to future convention obligations and I cannot see how one can come up with specific current costs in relation to such obligations. 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: I am pleased to rise in support of this bill. The bill has had significant debate during the previous stages and I think one of the best things this House can do is to expedite its passage. Therefore I will not speak any further on it and I hope that we can facilitate the rapid passage of the bill through the House. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: The Greens are happy to support this legislation which implements several international conventions. It implements the Rotterdam convention which requires the informed consent of the receiving country before sending it hazardous wastes the Stockholm convention which prohibits or controls persistent organic pollutants including prohibitions on their export or import and the Basel and Waigani conventions which control the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes to ensure that there is the capacity to handle them properly. 
In my first reading speech on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill I drew attention to the ways in which New Zealand is currently in breach of the Basel convention. Today I want to report on that in a little more detail. The preamble to this bill identifies the objectives of the Basel convention. They are the reduction in transboundary movements of hazardous wastes to the minimum amount that is consistent with environmentally sound and efficient management their treatment and disposal as close as possible to the source of generation and the minimisation of the generation of such wastes. The Ministry of Economic Development is responsible for implementing the Basel convention and the ministry is not doing its job. It is perhaps not entirely appropriate that the Ministry of Economic Development should be responsible for administering such important environmental policy. 
For several years now New Zealand has been exporting hazardous waste in the form of used lead-acid batteries to a plant in the Philippines that the New Zealand Government says is capable of handling them but that is in fact allowing the waste to collapse into a river and pollute river sediments to a level that would actually make that riverbed a lucrative lead mine. According to answers to written questions the ministry has approved for export over the last 3 years quantities ranging from 200 to 2500 tonnes of lead-acid batteries a year to that plant. In an oral question in December last year I asked the Minister for the Environment about the monitoring we do of the hazardous wastes that we export to non-OECD countries and of the way they are treated in those countries. Pete Hodgson answering on behalf of the Minister did not have any information on that and little information has been provided since. The Minister had previously defended exporting hazardous used batteries to a developing country by saying: “Some non-OECD countries have perfectly sound disposal facilities.” That is the key to whether we should worry about battery exports to Philippine Recyclers Inc. 
In an answer to a written question Marian Hobbs told us that all facilities to which New Zealand sends hazardous wastes have been assessed by the Ministry of Economic Development for their capacity to manage hazardous wastes in an environmentally sound manner. We discovered that “assess” in that case amounted to receiving a letter from the Philippines authority that the plant met its requirements. But it is well known that one of the distinguishing differences between OECD countries and non-OECD countries is the institutional capacity to monitor and enforce Government requirements. The Philippines Department of Health Bureau of International Health Cooperation stated in January 2002 that the Philippines has weak enforcement of control measures and programmes on hazardous waste due to the inadequate expertise of those handling the inspections and that the Philippines “has no legal basis for Government inspection of industrial operations in order to address under-reporting of production levels and wastes generated by factories”. So relying on the assurances of the Philippines authority is naive to say the least. 
When the Ministry of Economic Development assesses the capacity of facilities it refers to the facilities being capable of handling hazardous wastes in an environmentally sound manner but not to whether they actually do so. The actual record of Philippine Recyclers Inc. leaves me with a lot of concern. In 1990 it was found that some of its workers had seriously high lead levels in their blood and some still have mental health problems and compromised immune systems. In 1996 the plant was found to be dumping battery waste illegally leading to serious contamination and the damage continues. We now have photographs of piles of lead waste sitting outside exposed to the elements. A month ago on 30 May the retaining wall collapsed and dumped large quantities of battery waste into the river. We have other photos too but the one I have here is the clearest one to show the House. A month later that wall has still not been fixed. We have the figures for upstream and downstream lead levels in sediments and they are appalling. The lead level in some of those river sediments measured outside the factory is 24 percent—the level of a particularly rich lead mine. On all downstream sites the lead levels are many times above the acceptable levels; in fact they are between 3 times and 300 times the levels that they are upstream of the plant. 
In New Zealand certain permits are required to dispose of the residual waste to the most modern landfills. In the Philippines the company has simply been stockpiling that waste since its practice of dumping it in remote uncontrolled dumps was forbidden. Minister Tamihere has told us in response to another written question that the factory has international standard ISO 14001 accreditation which sounds good. But the ISO standard is more about intentions and plans than about actual performance and it is clear that the performance is abysmal. 
But even if Philippine Recyclers Inc was not such a poor performer New Zealand should still not be exporting its waste batteries overseas. Even if used lead-acid battery recycling is 98 percent efficient at recovering materials there is still no known way to make the residual waste safe. By exporting used lead-acid batteries we are imposing the externalities of processing our hazardous waste on people in the Philippines. We have a moral obligation to deal with our own waste and not to export harm. That trade is in direct contravention of the Basel Convention in two respects. First it does not reduce transboundary movement to the minimum consistent with environmentally sound and efficient management. No one could describe the behaviour of that plant as environmentally sound. Second it does not treat and dispose of the waste as closely as possible to the source of generation because there is a battery recycling facility in New Zealand. Here in Wellington and complying with all the environmental requirements of the Wellington Regional Council is the Exide Technologies battery recycling plant which cannot get enough batteries to keep it fully utilised and is importing them from Australia. So while New Zealand batteries are travelling the high seas to a destination where they will be recycled badly with severe risk to the environment and people at the same time Australian batteries are travelling the high seas to keep the New Zealand plant going. How stupid and how ludicrous can free trade get? 
That is an example of why New Zealand should ratify the Basel ban a further amendment to the Basel convention. The Basel ban stops the export of hazardous waste to non-OECD countries because they are unlikely to have adequate systems in place to handle it safely and developed countries should take responsibility themselves for the waste that they create. It is not yet in force and New Zealand is among the countries that has refused to ratify it. The Philippine Recyclers Inc plant with its supposed environmental excellence has been touted by New Zealand and others as evidence for why the ban should not be ratified. The evidence I have presented should put that nonsense to rest. New Zealanders are damaging the Philippines environment and the health of its people by sending their hazardous waste to a company that is supposed to have the capacity to handle it but does not care enough to do so properly. It is out of sight out of mind for New Zealanders but not for the Filipinos. 
I challenge the Minister under the excellent words and objectives of the New Zealand waste strategy to put a mandatory refundable deposit on all New Zealand batteries so that there is an incentive to recycle them here. That used to be the case not so many years ago before the free trade deregulation that allowed open slather in our markets. I also challenge the Minister to ratify the Basel ban and to side with the countries that are trying to improve environmental standards rather than those that are trying to duck them. That is the context in which we support this rather limited bill but we would like to see the policy go a lot further. 
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: This is a sensible bill. I am pleased to stand in support of it and I commend it to the House. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: It was once noted by a chief executive of one of the major industrial companies of the world that it does not really matter about the standards that a company does or does not comply with because ultimately companies that do not comply will not be around for very much longer. [ 
Interruption 
] I am getting a bit of bantering from the Green Party but I say to Ms Fitzsimons that the reality is when we think about it that those countries that have the highest environmental standards are also the wealthiest. Those that have low environmental standards and pour pollutants out into the atmosphere are those that are poor; that somehow believe that if they do not tap into resources their country is going to be extremely wealthy because in fact they are very very poor. The logic is absolutely perverse. 
This bill is about import and export restrictions. New Zealand of course is a country that lives by its exports. We cannot and will not survive unless we do export. I think of a product that we exported to the Pacific Islands—and I believe have stopped—that is regarded by the health authorities as a very hazardous substance. I am sure that Ms Kedgley would agree that mutton flaps for example which are exported to the Pacific Islands are a hazardous substance to the health of those people. Do we now by passing this bill actually seek to ban the exports of mutton flaps? Now I would agree that to the Pacific Islands that is probably a very sensible thing to do but there may be other countries in the world that would very happily further process these products and turn them into something that we have not even thought of. But are we going to ban these products just for the sake of this legislation? 
I sometimes fear greatly that we pass what seems to be quite sound legislation only to find that the law of the unintended consequence triggers constantly because we do not understand the full implications of what we do—just as when we are exporting mutton flaps to the Pacific Islands. Perhaps that is not the greatest example but it does illustrate that we did not fully appreciate—and the meat companies and farmers probably—that this was going to have some quite deleterious effect on the health of the peoples of that particular region. I make this point: is it also a problem if we export hazardous substance to for example the arid areas of Australia which very rarely sees a man or beast by comparison with trying to do something with the substances dioxin for example that we have in our own country a very high rainfall country in this part of the world? Is it not a better idea to export to those parts of the world where these products can be contained and indeed not break down—if that is what they want to have happen—by climatic events? So it does seem to me that these sorts of issues perhaps have not been totally thought through. 
I also think of the difference of opinion that many people have about what should be imported and what should be exported. I note that one of my colleagues in the Green Party would say that it is perfectly acceptable to introduce certain types of drugs into this country. I say that that is totally and utterly wrong. But where in this bill does it give me or other people of like mind some comfort that these things will not occur? Again this is what we do when we put in what I would call a driftnet approach and allow the bureaucrats to determine what is going to happen and what is not going to happen. 
I think it is incumbent upon the Parliament of this nation to actually specify as much as it can those things—which we believe which we have learnt from constituents and indeed from our own research—on which we specifically wish to impose a ban that is not appropriate. But if new technologies come along as they do almost monthly or certainly yearly and these bans then become totally inappropriate we have to change our thinking. I think a very good example in terms of imports and exports is this question of genetically modified (GM) food. We have heard for a long long time for example that the European Union would not allow the importation of GM food into Europe. We now know of course that it was nothing more than a glorified tariff barrier. It had nothing to do with food safety whatsoever. But there are sections in our society who utilise the scaremongering tactics and try to impose their will on other people for their own potentially very selfish reasons. 
 We found just this very day—the  
Dominion Post  
reported it—that the European Union has lifted the ban on genetically modified foods. So it has accepted that the ebb and flow of imports and exports should take place. Yes of course it is always subject to some controls and some constraint but we move into very very dangerous ground when we start to impose control and regulation. As a farmer I am certainly not going to stand in this House and say that we should not have sensible regulation especially around the export of our food products for example which have internationally been regarded as probably the best in the world. We do also accept that from time to time there are absolute requirements especially around the issue of DDT for example and on the imposition of that product into our dairy products or our meat products. Although the world has an opinion that DDT should be banned perhaps science could also give us a very good reason that DDT should not be banned. We will die of old age in this country before we ever die from an accumulation of DDT. So we do get things wrong. 
While I am on the subject of banning substances like DDT I have to say that I am not quite sure how many of us can live with our conscience when we realise that in round figures 3 million to 5 million people a year die because we refuse to allow the ebb and flow of a product like DDT to kill the malaria mosquitoes. That is highly significant. Again this is one of the unintended consequences we have when we start in legislative houses throughout the world banning products that in an emotional sense or at a cursory glance do cause some problem. But the reality is that we have to rely on the science to get it right. Although science does not always happen to be correct all the time by and large the science does come right and we do get very very good standards. 
Finally there is one other point that I would like to make and that is that we do export. Dunedin City will be exporting a toxic substance as it pours sewage out into the ocean. I am sure the resource consent will allow it to do that. Where will that toxic substance end up? In the territorial waters of New Zealand? I suspect those toxic substances will end up anywhere the oceans’ currents take them. So those are the sorts of double standards that I would like to draw to the attention of the House and the public when we debate such issues. We have come to the third reading of this bill but things are just not as clear as they would seem to be on some particular issues. But in general it is appropriate that this House agrees to ratify these international conventions. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: I am proud to represent the electorate of Napier which hosts one of the country’s busiest and most progressive ports. Against that background I support this bill wholeheartedly. 
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. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: I am pleased to rise however briefly in support of this legislation. I must say that it has been quite an interesting debate in the last little while. I am frankly bemused—as will be a lot of other members of this Chamber and listeners in the country—by the reluctance or the apparent reluctance of a party that states its support of this bill to actually take proper progressive steps to protect our citizens and our community from among other things in our international responsibilities the persistent organic pollutants that are referred to in the Stockholm convention. I thank the National Party and ACT for that statement because among other things it will ensure that they retain their present polling levels. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: This is just a short call to confirm that New Zealand First supports this legislation although I think the speech from the senior Government whip was in the circumstances provocative and totally uncalled for. That tends to extend the debate and more than anything else the speech was totally unhelpful. If the Labour Government wants debates on things like this bill during urgency that is a provocative situation and it is not surprising that at certain times all Opposition parties decide that if the Government is going to do things for the hell of it the Opposition sadly also feels that it should do things for the hell of it. This urgency should have been restricted to just the debates on the immigration bill and the health bill rather than addressing simple legislation of this kind. In any event New Zealand First supports the bill and has nothing further to add to the matter. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: I rise to take a short call and support the bill and to note with interest Mr Jones’ sterling contribution. It is one that I am sure will be noted by no one outside this House nor inside it. 
I think this bill is sound legislation. It makes some substantial changes to protect people both domestically and internationally and as a previous speaker said its progress should be facilitated and the bill expedited swiftly through the House. I am sure it will be. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: Those were truly generous comments from the previous speaker were they not? Without reservation I offer Mr Jones an accolade for his contribution to the House in the context of the comments he made on this bill. 
It is right to say that National is supporting this bill but we have reservations about some of its aspects and it is really those reservations that I want to touch in this third reading. It is quite puzzling legislation in some respects but its purpose is plain enough. The key measure mirrors the principal Act’s import-control mechanism and provides for the Governor-General by Order in Council to make regulations that prohibit the exportation of specified goods. Such a prohibition may be on general limited absolute or conditional terms. A conditional prohibition permits the exportation of goods subject to the grant of a licence or permit by the Minister. 
There is the strange statement in the explanatory note that the enactment of the bill together with certain amendments to other legislation would enable New Zealand to ratify the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in September 2002. That date is clearly well passed and this bill is not yet passed. One looks at its legislative history and sees that it was introduced on 21 May 2002. There was a first reading on 20 February 2003 and the select committee report was tabled in the House on 11 April 2003. So here is a bill that was introduced into Parliament for a defined purpose—to produce an outcome according to a fixed time frame—and it has simply not done that. It was apparently not seen as appropriate for the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee—to which it was referred—to make any correction because the committee’s report notes in effect that the committee recommended that the bill be passed without amendment. 
The specific issue I wish to pick up is the definition of international obligation in clause 6 of the bill. The bill is intended to give effect to the requirements of the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions and any other international obligation 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. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What about Monaco? 
RICHARD WORTH 
: Mr Cosgrove’s interjection has just reminded me that when members of the House were looking at the Stockholm Convention we discovered that there was a significant slip of constitutional importance in that legislation. That was because of the possibility that were the provisions of the convention to change as a result of protocols side letters or whatever—perhaps an amendment to the convention itself—those changes would pass into New Zealand law without the need for further legislation to incorporate those international treaty obligations. 
In this bill we see exactly the same thing. In new paragraph (a) inserted by clause 6(1) under the definition of international obligation one convention “the Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade” is defined. The definition runs on: “and includes the Annexes to the Convention and any amendments to or substitutions of those documents that are or will become binding on New Zealand:”. The Rotterdam Convention is included in the definition that picks up later occurring action but the fault is replicated in the other paragraphs of the definition in respect of both the Stockholm and Basel conventions. The legal issue is known as “incorporation by reference”. It is commonplace to see references in secondary legislation to material that is incorporated by reference. That material might be overseas standards in respect of lifejackets for example or issues relating to the areas covered by the Codex regime. 
I find it of concern that the Parliamentary Counsel Office has seen fit not to take up this issue and deal with it robustly and in a way akin to the templates that have recently been developed for regulations. Once legislation incorporates international obligations amending legislation—whether primary secondary or tertiary—should be enacted to pick up and move into domestic law any changes that have occurred at the international level in respect of those obligations. 
I would suggest that the Legislation Advisory Committee an entity in which there is both parliamentary and external input should look at this issue at the primary legislation level—as it has similarly looked at it in respect of secondary and tertiary legislation—with a view to seeing guidelines developed and changes made to the Parliamentary Counsel Office drafting manual that are referred to in the Cabinet Office step-by-step guide. 
It is against that background and with the reservations I have expressed that National supports this legislation. Its objective is a desirable one. 
Bill read a third time. 
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: I move  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. When the bill was first introduced it was said that the Government’s intention was to ratify the Stockholm Convention as soon as practicable. The benefits of ratifying the Stockholm Convention and implementing it through this bill include protection of the health of New Zealanders now and in the future by reducing exposure to persistent organic pollutants; safeguarding the quality of their food especially meat and dairy products; strengthening and protecting New Zealand’s clean green image; addressing persistent organic pollutant stockpiles waste and contaminated sites; and demonstrating our commitment to maintaining and enhancing the global environment. 
It is worth noting that there are obligations under the Stockholm Convention that will be addressed by non-legislative means. These obligations are to minimise and where feasible eliminate emissions of dioxin; to ensure that stockpiles of persistent organic pollutant chemicals are identified managed and disposed of in an environmentally sound manner; to identify and remediate if possible sites contaminated with persistent organic pollutants; and to prepare and report progress on New Zealand’s national implementation plan for meeting convention obligations. 
I thank the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for its constructive amendments to the bill notably with regard to the disposal of persistent organic pollutants and the regulation of polychlorinated biphenyls. The Environmental Risk Management Authority can give directions as to the environmentally sound disposal of a persistent organic pollutant substance and holders of current polychlorinated biphenyl use and storage exemptions are able to extend these exemptions until the year 2016. 
Of the 151 countries that are signatories to this convention 33 have become ratified parties. By passing this bill into law we will be within the first group of 50 ratifying countries and hence responsible for bringing the convention into force. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: The National Party supports the aims of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill. We believe they are very important because as has been stated the whole purpose of the Stockholm Convention is undoubtedly to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutant chemicals. Those substances are affectionately known as “POPs”—not to be confused in any way with elderly people but referred to in that way because they are environmentally persistent toxic bioaccumulative and able to be transported by the movement of air water and migratory species to places far from their point of origin. They are significant and of concern and it is appropriate that New Zealand is a signatory to this convention. 
But what has troubled me about this bill is the way the Labour Government has been dilatory in bringing it into the House. The convention was signed up over 2 years ago and the bill has been on the Order Paper since 21 May 2002. Here is a Labour Government that says it is interested in the environment and in the United Nations yet it has been extremely dilatory in bringing this important bill which is relevant to two of its key pieces of rhetoric to the House. It has been absolutely slow in progressing the bill and here we are in urgency finally bringing through this necessary legislation. I have been troubled by the way the Labour Government has once again been dilatory both in ensuring that environmental issues are addressed and in ensuring that international obligations to do with the United Nations are being addressed. 
The other area that has troubled me is the lack of attention to detail that this Labour Government has applied to the process. There were three important submissions. One was from Geocycle Ltd which is related to Holcim New Zealand. Holcim Cement is one of the largest if not the largest cement supplier in the world. Geocycle’s focus in New Zealand is on the collection and uses of oil nationwide. It supported the bill but was very concerned about the requirements for the unintentional production of dioxins and furans and how New Zealand applied these within this bill. 
Geocycle was particularly concerned about the development of national environmental standards and in fact requested the Government to develop national environmental standards that provide for the use of waste and hazardous waste in the manufacture of cement and lime saying that where appropriate environmental standards can be achieved. Geocycle went on to say that it would be very important for the Government to develop national guidelines for dioxin emissions under the Resource Management Act because they are enforced variably and there is a lack of consistency under Part 5 Annex C of the bill before us. 
 As we see in the commentary to this bill one of the unfortunate parts of these deliberations is that because dioxins are a by-product of some combustion processes and not a substance used in those processes they are not included in this bill. We are therefore left up in the air as to what the Government will do in terms of enforcing national environmental standards. I am sure that Sue Kedgley from the Greens will be deeply concerned about that particular issue. 
The second submission came from Transpower New Zealand. Again it is highly relevant because Transpower wished to ensure that the provisions for the continued use of polychlorinated biphenyls—which are critical to Transpower and are under exemption for a specified period of time—were accommodated by this bill. Transpower has in the order of $30 million of equipment that it hopes to phase out over 16 years. I am pleased to report to the Committee that most of Transpower’s wishes were granted and accommodated within this bill. 
But because of this Labour Government’s lack of attention to detail the third submission which came from the National Council of Women of New Zealand has not been satisfactorily accommodated by this bill—despite the willingness of the Opposition parties which include the ACT party New Zealand First and National to make very constructive amendments to try to sort out the problems. To give members an example the point is made in the schedules that it is extremely important for there to be an international understanding regarding research monitoring and development of persistent organic pollutants. We pointed out that that the bill consistently refers to “small-scale” research as does the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. All that would have been required was to have removed “small-scale” and we would have had consistency and consensus but the Government was just not willing to do that. 
The National Council of Women’s submission pointed out how important research was to New Zealand. It pointed out that it was important both to have funding for research into the management and remediation of toxic waste and to anticipate new ways to get rid of persistent organic pollutants such as phytoremediation. My great concern is that despite pointing out to the Government that we could overcome the regulatory hurdles that this bill has imposed technically this dilatory and now inattentive Labour Government has just failed to respond to the very constructive amendments of the Opposition parties. We believe that the environment is very important and that international efforts such as this are very important—as does the National Council of Women. It was very disappointing that the Government did not respond to the suggestions of the submitters or of the Opposition parties in these important detailed areas. 
Again I was concerned when with regard to Dr Lockwood Smith’s very important amendment regarding the relevancy of clause 8 and his suggestion that research into persistent organic pollutants might be excluded by this bill the Minister rose and said that members should look at clause 7 and that if one went back to the principal Act it was actually tidied up by the wording there. 
Dail Jones 
: Was that clause 8? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: No it was clause 7 that he referred to. However if one looks— 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: I am pleased to rise in support of this sensible and overdue legislation. 
No one in the country will have missed the irony in the comments of the previous speaker who said that this has not been moved on fast enough. I just wonder why the National Government took no steps in this direction when it was in power for 9 years. This bill is timely for two reasons. Firstly it is timely because it restates our position as a responsible member of the international community and for that reason we support the objectives of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Secondly in ratifying the convention we are clearly stating that by playing our part internationally we are also helping to make New Zealand a cleaner and safer place for our residents and visitors. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: New Zealand First also supports this bill. The point has been made about the Government’s delay in bringing the bill to this stage and after the comments made by Clayton Cosgrove after my last third-reading speech I intend to take my full 10 minutes on this occasion. If Labour Party members want to insult those members of the House who are trying to be cooperative—especially when they speak after those members rather than before them—they can expect the full treatment the next time they stand up. I therefore attribute and commend this speech to Clayton Cosgrove. 
This bill has been long in gestation. During the Committee stage I raised my concern with the Minister about the intention in Supplementary Order Paper 97 to insert new clause 4B “Delegation by Authority”. Trying to understand where that clause fitted into the bill and into the Act of Parliament itself was something of a work of art. It would have taken about 30 seconds for the Minister in the chair to clarify it but one Minister in the chair after another just sat there woodenly. Given that I got no response from any Minister in the chair on that matter it was necessary for me to go through and have a look at the statute—fortunately I have some ability in that area—and try to work it all out for myself. 
I am concerned that that particular clause and even the legislation itself allows for a great degree of delegation to people who are not even members of the Environmental Risk Management Authority and that those people who are not even employees can make decisions. If there is no employee with relevant experience any other person with relevant experience can make decisions in terms of clause 4B which is inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 97 to amend section 19(2) of the principal Act—which in a long-winded sort of way—inserts new paragraph (ca) which refers to section 97 relating to enforcement inspection and ancillary powers. 
