Collins Judith: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6997] 
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.