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:6971] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: In assessing the appropriateness of the title of this bill we really have to examine what the bill does to see whether the title in any way reflects what it does. The heart of this bill is contained in clause 5. What the bill actually does is prohibit the import manufacture or use of persistent organic pollutants. If members look at the new provisions that the select committee inserted into clause 5 they will see that new section 25AB also addresses the issue of storage of persistent organic pollutants. 
The title clause states: “This Act is the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Act 2002.” Where is the link? Those of us who have studied this bill know that there is a link because we know what the Stockholm convention is all about. But the problem is that people who are not familiar with this law who have not been at the select committee for example will not know that. I was reasonably involved in international affairs for this country. I must say that I could not have told members what the Stockholm convention was all about prior to my becoming involved with this piece of legislation. So we have a problem. How is someone who uses an index of titles of bills to find New Zealand’s legislation surrounding the use of persistent organic pollutants? For people to find this piece of legislation they would have to know about the Stockholm convention. That is not reasonable. It is poor drafting again. The title should immediately lead someone to know what the bill is about. If members go to the heart of the bill they will see quite clearly that it is about persistent organic pollutants. The title should state that. It should make clear what it is about. 
That is why I will move that clause 1 be amended by omitting the words “(Stockholm Convention)” in the title and substituting the words “(Persistent Organic Pollutants)”. Anyone looking for New Zealand law on persistent organic pollutants would then know immediately that this is the legislation that tells people what they can and cannot do in respect of those things. 
That is quite important. A scientist may want to know whether a certain substance can be used in a research project in New Zealand. The scientist may not know anything about the Stockholm convention but may be aware that the substance he or she is dealing with is a persistent organic pollutant. A scientist who seeks to find out what the law says about it—and it is a bit confusing; from memory it is covered by clause 8 but we will come to that later on—to find out whether he or she can do research involving a substance and who does not know that those matters are covered by the Stockholm convention will not know that this is the legislation he or she should be looking at. That is why the title is inadequate. It is inappropriate and it would be so simple to fix it. What is wrong with spelling out what the bill does? 
There is another reason for doing that. If the bill implemented in toto the Stockholm convention maybe there would be a better argument for this title but it does not. I hope members realise that the bill does not implement the Stockholm convention in toto. I think article 5 in annex C is not implemented by this legislation at all. With regard to other aspects of the Stockholm convention the Committee should note that the bill covers only matters of importation use and storage of persistent organic pollutants. It does not cover issues of export of such pollutants yet the Stockholm convention applies in respect of all aspects of those pollutants including the export of them. Of course that issue is handled in separate legislation which we have spent some hours discussing today. 
So there are two problems. One is that someone looking in future for New Zealand’s law on persistent organic pollutants will not be led to this legislation by its name because he or she will not necessarily know that that is what the Stockholm convention is about. That is the first problem. The second problem is that the bill does not implement the Stockholm convention in its entirety. It gives effect to only certain parts of it. That is why National argues that the title is not appropriate.