Those members of the Opposition who have tried to take a reasonable approach to urgency and who ask a simple question should be given some degree of respect by the Minister in the chair otherwise one is forced—through one’s own constitutional process as an Opposition MP—to make a song and dance about the situation. On behalf of the people of New Zealand one must find out what is intended by legislation and have that contribution recorded especially with legislation like this which is brought in at a late stage during urgency. 
As previous members have said this bill has been around for a long time yet here we have something dated Tuesday 1 July 2003 bringing effect to the legislation. Of course today is still Tuesday 1 July 2003— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: It is in that member’s little world. 
DAIL JONES 
: I am sorry? What did Mr Cosgrove say to extend my speech this time? He said nothing this time. Today is still Tuesday 1 July 2003 and here we are in urgency being required to debate and pass this bill. 
New Zealand First is only too pleased to make a contribution on this matter. We had meant to make a very short contribution but if the Government will not play its part by answering simple questions in the Committee stage it makes a farce of the situation. If the Government insists on having urgency on something like this surely it then has a responsibility to at least answer a simple question thereby saving a whole lot of time and trouble and speeding up the whole situation rather than delaying it. Instead members have to go away and do their homework to discover that people who are not even members of the body itself can somehow have delegated powers to do various things. When one looks at section 97 of the principal Act one sees it has various subsections going from (a) through to (h) which relate to a wide variety of areas including the Gas Act land transport safety the Commissioner of Police civil aviation marine safety and the Resource Management Act to name but a few. It is a shame that the Minister did not take the trouble to answer the question. 
As far as the point raised by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith in the Committee stage is concerned I was sufficiently concerned to have a look at it but in my mind there seems to be some confusion as to whether it relates to clause 7 or clause 8 of the bill. If members do look at it as I did I believe they will find that the point raised by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith is a valid one and we may be coming back to this House again in the not too distant future to have the matter corrected. 
Of course the Stockholm Convention which is given effect by this bill is still not international law. When the bill was introduced earlier on by Marian Hobbs she said there were a number of countries—numbering in the late forties—that had ratified the convention and that we needed 50 countries to ratify it before this bill could be regarded as international law. However when the Minister spoke on it today he said the number of countries required were in the thirties; perhaps if we wait for another 5 or 6 months the numbers will decrease even further. If we accept the words of Marian Hobbs and then the words of Chris Carter it seems to me that there is less and less international support for this legislation. 
The point is that New Zealand has been doing this for many many years anyway. New Zealand First has continuing care and concern for the environment and the type of materials that have been taken out of agricultural practice by this legislation have been out of good farming practice for some considerable time anyway. A country like New Zealand does not really need conventions to tell it what to do. Most of the conventions relate to those countries that ought to be doing these things but which never ratify the conventions and so are never bound by them whereas this Government is very very keen on conventions with this convention for example being a classic one in that it has not yet been accepted by international law but it has been given effect in New Zealand. 
That is a practice of this Government that should be drawn to the attention of the country and the same goes for the Kyoto Protocol which has not yet been approved in international law either and which is never likely to be. If we bear in mind that the Kyoto Protocol requires the ratification of 55 percent of those countries with carbon dioxide emissions who are party to it and note that the United States and the Russian federation—which respectively have 36 percent and 17 percent on their own—both oppose it we can see that it will never come into effect. However that does not stop the Government from taxing farmers and getting money from them on what are virtually false pretences in respect of international law. That is clearly the situation but the Government is still pursuing these conventions. 
I think it is a good idea to have conventions brought to Parliament and I know that Keith Locke will be delighted to see this process occurring. But there is another problem that arose in the Committee stage that should be drawn to the attention of the House which is the fact that although the convention itself is being approved by Parliament any amendments that are made to the convention will be privately—and one might almost say secretly—approved by the Government by Order in Council and will not be brought to Parliament. Successive Governments have established a process of bringing conventions to the House and it is a great shame that the minority Labour Government has decided that amendments to this convention will not be brought to the House. That seems to be an inconsistent poor and unfortunate stand. It seems logical to me that if one brings a convention to the House one should also bring any of the amendments to the convention to the House. 
On the whole with our longstanding regard for the environment New Zealand First supports this legislation and looks forward to its continuing implementation in the New Zealand scene. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: I rise to make a brief contribution to the third reading of this bill. As I said in my speech on the second reading this bill was reported back from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee with largely uncontroversial changes. However a Green Party member said that that was not the case and that some of these things were very controversial. I think that reveals that the Green Party sees a lot more things as controversial than most others do. 
The debate has so far been very interesting. Some MPs have complained about how long this very basic legislation sat waiting for its time in this House and to be passed into law. I have not yet heard anybody point out that the select committee in the last Parliament reviewed the Stockholm treaty and reported to the House in February 2002. This legislation was then drafted from that report. The bill was introduced into the House in 2003 and had been going through its stages in a normal way until this week. 
Others in the debate have very eloquently tried to suggest that because this legislation is based on a treaty it is somehow a foreign takeover of our nation. I am afraid that even though they have been very eloquent in their argument they have failed to convince me that there is any danger to us as a nation inherent in this legislation. 
Others have asked why it is being rushed through in urgency and that is something worth considering. To those outside this Chamber all legislation is urgent. Some legislation though is more urgent than others and I believe that those of us in this Chamber should remember that fact. To the people waiting for legislation to be passed through this House so that it can be enacted into law every minute we waste in this House is of importance. When I first came to this Chamber last year I was informed of the cost of delaying legislation in this Chamber: every 5 minutes costs somewhere in the region of $80000 and that is of concern to the taxpayers of New Zealand. So when we make our speeches it is important for us to remember that there is urgency in relation to all legislation; all legislation should go through in the most expeditious way. 
Nick Smith spoke of the importance of democracy and of debating all legislation and I agree with him: it is important and we should not rush things through without doing the job properly. However the debate needs to be sensible. The public and taxpayers want robust debate but we must focus on what we are debating about. There have been some very good contributions during this debate—and I do not discount those at all—but if the public heard some of the contributions in this Committee stage they would have wondered what on earth we are being paid to do in this Chamber. They would have been disappointed because some of the contributions have simply been time-wasting. 
On the other hand some have said that this legislation is being rammed through the House. I only wish that were true! We can only hope that in the future legislation as straightforward and as simple as this will be passed through the House with a lot less fuss so that we can get on to other things that are of huge importance. This bill had its first reading and was then referred to the select committee in February 2003. There were three submissions on this bill; the public have had a chance to have their say. Now it is being passed through this House and will finally be enacted into law and that is something that United Future is pleased to give its support to. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: At this very late hour before the evening dinner break I rise with some considerable reluctance but due to the lack of Government members wishing to make a contribution— 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I am here on behalf of my colleague Ken Shirley who has made a very substantial contribution to this bill. Mr Shirley of course as the whole House is aware hopefully is the only true scientist in this House. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What! 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I see that Dr Lockwood Smith disputes that; certainly there is no one on the Government side who could get within a bull’s roar of Mr Shirley’s knowledge of science. Unfortunately he cannot complete his contribution but I stand in for him. 
I was delighted to hear the contribution from Dr Paul Hutchison who informed the House that the Government was not prepared actually to listen or to accept any of the amendments put forward by the Opposition. This is a bill on which by and large there is a lot of unanimity. The House does accept that there is importance surrounding polychlorinated biphenyls persistent organic pollutants and other hazardous substances and that there has to be regulation surrounding them. So why were those amendments not accepted given that there is very very profound knowledge of this matter on this side of the House? It is widely accepted of course that the Government does not have a mortgage on wisdom. It is with some disappointment that I note that Opposition amendments that were put forward in a very sensible way were not accepted by the Government. 
The ACT party does agree that ratification of the Stockholm convention is an important contribution to the world environment despite what I can only describe as the “chemophobia” the fear of chemicals in this world today. That fear is exacerbated to a very large degree by the Green Party. Why do we ignore naturally occurring substances? Why they are not incorporated along with polychlorinated biphenyls and persistent organic pollutants is mystifying to me. The most toxic substance known to man is a naturally occurring— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The ACT party! 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I am sorry—known to man or woman. I do apologise to the honourable member. The most toxic substance known to humanity shall we say is a product that kills 4000 people a year in Indonesia alone. It would seem to me that any reasonable international convention would include such a substance. I am not sure that members of this House even understand what that particular product is: it is a hugely toxic fungus that grows on of all things peanuts. It is amazing. At certain temperatures and certain levels of humidity that fungus one of the most toxic carcinogens known to mankind grows at a prolific rate and is hugely toxic. 
But there are also other examples that the Stockholm convention is ignoring. We know that tobacco a naturally occurring substance—I see that Mr Nandor Tanczos is very interested when I start mentioning these sorts of products—is a hugely toxic substance. Inestimable numbers of people throughout the world die from that highly toxic substance. So why does the international convention not understand the significance of incorporating naturally occurring products along with man-made or woman-made—I say that just to appease Ms Dalziel over there—products? 
There is a whole raft of substances like tobacco. Alcohol is a toxic substance. What about cocaine? It is totally naturally occurring. I note that in New Zealand we have large numbers of people wanting to ban a highly toxic naturally occurring substance called 1080 poison. Yet those things are not mentioned by the Stockholm convention. It mentions just polychlorinated biphenyls and persistent organic pollutants. Nicotine is with regard to the insect world a nerve gas. It is hugely effective. Of course nicotine addiction is a huge problem for the human species. We have a problem in New Zealand in that we focus on some toxic substances and not others. 
The real problem I think is that we overlook the manufacture of dioxins in this country from landfills. How can we ignore the huge problem that that creates when we have perfectly viable alternatives? I mention high-temperature incineration. Why does the Government not promote the use of high-temperature incineration to ensure that dioxins which undoubtedly are very very toxic to our environment are lessened to a very very large degree in our country? The Government has the opportunity to ensure that dioxins do not occur in New Zealand. 
I also make the point that with the best will in the world mankind over the years has developed substances that we thought at the time were very very advantageous to humanity. I can think of one product that has received huge attention over the years and that caused major problems to pregnant women. That product is thalidomide. There were huge calls throughout the world to ban that highly toxic substance—and it was highly toxic but only to pregnant women. Now the world is starting to understand that thalidomide does have real medical advantages for certain conditions and certain people and it is now being used again. 
I cannot help but wonder whether there is something of an overreaction to products like DDT. As I mentioned in an earlier speech—I think it was my speech on the imports and exports legislation—the banning of DDT which is regarded as a hugely toxic substance is actually killing millions of people a year because we are not wiping out mosquitoes like we used to and malaria kills millions of people a year. Yet the world through the United Nations has decided to ban DDT. We in this Parliament with all sorts of securities are making these kinds of judgments for other people who are going to die because we have decided from our ivory tower in this country that it is not appropriate for the Third World to be sprayed with these substances in order to give people there the opportunity to live. 
I make one final point about toxic substances. Many years ago people were highly concerned about a substance that was contaminating water wells and it was of course oil. It was considered a highly toxic substance at one time then it was utilised by mankind and it has contributed enormously. We are very concerned about nuclear power. Nuclear power in France generates in round figures 70 percent of its electricity needs yet France I am sure is a signatory to this convention. What does it do with its toxic waste? There does appear to be some sort of double standard attached to some of these issues. Most chemicals that are man-made have in fact given huge advantages to the world in the past. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: I am pleased to rise to speak on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill and to follow a speaker from the ACT party who was speaking about double standards. I say that ACT members would know all about that considering that ACT is polling at below 5 percent. ACT is a party that said it would campaign on values not politics but when its members get into this House they want to make it a cafeteria. It is the ACT party that has nine votes in this House but only ever votes eight or less. It would know all about double standards. I think that member is excellently qualified to talk on that subject. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: We are now close to the final phase of this bill. Ahead of us lies a vote the preparation of a fair copy of the legislation the signature by the Governor-General and the promulgation of this legislation upon the populace. National supports this legislation but of course as members will know who have listened to this debate we have significant reservations about at least two aspects of it. During the course of my remaining time I plan to deal with one of those reservations. 
The bill is a short bill with only 17 clauses in two parts. It has two schedules one of which annexes an international treaty the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants done at Stockholm on 23 May 2001. This legislation together with certain amendments to the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill will enable New Zealand to ratify the Stockholm convention. The purpose of the convention is to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutant chemicals. Those chemicals are identified in schedule 2 of the legislation as aldrin chlordane dieldrin endrin heptachlor hexachlorobenzene mirex toxaphene polychlorinated biphenyls and DDT. 
The bill is necessary because the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act while providing a general framework for compliance with the Stockholm convention requirements does not guarantee that prohibitions on the import manufacture and use of persistent organic pollutants will be put in place and maintained as required by the convention. Thus this amendment is required to prohibit as a matter of course the import the manufacture and the use of the persistent organic pollutants listed in the convention. Each one of the identified chemicals has the characteristics of being environmentally persistent toxic bioacccumulative and able to be transported by the movement of air water and migratory species to places far from its original point of release. With the exception of small quantities of polychlorinated biphenyls still in use by the electrical sector in New Zealand and subject to a regulated phase-out timetable New Zealand basically does not use these toxic and bioaccumulative chemicals and has no need of them. 
What does this bill do? It ratifies the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants or at least permits that possibility. It bans the importation manufacture and use of persistent organic pollutants except in particular circumstances. New Zealand must be able to use persistent organic pollutants in limited circumstances for disease vector control research and development environmentally sound disposal and trans-shipment. For example DDT is shipped to the Pacific Islands for mosquito control. The bill provides for all these uses with oversight by the Environmental Risk Management Authority. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Benson-Pope who is attempting to interject that there was an idea to ban outright DDT in New Zealand but the right decision was made to retain it as a weapon of last resort in any war on malaria-carrying mosquitoes. As I said all the persistent organic pollutants banned by the Stockholm convention have already been phased out of use in New Zealand except for polychlorinated biphenyls which are already regulated and will be phased out in 2016. 
I would like to talk about an issue that I have spoken about earlier today and it relates to the definition of “Stockholm Convention”. For members opposite clause 4 of the bill as reported back from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee is the relevant clause for them to read. I am grateful to see members shuffling their papers to turn to that page so that they can follow closely the intricacies of this argument. [ 
Interruption 
] I plan to speak slowly because as we all know the intellectual capability of some members including one member in particular who I am currently looking at are quite limited. It is proper that he have an opportunity to follow these issues in a broad and easy way. I have taken from his constant interruptions that he is struggling with some of the issues in this bill. It is not for me to enlighten him but it will be helpful perhaps if I at least give him an opportunity of understanding the issues that arise. So I turn to the definition of “Stockholm Convention”. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: For goodness’ sake this is the third reading! 
RICHARD WORTH 
: As the member opposite said this is the third reading. That is a good comment for her to make. It is an insightful comment and she is right. Clever her to note that! 
The point about this definition is that it includes the clear possibility that if there are later changes to the Stockholm convention those changes as a matter of law will pass into the domestic law of New Zealand. That surely cannot be intended. Schedule 1 contains the treaty. Although there may be many illustrations of this aspect I shall note just one such illustration in article 18. There is work yet to be done to bring this treaty to its final form. That is because in respect of a dispute mechanism possibility in article 18 there is reference to arbitration “in accordance with procedures to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties in an annex as soon as practicable;”. So further work is to be done. When that conference of the parties occurs to do that work we in New Zealand will have no control over an outcome that will see the embellishment of that multilateral instrument then its passage into domestic law in New Zealand. 
We have dealt with this issue of secondary legislation and also tertiary legislation. It is the old problem of incorporation by reference. But here the Government in its wisdom one assumes through ignorance or oversight has failed to deal with a possibility that in constitutional terms is quite significant. There exists the possibility of wholesale changes by protocol by side letters; of a new arrangement or modification of the treaty that would see substantial changes that New Zealanders would have no opportunity to deal with but would have to bear the brunt of. That can surely not be satisfactory. 
There is a printing error which members opposite will have observed in schedule 2 on page 60. It may well be that the opportunity should be taken to correct that error rather than it simply passing into the legislation. I refer to schedule 2A and the column headings in that schedule. They are “Substance” “Use or storage” then in what seems to be a misprint “Manufacture Expiry of permitted use or storage”. If one looks down the column one sees that the heading is an error. What the economic consequences of that may be who can say? But the error persists and one imagines it may have a consequence in later times. 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: It is a pleasure to follow the erudite constitutional lawyer opposite who I am pleased to say has given his support to the bill. I find it very interesting that the bill has been before the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which looked at the convention and found that there were no significant reasons advantageous or disadvantageous why New Zealand should not ratify it. For those reasons I support the bill. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: That short speech from that Government member is a good example of the problem we have had today with this legislation and its passage through the House. Earlier on today in the second reading I told the House that National would be supporting this legislation and we do support it. It is important legislation. However the way it has been handled by Parliament in the select committee and in the Committee stage has been inadequate. The processes that have been applied to this legislation have been absolutely inadequate. 
I want to share with the House just three things in particular in relation to the bill in its third reading. The first one is not major. During the Committee stage it was pointed out that the purpose of the bill as spelt out in clause 3 is not strictly correct. Clause 3 states: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.” The bill does not do that. No one can claim that it does that. In fact very clearly it does not do that. As we all know sister legislation that we have been working on today is necessary to help us comply with that Stockholm convention. This bill does not do that. It is not a big issue but it is careless law to make a statement in the purpose clause of a bill that is wrong. It is simply careless law drafting. 
But that is not the biggest problem with the bill. Again I come back to the careless way in which a quite simple bill has been handled. Quite a while back the Regulations Review Committee of Parliament had a look at the bill because of its regulatory implications. That committee raised with the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which was examining the bill its concern that—to use the words of the report of the select committee—amendments to the Stockholm convention could apply automatically in New Zealand’s domestic law if this bill was not amended. That is a serious issue. My colleague Richard Worth has just referred to that. I cannot think of any other legislation that I am familiar with whereby decisions that are made elsewhere and that New Zealand may not even agree with become part of our law. Where a country is party to a convention such as the Stockholm convention it only takes the agreement of a certain number of the parties to that convention for it to be amended. Those changes could be made off shore somewhere in another country. The Regulations Review Committee was concerned that those changes would then apply in New Zealand domestic law without this Parliament or even the Government of New Zealand being able to do anything about that. Sure the Government may have been involved in discussions about changes to the Stockholm convention but it may not have agreed to the changes. But from the way this legislation is drafted they will apply in New Zealand law. Members of this House have to be concerned about that. 
The select committee was advised of that issue by the Regulations Review Committee at the end of the process of our looking at the bill. I remember it well. I expressed my concern to the chair of the committee saying that I was not convinced that we had dealt with the concerns of the Regulations Review Committee. If members read our report they will see that our response is almost inept. Sadly I was away when the report was finalised. However in response to the Regulations Review Committee saying it was concerned that amendments to the convention may apply automatically in New Zealand’s domestic law and therefore proposing an amendment to the definition of “Stockholm Convention” the select committee said—and I am quoting directly here—“Rather than amend this definition we have substituted a new definition of environmentally sound disposal so that the rules about disposal are set by ERMA rather than being set directly by the Convention.” 
That is almost an inept response to the concern raised by the Regulations Review Committee. There is nothing wrong with what the select committee did there. There is nothing wrong with the amendment the select committee recommended that we add a new definition of “environmentally sound disposal” so that rules for disposal can be set by the Environmental Risk Management Authority. There is nothing wrong with that but it does not address the concern raised by the Regulations Review Committee. One has only to read what I have quoted to the House to see that it does not address the concern raised with the select committee by the Regulations Review Committee. 
In my view the first problem was that the select committee did not deal with the legislation seriously enough. The select committee did not engage with the concern raised by the Regulations Review Committee and the way we have handled it in our report back to Parliament shows that we did not understand the issue properly at all. The rest of the process has resulted in what I think is unsatisfactory legislation going through on an important issue that we support. The way in which the bill is worded is unsatisfactory. 
Of course the process involved now is urgency in this Parliament; the Committee stage is being dealt with in urgency. I think the Minister in the chair was aware of the problem and understood it but felt that it was not possible to deal with such a complex problem today under urgency in this Parliament during the Committee stage of the bill. That is no way to handle legislation as important as this. This legislation involves putting international obligations in our domestic law and the way to deal with that is not simply to say that OK it may not be right it may be that any changes to the Stockholm convention will automatically become part of our domestic law and we may not be able to do anything about it but because we are debating the Committee stage under urgency we cannot do anything about it. The bill has gone through two bad processes. The select committee process was inadequate and the Committee stage being heard in urgency was also inadequate. That means that faulty law will go through this House. 
My final concern is about clause 8. Everyone knows that research is being conducted on persistent organic pollutants to improve their handling and disposal because they are going to be around for a while yet despite this legislation. It will be 2016 before polychlorinated biphenyls go and research on how best to dispose of them is important. I point out to the House that from my reading of clause 8 it makes it impossible for research to be carried out on persistent organic pollutants. That seems to be exactly the opposite from what was intended. When I asked the Minister to explain to the House why I was wrong in my reading of the bill the Minister could not do that. The dilemma is that if the face of the legislation is so obtuse that it conveys the wrong meaning then there is a real problem with the law. 
Although National supports the bill we are saddened that its wording is sloppy and inadequate and that is not good enough. When Parliament passes legislation as important as this the wording should be more properly and soundly thought through. We support the bill but are not happy with some of the detail of it. 
Bill read a third time. 
Retirement Villages Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Associate Minister of Justice) 
:  
I move  
That the Retirement Villages Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill addresses the situation that I began to address when I was Minister for Senior Citizens. Although the bill was properly that of the Minister of Justice and was then delegated to me as an Associate Minister of Justice I was very grateful that the Prime Minister delegated the role to me early on so that it could be given a priority that the bill could not get against a significant number of other justice bills. I have now gained the Prime Minister’s agreement to refer other bills to other population and advocacy Ministers so that priority can be accorded work in those areas. That is a very good model. 
At the outset I express my appreciation of the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee for the comprehensive and thorough consideration it has given to the bill and for the careful thought that the majority of members obviously gave to changes that will improve the bill. This bill is much better as a result of the consideration of the select committee than when first introduced to Parliament. I am particularly pleased with the work of the Government members of the select committee and I congratulate Tim Barnett on his chairing of it. I also acknowledge Murray Smith from United Future who has made a significant contribution to the better bill that we have before us today. On that note I also congratulate Stephen Franks and thank him for his contribution to the legislation. Although noting the report that the ACT party will not be supporting the passage of the bill I did note that Stephen Franks was prepared to make a professional effort to ensure that the bill was in the best possible shape for return to the House and I thought it would be appropriate to acknowledge that here. 
It would also be remiss of me not to mention the Law Commission whose report of course was made to a former National Minister of Justice back in 1999. The Law Commission played an important role in giving some impetus to the development of this legislation. 
Retirement villages have become more popular over the years—I guess for lifestyle reasons but also more important for security. However the nature of the transaction that brings an individual into a retirement village has caused many retirement village residents and their families considerable grief if my correspondence file is anything to go by. I know the select committee heard many submissions that contained examples of the kinds of misunderstandings that arise when the nature of the transaction is not understood. I came up with a simple expression so I could engage in discussion at large meetings on this subject where misunderstanding was very widespread: investing in a retirement village does not mean buying a home that one can sell. That is the simplest way to describe the nature of the transaction. The significance of the capital outlay though that is made at the time is very easily equated with the amount that one would spend on an apartment and that often leads to an assumption that occupiers are protected in the same way as homeowners. However in fact most people receive only a licence to occupy the premises and for access to the facilities and services of the village. 
