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:6987] 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: I rise to speak on Part 2 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill. There have been some very very good arguments raised on this side of the House by my National Party colleagues and also by my New Zealand First and ACT party colleagues. This bill the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and other like conventions are all about taking away bits of New Zealand’s sovereignty and signing up to deals. We on this side of the Chamber understand that; none of us want an environment that is polluted or that will not be fit for our children and grandchildren to live in. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to that member David Cunliffe in particular that no not all treaties are bad but some Labour Party members are. 
I come back to Part 2. What is particularly concerning—[ 
Interruption 
] I am really looking forward to Mark Gosche taking a call at some stage; I thought he was asleep. This particular legislation has some very good intentions but at the end of the day clause 4 because of a wish to include any amendments to the Stockholm convention allows New Zealand officials effectively to make law for New Zealand without those bills coming back here to Parliament. That is a real concern. The Government’s Regulation Review Committee raised this issue and said it is a real concern. I am sorry to say that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee under the chairmanship of the chair the Hon Peter Dunne and the deputy chair Graham Kelly has not actually considered it to be so important as to take notice. That committee wants to allow for directions to be given as to the disposal of persistent organic pollutants. 
In the newspapers this week—and I think it was the Green Party that actually raised the issue—we have seen concerns over the qualifications and experience of some of the people on the Environmental Risk Management Authority board. I think the Green Party member present would be able to confirm that there are issues concerning the Environmental Risk Management Authority and its competence. In this bill we are allowing directions to be given as to the disposal of persistent organic pollutants and somehow the Environmental Risk Management Authority—which has come under a bit of attack lately and I think its chairman has actually acknowledged that it does not necessarily have all the qualifications and experience that it needs—is to be in charge of giving directions. That is very concerning when the Regulations Review Committee which is a multiparty committee full of people who make a very good and valuable contribution to Parliament and to the country generally is saying that it is very concerned about the legislation by stealth that could take place signed up to by overanxious and eager officials and Ministers who might think they are doing the best thing. Coming from a little country like New Zealand those officials could be somewhat overawed in some circumstances by the size of the representation and the company in which they find themselves at these conventions. That is a very real concern. It is a concern that I would have thought the Green Party might like actually to comment on given its quite well publicised concerns over the Environmental Risk Management Authority and its ability to do this sort of job. 
We have raised this issue today because we do not like law being rushed through when it could actually have a very damaging effect on New Zealand. There is no particular reason why this law needs to be rushed through. There is no particular reason why the Regulations Review Committee should be ignored.