Smith Lockwood: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6983] 
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.