In the absence of more specific legislation the situation of people moving into retirement villages was left to the Securities Act and its regulations whereby the financial outlay was identified and treated as an investment only. However there have been difficulties as to the coverage of that Act with regard to those villages that offer unit titles in addition to a licence to occupy and with regard to others that were exempt from that Act. In addition securities law is actually an inappropriate mechanism to address the social dimensions of retirement village living. 
This bill addresses both the investment and social policy considerations that apply to buying into and living in a retirement village. It responds to the very many letters of complaint I have received as Minister for Senior Citizens from people concerned about certain aspects of retirement village living including complaints about the way that villages are financed and the charges that are applied. In some cases the concern was about the way that villages are run. In many instances the concerns raised showed a lack of understanding by their writers of the terms and conditions that they had in fact agreed to when they signed up to enter a retirement village. But in a considerable number of cases they indicated an imbalance of power between the parties and the unfair way that residents were treated. This bill addresses the needs of residents and owners through measures that will ensure a balance in the responsibilities and obligations of residents and owners and that will establish quality practices in the way that village operations are managed. 
The measures in the bill however will not restrict the variety and diversity that is part of the retirement village scene in New Zealand. Nor do I believe this legislation will diminish the growing popularity of retirement village living as a lifestyle choice. Some 20000 older New Zealanders have already chosen to live in a retirement village and that number is increasing. To the contrary I believe that by according much better protection to both the financing and occupancy aspects of retirement village living this legislation will enhance the attractiveness of retirement villages. As long as people understand what they are signing up to then many of the concerns will diminish. 
The definition of a retirement village in this bill is wide and inclusive. Housing that might be caught inadvertently by that broad definition can be excluded by regulation. In the bill there is an emphasis on disclosure. That will ensure that people who are considering entering a retirement village do so fully aware of the terms and conditions that would apply to them—and of course there is a cooling-off period contained within the bill as well. A very important and preventive measure I guess is what disclosure focuses on and that is fully consistent with the approach to securities generally. The suggestion of the select committee that disclosure be further enhanced by legal advice and certification by a legal adviser that the terms and conditions have been adequately explained is one that I accept bearing in mind the age and sometimes the vulnerability of the people who enter villages. I also agree with the committee’s suggestion that the essential requirements of the disclosure statement be outlined in the bill itself instead of relying totally on regulation. Good practice in the management of relationships between residents and operators is achieved by a code of residents’ rights that summarises the key provisions of the bill as they impact on the day-to-day responsibilities of village residents and village operators to each other. 
Processes for dealing with complaints and disputes are addressed in the bill in a comprehensive way so as to promote harmony within villages. A good complaints system can deal with issues in an appropriate way before they become big issues. For those complaints that do involve more material matters there is a formalised disputes resolution process that will ensure that disputes are resolved at the appropriate level and remedies are applied if necessary. The disputes resolution procedure is prescribed in some detail in order to ensure the fairness and robustness of the process. I expect that having a good process will significantly reduce the need to use it. The bill provides for a degree of external oversight and also the concept of statutory supervisors has been adapted to meet the specific needs of the retirement village sector. 
Many members of the House are aware from constituents’ concerns that the greatest source of concern to residents and to families after a village resident has left or died is that there is no real incentive for the prompt sale of a vacated unit. I am very pleased that the select committee has suggested a more rigorous process and better alignment of incentives in that important respect. In relation to the code of practice I can report to the House that the Retirement Villages Association is already working on it and I look forward to working with the association. 
This bill is eagerly awaited by many people in retirement villages who until now have felt quite powerless and frustrated in terms of the way they have been treated. I particularly want to thank Grey Power the Retirement Villages Association—and in particular I mention Helen Melrose and Cliff Cook—and a Christchurch solicitor Leo Steele who not only offered his knowledge and expertise to the select committee but devoted a considerable amount of his personal time to getting this Minister up to speed with the intricacies of securities law licences to occupy unit titles and all the permutations that form the complex legal framework of the retirement villages industry. I thank also the Office for Senior Citizens without whose help and support this progress would not have been made. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
: The National Party will be supporting this bill for several reasons. Before I entered Parliament as a geriatrician I had worked extensively with older people. Retirement villages have been a huge growth industry in New Zealand over the last 10 or 15 years. During that time we have seen quite marked changes: people no longer drove to the door of rest homes in their car; they usually arrived in ambulances. People stayed at home over the 1990s because National had put a lot of money into home support services. But for a growing number of older people the opportunity to move into a retirement village which took away some of the stresses and strains of life—not having to do upkeep on their building any more not having to look after the grounds and having companionship and people of like mind around them—became a very attractive option. We now have 300 villages but the Law Commission work which was reported on in 1999 stated that there needed to be one legal system that retirement villages operated under. 
When I came to Parliament I developed a member’s bill on this topic. That is the one thing that as an individual MP one can do. That bill was in the ballot and it did put pressure on this Government to get ahead of the game and to develop this bill. That is actually why we are here tonight and are able to debate this matter. It would have been very embarrassing after all the promises the Government had made if my bill had been drawn out of the ballot first. So we have seen this legislation which Lianne Dalziel admitted needed to be quite markedly altered during the work done in the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
I would like to thank Simon Power Lindsay Tisch and Richard Worth all of whom the Minister forgot to mention when she said how hard the committee had worked on this bill. 
Richard Worth 
: It was uncharitable. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: It was very uncharitable of her. Stephen Franks also put in a great deal of work. I do not think that the committee as it was first comprised grappled with the bill particularly well but with the addition to the committee of some excellent members from the Opposition side of the House we have ended up with a fairly comprehensive bill that will solve some of the problems within the sector. 
Most retirement villages are excellent. They run a very good service and supply a great standard and lifestyle for their residents. But when I first put my member’s bill into the ballot and it attracted some television exposure a huge number of people wrote to me with their concerns. I remember the case of one 92-year-old gentleman who had moved into a village and was very unhappy there. He found it extremely difficult to get out. If it had not been that his family was able to buy another property for him to move into he would not have been able to move from what he found to be a pretty intolerable situation. Disputes that can cause major problems for residents happen not only with the people who own and operate the villages but also with other residents so a disputes resolution process is something that is needed. 
The Retirement Villages Association has done an excellent job. Cliff Cook has put a lot of work into this legislation. The members of that association have excellent standards. They have statutory supervision and they ensure they have disputes resolution processes and prudential supervision as well. It is only those villages that stand outside the actual— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Aren’t you a member? will you declare your conflict of interest? 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: No I am not. The Minister needs to be better informed; she continually makes chipping comments about things that she knows nothing about. She should get herself informed. The Retirement Villages Association has done a very good job. The problems have occurred only with the maybe 5 percent of villages that operate outside the association. 
I remember a case where a person who had developed a Wellington village moved into the village when the residents became unhappy. He actually took over the residents committee so that he could complain to himself—or not complain to himself as the case may be. That was an abuse of his position and his power and the residents came to me to debate the issues. They needed legislation to work under. 
When people buy into a village they often do not understand the situation. They are not buying an independent unit down the road; they are buying basically a lifestyle. They are buying a licence to occupy and the lifestyle that the village offers with its increased security its protection the lack of worry about maintenance and the upkeep of the grounds and the companionship of other residents. Those are the things that people are buying when they buy into a retirement village as opposed to buying an independent freehold unit down the road. There has been a lot of confusion about that when somebody has wanted to leave a village and that is where most of the problems have occurred. There are quite large financial penalties if a person wants to leave after a short time. One of the things this bill does is to provide for a cooling-off period of 15 working days. 
I remember that one gentleman whose wife had died moved into a village once the funeral was over. He was quite a fit extremely active 74-year-old—that happens to be the average age at which people move into retirement villages—but he was very disturbed by the death of his wife and was feeling very low at the time. Moving into a retirement village was not really the right thing for him to do and when he recovered and got over the stress and the grief—he was an extremely active person—he found it quite difficult to make the decision to leave the village because he was penalised financially by the clauses he had signed up to. In some cases lawyers have not given people a full understanding of what they are buying into. Consequently there has been a lot of confusion. 
One of the things the bill requires is that retirement villages supply a disclosure statement which is supposed to be in plain language so that anybody buying into such a village actually knows what they are buying into and how it will work. Also the villages are required to have statutory supervision because sometimes people have not understood that although the individual’s interests and rights need to be protected the village as a whole needs to be considered as well. It is important that the village can survive financially as a whole and while one individual may want certain things that wider issue needs to be taken into account. There was a lot of debate from Grey Power in particular about what happens when people leave a village—about who can sell a unit and how long the ongoing costs have to be paid by the estate of somebody who has died. Those issues have been taken into account in this bill. The bill sets up a disputes resolution process and a code of rights for villages. 
I have been somewhat concerned that the bill defines retirement villages as premises containing two or more residential units. There will be increased costs associated with this legislation. I think it will impose some quite significant costs on the smaller villages and that that should have been taken into account. I certainly would have liked to see villages with up to six units—often they are attached to church properties—being exempt under this legislation but that has not happened. 
Also some retirement villages have residential care facilities within them—rest homes and geriatric hospitals. There has been quite a lot of cross-subsidisation because this Government has not increased by one dollar the amount of money that goes to geriatric hospitals which give the highest level of care to our elderly. A lot of retirement villages are making some money from that particular part of their operations. They have been able to cross-subsidise the hospital and rest home sector which is unfortunate because that sector should be funded adequately to be able to provide that level of care. I remember many years ago my grandmother went into a retirement village then the rest home and then the hospital. It was excellent for her not to have to leave an environment that she knew. 
We support this bill and are pleased to see it in the House tonight. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: Jackson Mews is a small retirement village located in Petone. It comprises 34 units all of which are unit-titled and in individual ownership. The village was created in 1994 by one John Gilbert effectively as a retirement fund. His company Jackson Mews Management Ltd is appointed under the terms of an encumbrance that he as manager put on all the titles for a period of 40 years. It is secured by the encumbrance and all residents and new purchasers must sign up to that contract which gives him the exclusive right to manage the village. 
In return for that right which residents pay $3000 per year for John Gilbert receives $94000 per annum from the village. In order to justify that he provides—or is meant to provide—a 24-hour personal paging service by a resident manager the maintenance and upkeep of the exteriors and common areas the collection of prescriptions for the elderly people who occupy the village the payment of rates for a few of the units and the payment of the insurance. My calculations are that after employing the manager at $31000—and I must say that $10500 of that goes back to Mr Gilbert by way of rental for the unit that the manager occupies but I will leave that aside—the village costs Mr Gilbert $44000 a year leaving a profit of $50000 a year from the residents for the convenience of having him oversee the village. 
 The residents accept that; they have gone into the village with their eyes open. Many are elderly and need the personal paging service that Mr Gilbert provides. If Mr Gilbert’s company was faithfully fulfilling the agreement there would be no problem; the difficulty is that it does not. The residents have a list of complaints of inadequacies in Mr Gilbert’s fulfilling of his side of the bargain: a lack of maintenance a lack of mowing of lawns the failure to replace plants and bark although that was promised 2 years ago no maintenance schedule to cover exterior painting or clearing of gutters—all of which are overdue—the failure to pay for repairs caused by leaking windows and water tanks the lack of coverage for the resident caretaker when he is absent by way of illness or holidays the investment of some of the corporate body funds in Jackson Mews Management Ltd without authority and a failure to provide audited accounts. 
The residents have long tried to contact Mr Gilbert and lay their complaints; they have written to him and tried to get some answers. Mr Gilbert is a hard-headed businessman. The complaints of the residents are that he has bullied and threatened elderly residents and has refused to answer their correspondence. One of them described John Gilbert at a meeting 2 weeks ago by saying he walks all over them and does as he pleases. They have tried to sue him but there is an arbitration provision that requires it to go to arbitration and when they did that the arbitration was drawn out. There was a dispute as to whether the body corporate’s disputes were different from the residents’ disputes and the outcome of the arbitration was that they had to be separated. The costs to the residents meant that they simply could not afford to pursue the matter. 
The manager has taken Mr Gilbert to the Employment Relations Authority because I understand that he is owed $7000 that has not been paid. He has recently gone into hospital for a spinal operation that needed 3 days in hospital for the operation and 5 to 6 weeks for his convalescence. 
In his conversations with the manager Mr Gilbert refused to accept that the manager should be off work for more than the 3 days in hospital but now having taken some advice the manager has told Mr Gilbert that he must be off work for 5 to 6 weeks. Currently there are difficulties in having the manager’s position filled while he is away. 
How will this bill help the Jackson Mews residents? In a number of ways they will be extremely helped by this legislation. Firstly a statutory supervisor will have to be appointed. Under clause 37 the statutory supervisor will be appointed at the expense of Jackson Mews Management Ltd to look after the interests of the residents and to ensure under clause 38 that the financial position of the retirement village remains secure. The statutory supervisor will report annually to the Registrar of Companies and to the residents on the performance of the operator’s duties and exercise of its powers. The statutory supervisor will perform any other duties imposed by the legislation. The statutory supervisor will have considerable powers. If he or she believes that the financial position of the retirement village the security of the interests of the residents or notably the management of the retirement village is inadequate the statutory supervisor may direct the operator to supply all residents with information that he or she may specify. The statutory supervisor may direct the operator to operate the retirement village in a specified manner or he or she could apply to the court under section 49 of the Securities Act which could lead to the putting of the retirement village into receivership or management or to the imposing of restrictions. 
So the statutory supervisor has considerable power to step in where there is a situation like the example I have given to ensure that the residents of the village receive the services they have contracted to receive. I am pleased to say that effectively the costs of the statutory supervisor with regard to Jackson Mews will not be passed on to the residents. Under the terms of the contract the operator is entitled only to a consumer price index increase each year so any costs of the statutory supervisor will come off the $50000 that John Gilbert is pocketing each year. 
Secondly there is a complaints facility provided in the bill. Mr Gilbert will have to have somebody who can respond to complaints and if that person does not respond within 20 working days after a dispute notice is provided then the operator will have to provide a panel of one or more independent persons who have been sanctioned by the Office for Senior Citizens to resolve the complaints. Again that is at the operator’s expense—in the case of Jackson Mews Mr Gilbert. There is provision for hearings before the disputes panel and it has a wide power to make orders. The operator is responsible for meeting all the costs incurred under clause 53 and even for costs incurred in resolving disputes between residents. 
I plan to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage of the debate on this bill to strengthen the statutory supervisor’s responsibilities even more. It seems to me that the statutory supervisor should be notified where there is a dispute that affects a significant number of residents or the general operation of the retirement village where the outcome may affect the rights and obligations of the operator under the deed of supervision that he has with the statutory supervisor or where there is a dispute concerning the disposal of a residential unit. I think those strengths are necessary so that the statutory supervisor is well aware of what is happening in a village particularly in so far as the residents’ interests are concerned. 
However I am also pleased to say that this legislation has been effective even before it has been passed. Today I met with Mr Gilbert and his lawyer in my office and finally succeeded in getting him and his lawyer to talk to me about the problems at Jackson Mews and to agree to a meeting with the residents to sort the problems out. That will happen in a few weeks’ time. I received an ongoing commitment from Mr Gilbert to accept monthly reports and to respond within 7 days to any written complaints that are made to him. I indicated to him that it would be worth his while to do that because if he can sort these things out before the statutory supervisor is appointed it will save him a great deal of money in terms of the cost if a disputes panel has to be brought in at his expense to resolve the ongoing grievances. If Mr Gilbert does not restore his goodwill with the residents of Jackson Mews it will prove to be very expensive to him. 
So I think this is an excellent bill and I look forward to advising the House in future of progress as we endeavour to resolve the problems concerning Jackson Mews. I endorse this bill and say United Future will certainly support it through the House. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: As the New Zealand First member on the Justice and Electoral Committee I would like to express the thanks of New Zealand First to the staff and the officials. From my previous experience on select committees all I can say is that the staff and the officials on this select committee worked harder than I have ever known officials and staff to work before. This was relatively straightforward legislation and now I think it is gold-plated legislation. We have covered just about every full stop comma and the like that one could possibly dream of. I know that members still wish to make further amendments to it and good on them. It was a very interesting exercise. We finally got something out of the select committee. Of course it was made more difficult by the fact that we had a snap election and it was necessary to go over things a second time. I would like to thank those submitters who had to come back to the select committee for a second time for the time and trouble they gave and the assistance they gave us in putting everything together. 
As far as Mr Smith’s example is concerned—obviously I do not know all the facts but I assume the other party’s lawyer will be looking at clause 6 where it states: “(3) For the avoidance of doubt the following are not retirement villages for the purposes of this Act: (b) residential units registered under the Unit Titles Act 1972”—and I understand that it was a Unit Titles Act residential unit he was talking about—“or owner-occupied cross-lease residential units that in either case do not provide services or facilities to their occupants beyond those commonly provided by—(i) similar residential units; or (ii) residential units occupied under tenancies to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies:”. 
I would be interested to know just how those units come within the category as regards the services and whether the lawyer for the owner decides that the best solution is to cancel the services contract and then the older people might be worse off than when they started. However I just say that in passing with just the slimmest knowledge of what is going on. 
As far as the legislation is concerned I and many other lawyers who are involved in property practice have some experience with the documentation relating to retirement villages. We quite often have people in their late 60s and early 70s who sell their home—and married couples; not just widows or widowers—who decide that the time has come for them to move on. 
 Often they do not make that decision until they are about 80 or 81 years of age. Then a lawyer—and there has been some criticism of lawyers here—has to try to explain complicated documents to people who have only one ambition at that particular time and that is to move out of their home and get into the retirement village. 
When a lawyer tries to explain the documents to people they accuse the lawyer of being a busybody who wants to spend far too much time on the documentation and who is going to charge them an exorbitant amount to try to tell them what the document says and what they are letting themselves into. In this day and age of conveyancing when lawyers are told they have to charge as little as possible but have all the liability if things go wrong they are placed in a very invidious position. Often the son the daughter or the son and the daughter-in-law come with the elderly people and the lawyer ends up telling them more than he or she tells the elderly people but the lawyer always has to realise that it is the elderly people who are the clients. Of course when things go wrong often the elderly people have forgotten they even went to see a lawyer let alone that they signed anything and the lawyer virtually has to point out the document to them 10 years later and say: “Look there’s your signature.” They say: “Who are you?”. They often cannot remember that they came to see a lawyer to sign the form. It is difficult but I think the Retirement Villages Bill is a very good idea. It is an excellent idea. New Zealand First supports it. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Well done. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is; it is an advantage to lawyers. This type of legislation is a protection for lawyers. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: They need protecting too. 
DAIL JONES 
: The lawyers need protection. We need it more than anybody else especially from other lawyers sometimes. The bill sets out a procedure that must be followed. The lawyer has to say to people: “Look you have to come and see a lawyer to get advice and I have to give you this advice. The law says so.” Of course many people will still not believe the lawyer even if the person is a lawyer and is supposed to know the law. That is just a fact of life. But the bill now sets it out so that there is a statutory way of going through the process. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The disclosure document will help. 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes. It should be made clear at the beginning that we are talking about—if I could put it in a loose way a simple way—properties that people actually own and have a licence to occupy. We are not talking about rest homes where people just go to live and are cared for and they pay rent or the social welfare department makes a contribution and suchlike. We are talking about retirement villages where people have a form of ownership regardless of what it is called. So that should be borne in mind. 
I think it is important to make it clear that the changes made in the select committee included kaumatua flats as coming within retirement villages. We felt and we recommended in the select committee that kaumatua flats should be included in the definition of a retirement village and that the clause excluding them should be deleted. The bill as drafted contains a specific exemption for kaumatua flats which could have created a loophole for operators attempting to evade complying with the provisions of the bill. If kaumatua flats are specifically excluded we are aware of the possibility that some operators might avoid compliance by establishing a complex that in form and substance is a retirement village as defined in the bill but that also in form meets the definition of a kaumatua flat. So we felt it was important to make that change to make it clear to any people going into kaumatua flats that the key distinction is if they own it and if it is theirs then it is going to be a retirement village and those rules will apply. But if it is like a residence where people are paying rent and suchlike it is more likely that they are in a rest home. 
Of course the usual Maori type of kaumatua village that might be around a marae complex where the occupants do not own the property they are occupying can still be a kaumatua village in the ordinary way. The distinction is whether they own it. If they are merely renting it on the marae or about the marae then it can be a kaumatua flat in that area and this Retirement Villages Bill will not apply. 
As far as other aspects of the bill are concerned we have set out a code of residents rights and they are quite detailed. I should mention that we have also set out some residents’ obligations. Someone mentioned the instance of an elderly gentleman who moves into a village but perhaps he cannot get on with people. It is a two-way street. The select committee did recognise that people have to give and take and there is a code of obligations as well. 
We have set out a disputes resolution process and I think it is almost the best aspect of the bill. A low-level process is established where people can try to sort something out without getting too formal about it. Too often if we have the type of process in the bill as it was it starts to get too formal people get too carried away and then we always get someone who wants to do things by the book and all sorts of problems arise. There is a less formal way of doing it; there is a more formal way of doing it. If people really want to go to town they can appeal to the District Court or instead of doing it through the disputes panel they can go directly to the District Court as well. But one would hope that all these types of problems will be resolved by the lower-level procedure. 
This is a very big bill. I believe that it sets out a very good code for all of those people who are in a position to buy a property and move into a retirement village. I will be looking forward to its progress. New Zealand First supports the bill. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: I rise in support of the bill. There are about 15000 units in New Zealand housing 26000 people. These numbers are increasing by 5 percent a year so we have over 350 retirement villages. Over 5 percent of our people aged over 65 years live in retirement villages. This bill skilfully because of the select committee that worked on it balances the difficulties of the elderly with the avariciousness often of the capital interests in retirement villages. This bill reflects the good work of the Office for Senior Citizens whose staff worked tirelessly to come back with the correct answers to a very trying committee that demanded the best from them and in fact has got the best which is now reflected in this bill. In supporting this bill I congratulate the officials. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: The Greens support this legislation. This bill sets out to protect the property rights of some of the most vulnerable people in our community the elderly and their interests in their retirement village homes. It is all too easy as we sit in this place discussing the minutiae of the legislation to lose sight of the big picture. That we find it necessary to build retirement villages is a little strange. Is there any other culture that would take its elderly and put them together in as Mr Smith said one lot of 35 houses just for the elderly? I find that a little strange. That we have to protect our oldest and frequently our wisest and those to whom each and every one of us is most indebted from a minority predators who would rip them off or deal with them with a good deal less respect than they deserve is an indictment of where we have come to as a society. 
I spent a good deal of yesterday trying to get a handle on retirement homes and the protection of property rights. I came back to my apartment this morning after a 30-minute run through the city and it struck me that we are making legislation for people who are very little different from myself and with similar needs and passions. Many of them are not a lot older than myself. As unnatural as life in a mid-city apartment can be my apartment is in the middle of a thriving community. I cannot leave my apartment without being thrown into that community. I buy my coffee I run down Lambton Quay I interact with the staff around Parliament and I have the occasional meal with my family. I return to my electorate. I interact with an enormous and diverse range of individuals. I know that my life is enriched by those experiences and I would like to think that occasionally the experiences I bring to those interactions might add a little to the sum total of human happiness. 
