Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6946] 
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.