Dunne Peter: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3651] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I was grateful as I am sure other members were for that little bout of true confessions towards the end of the previous speaker’s speech. It answered a number of questions that we have long pondered about and I was grateful to him for his candour.  
More seriously turning to the bill one of the difficulties we have in looking at this measure is that it is impossible to consider it without considering the next bill on the Order Paper the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill. It would have been appropriate to have one debate where we could have dealt with the whole range of issues rather than two somewhat staccato and artificial debates where we will go over the same material twice. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: But we will in the select committee. I expect so. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: That may well be so and I expect it will be the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that will have the privilege of dealing with both of those bills.  
The other observation I want to make is that there is an irony in this debate occurring at this time. The House was in a flurry yesterday and indeed during question time today about the way in which we consider international treaties and conventions. One might have been tempted to draw the conclusion that apart from anything else going on in the world at the moment this was really one of the most critical issues facing the country. If that is the case I observe the level of interest in this debate where we are doing precisely what various people have been arguing we ought to do as a matter of routine. I say that with no disrespect to the Minister who gave his introductory speech in a moderately perfunctory way about the provisions of the Rotterdam convention the Stockholm convention the Waigani convention the Basel convention and various others in such a sense that implied we all knew intimately every last detail of them and we are pretending that we do.  
What we will do is send those measures to a select committee where they will be considered. There is clearly no objection to them. In fact the select committee has already reported that the Government ought to proceed with the measures. But this is the sort of regime we would get into if we routinely considered every international treaty and agreement that came before the House. We would salve our consciences that we were doing a good and noble job. The people who are listening to this debate who are observing it would simply scratch their heads and ask: “What are they wasting their time on now?”.  
None the less these are important issues and I am not minimising their significance in any way. However they are extremely technical matters that do need careful consideration and that has been given by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee earlier and also by our officials and representatives overseas in terms of the negotiations that have taken place leading to the finalisation of these agreements. So what we have in the House is the rubber stamp in effect and I say that in the most positive sense. This is the ending of the process rather than the commencement of it in terms of some profound consideration of our international treaty-making responsibilities.  
Having said that issues will be raised by the specific provisions of each of those conventions which two groups will want to have an interest in: firstly the domestic parties that might be affected by the provisions; and secondly there will also be groups that will have an interest in terms of shall I say the legal issues in terms of compliance and other things that may well flow from this in the domestic environment. I am not minimising the relevance of select committee consideration. I am simply making the observation that there is an irony given our high-blown moral integrity about the need for careful consideration of international treaties and the way in which we are giving effect to it by this debate this afternoon. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: We’re changing the law here. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: We certainly are changing the law. We are recognising that changes to New Zealand law are required in relation to those international agreements. My point though is somewhat ironic. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sure it would be but then I would not have expected anything different. But given those people who argue that every single agreement and treaty ought to come before Parliament and be ratified in this way I would have thought those same people might be here taking a vigorous part in the debate this afternoon and I observe no more than that.  
The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee expects to have these bills referred to it. As chair of that committee my intention would be that we would consider them in tandem because the measures do flow one from the other. This bill takes a broad overview in terms of the three or four agreements that are mentioned. The subsequent bill the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill specifically deals with provisions relating to the Stockholm convention that the earlier speaker referred to. These matters are not controversial. I do not imagine that they will arouse a huge degree of public lather. However there will be matters that people will want to consider as part of them. That will be appropriate and I hope we are able to deal with them relatively quickly and get them back to the House and passed before too long.