My fear is that retirement villages run the risk of removing our elders from our communities. I can understand why in communities where we do not have time very often for our older folk and maybe all they have time for is themselves but I still find it a little strange. 
I have a lot of people dear to me who range from the fairly ancient to the very young. They include 84-year-old Arch who still cycles down to the port and takes his dinghy out to his twin-masted yacht. It is not moored in some sheltered marina but on the other side of Nelson Haven where at 76 years old Eddie is still the best sports injury fix-it man in the business. He phoned me this morning to say that someone who fell off his bicycle last week in Belgium is flying 12000 miles around the world to be fixed up by him. He told me about Ben Blair and the injury he sustained. He was fixed up too. He is 76 years old. Do we isolate him? Do we put him in a village? No we leave him in our community—or Amy and James her 80-plus-year-old husband who knocked on every door for me in Richmond during the last election campaign. 
Would that we were discussing not simply how to protect retirement village property rights and retirement village residents but rather how best to create the kinds of communities that make more of us not merely comfortable and safe and able to enjoy the company of people of a similar age but also able to live in situations that guarantee the opportunity to mix with folk of similar and diverse interests whatever their ages. 
Retirement villages and rest homes are at risk of turning into monocultures—and monocultures whether they be people forests or cornfields are risky. They are prone to disease and predators. Clearly the fact that we find it necessary to pass this legislation demonstrates the truth of that. But at the risk of offending every retirement village resident I say that such villages run the risk of making our communities much less interesting places. 
Retirement villages also make it more likely that we will assume that our near and dear no longer need us quite so much when in fact we have never needed one another more. In diverse ecosystems the old trees provide shelter and nutrients. Their very presence ensures that the young trees and all the other components of the forest are able to thrive and to contribute. Human communities are no different. We need one another. This need is not just about meeting our responsibilities; it is about making sure that our children live with a full range of human experiences that they experience the kind of love that is unique to grandparents and that our oldest and wisest know that they are needed and valued. 
Just as the old trees reach deep down and bring up nutrients and hold the land together so our old folks have memories wisdom and values that all of us need if we are to have any chance of learning to live again within the capacity of our communities and the planet to sustain. 
While I have no great love of rules or bureaucracy I believe that our elderly have a right to be protected from the unscrupulous the incompetent and the unreasonable. To give that protection is the purpose of this bill. But the legislation will also protect the great majority of good and competent operators from having their reputations sullied by the activities of the less competent the less careful and the downright difficult. 
If this legislation is successful there is likely to be less opportunity for the kind of behaviour that disadvantages the elderly and that has given rise to the horror stories of the innocent elderly or their descendants waiting for ever to get their investments—and sometimes a good deal less than their investments—returned when the residents die or move out. 
For those who are concerned about compliance costs I imagine that just as landlords will take all necessary steps and willingly pay their lawyers to protect their own properties and interests this bill will provide a similar level of protection for the rights and property of retirees in retirement villages. For retirement village operators the cost of compliance should be no more than what any responsible landlord with some concern about the welfare of his or her tenants might expect to meet. 
The standard requirements for registering complying with the industry code of practice and disclosing the terms and conditions of residence in terms of payment should minimise the cost and the effort required for measuring up while the disputes procedures are likely to simplify life for both parties in the event of either party getting difficult or getting into difficulties. 
So in the commentary we read that the bill will require that all retirement village operators register all retirement villages with the Registrar of Companies—that is not an unreasonable expectation—and comply with the Government-approved industry code of practice. Again that is a reasonable expectation. They are required to disclose in a standard format all essential information on the procedures terms and conditions of residence entry and exit and sale or disposal arrangements and charging systems. They are required to have a disputes procedure. Would that everybody enjoyed those protections—especially the disputes procedures—an ideal situation! 
I must confess that as I sat on the select committee for only part of the deliberations on this bill I thought it unnecessary to spell out to lawyers their responsibility in respect of ensuring that their clients understood what it was they were signing. Does that mean that in future if it is not spelt out a lesser expectation might prevail? However this document enshrines the conditions affecting one of the most expensive and important purchases in people’s lives: their homes—in this instance they are the homes they probably expect to see their lives out in. This reminder to lawyers to spell out to their clients the conditions that they hope will guarantee their comfort during what may well be their most vulnerable years is probably not unreasonable and the certification is a reasonable attempt to guarantee that occupants understand what they are letting themselves in for. 
We share the concerns of those submitters who expressed their frustration about unheralded changes—for example a change of operator or the sale or dispossession of a village. Having one’s village sold is a strange notion and the very least one could expect is forewarning. The requirement to consult goes some way to meet those concerns. The industry code of practice could also spell out what is actually involved in such consultation to the mutual benefit of all parties. The statutory supervisor could also alleviate some of the frustrations particularly over day-to-day issues. 
So the intent of this legislation is good and having a range of housing options for our retirees is no bad thing but having turned housing and communities into commodities to be marketed and sold let us in addition to safeguarding the property rights of residents look at the diverse needs of our whole community and think about how to create homes and villages that reflect the diversity of our communities and that meet our diverse needs. The Greens take pleasure in supporting this legislation. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: I rise to support the legislation. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: The previous speaker Mike Ward attempted a substantive review of this bill in the form in which it was returned from the Justice and Electoral Committee. He showed the kind of confusion that I had expected. He talked warmly of diversity while supporting a bill that in fact sets out to create a monoculture and without apology. 
This bill could have been sound. I believe that it was simply terrible when it was introduced in terms of the intrusive patronising attitude it took to old people and the interference it would have made in their property rights and the rights of those who dealt with them. Retirement villages would have been an undesirable industry for anyone who valued any kind of certainty in the contracts he or she had because of the political power to change the rules midway through any kind of enterprise. 
I believe that the bill has been dramatically improved. I was certainly grateful to have the acknowledgement from the Associate Minister of Justice just as I was grateful that the Minister did not have such a stock of pride in her initial product as to reject the suggestions that came from the Justice and Electoral Committee. I felt that made it a worthwhile exercise to be involved in. But I still believe that the outcome is sadly short of what it should be. 
When the bill came in it simply told the lenders to retirement villages that they would not be able to exercise their securities. It told the operators that they had to produce a simple clear and comprehensive disclosure statement which I know as one who has spent years trying to do that is simply impossible. Comprehensiveness in the face of liability becomes voluminous and simplicity and clarity disappear to almost all readers in the face of size. The bill told people that they would have a cooling-off period before they could have reliability in their contracts but there was mystification expressed at the suggestion that that would mean older folk would not be allowed to move into their properties despite their having feelings of full confidence and despite their being adults with their own money. They would not be allowed to enter into a contract without some third party telling them that they could not move in until a specified period was up. The bill provided for a level of supervision that had not been sought by the industry to date and it overrode contract in such a way that the Law Commission said to us quite simply in its terms: “If you are going to depart from freedom of contract you might as well do so in a way that is effective in achieving the consumer protection that is aimed at.” In other words the Law Commission which originated this bill felt that it had fallen woefully short. 
What had happened by the end? We had a process of slow and agonising improvement. I believe we have largely fixed the retrospective and arbitrary interference with financing contracts which it seemed the original proposers felt could just happen with no cost. From my experience in the related area of lending to farmers who quite often oppose enforcement there is a consistent and otherwise unexplained premium on lending to farmers that this industry would have rapidly attracted. Lending to even the best farmers costs about 0.5 to 1.0 percent more than lending to an equivalent business in town of exactly the same cash flow and security characteristics and from the studies it appears that that is because of the risk that it will be hard to enforce the security. We had a Government that was going to tell the lenders to this entire industry that it would rewrite their contracts and that would mean they did not have their fundamental right to sell up on default. 
That has been sort of fixed. We have sort of fixed the overriding nature of the code and its ability to rewrite the contract that had been the basis of the risk allocation and the financial arrangements that people go into these villages with. But we have not fixed it completely and as the Law Commission expressed it: “It seems to have happened here. There has been industry capture of the law reform process. There is a genuine risk of ending up with a measure that is a mere facade rather than a genuine safeguard.” That was from the very well-known Dr Dugdale who does not mince his words. He would have abandoned all pretence of freedom of contract and would have simply stipulated what all contracts would contain. 
In the committee we tried to make sure instead that the code could address only matters clearly stipulated for the Minister to address and towards the end of it we tried to make sure that the drafters of the code were required to take into account the anti-competitive effect of such a code. A minority on the committee proposed the very simple suggestion that the Minister make sure that the code is not so onerous as to act as a barrier to persons of modest means gaining access to accommodation in retirement villages. It seems absolutely self-evident that the code should not be a barrier. We also suggested that the Minister ensure that the code is sufficiently flexible to permit the operation of villages with a range of pricing structures and offering a range of services and facilities to residents. 
To my absolute astonishment the officials recommended strongly against those provisions. Not only did they recommend against them on what I believe were spurious technical and legal drafting grounds but they actually said that this measure is not intended to assist people of modest means. It does not matter if this code “gold plates” because it is intended to affect only those who are rich enough to afford a gold-plated retirement village. Their advice said: “It is not the purpose of the retirement villages legislation to widen the range of retirement living options for people of modest means. It should not therefore be a requirement for the Minister to take into account the effect of code requirements on a group of people for whom retirement village living is not currently or in the foreseeable future an affordable option.” 
So here we see nakedly what this bill is about. This bill has been captured by the industry. This bill is all about buying votes from the lucky ones who are conscious of what the law can do for those who get their hands on its levers. This bill has become a charter for the majority in the industry to limit access by those pesky untidy often incoherent often over-optimistic new entrants who keep pricing pressure on the industry and make sure it grows fast. This bill now makes sure that old people will never have the very best protection that they could have. The best protection for people in any industry is competitive tension. The very best protection that old people could ever have would be an over-supply of retirement units—retirement villages going broke because there were not enough residents to fill them. That is the very best protection we can supply to people in this industry because when there are too many units everyone in the industry has to find ways of attracting and increasing the number of people in his or her units. The way that every successful market economy works is by making sure that people— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: This is not a market situation. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The Minister just tells me this is not a market situation. That says it all. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s all one-sided at the moment. 
Murray Smith 
: There’s no bargaining power. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Listen to them. It is coming from two sides. We have United Future saying there is no bargaining power. An operator cannot force people to go into a village. An operator has no show whatsoever of getting people to go somewhere they do not want to go. An operator does not control people’s money. This is absolutely hilarious and just as I expected. They have shown themselves. What we have here is: “The Government knows best. The Government knows far better than the people.” 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: We can be assured of one thing after those comments. If there had been any risk of ACT party support reaching any threshold it now is well and truly down the drain because no aged person would support them after that extraordinary admission. I am pleased to have in my electorate of Dunedin South a number of large retirement villages. Many of the issues that have been brought to me by the people who live in those villages are in relation to misrepresentation and to the misery that has arisen from the sorts of misunderstandings genuine or deliberate that have been encouraged as part of what the Associate Minister of Justice spoke about in her introductory speech. There has been a sad misunderstanding of the reality which Ms Dalziel characterised perfectly when she spoke of retirement units not being the capital asset that people expected they would be when they bought their new retirement home. I acknowledge there are extraordinary levels of community of health support and of security related to these organisations and communities and I commend that. It is a very sad comment on how our society has developed that so many people have been suckered into that sort of environment because of that attraction and in many cases have lost what are often quite meagre life-savings. I am absolutely flabbergasted at what I have just heard from the ACT party as will be readers of the  
Hansard 
 that I will distribute with pleasure in my electorate. I commend this bill to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: National has not had a male speaker yet. Richard Worth. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: Mr Speaker thank you very much for selecting a male speaker at this stage to advance the debate. Before I turn to the merit of the bill I would like to say that two people should be singled out for the special contribution they have made in connection with this legislation. The first is Dr Lynda Scott who modestly told members of the House how her bill had panicked the Government into initiating this Government measure which now comes before the House for its second reading as reported from the Justice and Electoral Committee. The second person I would nominate for special mention is Cliff Cook not only for his period of service in and exemplary leadership of the Retirement Villages Association but also for the fact that he is instrumental in leading one of the prime providers of excellent retirement villages throughout New Zealand. I am speaking of course of the publicly listed Metlifecare group. 
Retirement villages are increasingly a residential option for older New Zealanders with some 4 percent of people aged over 65 currently living in a retirement village. I understand that there are around 300 villages currently in operation accommodating more than 20000 people. As an earlier speaker has indicated growth trends show both increases in the number of villages and expansion of residential capacity within some existing villages. 
It is somewhat easy to overstate the issues and I believe that some of the Government members have been guilty of that in the short comments they have made. But there is no doubt that the charging and management practices of some retirement villages have over the last decade been the subject of complaint. A range of problems have been identified by residents and by their representatives which have included difficulty in comprehending the nature of village financing and charging regimes; hidden costs associated with exit from a village—and members have spoken about that issue—uncertainty about residential rights particularly where occupancy of a villa or a unit is based on a licence to occupy or a lease agreement; poor management of villages including unchecked deterioration of communal facilities and reduced quality of services; and finally I would say an absence of formal efficient and fair processes to deal with complaints or disputes whether between residents or between residents and management. I have entered a word of caution because it is easy to overstate these issues and the problems are not endemic. But they are too frequently documented to be ignored at a social policy level and there is little doubt that they are a cause of concern from a consumer and residential rights perspective. 
The average age of entry to a retirement village is 74 years. For many people the village they choose represents their last place of residence. Their investment therefore not only is significant on a financial level but has attached to it expectations and an understanding that their interests and their rights will be protected. As Dr Scott has told us a Law Commission report in 1999 concluded that separate legislation was required to give retirement village residents protection as consumers residents and investors. So it is that as a result of Dr Scott’s urgings the Government introduced this bill. 
It is a journey that had earlier been travelled in Australia where in 1980 there was specific legislation for retirement villages. 
David Benson-Pope 
: That’s a good thing. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: Members opposite need to know that I am not in the least disconcerted by the barracking that they offer. It does little to advance the debate and simply indicates a measure of immaturity and intolerance. 
Major changes were made to the bill in the course of the select committee process. Indeed there are significant changes on just about every page. That is not a bad thing but I simply note—and it is apparent from looking through the commentary—that members of the committee looked at the definition of retirement village and at issues of kaumatua flats registration memorial on title and occupation right agreements. 
The select committee also looked at a particular issue that was a cause of tension between residents and their representatives on the one hand and the operators of the village on the other and that was the issue of certification which was referred to earlier by a member. Under the current model proposed in this bill as reported back a legal adviser now needs to certify that he or she had advised an intending resident before that person signed an occupation right agreement and that the general effect and implications of the relevant agreement had been properly explained. 
We looked at cooling-off periods; cancellation for delay; a code of residents’ rights which I would like to come back to; issues of statutory supervisors; dispute resolution; and the tricky issue of delays in the sale or disposal of units. The end result—and I agree with Mr Franks—is that the legislation that has emerged from the select committee is much the better for the process. For those who argue in the context of a unicameral Parliament that a select committee performs a function akin to an Upper House I can only in the context of this legislation agree with the observation. 
I would like to refer to two issues at this stage. The first is National’s position in respect of this bill. We support the bill—we worked hard to improve the bill during the course of its consideration—but we are concerned about two aspects which are highlighted in the commentary. The first is the possible consequence of significantly increased compliance costs for some operators and the second which Mr Franks has referred to is the likely consequence that smaller operators will withdraw from the industry or be dissuaded from entering. He put the issue attractively as the possibility of a monolithic culture developing. That can assuredly not be ruled out. If either of those two possibilities that I have referred to comes about it would be our hope that the Government would move to make changes to the legislation to ameliorate those concerns. 
Finally I conclude on the issue of citizens’ rights. If members opposite turn to page 95 of the bill as reported back they will see in my view amazing stuff. I am referring to schedule 3 which includes the code of residents’ rights. Arguably this sort of material should not appear in primary legislation. There are many examples where it appears in tertiary legislation. I make two points. The right to be treated with courtesy and have one’s rights respected and the right not to be exploited are I suggest gross examples of extreme political correctness and it is sad that they should be in the bill. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (NZ Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: This bill is about balancing the sometimes but not always competing interests of the residents and the operators of retirement villages. I believe that the balance provided in the bill is pretty well right. It is interesting to note that those who face retirement much more imminently make lengthy speeches; those of us who do not have to worry about it too much are happy to sit down. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: We have heard tonight some horror stories from the United Future member and the Green member about what can go wrong in retirement villages. Just to give a little balance I commend to those members of Parliament who feel that they might have gone past their use-by date a retirement village in my electorate of Clevedon called Longford Park Village. I make that recommendation with some trepidation on the basis that something might go wrong but that is a retirement village about which I have not heard one complaint from the residents. I have even had one darling old man who must have been close to 90 if he was not over it suggesting that I might like to put my name forward so that I could sign up there when I was old enough. I thought that was a really nice suggestion. I am sure that Mr Gosche opposite would love to come and join me there but actually I am not sure that he would be able to. 
One concern this legislation is trying to address is that people in an elderly condition are often alone—often they have lost a lifelong partner—and in a very vulnerable position. As a lawyer of 22 years in practice I have to say I have seen quite a few who wanted desperately to move into a particular retirement village. They have been sold it on the basis of lovely brochures and recommendations from their local MP—oops I did not mean to say that Mr Speaker—and those sorts of things. Some also feel unfortunately some pressure from family members who would like them to move to a retirement village because they are becoming a bit of a handful. It is actually quite sad that people should ever feel like that. I am very fortunate that neither of my parents ever felt the need to go into a retirement village. But it was great to know that there were some very nice villages available should they ever have wished to go into one. 
Of course there are many reasons for people wanting to move into villages and one in particular is concern for their personal safety. Unfortunately many elderly people feel that they are not in fact secure in their own homes. It is an absolute disgrace that people in their 80s and 90s feel that they could be attacked in their own homes. Unfortunately some are although most are not. 
 In addition to that there is the concern over loneliness. Many elderly people are so divorced from what their children and grandchildren are doing that they just feel plain lonely. If a person has had a lifelong partner then has lost that partner it is very difficult for that person—and these people are often very elderly—to try to resurrect some form of relationship with other people. It is very very hard. In a well-run retirement village they can often do all sorts of things such as the activities at Longford Park. They play bowls there are indoor swimming pools they go on day trips and to the movies and so on. Elderly people often live a more active life in those retirement villages that are well run than they would have done if they had stayed in their own homes or with their families. In many ways these sorts of retirement villages are a great thing. They have been existing and operating without this bill which is another stunning fact and they have done so in the market economy. 
One of the concerns is that sometimes elderly people sign up to retirement villages on the basis that they have good health and often do not realise that under the agreement the licence to occupy is such that they cannot go back to their own unit once their health deteriorates to the point where they have to go to a hospital wing. That is often a very difficult thing to know because most people would see themselves as owning the property rather than simply having a licence to occupy such as a licence to occupy a room. That is one of the concerns so I am pleased to see that there are provisions relating to disclosure in the bill. 
Retirement villages no matter what we want to say about the market economy and how well it works most of the time are quite a new thing from the point of view of both the legal system and of many elderly people being connected with it. We have heard tonight that 4 percent of people over the age of 65 are in retirement villages but that is a very small number of people. Consequently there are not many people who can say that they know about retirement villages because their parents went into one before them or their cousin or sister or brother. It is quite a small number of people. In part that number has been kept small because people are concerned about the financial ability of retirement villages to keep operating and about just how secure their own investments are. At the end of the day most retirement villages are for the elderly living in them rather than for investment. They are more of a safety net and a lifestyle choice. Quite often elderly people can free up some capital by going into one as well. So it is very important that we have the same sorts of safeguards as have been put forward here. 
I stress that the vast majority of retirement villages in this country are well run. They are not places where the elderly are routinely ripped off because those sorts of operations would never survive in this environment let alone any environment that was more regulated. I take some exception to the comments of one particular member who cast aspersions on all the retirement villages in existence at the moment. I thought that was a shame. But I applaud Mr Smith’s speech when he talked to us about his dissatisfaction with the way that a retirement village was run because of the many complaints from his constituents living in the area. 
In essence this bill has been brought about by some excellent work in the Justice and Electoral Committee. It started with the member’s bill from my colleague Dr Lynda Scott the first geriatrician as far as I am aware in the House and someone who can truly say she has worked for many years with the elderly and is fully aware of their concerns. I am very pleased to be able to support this bill both as a lawyer and as a member of Parliament and at the same time to commend to the House those many many retirement villages that are well run and managed and are providing a very good service even under the limited law that we currently have. 
Amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Retirement Villages Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 105 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 7 
ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a second time. 
Biosecurity Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: I move  
That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The Biosecurity Amendment Bill consists of two parts in 26 clauses. The first part makes 23 small but important changes to the Biosecurity Act. The second part repeals five redundant sections and part of one other section of the Forests Act. These redundant sections deal with issues of forest border control and pest management that are now dealt with under the Biosecurity Act. The amendments to the Biosecurity Act could be categorised as technical in nature and consequently the main policies of the Act are not changed by the bill. 
The bill as introduced adds a new section that imposes a duty on all people to inform a chief technical officer of the presence of organisms not normally seen in New Zealand. The Primary Production Committee has recognised the need for three changes to the clause dealing with the duty to inform. Firstly the committee has amended clause 6 so that a person’s duty to inform is to inform the ministry rather than the chief technical officer. The second change the committee recommended was to confirm that the duty to inform does not apply to organisms contained or released according to statutory approvals under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The third change is that the reporting duty applies to micro-organisms as well as to those seen with the naked eye. The committee also recommends that the Government provide information about unwanted organisms to assist those who have a duty to report should the bill be enacted. 
The bill as introduced provided a power to reduce the notice period to a minimum of 24 hours in cases where the 2-hour notice period would seriously damage the chance of containing or eradicating an undesirable organism. In such cases notices may be given by way of radio or television announcement or other means appropriate to the circumstances. 
I wish to thank the Primary Production Committee for its work in considering the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. The amendments it has proposed will improve the bill’s provisions. The committee’s recommendations to the Government and to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry are accepted and are being implemented. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important Biosecurity Amendment Bill. The National Party will be supporting this bill because we recognise just how important biosecurity is to New Zealand. It is important in many ways. It is important to our economy to our environment and to both human and animal health. 
 I have huge reservations about the priority and degree of importance this minority Labour Government attaches to biosecurity. I note that this bill was referred to the select committee on 16 August 2001. There were seven submissions a 75-minute hearing of evidence and then consideration for 4 hours and 10 minutes. But here we are under urgency almost 2 years later and this Labour Government which has so little interest in progressing such an important bill as this has just sat back. 
I think it is hugely important to focus on this Government’s appalling biosecurity record. Just since October last year there have been 11 biosecurity incursions. 
Judith Collins 
: How many? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: There have been 11 since October last year. This bill came to the select committee 2 years ago and it should have been passed a long time ago. The Government should have shown its interest in the hugely important area of biosecurity but it has failed to do so. 
Let us look at those 11 incursions since October last year. They include the Asian gypsy moth crazy ants fire ants mosquito larvae Asian tiger mosquito larvae a Sydney Huntsman spider Australian redback spiders and eggs a North American southern ring-necked snake a cane toad and a scorpion. It is interesting to note that the general public have been responsible for discovering more than half of those incursions over that period. Clearly the Government and its biosecurity surveillance systems are just not working. 
It is important to point out just how significant this issue is to this Parliament. Treasury has estimated that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in New Zealand would result in a cumulative loss of the order of $10 billion in 2 years and 15000 jobs. That is how important the impact would be on the New Zealand economy yet here we have a Government that is just dawdling along in respect of one of the things that is most important to the well-being of New Zealand. It might make a priority of deciding whether the lesbian parent of a child who happens to be born by reproductive technology should be called a father but here is something that is hugely important to all New Zealanders. This Government’s priorities are just way way out of proportion and that is greatly worrying. To further point that fact out we had the Associate Minister of Biosecurity the Hon Marian Hobbs telling this House on 26 March 2003 that finding only six incursions in the previous fortnight showed that we were really very good at surveillance. That is what she said. That is an indictment on this Labour Government and its Associate Minister of Biosecurity. Certainly it is a huge worry when we have the sort of Government that just does not give priority to the things that are hugely important to New Zealand. 
If the Government had really been concerned about this issue it would have made sure that the surveillance and education of passengers coming into New Zealand were far greater. It is worthwhile to just go over some of the things that are picked up at the border. At New Zealand’s international airports last year quarantine officers removed the following from incoming passengers: 8 tonnes of meat products 15.9 tonnes of fruit 3.6 tonnes of seeds 3.2 tonnes of dairy products 3.2 tonnes of fish products and 5800 plant items. That is astounding yet here is a bill that was referred to the select committee on 16 August 2001 and here we are under urgency almost 2 years later finally getting round to progressing this non-contentious bill. The National Party certainly realises how important this bill is. The minority Labour Government just has not prioritised some of New Zealand’s most important issues in the way that it should have. 
There have been some very important submissions including one from Federated Farmers of New Zealand. I want to pay tribute to Federated Farmers for the vigilance it has consistently shown over many years in recognising how important an issue biosecurity is for New Zealand. After all Federated Farmers has been the group representing those New Zealanders who are responsible for such a huge proportion of our exports. It points out in its submission that New Zealand pastoral exports are valued at $13.2 billion and in 2000-01 pastoral exports comprised 42.7 percent of all exports. It goes on to say that New Zealand is heavily reliant on passive surveillance to detect new and unwanted pests and disease risks to nearly half its export earnings. What a hugely worrying concern it is when we have a Government such as this minority Labour Government that dawdles on such a hugely important issue as biosecurity. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: It’s so popular. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: We have the “Minister of the Painted Apple Moth” over there saying “it’s so popular”. That Minister’s organisation of the control of the painted apple moth has been a shambles. It has been a disgrace in every sense. He talks about popularity but it is certainly not deserved when it comes to the issue of biosecurity. 
There are some very important issues within this bill that we support. Firstly we support the duty of people to inform of the presence of organisms not usually seen in New Zealand. As the Minister pointed out clause 6 reintroduces a previously repealed section that imposed a non-enforceable duty on all persons to inform of the presence of an organism not usually seen in New Zealand. Once again the amendments address the question of reducing the amount of time relating to notice of aerial spraying. There was another excellent submission from that wonderful organisation the National Council of Women which pointed out that the time limits are vital and the select committee has indeed recommended that time limits are absolutely imperative. 
I will end by saying this is a hugely important bill and National supports it. The Government has dawdled over implementing it. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. First in response the speaker before me I want to indicate how pleased we in United Future are to be supporting this urgency week so that bills like this can be passed through this House instead of being left sitting on the Table for so long. This is an important bill that deals with an important subject for our nation. The intent of the bill is to amend the Biosecurity Act of 1993 to reflect experience of its practical application over 10 years as well as make changes to clarify responsibilities for administering pest management. 
In terms of better defining responsibilities the merger of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Forestry has made some provisions of the Forests Act redundant so those will be repealed. The bill ensures that the protective provisions of the Wildlife Act do not conflict with the use of the Biosecurity Act to control a wildlife organism that has since proved to have undesirable effects as it did with the rainbow lorikeet. In the same vein the Supplementary Order Paper in the Minister’s name was developed to ensure that the proposals of the Department of Conservation for regulating ferrets under the Biosecurity Act are not frustrated by wildlife regulations regarding farming of unprotected wildlife. The bill also allows persons not employed under the State Sector Act to be appointed as inspectors which is sensible in emergency situations where additional biosecurity inspectors who might not be Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry staff could be required. They would still be subject to the supervision of ministry staff however. 
As I noted before some provisions in the bill have arisen from the experience of officials and others in applying the legislation in practice. For example the bill extends the ability to inspect and treat unaccompanied imported goods to include transnational facilities such as those areas used to process passengers. Normally goods accompany passengers in those areas but inspectors have found that that is not always the case so the law needs to give them the power to check goods in this instance. The bill also extends the power to search persons and seize goods beyond unauthorised goods to include risk goods—in other words organic matter—and allow for routine audits where uncleared risk goods or unauthorised goods might not necessarily be suspected. In certain circumstances leaving uncleared risk goods or unauthorised goods would create a real risk of further spread of the pest or disease if these goods cannot be removed and placed in a secure facility. 
One of the most important aspects of the bill is perhaps the provision that re-enacts a previously repealed section that imposed a non-enforceable duty on all persons to inform the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of the presence of foreign organisms. The new provision revives that reporting requirement but it is coupled with a new offence provision that applies to persons who would reasonably be expected to recognise an alien organism yet fail to alert authorities. The Primary Production Committee recommended that to make it easier for the public to pass on information the obligation to report should be to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in general rather than the chief technical officer. That seems a sensible move and would make it as easy as ringing the 0800 number listed in the phone book. 
The foot-and-mouth outbreak in the UK emphasised the importance of an early warning system so we support the proposal to create a general duty to inform authorities on becoming aware of the presence of an organism not normally found on these shores. Without that legal obligation commercial interests could conflict with the duty to report. For example a commercial entity might be unwilling to report due to the potential financial impact that it could have on that individual business or because it would be a breach of a contractual arrangement. New Zealand is very reliant on the reporting of incursions by those not employed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The Ministry cannot be everywhere and this bill gives greater legal weight to that role. 
The select committee also suggested that the Government should provide information about unwanted organisms to assist those in a position to report their presence. It would seem unfair to insert a duty-to-report requirement into the legislation without ensuring that the people at whom it is targeted know what they should be reporting. United Future would like the Government to demonstrate a commitment to providing those educational resources. We know that some work has already begun to make farmers more aware of unwelcome pests and diseases. For example leaflets were distributed at the recent national field days illustrating the symptoms of six key ruminant diseases under the slogan “Look check ask a vet”. That is a positive sign and we look to the Government to extend this campaign to other groups such as those involved in the importation of goods that might carry unwanted pests. 
The proposal that pest management strategies must include a general description of the measures to be taken to implement the strategy is worthwhile. Often it is the implementation that causes concerns and people who are being asked to consider a strategy should have reasonable information on how it should be implemented. We hope that this will lead to a better-informed consultation process. 
One of the most important provisions is the one that drastically reduces the notice required for aerial spraying in an effort to ensure that a pest incursion does not spread beyond its early stages. Some speakers have already discussed that measure and I would like to focus on it in more detail to express some of United Future’s concerns so I intend to take a call during the Committee stage. 
Our biosecurity strategy is vitally important to New Zealand’s ongoing economic viability. The Reserve Bank has estimated that a foot-and-mouth outbreak in this country would result in a loss of 20000 jobs and a $10 billion drop in gross domestic product over 2 years. The primacy of the agricultural industry in New Zealand and the fact that we are free from many foreign organisms because we share no land borders makes our economy vulnerable to such incursions. Vegetables and fruit alone generate almost $2 billion worth of exports annually and the majority of domestic market requirements. Exports are forecast to hit $3.8 billion by 2010 so it is a very valuable industry to us. All of it is dependent on keeping New Zealand free from pests and diseases yet over the past 5 years we have had 30 biosecurity incursions requiring eradication or control at an estimated cost of $100 million. 
The select committee recently heard the Acting Minister for Biosecurity admit that the cost of the Government’s war against the painted apple moth in west Auckland is almost as much as if the moth had been left to its own devices and that really is an unthinkable thought. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry budgeted $90 million over 3 years for the all-out aerial attack on the moth but it is also estimated that the pest could cause between $58 million and $356 million in damage over 20 years. 
Strangely the funding provided for biosecurity in this year’s Budget has been reduced. Only $25 million was earmarked this year for incursion surveillance when $90 million was approved in principle by the Government in 2002 for the eradication of the painted apple moth alone. Surely it would be better to put more money into proactive measures such as freight-container monitoring and surveillance rather than spraying the population after the incursion has spread. 
United Future supports this bill but feels very strongly that more needs to be done to beef up our detection of biosecurity incursions before we need to start spraying the poor population again. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill and its intent to rectify some of the difficulties resulting from the discovery of the new and exotic harmful organisms that have arrived in New Zealand since the introduction of the original Biosecurity Act in 1993. This bill goes some of the way towards reducing the possibility of those unwelcome organisms becoming established; it goes some of the way towards reducing the risks. 
Clause 6 inserts new section 44 which requires every person to inform the ministry “of the presence of what appears to be an organism not normally seen or otherwise detected in New Zealand.” The only problem with that is that there is a need for a comprehensive and ongoing education programme to inform the public of the organisms that are normally seen in New Zealand. The lack of informed knowledge in this area may make that clause unworkable. However I understand its intent and it may well provide an early indication of new organisms when they arrive in New Zealand after having already slipped past the border controls that are in place. 
 Many MPs in the House may well have received a letter as I have done from a Bruce Hollamby of Mystic Ferrets which is one of only three private ferret businesses in New Zealand. The business creates close to $1 million in exports of desexed live ferrets to the United States as pets. There is also a small domestic market of similarly desexed animals. Mr Hollenby maintains that he is being unfairly treated under clause 4 of this bill and I understand that he intends to sue the Government for the loss of business. 
In his letter to us Mr Hollamby indicated that he has two main concerns with regard to this bill. Firstly although his business and his company is able to continue as long as he is running the company that effectively makes his business and company valueless. The moment that he tries to sell the company it will no longer exist. Secondly and more important to the New Zealand economy—in particular to New Zealand’s domestic economy—Mr Hollamby maintains that by banning the farming of ferrets amateur breeders will simply go underground and create a huge black market without the safeguards of the animals being desexed. That would certainly be a concern. If amateur breeders start to release pets into the wild that have not been desexed then we will have a major problem. 
I would also like to touch on the issue of aerial spraying. This bill reduces the notification period for that from 2 weeks down to 24 hours. In fact the bill even has a clause in it that reduces the period down to less than 24 hours under certain circumstances. I see that as a very important part of the bill because if an organism is discovered and is one that has the potential to spread rapidly then the minimum period is probably zero hours if we are to make sure it is eradicated immediately. However under the circumstances of the aerial spraying of a large area like west Auckland the concerns there are that a 24-hour minimum period is possibly not even enough for the people who will be affected to become aware of the dangers and the difficulties that they may suffer health-wise. 
Therein lies a problem given that there has not been any extensive research on the people of west Auckland prior to the aerial spraying commencing. When it was discovered that many people were suffering ill effects from the spraying of that area there was no background information on those people that could be used as a basis for identifying or admitting that there was a problem with the spraying. Basically those people were allowed to move out of the area and their expenses were paid but it is not acknowledged that the spraying may well be causing some major health problems for those people. We need to examine that area of this bill in more depth during the Committee stage. We can examine it during the Committee stage and look at some ways of tightening it up to improve that situation. 
Another area that concerns me is to do with the lack of a database of the exotic and unwelcome organisms that are present in our trading partners. If the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the other biosecurity bodies had a comprehensive database of the organisms that are potential dangers to New Zealand and are known to exist in the countries that are our trading partners then we would have a much better idea of the risks and a better chance of identifying those organisms as they arrive on the border. That is one of the difficulties that the authorities ran into when the painted apple moth and some of the other similar organisms were discovered. The organisms did not exist on a database so the authorities had to track them down and find out whether they would be a threat. By the time the painted apple moth was tracked down it had spread beyond an area in which it could be easily contained. Therefore it required a much larger spray programme effectively trying to contain the painted apple moth. In the meantime while a spray programme was going on in the central area the painted apple moth was spreading beyond that area before the authorities had even got to it. It was unfortunately that that organism had already spread outside the initial spray area before spraying began. 
So I think we need to tighten this bill up. The intent of the bill is very good and we will support it. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: It is always a pleasure to speak on issues on which there is a huge degree of unanimity within the House. Unfortunately the Government brings far too many bills before the House that do not have any common sense and do not reflect the wishes of the entire select committee but this surely is one that does. Who amongst us here would deny the value of biosecurity to this country? No other issue is more important to this country. I will not bore the House or the public by going through the figures again. I think it was Dr Paul Hutchison who gave the House a very good indicator of the impact that a major outbreak of a disease such as foot-and-mouth would have on this country. 
I want to turn my attention to the practicalities of biosecurity—that is the way that things work outside this ivory tower out in the real world. I want to give the House a couple of examples. The bill states that there is an obligation on members of the public to inform the authorities if they have cause or reason to suspect that an organism they come across is one that is not wanted. Let me tell members of an instance of that. Some years ago in the Maniototo a well-known farmer discovered what he thought was nassella tussock. He swore his employees to secrecy because if it had been notified to the authorities it would have cost him a lot of money. He did nothing about it in terms of informing the authorities but did a lot of work in terms of trying to grub that particular nasty tussock out of our environment. He did so for about 15 years only to discover by chance that it was not nassella tussock but was in fact a thing called Australian sedge. The guy just about broke down in tears to think of all the work he had done for all those years in grubbing out something that was not really a problem. I tell that story to make the House understand the importance of people in New Zealand failing to recognise and report those sorts of plants or what could be potential incursions to the appropriate authority. It should not be a threat to do so. 
I would also like to talk about one of the more recent and highly publicised biosecurity threats. It even got me on the Mary Lambie show. A man cannot aspire very much higher than that! It was the Mary Lambie show at 10.30 in the morning—about the appropriate time for all good farmers to be in for their lunch or morning tea and not breakfast as is the case with the Green Party farmers. That show was about the introduction of rabbit calicivirus disease as it was then known which is now known as rabbit haemorrhagic disease. What a marvellous result that disease has had for this country and for the environment. We hear so much about this Government being very concerned about the environment but it did nothing about introducing that disease. I will touch on another issue a little later on that the Government is studiously ignoring. But rabbit haemorrhagic disease was only brought into this country—and illegally—because the authorities would not recognise the benefit of myxomatosis before that. 
 The Government had virtually promised for years that it would introduce those organisms to protect our environment. Who amongst us can stand in this House with a hand on his or her heart and say the introduction of rabbit haemorrhagic disease has been a disaster for this country? It has been an absolutely outstanding success and it was brought in illegally. 
Yet there have of course been huge failures. I think back to many many years ago when the early settlers brought things like gorse and broom rabbits stoats weasels and those sorts of organisms that have produced enormous harm to our economy. 
Brent Catchpole 
: Red deer. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Red deer have almost become indigenous. They are just like brown and rainbow trout. Now there is an issue. The Fish and Game Council would say those trout species provide a fantastic recreational opportunity for the people of this country. The rabid “greenies” and there are one or two of them in the Minister’s office would say we should get rid of those unwanted organisms brown and rainbow trout because they are—let us wait for this—introduced species so they are not welcome in this country. Yet each one of us is an introduced species. I include my Maori colleagues in that statement. Each one of us was introduced to this country one way or another. Some of us are more wanted organisms than others and we have to live with that I guess. 
But there have been very very significant biosecurity breaches that have been devastating and I mentioned a few of them before. The most recent devastating one was the varroa bee mite. I suspect that the full impact of the varroa bee mite coming into this country is not understood to this day in terms of the impact it will have on our native flora and fauna. Wild bees pollinate much of our native flora and that could well be lost. The Government sat on its hands for months before it decided to give control of the varroa bee mite a go. 
We have a disease that seems to permeate this Labour Government and it is called procrastination. Labour members thought that was a big decision. That does not surprise me because Government members are so unused to decision making that they struggle to know which side of bed to get out of in the morning. They toss a coin and ask what they should do today and then ask what will happen if they make the wrong choice. That is just a reflection on the Government. It desperately needs the experience of people from the Opposition side of the House who have had experience out in the real world the real environment and who know how to react. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I would like to ask that rather vociferous-sounding individual the chief Government whip why this Government will not make a very simple introduction into this country in order to enhance our biosecurity enormously. I am talking about the gamma radiation of fruit which would have an immediate impact on anybody bringing product into this country—and we have heard that over 8 tonnes of meat product comes into this country illegally. 
Stephen Franks 
: Radiate them with their fruit. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: My colleague is absolutely right. But why do we studiously ignore the huge opportunity that gamma radiation gives to the biosecurity of this island country of ours that is so dependent on ensuring that we do make sure that unwanted organisms do not come into it? 
I along with all members of the Opposition deeply lament the total lack of research and development that has gone into biosecurity in this country. Yet again the Australians have beaten us. I see a blank look on the face of my colleague Ian Ewen-Street who is wondering how they have beaten us again on this issue. Technology developed in Australia just recently has shown that if nitrogen gas is bubbled through the ballast of ships it will kill virtually all the organisms that exist in that ballast. That is a huge problem because ships come into New Zealand constantly for trade. We can even export water out of Deep Cove for example but there is concern about the ballast brought in from the Far East or anywhere else in the world. Ships remove the ballast and introduce the fresh water out of our wonderful pristine environment in its place. 
Technology and science—dare I say those words in this House in the presence of Government members when I know how they hate science and dismiss it? I say that we have huge opportunity to upgrade the security of our borders by just listening to scientists and spending more of our resources on the things that matter like science technology and introducing chemists to study the problems that we do face and must solve. We will not solve the problems just by burying our heads in the sand and pretending that gamma radiation is not really the major advance that it is. We have the opportunity right now to introduce it—in fact it is old technology—and we could move forward quite rapidly to introduce new technology. 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: It is a privilege to speak in the second reading of this bill. When reading through the report of the Primary Production Committee which addressed this bill on getting to the committee membership the name of a member of that committee—Gavan Herlihy—leapt out at me. It is a name that this House has not heard for some time. As I recall Gavan Herlihy was a very good member. Unfortunately he is the only member from that committee who is no longer in the Parliament but that matters not. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: The Greens will support this bill. We recognise that biosecurity is enormously important to this country. The greatest danger facing this country is not from invading armies but from invading species. 
I was very interested to hear my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison list some of the species that have invaded this country just recently. He is quite right. But what Dr Hutchison overlooks is that at the same time as he is concerned about biosecurity he is also a very proactive zealot in terms of promoting genetically engineered (GE) organisms. Obviously Dr Hutchison fails to recognise that those organisms are themselves alien species. We know that they are alien species because a natural species cannot be patented whereas a GE species can be. GE organisms are by definition alien species. We do not know what the long-term consequences of releasing them into our environment may be. We do not know whether they will be the gorse possums and rabbits of the future; we simply do not know that. 
We have only to look at the example of what has happened in Canada with GE organisms there. GE canola was supposed to be the saviour of Canadian agriculture but Canada found that GE canola which was designed to be resistant to herbicide—in particular to glyphosate which is the generic name for Roundup—escaped from the paddocks and got into roadside verges and gullies. Because it was resistant to Roundup it could not be killed with that so more toxic and persistent chemicals than Roundup had to be used to get rid of it. That created a major problem in terms of weed control and Canada finished up by declaring GE canola to be a noxious species. 
Phil Heatley 
: They created a monster. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: They did create a monster. 
Phil Heatley 
: Frankenstein. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: Frankenstein food. It is very interesting to listen to people in this House talk about biosecurity. The free-trade zealots like my colleague from ACT Mr Eckhoff are very keen on having free trade come into this country. Yet it is free trade and tourism that are creating the major problem for biosecurity in this country. People are tempted to open sea containers or to smuggle goods through on their person when they come in on aeroplanes. That is where the real problems lie in this country. 
In terms of the bill itself I am very pleased to see that people can now report unusual organisms on an 0800 number rather than having to go specifically to chief technical officers. I do have concerns though about the non-requirement to report unusual species that are legitimately in New Zealand under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. My concern is really about what I have just outlined with regard to GE organisms. Those organisms may well be legitimately in this country. They may have been approved by the Environmental Risk Management Authority and approved under the Act but what happens in a situation like the one the Canadians have had with their canola when those organisms start to appear in places where they should not be? It is the people who know their farms the vets and the stock agents who know when those species start to appear so they should be required to report all alien species and particularly GE ones. 
I suspect that if we do buckle under the free-trade pressure of the United States and destroy our own main economic base of providing clean green agricultural products then we will need to further amend this legislation. I can see the day coming when this legislation will come back to the House and we have to amend it to compel people to report alien species particularly GE ones. 
I have some concern about the phrase in clause 24 that refers to a person who knows or could reasonably be expected to know what an alien species is and where it should be. How do we judge whom those people are? Who does the judging? 
Phil Heatley 
: I’ve been “taken”. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: Phil Heatley knows; he will be the judge. That only compounds my concerns. 
Phil Heatley 
: I’ve been operated on. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: He has been neutralised! People will say that farmers could reasonably be expected to know whether an alien species has arrived on their property. That is perfectly true. North Island farmers may be able to recognise that the varroa bee mite has infected a beehive because they know how bees normally behave in that situation. But could a South Island farmer reasonably be expected to know what a varroa bee mite infestation looks like? 
Dianne Yates 
: They are very small. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: I am talking about the behaviour of the bees. Farmers vets stock agents and people like that are the front line of our defences. They are the eyes and ears of our defences. They will almost certainly identify things rather than Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officials. I believe it is incumbent on the ministry to establish and maintain very good working relationships with those people because they literally are the eyes and ears of our defence. 
I will step to one side for a moment and mention the relationships between the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the people of west Auckland. The handling of the painted apple moth incursion up there was a debacle. Even when I use the most encouraging phraseology possible I cannot think that that was in any way a successful operation. Oh yes the ministry may have spent $90 million on the blanket spraying of west Auckland multiple times and it may have just about eradicated the moth but the public relations war with west Auckland residents has been largely lost. The ministry’s behaviour over that incursion was despicable. 
I turn now to the reduced notice period for aerial spraying. I support the basic rationale for that which is the idea that if something is invading a farm—let us say foot-and-mouth for argument’s sake—it is incumbent on the ministry or whoever is responsible for getting rid of it to do so as soon as possible. If that requires aerial spraying so be it. But to wait for 14 days before that can be done is simply ludicrous. We discussed that at some length in the Primary Production Committee I seem to recall. We talked about whether to have 1 day’s notice. The idea was that if one was spraying in remote areas one needed to give farmers the opportunity to go back to the homestead or to give people the opportunity to pick up their kids from school or to take the domestic pets away—that sort of thing. In the end we decided it was better to leave the provision with no specified notice period and to leave such notice to the discretion of the chief technical officer. 
I do have some doubts about that. I do not doubt the competence of the chief technical officers and I think they would demonstrate a degree of flexibility in introducing aerial spraying very quickly. But they need to be aware of the problems that can be incurred if they immediately spray houses domestic pets children’s schools and so on without any notice at all. I am sure that is not what is intended but I have a sneaky suspicion that maybe we need to do more in terms of specifying that. 
Overall I see the amendments in this bill as being very good but they tend to be like the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. The best way to keep New Zealand free of alien species quite apart from not releasing GE species— 
Marc Alexander 
: Ban all trade. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: —is not to ban all trade but to be very careful about how we trade and with whom we trade. We simply cannot afford to have destructive species like foot-and-mouth the Asian gypsy moth the glassy-winged sharpshooter and whatever else cross the border in the first place. It is much easier to keep them out than to eradicate them after they arrive. In recent years biosecurity control at the border and at airports has improved out of sight. There is now something like a 100 percent inspection rate of people coming into the country and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry calculates there is something like a 94 percent interception rate. We inspect 100 percent of all mail coming into this country. I have no problem with either of those two areas. 
I do have concerns about the present scheme of inspecting only 24 percent of the 400000 containers that come into this country though I am very pleased with the recent Government initiative to move towards 100 percent decontamination or inspection at container devanning sites. My concern about that proposal though is that the Government wants the owners of the devanning sites to look after the biosecurity issue. That creates a potential conflict of interest because on the one hand those people make their money by getting the goods out of the containers into warehouses and off to clients and on the other hand the biosecurity aspects will only slow that process down. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: I am very pleased to speak on the Biosecurity Amendment Bill under the name of my esteemed colleague the Hon Jim Sutton who is a hard-working and conscientious member. 
I see in the commentary that the Act is the principal authority for actions to keep harmful organisms out of New Zealand. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Would that apply to ACT? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That would be the only amendment I would be tempted to move—that it apply to the ACT party. There is no doubt that the ACT party is certainly a harmful organism for New Zealand. 
When we look over the report of the Primary Production Committee we see it is a very good one. It states: “Surveillance forms an important part of New Zealand’s biosecurity system. We are aware of New Zealand’s heavy reliance on passive surveillance and agree more needs to be done to assist those who are in a position to provide early detection of an organism not normally seen in New Zealand.” Of course the good thing about the ACT party is that at 3.2 percent in the polls it is now starting to become a very endangered species and more surveillance is needed because it is an organism that might no longer normally be seen in New Zealand. So we need to keep up the surveillance. Of course as the report states surveillance is important for “our front line defence against unwanted incursions”. Certainly the ACT party has been an unwanted incursion. The report also states there needs to be more support for people who are carrying out surveillance and: “The duty to inform must be backed up by a comprehensive education campaign.” I am certain that the Government will be continuing our high-profile education campaign on how we might keep biosecurity incursions like the ACT party out of New Zealand. 
This is very good legislation from a very good Minister in an extremely hard-working and progressive Government. I am very proud to support the bill. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: It was interesting to hear the Minister of Transport. It would have been good if the Minister had got up to speed with the bill because I know that many members are interested in the actual contents both technical and factual. 
I was on the Primary Production Committee and members will be well aware of that. We took on board this bill way back on 16 August 2001 when it was referred to the committee. The House is reading it now for the second time. My maths tells me that that is 2 years on. There has been no sense of urgency from the Government and that is quite disheartening for us because we did sweat hard over this bill. We know the significance and the importance of biosecurity to this nation. It is unfortunate that it has taken 2 years. 
We can—and members know this—list a number of breaches of biosecurity since the Act was passed particularly in the last 4 years. The painted apple moth has come up time and time again but there has been a whole lot of other incursions. I would like to thank Marian Hobbs for the painted apple moth and various other pests! The 11 biosecurity incursions into this country include the Asian gypsy moth which is not a Green Party member but a bug that could hurt many of our crops. The fall web worm and crazy ants—[ 
Interruption 
] No I tell Minister Dalziel that is not a Green Party member. Other incursions are fire ants mosquito larvae Asian tiger mosquito larvae the Sydney huntsman spider and the Australian redback spider and eggs. It sounds like a tour of the world does it not? When this Labour Government is in power who needs to travel? We have had the North American southern ring-necked snake. Cane toads are coming as well. When we drive home tonight we will hear all sorts of popping as we speed along the road because cane toads from Australia are here. And we have had a solitary scorpion. 
So we have had visitors from Asia in the form of the Asian gypsy moth and Asian tiger mosquito larvae. From Sydney we have had the Sydney huntsman spider the Australian redback spider and the North American southern ring-necked snake. Who needs to travel the world? Who needs air points? Not one member in this Parliament does because the world is coming to see us. Thank you Marian Hobbs! The world of animals the world of the invertebrate are coming to visit us here in New Zealand. Eleven of them have come in the last 4 years. It is a hugely disappointing record from the Minister. 
On 16 August 2001 the closing date for submissions was 24 September 2001 so members can appreciate how quickly we called for submissions. We closed them off and spent a lot of time speaking with the submitters listening to them and putting our thoughts into the bill as reported back with its changes. I emphasise once again our frustration—knowing how important biosecurity is for New Zealand—that it has taken 2 years for the bill to come back to the House. 
I would like to go through various issues that we discussed during the select committee process. First of all clause 9—[ 
Interruption 
] I can tell David Benson-Pope that compared with those 11 visitors to this country from Australia from Asia from North America and from around the globe he is the most harmless incursion that Parliament has had in the last 4 years or however long he has been sleeping here. Does anyone know how long David Benson-Pope has been sleeping here? He is the most harmless incursion that this country and this Parliament have had. I ask him to wake up and take a call later. 
Clause 9 gives the principal Act a slightly more punitive air. It targets pest management levies at those who either actively or through their inactivity cause a problem. I assume we will be talking more about clause 9 later on tonight. It is headed “Restrictions on levies” and is a very punitive user-pays or polluter-pays type of measure. It states that the persons who will undergo the punitive measure of levies are those who are likely to benefit from the implementation of the strategy—that is growers and those who raise animals. Anyone who is likely to benefit directly from the strategy will incur the levies. That is something we should consider during the Committee stage. But the levies also affect those who either actively or inactively create or exacerbate the problem of an incursion. Marian Hobbs who has invited 11 different species from around the world into this country could be defined as someone who has exacerbated the problem here in this country. That is the Government’s immigration policy; it welcomes from around the world— 
Ron Mark 
: All sorts of vermin. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: —visiting invertebrates snakes and vermin. People like Marian Hobbs will incur a punitive measure under that user-pays or polluter-pays philosophy. 
So we addressed that issue. The next major issue that we addressed is in clause 18 which is about spraying programmes. Ian Ewen-Street I think talked a little about Auckland. He visited Auckland when the spraying programme was going on up there and I know he is quite concerned about it. Most of us here in the House tonight can see the results of his visit. While many who have visited Auckland are reporting scratches and itches in all sorts of private places Ian Ewen-Street has created a snow of his own with falling hair! That illustrates that there is a genuine concern in Auckland. 
Clause 18—and obviously we will deal with this clause in the Committee stage—is about the degree of notice that needs to be given to people living in a spray area. One can appreciate that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and those responsible for curbing the biosecurity risk—curbing the incursion invited into this country by Marian Hobbs—might want to act very very quickly. One can appreciate how much the population of an incursion might explode in 2 weeks. Not all invertebrates snakes or vermin that enter the country will breed quickly. Some are quite slothful. It is as though they are asleep. I talked about David Benson-Pope who is a harmless incursion; these incursions will move a lot faster than he does. For a start they will be awake. We may need to act quickly so we may have to reduce the time available to inform local residents that there is to be a spray programme. 
If there is that urgency we can assume—and the bill actually outlines this—that although people will get a warning period that is shorter than 2 weeks that warning will be as thorough as possible. We would not expect to see a small inch-by-inch advertisement at the back of the local weekly community paper; we would hope instead that the warning would be advertised in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on television and so on. So in putting in that amendment—narrowing down the time from 2 weeks to 24 hours in some cases—we do say clearly that the notice must be advertised as thoroughly as possible and I am sure the officials involved at the time will apply that rule. 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: Although I recognise the humour that is passing backwards and forwards tonight on this bill it is a very serious and very important biosecurity bill. I wish to support it and also acknowledge the support of all members of the House. 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: The member who has just resumed her seat is quite correct; this is a very very important amendment bill. I would like to start by paying tribute to some of the members on the Primary Production Committee for the work they did. First of all I pay tribute to the work done by Gavan Herlihy Shane Ardern and of course my colleague Phil Heatley who has just resumed his seat having given a rather humorous if not novel but also very full and practical speech about the implications of this bill. 
 Biosecurity is one of the key problems facing this economy because frankly if we get an incursion we do not want the economy could more or less come to a halt within a very short space of time. I used to work within the agricultural industry so things like foot-and-mouth disease scrapie mad cow disease— 
Phil Heatley 
: Marian has all of those! 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I am not sure about that but if any of the problems that are faced around the world were to come here we would certainly have problems. One commentator from the agricultural industry said that if foot-and-mouth disease were to come to this country the economy could potentially shut down within 3 months’ time such is our dependence on agriculture. Such is the concern about an incursion of that nature. 
It is interesting to go over a bit of the history of this portfolio because it is a very very important one and when things go wrong in this area the impact can be huge. What did this Government do? It gave the portfolio to Marian Hobbs. She was the previous Minister for Biosecurity and during her time as Minister we saw a number of incursions a number of uninvited guests that the rest of the country was not very keen on—for example the yellow flower wasp the kentia palm seed borer the southern saltmarsh mosquito the avian pox virus the lettuce aphid the eastern flower thrip and the Asian kelp not to mention the varroa bee mite which many bee-keepers got for Christmas from that particular Minister. Because of her inaction and inability to act in a timely manner the whole problem became very out of control and now is threatening the entire honey industry. 
But let us also mention the painted apple moth. So far the cost has been about $90 million to try to deal with that particular problem. If money had been spent on biosecurity in the first place the country would not have to fork out such a large amount of money now. That moth should not have got here in the first place. It was interesting listening to Mr Ian Ewen-Street talk about the spraying in Auckland. Initially I was very supportive of that spraying as I understand the importance of the agricultural industry to this country. But as a parent I am concerned about the continual spraying of children the elderly and others who do not know what is being sprayed on them. I am beginning to accept that people up there have some real concerns. I too would be livid if my family was being continually sprayed with something and I did not have a clue what it was. Certainly we are seeing some unwanted outcomes within the community. 
This bill has some technical amendments but also some quite important ones. It reduces the time frame required before the ministry can act in relation to newly discovered pests. It also tidies up what the public need to do to inform the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of any biosecurity incursions that they become aware of. Not to do so would be an offence and the guilty person could be fined up to $5000. I think it is quite important that we understand the impact of that. It sends a quite clear message that biosecurity is important to this country and that if people do not play their part by telling the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry when they come into contact with incursions a penalty may apply. 
It is important also to look once again at what the potential impact could be if we have problems in this area. Let us look at the value of some of the industries that are very much dependent on our keeping a lot of bugs and pests out of New Zealand. Horticulture and fruitgrowing for example are worth $847 million to the national economy. Livestock and cropping are worth $1757 billion. Dairy cattle farming is worth $1832 billion and other farming is worth $332 million. Unwanted pests and diseases coming into this country could potentially have an impact on such major industries. One sees why biosecurity is something that this side of the House takes extremely seriously. 
I was concerned when I read a recent story about the way the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry goes about reviewing containers as they come into the country. Last year the ministry inspected about 24 percent of high-risk containers and randomly selected another 5 to 10 percent for internal inspection which means an officer basically just shoves his head inside the container and has a wee look. I had expected that inspections would be far more thorough than that but I was wrong. The ministry did a survey. For the first time the ministry did a thorough check and containers that had already been “door inspected” were inspected once again. The results of that particular investigation were very worrying. The officers found five live alien spiders and three insects in 1517 containers. That goes to show that once-over-lightly—a head poked into the odd container—does not pick up all the pests bugs and incursions that potentially can come into this country. Obviously a far more thorough investigation needs to be made of containers when they come into this country. 
As we know that will have a cost but what we are facing now in dealing with one particular incursion the painted apple moth shows that if incursions are not dealt with before they are established here we face the cost of eradicating these pests and diseases. So in a way a biosecurity policy is very much an insurance policy. It is an insurance policy for the agricultural and horticultural industries—an insurance policy against potential economic disaster should scrapie mad cow disease or a number of other real problems around the world threaten our country. 
So I am a great supporter of quarantining. I am a great supporter of ensuring that there are more stringent requirements both at the borders and in terms of the importation of goods. At the moment trying to track down incursions is very much hit-and-miss. It does rely very much on the general public. I think the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry sometimes hopes that it has a bit of luck and that somebody will discover something before it goes too far. But it relies very heavily also on having a Minister who will act in a timely manner and make decisions when those decisions are needed. The previous Minister—thank goodness there has been a change—did not really inspire great confidence in the hearts of the New Zealand public particularly amongst those in the rural community. 
Increased biosecurity does mean increased costs to the public but as I have said it is an insurance policy and something that very much protects our economic prosperity and our ability to pay for the things we hold dear like health services education etc. If we were to have a major incursion such as foot-and-mouth disease potentially our economy could shut down within 3 months and certainly we would go from being a First World country to being a Third World country in a very short amount of time. So I look forward to the Committee stage of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill so that I can look at some of the individual clauses that members on this side still have some concerns about. We will be putting some amendments to make some improvements to what we think are holes in this legislation. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Biosecurity 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Biosecurity Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: Members will recall that I informed the Parliament that I was on the select committee with various members who are sprinkled around the Chamber tonight that considered this bill 2 years ago. At that time the title “Biosecurity Amendment Bill” appeared to be a fair enough title. Of course we have the original legislation the Biosecurity Act and this bill makes amendments to it. They are smart amendments—I might add having had the fortune of meeting people across the table who were interested in and saw the significance of biosecurity in New Zealand. However a lot has happened since then. We have had a large number of incursions in New Zealand. I listed those earlier and in order for the title to recognise the seriousness of these incursions which it does not do at present I suggest that instead—and I might put an amendment forward later; I am not sure what other members might do—the title should be the “Biosecurity (Stamping Out Recent Incursions) Bill”. 
I say that only because in recent years we have seen cane toads coming into this country as well as the fall webworm crazy ants the Asian gypsy moth the huntsman spider from Australia the redback spider the mosquito larvae the North American ring-necked snake the glassy-winged sharpshooter the Argentine ant—a visitor from Argentina I assume—and the varroa bee mite. 
That is why I talk about recent incursions because in recent years we have had all these visitors from Australia North America and now Argentina. Why should not the title be the “Biosecurity (Stamping Out Recent Incursions) Amendment Bill”? I would be interested in other members commenting on that. This solution should have come before the Parliament a long time before now. As I have said I was on the select committee over 2 years ago. I recall the urgency at the time. We have not seen any since. What we have seen is New Zealanders all around this country trying to stamp out and not with bare feet all these incursions into this country—insects and vertebrates snakes glassy-winged sharpshooters and on the list goes. I would be interested to see whether any other amendments in relation to the title come forward. I would be happy to support any sensible suggestions but I certainly put my suggestion forward and ask that members look at it very very seriously indeed. 
I would be very hesitant to list in the title the names of all these visitors. Imagine doing that! It would be easy though for New Zealanders if they could look up the bill and find out when the Argentine ant or the glassy-winged sharpshooter came to New Zealand. I cannot remember when the cane toads arrived. All I know is that when I go down the driveway they pop. I cannot remember when they came but I would like to look it up in the bill and find out when they visited New Zealand. It would be good if we had them listed in the title. The problem is that the title would be as long as the bill. Imagine that! Imagine having a title as long as the bill and it would be as long as the bill because of all the visitors we have had to this country. I hesitate to go through them again— 
Sandra Goudie 
: But you will. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: The member should not encourage me. I hesitate to go through them all again. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: I would like to take a relatively short call on the title of the bill. To speak on a relatively short title “Biosecurity Amendment Bill” is not an easy thing to do. The word that is lacking I suspect is “importance” or “important”. Nothing in the title of the bill reflects the concerns expressed by everybody who understands just how important biosecurity is to this country. I have talked as I said before to farmers all over the country and at Mystery Creek just recently. When I asked them what was their most important concern the one overriding concern was biosecurity. Yet when I read the title and I guess that when a farmer or anybody reads in the paper tomorrow morning that the Biosecurity Amendment Bill was debated in Parliament it will reflect nothing. Somebody from the city for example would think: “Well yes I have heard of biosecurity and I guess it is something to do with stopping organisms.” But I really think that in the title of these bills we need to inform the public so much more comprehensively about what we are debating. 
We are debating—in my view certainly from an agrarian’s point of view—probably one of the most important issues that we can possibly debate or talk about in this Parliament. Indeed the pleasing thing as I said earlier is that there is such a large degree of unanimity. But again it is very very difficult for members of the public to understand what goes in this Parliament unless the title of a bill accurately reflects the proceedings of the Parliament. Quite frankly the “Hon Jim Sutton” and “Biosecurity Amendment Bill” does not mean a great deal to most people until they understand the importance and the commitment that it places on members of the public because every one of us has a duty to ensure that our country’s biosecurity is not compromised. 
We have heard so many speeches from so many members on this side of the Chamber detailing this huge list. Is it not extraordinary that this list seems to be rather large during the tenure of this current Government? Should not the title of the bill reflect the inadequate attention that this Government has paid to this problem? If I can answer my own question I think it should. I note Janet Mackey nodding her head in total agreement. She is on the Primary Production Committee and she is a good member I must say. She understands the significance of biosecurity to this country. 
It is regrettable that David Benson Pope the chief Government whip sits there with probably no understanding of the huge importance of this bill to the average member of this Government. The only time he makes a speech is when he stands up to say: “Madam Chair I move that the motion be now put.” That is the extent of the contribution of so many Government members but I must say that on the Primary Production Committee we do get some worthwhile contributions from those who understand the significance of the rural sector. When was the last time the Prime Minister spoke about the rural sector other than to give it a good swift kick and to milk more money from it? So the contribution that I would like to make at this particular point is that the title does not accurately reflect the importance to this country of such an overwhelmingly serious subject as biosecurity. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: I would like to agree with Gerry Eckhoff who made some very valid points in his speech. He mentioned that biosecurity is vitally important. This actually has to do with the Biosecurity Amendment Act 2001. Does that ring some bells? This bill has been sitting here while the Government wonders whether problems will spread as the painted apple moth has spread. The Government has left the bill on the Table since 2001. In fact it goes back to August 2001 when it was introduced. The title clause 1(1) says it all: “… the Biosecurity Amendment Act 2001.” This Government has sat on this bill when biosecurity is one of the most important aspects of our economy and when there are dangers to our economy from incursions of organisms that will damage our livestock and particularly our bees. When the varroa bee mite came into this country the Government once more sat on that incursion. It did not know what to do with that problem in the same way that it did not know what to do with this bill that has been sitting there since 2001. 
The Government has allowed all of those other incursions to occur because it was too slow in getting this bill into the House and to the Table for proper debate. The Government has waited all of that time and now under urgency we are trying to get the bill through quickly. 
I ask why the bill was not brought in under urgency a long time ago. Why has it sat there for 2 years while other incursions have occurred? We have a list of those incursions and I will not attempt to repeat the long list of them given by a previous speaker because it would probably take us all night to get through them all. It would probably take us to 2005 while we waited for this bill to come through the House again. But biosecurity is one of the most important aspects of our economy and to leave this bill sitting there since 2001 to be enacted as the Biosecurity Amendment Act 2001 is a disgrace. This Government really needs to get off its backside and sort out our biosecurity. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: I rise to take a very brief call but after listening to the last two speakers who said that they were struggling with the title it suddenly came to me what we should have. They did not offer us an alternative but it suddenly came to me in a flash that the correct title for this bill should be the “Thank God for United Future Who Have Given Support This Week for Urgency so This Biosecurity Amendment Bill Could Go Through Bill”. That could be a useful amendment and I hope we will move on to other more substantive parts of the bill very soon. 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: That is not a very novel title for the bill. I do not know whether God will be very interested in this bill once He reads it. I think that He will be a bit concerned rather about it being about biosecurity when really what is contained in this bill is more about bio-risk. I think that the name of the bill should be the “Bio-risk Amendment Bill” because if we look at the long list of incursions we have had since the 1930s such as the Avondale spider—and we have listed a number of others—there have been about 10 just before— 
Brent Catchpole 
: They are from my home town. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: That is the home town of the member from New Zealand First. Before about 1999 there were only 10 incursions but what is really upsetting is that there have been seven during the term of this Government. So getting back to the title if we are looking at being secure or incorporating some sort of feeling of security into the name of the bill I think that is quite misleading. Certainly during the time of the previous Minister it was a case of “Let’s all head for the New Zealand borders.” with the yellow flower wasp and the kentia palm seed borer not to mention the southern saltmarsh mosquito and once again the avian pox virus—my personal favourite—the lettuce aphid and the eastern flower thrips. Now rather than having a secure border it has been very insecure because a lot of things have come in and threatened the agricultural and horticultural industries. 
If we are looking in particular at the incursion of the varroa bee mite which was one of the first issues the Minister had to deal with I think we could incorporate some reference to that in the title and one of my suggestions is that we call the bill the “Christmas Came Early and Marian Gave Us Varroa Bee Mite Bill”. I can see a lot of nodding heads from around the Chamber of people thinking that that is quite an improvement to the name of the bill. Another option is that we could call this bill the “Spray People with Chemicals Because I Couldn’t be Bothered Spending It at the Border Bill” because that is certainly the way a lot of people from west Auckland whom I have spoken to feel. They were quite happy to play along with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry first of all but after successive sprays I think that their tolerance has worn thin. 
I also think that it has become quite an important issue for this country because if we look at the number of incursions just in the last few years we see that they are coming thick and fast. Rather than getting better at managing biosecurity I think that things are not very secure and the present title we have has become somewhat misleading. This bill really should be more aptly titled the “Luck of the Draw and Catch a Few Greeblies if You Are Lucky Bill” because at the moment we have seen the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry rely very heavily on the general public to do its job for it. We have already heard in previous speeches that very few of the containers at ports actually get checked—somewhere between 5 and 10 percent. So it is very much the luck of the draw in terms of getting a number of these incursions when they should be discovered—that is when they first come in. A pest or insect would probably have to be very unlucky to be caught by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry because if we look at those other invaders I think all of them have been identified by the general public. 
It is important that we have a bill that is correctly titled and that reflects the important nature of the legislation so I have put forward some suggestions and look forward to hearing others from my colleagues on this side of the Chamber about how the bill could be more appropriately titled. It is important that we have a bill with a name that people can identify with and look at and immediately know what it is about. Quite simply to imply that this bill is about security after such a staggeringly poor track record of letting so many pests and greeblies into New Zealand we say that the bill has nothing about security at all. It has everything to do with bio-risk so that is why I have made some suggestions for the title. 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to and clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 Commencement 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: It is good to be able to speak to clause 2. I would like to talk about the commencement date. It is an absolute tragedy that this bill has a commencement date of maybe tomorrow or maybe 2 weeks from now. This should have been— 
Brent Catchpole 
: It should have been 2 years ago. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Absolutely. It should have been 2 years ago in 2001. It is an absolute tragedy that it has had to wait as long as this. We fully understand the importance of biosecurity on this side of the Chamber—that is my colleagues over here excluding the ones over there and we all know to whom I am referring. This commencement date is a tragedy. Only 7 months ago we had several reports on biosecurity—I have a pile of press releases here about incursions. Here is one from 9 January which talks about New Zealand being ill-prepared to meet any looming biosecurity threat. Here is another one from January: “Eye out for agriterror” stating that how New Zealand reacts is a key to dealing with agricultural contamination. It is a huge issue for New Zealand. The consequences are absolutely enormous and I will elucidate on that later in my presentation. I am sure I will probably far exceed the 5 minutes allotted to me. 
Here is another one on 17 January: “Search intensifies for foreign mozzie”. Of course members have heard my learned colleague speak about the range of pests. I am sure I will be forced at some stage to go through that list again but for the moment we are talking about the headline “Search intensifies for foreign mozzie” on 17 January. So far I have hit only January and that is three press releases already. There are still a lot more. Here is another one for January so this is the fourth one: “Man admits importing tussock moth eggs”. Here is a gentleman actually importing them so that is another one that was missed. This is the absolute— 
David Parker 
: No we caught it. How else was it reported? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: I beg the member’s pardon? “Man admits importing tussock moth eggs”—this is one that was caught. How many more are actually getting through? So far we have four press releases for January alone. I cannot remember any other time in the history of my time in agriculture that we have ever had incursions to this degree and the Government has allowed this Biosecurity Amendment Bill to languish on the shelves for 2 whole years while this has been going on. We had four activities in January alone. Now I will move on to February: “Auckland to battle the eucalypt leaf moth”. Then here we go on 27 February in the  
Dominion Post 
: “Another moth gets out”.  
This reminds me of one of the problems they have with the painted apple moth in Auckland. I remember when they first wanted to do something about the painted apple moth. There was a whole heap of resistance to the initial spraying round. Where did that resistance come from? It came from the Green Party if I recall. Oh it came from the Greens certainly the real fundamentalist greenies who did not understand the importance of immediate eradication and did not want to understand the huge impact not only on the rural sector but on the nation’s economy affecting all the people of the nation. I have the substantial figures here. The net present value of the estimated impact of this painted apple moth is $58 million to $364 million. That is the impact and what did the Greens want to do? They wanted to gather the painted apple moths together. They wanted to burn them and sprinkle their ashes in the neighbourhood in the hope that the rest of the painted apple moths would go away. But where would they go? They would just go away into another neighbourhood. This is the type of suggestion the Greens are making. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: Sandra Goudie had some very good points there particularly with regard to the time delay. Clause 2 states that the bill will come in immediately but that should have been 2 years ago as Sandra Goudie said. This Government sat on its hands for 2 years and waited. It—wait for it—commissioned a report to see how well biosecurity was doing. That report told us what we already knew from the experience of departments sitting on their hands and doing nothing about all the other incursions. This report told us that biosecurity management was a disaster. In the meantime the Government waited for that report before this bill came back to the Chamber. The bill came back and now is coming into force immediately after it receives the royal assent. That royal assent should have been given to the bill 2 years ago. The Government should not wait for these reports. They should bring the bill to the House not wait for these reports. The Government waited as it did with the painted apple moth because it did not know whether it should eradicate it or just contain it. 
In the meantime the painted apple moth spread rapidly. Then when the Government finally decided it was going to eradicate it the moth had gone way beyond the area the Government had decided to eradicate it from. So by sitting and waiting by sitting on this bill and not allowing it to come back to the House the Government has left the door open for other incursions to spread. 
We have heard here tonight of numerous incursions. The varroa bee mite has spread throughout the country because the Government was not sure whether it should be eradicating it or just containing it. In the meantime it got into the feral bee population and spread throughout that population which meant it was no longer possible to eradicate it from the natural hives because they are too numerous. So by waiting 2 years to bring this bill back to the House the Government has wasted a lot of time and allowed a lot more incursions to spread. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: One of the great things about being in a debating chamber—well it is one of the things I would have thought was great about being here—is that we enter into a debate. Surprise surprise! What do we hear from the Government on these issues? We hear the immortal words uttered by Mr David Parker: “Madam Speaker I move that the motion be now put.” That is not debating this bill. It is not debating the commencement clause. Mr Mark Peck—that well-known cold-climate sex symbol from Invercargill—sits there doing absolutely nothing not being prepared to debate this bill and not being prepared to debate the commencement date. 
We have heard very good speeches from Mr Brent Catchpole and Sandra Goudie telling the Committee and New Zealand that this Government is now saying under urgency that this bill is important. Yet the bill sat there for 2 years. What are we supposed to consider when we talk about the commencement date of this bill? Every one of us on this side of the Chamber I am sure would have said that the commencement date should have been 2 years ago when the public of this country demanded it. 
I find it quite extraordinary—and I think it is important to recognise it—that not that long ago we sat in the House until 5 in the morning under extraordinary urgency debating a hugely important issue! Here we are discussing biosecurity which is obviously hugely important but what issue did we debate until 5 o’clock in the morning a month or so ago—Mississippi moonshine! 
Brent Catchpole 
: And the sherries and the ports. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: That is the stuff! Those are the sorts of priorities we are getting from this Government. It has failed totally to understand that the commencement date of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill should have been 2 years ago. What is it going to be into the future once this bill is passed? 
Despite criticism of the Government’s handling of the bill there is a consensus that we need to proceed with real haste on its commencement. However if the Government is true to form the commencement will be what—2 years’ time 3 years’ time? Members on the Government side shrug their shoulders so we have no idea when the bill might commence. The people of this country are calling constantly for action from the Government on this issue yet Government members sit on their hands passing bills like the “Mississippi Moonshine (Let’s Tax ’Em) Bill” which increased the tax on 23 percent-proof alcohol. 
Of course that sort of legislation is of some importance but I would have thought that any Government worth its salt would have recognised the importance of the commencement date of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill instead of allowing it to languish as it did for 2 years on the Order Paper. The commencement date of the bill should have been at least 2 years ago when the opportunities were there. However the Government pushed in other bits of legislation that it considered more important. 
I have some advice for the Government: do a poll. This is a poll-driven Government so it should go out and poll the people of this country on when the Biosecurity Amendment Bill should have been enacted. The Government would be berated for its inaction and procrastination on this bill—that is the only way to describe it—and for its inability to recognise that a Government must set priorities and recognise what is important to the people of the country. 
The Government must recognise that the incursion rate under its stewardship has been appalling. Marian Hobbs can stand up in the House and say: “Well we’ve had a good week haven’t we? We’ve only had three incursions.” If the issues were not so terribly serious that statement would be laughable. 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This debate is probably the most important we will be having. It affects New Zealand’s viability its position in the world and its security. In the last part you called one member from National and one from the other three parties in 15 minutes of debate. Two other National Party members were seeking the call and I would have thought that on such important legislation you would have accepted those calls. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes the next section—clauses 3 to 25 in Part 1—is certainly the main part of the bill. 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: I was very disappointed not to take a call on clause 2 “Commencement”. It was an important clause and it was very disappointing that the National Party had only one speech. Part 1 is also very important because basically it sets out the guts of the changes. It sets out the importance of the processing of unaccompanied goods the duty of the general public to let the ministry know if they see an incursion of some sort and the importance of penalties which are to be expected if members of the public do not do their duty and let the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry know when there are pests or incursions that put our economy at risk. 
I confirm my colleague Lindsay Tisch’s comment that this bill will greatly affect the whole health of the economy. If we get it wrong and something comes in—as we have seen under the management of Marian Hobbs the first Minister for Biosecurity—the effect on the economy could be dire. Members should look at what the painted apple moth has done to Auckland. Ninety million dollars is being spent there to get rid of that moth. Had changes been made at the border and the painted apple moth been caught that money could have gone into health and education. The bill is short but we will take our time debating it as we need to do justice to quite an important subject. 
If we look again at the Government’s track record on biosecurity we have deep deep concerns. Since the 1930s there have been only about 10 major incursions but since this Government took over and handed the reins to Marian Hobbs—it obviously thought this was a very important portfolio—we have seen floods of incursions into this country. As I mentioned earlier there were the yellow flower wasp the kentia palm seed borer two lesser-known but very damaging incursions such as the saltmarsh mosquito—[Interruption] Ian Ewen-Street is giving me the benefit of his knowledge in this area by listing a few others. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: And Clayton Cosgrove 
KATHERINE RICH 
: 
 And Clayton Cosgrove. I have just seen two members from the Opposition parties walk in—two most damaging incursions—one being Murray McCully and the other Rodney Hide. They have seen how important this debate is so have graced the Committee with their presence. I do hope those members take a call. 
Rodney Hide 
: Parekura Horomia. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: 
 Parekura Horomia is mentioned here as coming in in 1999—no that is the banjo frog. He is mentioned as one of the more harmless incursions to be inflicted upon the New Zealand economy but is certainly costing this country a lot of money as we speak. 
In terms of the amendments to Part 1 it is important to talk about some of the changes we are expecting in this bill. I think it is worthwhile talking about changes to the regional pest management strategy—such as how the Government will try to deal with things like the ever-extending varroa bee mite which is causing a shudder in beekeeping circles around the world. We also need to look at the contents of the levy provisions. It is called a levy but it is nothing more than another tax. A Government that said it would not introduce any new taxes has introduced at least 15 in the past 3 years and others are included in this amendment bill. 
 As I have said this bill has nothing to do with biosecurity. It is more to do with bio-risk because we have seen incursion after incursion. Going through the vast number of invaders that have been inflicted on the New Zealand population has certainly been a science lesson for me. It is not surprising given that 5 to 10 percent only of the containers that come into the country are looked at. It is a very unlucky pest that is caught by our Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry that is for sure. It really has to be an unlucky incursion to be caught at all. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: I want to take a call on Part 1 because there are a number of areas that concern us and I think the provisions should be a little tighter. First of all under clause 6 which inserts new section 44 we find the general duty of people to report the discovery of new organisms. It is great that people are required to report those discoveries but there should be some additional support for those people because I would hate to see someone fail to report an organism or resist reporting it out of the fear that it would cost them money to have it eradicated. As Gerry Eckhoff mentioned earlier on there was an incident where a farmer failed to report what he thought was an incursion of a weed that was listed as noxious and dangerous. He kept that quiet for 15 years and attempted to eradicate it himself but it turned out to be nothing more than an Australian cousin of a noxious weed and it was quite welcome here. The failure to report an incident is something that this bill tries to overcome but the mechanism to support people so they do not fear that they will have to bear the full costs of the eradication is absent. 
Another clause is to do with the regional pest management strategies. Pest management is something that needs to have an overall strategy. I would hate to see one region come up with a strategy to develop its programmes and another neighbouring region come up with a strategy that conflicts with or is not compatible with it. Ultimately an incursion in one area could slip across to a neighbouring region and there could be a conflict regarding whose responsibility it is to deal with it. That is another area that we feel should be examined. 
We are also concerned about the levy. This Government is basically setting up another tax. It calls it a levy but this Government will call a tax by any name other than a tax. It calls a tax everything but a tax. So here is another tax coming in to make sure that this Government continues. It calls the tax a levy so that it can say it has not introduced any more taxes but this is another tax. 
Clause 19 provides for the power to examine an organism when that organism is assumed to be an incursion. Without a database to match that power against and without the knowledge and the background that a database would provide in support of those examinations some of those organisms have spread very quickly—and have done so for a long time. When an organism was found not to be on the list of dangerous organisms for this country it had to be put on that list before we could do anything about it. That mechanism just does not work because inspectors do not have the time to mess around waiting for an organism to appear on a list before they can go and examine it and decide that it is dangerous and should be eradicated. That list needs to be updated regularly and a database needs to be put together of the organisms present in our overseas trading partners that are a potential danger to us. If we do not have knowledge about an organism before it arrives how are we to handle it quickly? Without that knowledge we will hang around and leave the organism to spread before we do something about it. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: This is a very important debate and I am privileged to be able to take part in it. There is nothing more important to New Zealand than our biosecurity but I want to mention one particular clause in particular clause 4. Clause 4 states: “(3) Section 7 of the principal Act is amended by adding the following subsection:” which relates to the provisions of the Wildlife Act. Mr Catchpole spoke earlier about the fact that ferret farmers could be put out of business by that particular clause. 
I want to make it very clear that under section 7 of the Wildlife Act— 
Darren Hughes 
: Brent Catchpole now writes Lindsay Tisch’s speeches. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Clause 4 is amended by Supplementary Order Paper 96 in the name of the Hon Jim Sutton. Section 7C of the Wildlife Act “Farming certain unprotected animals” states: “(1) No person shall farm breed or sell or capture or convey or keep in captivity for the purposes of farming breeding or selling any wildlife specified in the Eighth Schedule to this Act unless any such activity is authorised by the Minister pursuant to section 41 …”. The Eighth Schedule “Wildlife not protected but may be kept bred or farmed in captivity pursuant to regulations made under principal Act or by Minister’s direction” includes ferrets. 
The point is that by inserting clause 4 in the bill it simply means there is no security for the people who were involved in the breeding of ferrets in the long term. There are three licensed breeders in New Zealand and the breeder who is a constituent of mine has 2000 breeding ferrets this year— 
Darren Hughes 
: Ha ha! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The member should not laugh about it; I am talking about a million-dollar business. That enterprise will export 7500 ferrets this year worth $1 million. He also employs five people full-time in his business. Any ferrets that are sold domestically are desexed. Ferrets are not an issue out in people’s homes. In fact if they were to get loose they would not survive. 
Janet Mackey 
: Says who? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: They would not survive because they are domestic ferrets. 
Darren Hughes 
: What are their names? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The member makes a joke of such an important industry. I am sure that if that breeder is listening tonight he will not be impressed by the nature of what this Government has in mind for his industry. 
The question I want to ask the Minister is whether that breeder will be able to sell his million-dollar enterprise. Will his family be able to take over that enterprise? We are seeing under this legislation that that person will be down and out. He has nowhere to go. This Government says that it wants consultation and the opportunity to grow the economy. Here we have a million-dollar business that will be left on the scrap heap and Government members are laughing about it. 
I want the Minister to take a call and answer four simple questions for me. Firstly does clause 4 affect the viability and future security of my constituent in the Piako electorate? Secondly will that person be able to continue his farming operation and to export ferrets? Thirdly will he be able to sell his business to somebody else or will his family be able to take it over? The fourth question relates to the domestic market. Will he be able to sell ferrets on the domestic market? There is a huge domestic market. Those are simple questions and I ask the Minister to answer them. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: I am delighted to take a call on Part 1 of this bill. I draw it to the Committee’s attention again that among the opportunities this Committee would normally expect would be the opportunity to debate the bill. Although I certainly appreciate hearing the contributions of my colleagues I would deem it to be a small favour if a Government member would condescend to stand and give us his or her offering on this very important subject. I do not even mind if Government members get Brian Edwards down to Parliament to coach them on this subject and to tell them what to say. I see one or two members on the Government side of the Chamber have had a new haircut—it is all starting to show already. I think the public demands that Government members should stand and contribute to this debate rather than just using that old sentence “Mr Speaker I move that the question be now put.” which we constantly hear. A debate is not a debate unless there are two opposing sides contributing to a subject—and this particular subject is very very important. Regrettably the Government is steadfastly refusing to contribute. Well I will just carry on. 
I would like to draw to the Committee’s attention that clause 6 inserts a new section 44 “General duty to inform” which states: “Every person is under a duty to inform the Ministry as soon as practicable in the circumstances of the presence of what appears to be an organism not normally seen or otherwise detected in New Zealand.” Does this Committee really expect Joe Bloggs an ordinary member of the public to know the difference between nassella tussock and Australian sedge? I would suspect that most farmers do not know the difference between them. But there is a way that we can help people to do so and that is through education. 
I have already mentioned in this Committee a very very good programme called  
Border Patrol 
 which I believe screens on a Monday evening. The public really warmed to that form of important information—it is not just entertainment. It is put forward in a very constructive and an informative manner and in such a way that the public understands and absorbs the lessons that that particular programme puts across. In other words we should be having more of those sorts of informative programmes like  
Border Patrol 
 for the public. 
I hesitate to say this but it would seem quite logical to follow the Australian example of screening programmes during the intermission at major sporting events that inform the public of Australia about the importance of issues such as biosecurity. The programmes ask whether people have seen any examples of a particular product or organism and then advise the public to call the local equivalent of our Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officers if they have seen anything. Those programmes go nationwide at a time when a very very large portion of the public is watching the television screen. 
Why can we not learn from that and do something very similar to it perhaps during a half-hour programme shown once or twice a year at the prime time of 7.30? Why can we not have more of those sorts of initiatives? Why can we not have some more really informative programmes that show the people of this country just how important it is that if they do come across something they are not very sure of they then inform the appropriate authorities? 
I listened with some interest to my colleague from the Green Party who was talking about genetic modification and about how important it is that the public are informed about that. I thought that was rather strange. I can just imagine people going to a restaurant and saying to the waiter that there is a genetically modified organism in their soup. That would be a very difficult thing to prove unless they happened to have an electron microscope with them at their table. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: We are discussing a very important bill on a very important subject. I just want to make a few comments about a couple of the clauses in Part 1 and specifically about clause 18 which reduces the notice period for aerial spraying from 2 weeks to 24 hours where a longer notice period would seriously damage the chance of containing or eradicating an undesirable organism. 
The Primary Production Committee considered that even 24 hours may be too long a period in some cases and recommended instead that the chief technical officer could reduce the current 2-week notice period to the extent necessary in order to avoid prejudice to the eradication of an organism. The committee drew on the experience of the discovery of the southern saltmarsh mosquito infestation near Napier in 1999 which required immediate spraying before the larvae matured and were allowed to fly and spread over a larger area. The organisms in respect of which a shorter notification may be given are organisms that are not already established in New Zealand or are restricted to certain areas and that have the potential to cause significant negative economic health or environmental problems. 
Of course we did not have a member on the select committee in the previous Parliament when the report was completed but after looking at this bill and being asked whether we would support it there were only a couple of things that we were concerned about. One of those was that the reduced notice period for spraying potentially gives the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry an arbitrary power without regard to the social costs. Accordingly we asked the Government to look at including a provision for ministerial sign-off to ensure that a degree of political accountability would be there with that decision. I express our thanks to the Minister and the officials who have taken that concern seriously and included it in Supplementary Order Paper 96 in the name of the Hon Jim Sutton which we will be voting on in a short while. 
Our concern is that in cases where the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry may have messed up by not acting quickly enough to control an outbreak—which occurred with the painted apple moth in west Auckland—people have to suffer the consequences by being sprayed on. The amendment we have obtained requires that the chief technical officer has to notify the Minister if he or she considers that the 2-week notice requirement for aerial spraying would significantly prejudice the chances of eradicating or containing the organism and if practicable acquire the Minister’s approval. Some will say that that constitutes a very minor change but it ensures a modicum of political accountability for the decision. 
We think that that new provision is of significance because it will mean that the decision is not made just by a Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry official but also by the Minister who is an elected representative of the people and who will therefore be prepared to take into account the social and political consequences of spraying people in their homes and communities. The Minister will also be accountable because he will have a greater awareness of the social cost of the action to be taken— 
Rodney Hide 
: Or she. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: —or she will; I ask members to forgive me for showing any kind of gender bias there. So we ask the other parties in this House to vote for that amendment. 
I also want to comment on clause 19(2) which probably requires some explanation. It amends section 121 of the principal Act by extending the power to recover costs when a person fails to comply with a direction. In other words if a farmer with a suspected case of TB amongst his cattle is asked to muster them for inspection and does not then the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry can recover the costs of doing so. Supplementary Order Paper 96 contains an amendment that relates to that clause. It provides the power to examine organisms and it also does other things to establish the presence of a pest. It extends those provisions to pest agents as well. 
We in United Future believe that those additions to the bill are sensible amendments. We will be giving them our support and we urge other members of the Committee to do so also. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: I would like to focus on a couple of the clauses that we focused on during the select committee deliberations the first of which is clause 9 “Restriction on levies”. Clause 9 gives section 92(1) a slightly more punitive air and I talked a little bit about that earlier. Pest management levies are actually targeted at those who have contributed to the pest’s incursion or spread. They might have contributed actively by doing something stupid or sinister—that is a deliberate act—or otherwise. They might have been inactive and overlooked an obvious situation where they could have prevented an incursion or they might have overlooked an opportunity to report the incursion or otherwise. So there is the issue of active contribution to the spread of the incursion and the inactive or passive spread. 
Rodney Hide 
: The working Minister Mr Cunliffe is in the chair now. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Yes so one could argue that the punitive measures are user-pays or polluter-pays. Paragraph (d)(i) inserted by clause 9 states that the levy means to target “persons likely to benefit from the implementation of the strategy;’’. In the case of moths and all those invertebrates and visitors from overseas that have come into the country since Marian Hobbs has been at the helm or in the case of dry stock farmers sheep farmers and dairy farmers throughout the country who have viruses diseases bacteria and so on one could argue that they are likely to benefit from the implementation of the strategy. So one would hope although clearly they have not seen that in the last 4 years with at least 11 incursions from around the globe into our country—that being Labour Party immigration policy. As stated in paragraph (d)(ii) the levy also targets “persons who by their activities or inaction contribute to the creation continuance or exacerbation of the problems proposed to be resolved by the strategy;”. So that means those who were active or inactive and created the problem and might have continued or exacerbated the problem. 
Members will see that clause 24 relates to penalties for people involved in the problem. Clause 25 talks about those persons who do not notify appropriate authorities where it is reasonably expected that they should know that an incursion has occurred and that such an incursion could wreak havoc in our horticulture forestry and agricultural industries. One would expect that to be the case in the agricultural industry. One would expect veterinarians farmers and those who have contact with animals to recognise diseases. In the horticultural industry one would expect farm advisors horticulturalists themselves fruit packers and people in charge of cool-stores should recognise any incursion. So if we can reasonably expect those people to recognise an incursion and if they do not report that incursion they will incur a hefty fine of up to $5000. We can see that from clauses 24 and 25. So clause 9 “Restrictions on levies” actually relates to those types of people. Through their activity or inactivity they can incur levies or due to a serious recognisable fault they can incur penalties. That is the association between clauses 9 24 and 25. 
Clause 18 deals with spraying programmes. Usually and up to this date there is a 2-week opportunity for officials in the ministry to let a community know that they might have to put up with aerial spraying. One can appreciate that if there is an incursion and officials have to act quickly they might have to so in a shorter time. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: This is a very important bill and we now have the shiny new Minister the Hon David Cunliffe in the chair. Members of the Opposition have some questions for this Minister. With his Harvard education we know that he will be able to answer them. I refer him to clause 9 and I wonder whether he could explain to the Committee the nature of these levies and whether the Government is envisaging those levies to be a pigovian tax or a user-pays charge. Just what does the Government have in mind? I know that this shiny sharp new Minister will be more than anxious to take a call and answer that question. The Minister is on the big salary now; he has the big car and the big office up in the Beehive. It is time he started to do some work and stand up as a Minister and explain to this Parliament and to the people of New Zealand quite what these levies are. If he does not I am afraid that the public of New Zealand can conclude only one thing—that the bright shiny new Minister does not know. Of course we have had that experience before with this Minister’s member’s bill about triple-bottom-line accounting. It was talked about but it was all mouth and no trousers. That bill did not see the light of day either. 
I also refer members to clause 23 which to me is extraordinary. I draw it to the attention of our colleagues in the National Party New Zealand First and the Green Party. I have never seen this before. Clause 23 “Levies” states: “Section 137(1) of the principal Act is amended by inserting before the word ‘Minister’ the word ‘responsible’.” I ask members to have a think about that for a minute. I used to believe—and I am sure that members in the National Party used to believe—that Ministers were responsible automatically. But this Government brings in a bill under urgency amends it and says: “In this particular case we’re going to make the Minister responsible.” 
It would be the first time would it not that Helen Clark or Michael Cullen has ever said that a Minister should be responsible for anything? Time after time in this House they get up and say: “I’m not responsible for that. That is an operational issue.” or they say—[ 
Interruption 
] David Benson-Pope wants to pinch some Opposition time rather than take a call himself. I hope you are watching this Mr Chairman because it is very clear that the Committee does want to debate Part 1. It is just that the members of the Government are not allowed to. Even the Minister in the chair is under riding instructions not to take a call. How come? 
Brent Catchpole 
: Is he responsible? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: No he is not responsible because there is no section 137(1) that inserts the word “responsible” before the word “Minister”. Would we not be so much better off in New Zealand if we had a Government that took it as read that the Minister was responsible? Annette King is not responsible for anything. Michael Cullen is not responsible for anything. Mark Burton is not conscious of anything let alone responsible for anything. Parekura Horomia cannot read cannot see cannot know and is constantly confused. He is not responsible. The Minister in the chair cannot even get his own bills up and running. What is it called that mad thing that the left is on about? [ 
Interruption 
] Yes it is triple-bottom-line accounting. That is all gone; it is all words. [ 
Interruption 
] David Benson-Pope is not even allowed to take a call in any debate I have been in in this House. All he is is noise. 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: I have listened very carefully to the debate on this part. I know that under urgency Governments sometimes feel moved to put the pressure on for time and take a parsimonious view of the contribution that should be made by the Minister in the chair and other Government members. However I remind the Minister who now sits in the chair that in the course of debating this part one of my colleagues raised some very important questions on behalf of a constituent. He has not yet had the courtesy of a response and I say to the Minister that he will not get off the hook quite that easily. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Oh dear! 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The Deputy Prime Minister might not think it is important but he was not here. He should know that one of Mr Tisch’s constituents in the Piako electorate is a ferret farmer. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you will be able to anticipate this point of order. It is not fair to refer to the presence or absence of Ministers in this Chamber. It is outside the Standing Orders. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is absolutely right. It is a convention in this House that people do not refer to the absence of members. I did not hear a comment because I was otherwise engaged with the Clerk. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I plead guilty to a technical infraction which I was goaded into by the intemperate behaviour of the Deputy Prime Minister but I concede that I was in error and will try not to repeat the offence. I am indebted to my friend Mr Hide for pointing out my deplorable conduct on this occasion. 
I say to the Minister in the chair that he had better get up and take a call because I will go for another call after this one unless he does. Mr Tisch has a constituent who has a $1 million export business which the Minister of Finance should be interested in. Mr Tisch thinks that as a consequence of clause 4(6) of this bill that particular constituent will be put out of business. He is entitled to an answer. The Minister who is warming the chair better get used to the fact that he cannot go driving people out of business with a bill like this which is being pushed through under urgency and not take a call. Mr Cunliffe who is very fine at lauding his credentials around this place had better use those credentials and stand up and tell the Committee the answer to Mr Tisch’s perfectly reasonable questions. Is Mr Tisch’s constituent going to have his business taken away from him by this part? Yes or no? I will go for another call. I know that Mr Hide will and I can see that Mr Tisch will also go for another call. His constituent deserves to know whether clause 4(6) will put this ferret-farming export business of $1 million a year out of business. The Minister is pretending to read a comic or a women’s magazine or something while I am asking these questions. I want him to stand to take a call. 
I have been reading the briefing notes and it is quite clear what the reason for this measure is. I have just looked at the list of invaders that have got in as a consequence of the loopholes in the legislation and I see that the Minister is the Minister who in 2002 brought the avian poxvirus to New Zealand. I want to know what that Minister will do to make amends for the invasion of the avian poxvirus in 2002. Clearly that is an important reason that this measure has been brought to the Committee. I want to know what this Minister can tell the Committee tonight will be the case in relation to that very serious threat to biosecurity—the avian poxvirus—as a consequence of the Committee being troubled to pass this bill under urgency tonight. I conclude by saying that Mr Tisch’s constituent’s business is in need of those answers. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: I will talk about clause 5 but first I want to comment about the reaction when my honourable colleague Lindsay Tisch made a great speech in the Committee a short while ago with regard to clause 4. The Labour members opposite actually laughed and thought it was a bit of a joke yet it concerned a very serious matter. Their behaviour underscored their lack of understanding of the implications of a great many of the issues and matters arising out of biosecurity. 
I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to clause 5 which talks about biosecurity control areas. I would like to mention a further instance of a lack of understanding about biosecurity and biosecurity control areas. One of the things we have at Auckland airport is a significant furnace which offers one of the few opportunities we have to eradicate some bio-incursions into New Zealand. Some bio-organisms have to be incinerated to eradicate completely their existence. Some ignorant people in our communities people with a green bent people with a fundamentalist type of green view of the world are trying to have this furnace—the only one of its kind in New Zealand—removed. That is a very ignorant approach to dealing with some of the bio-incursions we might have. That furnace may be the only way in which we can completely eradicate them and stop them from spreading any further and here we have Greenpeace doing its best to prevent it from being used in this way. That is a fact. 
The other matter that I want to bring to the attention of the Committee is the contents of national pest management strategies which are a principal mechanism under the Biosecurity Act for the effective management or eradication of pests and unwanted organisms. That furnace could be a significant part of our getting rid of unwanted organisms that have become established in New Zealand. Pest management strategies provide a commitment as to how an organism is to be managed or eradicated and who is responsible for the various activities and for funding and compensation arrangements. It is to be hoped that some of the things that currently need fixing will be addressed as part of the national pest management strategies which are identified in clause 7. 
There is no clear accountability for the biosecurity programme as a whole and there is a lack of clear and agreed goals and outcomes for biosecurity activities. There is little systematic analysis of the relative benefits and costs of the different components of a biosecurity programme. All these sorts of matters should be addressed as part of the national pest management strategies and hopefully some of these problems will be fixed. 
Deciding the allocation of resources to deal with specific threats is highly complex. Of course we are experiencing some significant costs through the woeful lack of action by this Government. I did refer members to a number of news releases about the woeful inaction of the Government—the delay in responding to some of the incursions we have had and the delay of the bill which has sat on the shelf for 2 years. There has been a number of press releases in that regard on 11 16 18 and 27 March two in April and a number in May. The importance of the bill cannot be understated in any way whatsoever. 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a very important bill and before you put the motion I would like you to consider giving one of our very few agrarian members of this Parliament Gerard Eckhoff another call. I am sure that he has plenty more to say about the bill and it is a very important bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot ask that on behalf of another member. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 96 in the name of the Hon Jim Sutton to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to Forests Act 1949 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: I am happy to support Part 2 “Amendments to Forests Act 1949”. This is the most significant part of the bill. Clause 26 repeals the redundant provisions. They are redundant not only because of this bill but because the Biosecurity Act in combination with this amendment bill effectively nullifies the need for those particular provisions. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Why? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Because sections 69 70 70A 71 and 71C of the Forests Act are repealed. Members might like to know that section 70 provides very broad regulation-making powers which are not required any more. The section states that regulations may be made “for the purpose of eradicating or preventing the spread of any disease which may affect areas trees tree seed timber forest or forest products.” Members who had paid attention to this bill and who had been at the Primary Production Committee as I was—diligently as is my habit—would know that the bill covers those issues with regard to forestry; they would know that it covers not only agriculture and horticulture but forestry as well. That purpose ”eradicating or preventing the spread of any disease which may affect areas trees tree seed timber forest or forest products.” becomes irrelevant with the passage of this bill. 
I am glad of that. The biosecurity provisions of the Forests Act operate as a parallel system to those in the Biosecurity Act so why have them? On top of that with the amendments we have pile upon pile of regulation-making powers that we do not require. The National Party is a party of small government of less regulation and bureaucracy and of less compliance cost. We believe that we do not need those sections any more and we are happy to repeal them. The Labour Government which believes in big government high compliance cost and lots of regulation and bureaucracy of course brought us all the way on this matter in the select committee. [ 
Interruption 
] That will come as no surprise to Murray McCully the member of Parliament for East Coast Bays. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not know why the most harmless incursion to this Parliament being David Benson-Pope—the sleepiest incursion to this Parliament—has woken up and started heckling me. He should read the bill and take a call. 
All I want to say in closing is that sections 69 70 70A 71 and 71C of the Act are being repealed and the Crown has available alternative instruments to use in relation to the biosecurity of trees. This amendment deals with that. Why pile regulation upon regulation? Why pile bureaucracy upon bureaucracy? Why pile legislation upon legislation? Why pile David Benson-Pope upon anyone? The National Party will be voting for Part 2. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the Minister in the chair has not taken a call on this part and did not take a call on Part 1. That leaves the Committee in a difficult position. I am bound to say that this debate will go on for some time if the Government continues to take that sort of cavalier approach. It was bad enough that in respect of Part 1 Mr Tisch’s ferret farmer was denied an answer as to whether he would have a business tomorrow. 
Part 2 has provisions that on the face of them look innocuous. I am indebted to my colleague Mr Heatley the honourable member for Whangarei for his explanation but I am bound to say that it was the Minister whom I was looking to for some guidance on this matter. Although it may sound trivial I want the Minister to demonstrate to the Committee that he has full command not only of his own faculties but also of the provisions contained in Part 2. When a measure such as this is being passed under urgency it is important that the tyres are kicked by members on the way through. This bill will go through its third reading after the Committee is finished with it. I want the Minister to take a call and tell us that he has had a good look at the provisions in the Forests Act 1949 that are referred to in clause 26(1) and (2). Can he tell us whether he has satisfied himself that the powers contained in this Biosecurity Amendment Bill exactly replicate the provisions of sections 69 70 70A 71 and 71C of the Forests Act? Can he confirm that? Mr Chairperson I appeal to your good nature and excellent judgment in this matter but I have asked a perfectly reasonable question. Can the Minister tell us whether the provisions of the Forests Act that are referred to in clause 26(1) which repeals sections 69 70 70A 71 and 71C of the Forests Act are exactly replicated by the Biosecurity Amendment Bill which the Committee is about to pass? 
Can the Minister not hear me? He wants us to vote for this measure on the basis that these are now redundant provisions that should be repealed. I simply ask him the question: has he satisfied himself that these provisions are indeed redundant and can he certify to the committee that sections 69 70 70A 71 and 71C are exactly replicated by this bill? If he cannot tell us that we should be voting against it. The Minister cannot just roll up to Parliament with a bill—and I am bound to say and I am not being critical of the draftsman the explanatory note is distinctly unhelpful on this matter. There is no explanation about Part 2 in the explanatory note. Members like Mr Heatley who had the advantage of being on the select committee know from their own understanding of the bill in the select committee process that Part 2 is OK. Mr Heatley thinks that Part 2 is OK. I think Mr Heatley’s judgment is generally quite sound although I have seen the odd lapse from time to time. 
I just want to be quite sure so I want the Minister to tell me. The Minister is pretending to be in some other place. I will give up on clause 26(1) and move on to clause 26(2) and ask him whether section 71B(2) of the Forests Act is replicated by the provisions of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill which has already been ticked off by the committee. Can I sleep easy tonight knowing that Parliament has not made a huge mistake by repealing section 71B(2) of the Forests Act? 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: We now have a Government that we can confirm has no respect for this House the institution of Parliament and parliamentary democracy. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Oh! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: David Benson-Pope thinks it is funny. Government members think that Parliament is funny and they think that a business going under is funny. They put a Minister—a boy Minister with his training wheels still on—in the chair who does not know what the bill is about. He has not taken one call. Why have Parliament if this Government is just going to come down to this Chamber and pass legislation irrespective of the questions that the public asks and irrespective of the Opposition’s concerns? I tell the Minister that I have some questions for him about Part 2. It is now 25 minutes to midnight on a Thursday night under urgency. I tell the Minister to take his training wheels off and have a go at this question. Why is section 70A of the Forests Act 1949 being repealed? I have read this bill in conjunction with the Act and I can understand why we have to get rid of section 69. I can understand why we have to get rid of sections 70 71 and 71C but why do we have to repeal— 
Gordon Copeland 
: It’s progress. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am pleased. United Future members who go along like the doormats that they are will vote for it because the Minister with the training wheels on has told them to. I hope he takes a call and explains why section 70A of the Forests Act—[ 
Interruption 
] The member is saying that he was alive when that Act was passed. [ 
Interruption 
] He is saying that he does not understand it but he will vote for it anyway. God knows how United Future members are getting on! If members do not understand the bill the purpose is to come to the Chamber and the Minister would explain it—except we have a Minister in the chair who still has training wheels. 
I ask the Hon David Cunliffe the member for Herne Bay to take the call and explain why section 70A is being repealed. He gives a look of complete emptiness. [ 
Interruption 
] David Benson-Pope said that it has something to do with his electorate in Dunedin. Why does he not stand up and take a call and rescue the Minister? [ 
Interruption 
] Now he is saying that the Minister is rorting the system. I think it is true that David Cunliffe is rorting the system because he is taking a Minister’s salary but not doing a Minister’s job. I say to the Minister that he should take a call and explain why section 70A of the Forests Act is being repealed. It seems to me that it should not be repealed. 
Mr Copeland says that he is confused now. He is like members on this side thinking that he will not vote for it. Mr Phil Heatley of the National Party is having second thoughts. Harry Duynhoven has already called out across the Chamber: “Don’t trust David Cunliffe because you can’t trust him on this.” I think his vote now is up for grabs. I tell the Minister that all the members are laughing at him even his United Future doormats are laughing at his expense. This Minister will not come to this Chamber and convince Parliament why we should vote for the bill. 
How hard can it be to explain why section 70A of the Forests Act 1949 has to be repealed at this time of the night under urgency? That is not a big ask. One section of a very old Act is being repealed. I ask the Minister to please explain the reason to the Committee because Mr Copeland needs to know. He has to go back and talk to God and his voters and say that he did this in good conscience. 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
:  
That premature closure would have been most unfortunate. It is difficult to follow such a powerful speech as the one delivered by my colleague Mr Rodney Hide from the ACT party but I have to say that as a result of that speech I am deeply concerned about aspects of this bill. I am deeply concerned about the Minister’s inability to answer what I thought were some quite basic questions about the bill. In fact in just making a general comment about the way the Minister has conducted himself through this entire debate I say he has not taken one call. 
Rodney Hide 
: He’s scared of Parekura. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Has he been taking lessons from Parekura Horomia? That is a very good question. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to the member at the back that when he refers to people he must use their full name not just their first name. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Some of the questions asked by members on this side have been very reasonable. Some of the questions raised by my colleague Lindsay Tisch about a very distressed businessman from his electorate who is now worried about whether his business might go under— 
Rodney Hide 
: How do the ferrets feel? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: That is quite right. How do the ferrets feel about the Biosecurity Amendment Bill? Their entire ability to survive is being put severely at risk. 
 The Minister has not answered some very very basic questions. One was whether the redundant provisions that are repealed the amendments to the Forests Act would be replicated in the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. How can we sleep at night when worrying about the repeal of these provisions if nothing is to be put in their place? Who knows—because of the large number of incursions we have seen in just a short number of years I suspect that maybe the Minister who has been looking after this particular portfolio Marian Hobbs invited termites to come here. Basically there has been a rush at the border and a large number of incursions have occurred in a short space of time. 
Section 70 of the Forests Act provides very broad regulation-making powers for the purpose of “eradicating or preventing the spread of any disease which may affect areas trees tree seed timber forests or forest products.” I do not recall any discussion about those particular aspects earlier in the debate on the bill. How can members on this side of the Chamber be confident that these particular provisions are redundant as the bill describes them when we have heard nothing from the Minister about what provisions in this bill replace them? I can see why a number of people involved in the forest industry a billion-dollar industry in this country are concerned—and rightly so because this provision removes some security aspects from an Act that is nearly 54 years old which is nearly as old as the Minister in the chair David Cunliffe. Obviously they have not been looked at. Some real concerns have been raised yet the Minister remains silent. For a member who is getting a salary of over six figures and a Crown car plus a number of other perks the least he could do as part of his duty is to answer some very simple questions. This Part 2 is probably one of the shortest parts I have debated in this House. It is quite simple yet the Minister in the chair has been absolutely silent. 
Section 71B(2) of the Forests Act is amended by repealing a quite important paragraph. [ 
Interruption 
] I would like to ask for quiet from some of my colleagues because this is a very important part. In fact I think that Part 2 is so substantial that members on this side of the Chamber will probably take more than one call and hopefully provoke the Minister into saying something—anything. Any sort of reply or attempt to answer some pretty simple questions would be quite encouraging. 
Opposition Member 
: What about a smile? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Even a smile would do. That Minister should put down his crossword. From here it looks as though he is doing the crossword out of the  
Woman’s Day. 
 He should stand up and answer some of these very basic questions. 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: I have been listening to the member who has just resumed her seat talking about the amendments to the Forests Act. She requested the Minister in the chair David Cunliffe to stand up and indicate whether the sections being repealed under this part are covered and if so how they are being covered in this bill. I cannot see where there is any replication of those provisions and I cannot see any cause to remove them. Sections 69 70 70A 71 and 71C of the Forests Act are supposedly being repealed but where in this bill are they covered? 
The Minister in the chair David Cunliffe has failed to convince the Committee and almost every speaker so far has requested him to stand up and explain to us where those sections are genuinely covered in the bill. I cannot see where they are covered and neither can other members on this side of the Committee. I ask the Minister to stand up and give us an explanation. Clause 26(2) states: “Section 71B(2) of the Forests Act is amended by repealing paragraph (b)(i) and paragraph (c). Where in the bill are they replaced? This side of the Committee has requested the Minister to stand up and explain. He should take a call now and give us an explanation. 
The Minister is shaking his head. He has no intention of standing up and taking a call. He has probably been told by his whip not to take a call because he knows nothing about the bill and therefore should stay seated and keep quiet. That way members of the Opposition will not be able to rubbish him. He should stand up and show that he actually understands this bill by telling us where those sections have been replicated in this bill. So far nobody has been convinced that he has understood the bill. He has not taken a call throughout the whole debate. He should stand up and take a call to show us that he understands the bill. I say again to him to take a call. Why will he not take a call? The Minister will not take a call. That shows he has not been in his job long enough. He has all the trappings but he has not been in the job long enough to take a call and give us a real reason. The bill has been around since 2001. He must have had a chance to read it; he should take a call and let us see how he understands it. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I’ll take a call. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Mr Benson-Pope over there is squawking away. He is saying that he will take a call. That will be good! I hope he will take a call and explain why his Minister will not stand up and give us some answers. I say to him that he should stand up and take a call telling us why the Minister in the chair is not allowed to stand up to explain Part 2. This part which repeals sections of the Forests Act is not understood. Mr Benson-Pope should stand up and explain why he will not allow his Minister to take a call. The Minister should take a call and explain this part to us. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
Labour 52; Green Party 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
Third Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Biosecurity 
 I move  
That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill was introduced to the House on 7 August 2001 was referred to the Primary Production Committee on 16 August 2001 and was reported back in November 2001. It amends the Biosecurity Act which provides a framework to enable the exclusion of pests and unwanted organisms from entering into and establishing in New Zealand and to provide for the eradication or management of pests and unwanted organisms that are already present in New Zealand. The Act also provides for the ongoing monitoring of New Zealand’s pests and unwanted organisms status in order to facilitate the provision of official assurances in relation to exports of organisms and their products as well as to meet our international reporting obligations and trading requirements. The amendments to the Act made by the bill and Supplementary Order Paper 96 are technical in nature; consequently the bill does not substantially change the main policies in the Act. The amendments have arisen as a result of experience in applying the Act to new situations as a result of responding to organisational changes in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and as a result of the need to resolve inconsistencies and provide greater clarity in the Act. 
This bill has provided some fine-tuning to what is now an effective and efficient Act. The Government has put in more than $50 million in baseline funding for biosecurity every year and New Zealand now has one of the most effective systems in the world for providing protection in this area. However we will continue to get incursions of organisms across the border that must be dealt with. The Government is making a major contribution but every citizen must do that as well and this bill makes provision for that by requiring them to watch out for unusual or new diseases insects or animals and to report them to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 
This bill recognises the role of individual citizens as well as that of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and it makes small but important changes to the Act. I believe that this bill deserves the support of the House because it will improve the protection for New Zealand from organisms that may harm our farms orchards forests conservation areas marine environment and human health. The continued protection of those national assets is vital to all New Zealanders and I commend this bill to the House. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: What the Minister from the Labour Party did not tell members was that the Primary Production Committee that I worked on nearly 2 years ago worked pretty hard to get this bill through. We took submissions listened to submitters and this bill was prepared to come back to the House. Two years have passed. What the Minister did not tell members was that in the last 4 years—and for 2 of those years this bill has been languishing—we have had visits to this country. We have had visits of the cane toad from Australia. We have had visits from the Asian gypsy moth. We have had visits from the Australian huntsman spider. We have had visits from the North American ring-necked snake. We have had visits from the Argentine ant. We have had visits from the Australian redback spider and we have had a visit from the North American southern ring-necked snake. We have had visits from all over the world. 
I know why this Government bought shares in Air New Zealand—so that it would have an opportunity to transport all these visitors from overseas into this country in a speedy manner because that is its lax attitude towards biosecurity in this country. So it is with some disappointment—although obviously we are happy to support this bill—that we are speaking about it tonight under urgency. Because the reality is that it has languished for 2 years and I would like to make that point. 
Some of the key recommendations in this bill that the select committee assiduously worked on at that time—a long 2 years ago—were issues particularly around those who seek to benefit from the passage of this bill. We talked about those who are likely to benefit from the implementation of a biosecurity strategy based on a particular incursion. Of course we have had 10 11 or 12 of those in the last 4 years. We talked about those who are affected by this bill who actively or passively actually encourage create continue or exacerbate incursions into this country. We talked about those people and those of course who should be fined under that clause that we raised earlier clause 24 “Offences” where through this legislation we have introduced an opportunity for a $5000 fine for not only those who deliberately allow or promote or in some way help the passage of an organism into this country—and I am not talking about Marian Hobbs here although she has been responsible for 10 11 or 12 incursions—but also for those who do not notify the appropriate authorities about an incursion. 
When we talk about those who do not notify we are not talking about those who are ignorant in the sense of a particular incursion or an event—one would not expect them to be aware—but those whom we would reasonably expect to know; those who have an education and work in the field. I am talking about the area of agriculture: vets clearly farmers themselves perhaps meat inspectors perhaps stock agents those who buy and sell cattle and all those types of people who consistently come in contact with animals throughout the country in the agricultural industry. We would reasonably expect them to recognise an incursion. If they do recognise an incursion and do not act they can now be penalised up to $5000 and that is a good thing. 
We also have those in the horticultural industry such as growers whom one would expect to recognise an incursion while working with their product every day; perhaps those who are packers those who transport fruit others who are consultants in the horticultural industry and those of course in the forestry industry. Any of those people whom one would reasonably expect to know about an incursion must report under that bill. We in the National Party support provisions that will punish them if they do not act. So it is not only those who will be punished under this bill who actively bring insects or vermin or snakes as we have seen into this country but those who are passive about it and do not act when they recognise it. 
There are also of course the important provisions about warning when there will be aerial spraying in the area. We have seen the issue in Auckland elevate to a point where our local constituents in Auckland are up in arms because they feel that there is a real problem there with spray drift hurting them in a health sense but we can have that argument another day. But this bill actually allows Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officials to have a period where they warn the public of aerial spraying within less than the 2 weeks previously imposed. It is all the way down to 24 hours. 
I remember that one submitter argued that the minimum should be 48 hours. But we believe having consulted widely with scientists and other people experienced in the biosecurity sphere that 24 hours is a good minimum. Sometimes officials from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry or whichever is the lead agency have to act quickly. We would expect that if they gave only 24 hours notice they would advertise thoroughly. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from midnight to 9 a.m. (Friday)