Hazardous Substances and New Organisms(Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for consideration, with an instruction that the committee report back to the House by 8 May 2003.

The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill, together with certain amendments to the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill, will enable New Zealand to ratify the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. The purpose of the Stockholm convention is to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutant chemicals—or “POPs”, as they are commonly referred to; and that is not affectionately.

New Zealand became a signatory to the Stockholm convention on 23 May 2001. The convention will come into force, once the 50th country ratifies. We are very close to having that number of countries ratifying. I think we are up to the late 40s, and it is this Government’s intention that New Zealand become a ratified party as soon as practicable. Between 23 May 2001 and today, these two conventions—the Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions—were considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. The committee found that there were significant advantages, and no disadvantages, to New Zealand ratifying the two conventions. So already we have been through a select committee process that has looked at the conventions. We have weighed up advantages and disadvantages, and said: “Let’s go to it.”, and having been given that advice from the committee, we are now doing the necessary amendments to the legislation in order that we are able to ratify the conventions.

This bill is necessary, because the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, while providing a general framework for compliance with the Stockholm convention’s requirements, does not guarantee that prohibitions on the import, use, and manufacture of persistent organic pollutants will be put in place and maintained, as required by the convention. Therefore, an amendment to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is needed to prohibit, as a matter of course, the import, manufacture, and use of the persistent organic pollutant substances listed in the convention. This bill prohibits the manufacture, import, or use, with specific exemptions, of the 10 persistent organic pollutant substances currently listed in the Stockholm convention. As the Minister in the previous debate mentioned, the 10 chemicals are: aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mirex, toxaphene, and polychlorinated biphenyls. Each chemical has the characteristics of being environmentally persistent, of being toxic, of being bioaccumulative, and of being able to be transported by the movement of air, water, and migratory species to places far from their original point of release. With the exception of small quantities of polychlorinated biphenyls still in use by the electrical sector in New Zealand, and subjected to a regulated phase-out timetable, New Zealand does not use these toxic and bioaccumulative chemicals, and has no need of them.

New Zealand intends to implement the Stockholm convention fully. The benefits of ratifying the convention and implementing it through this bill include the protection of the health of New Zealanders now and in the future by reducing exposure to persistent organic pollutants; safeguarding the quality of food, especially meat and dairy products; strengthening and protecting New Zealand’s clean, green image; and addressing persistent organic pollutant chemical stockpiles, wastes, and contaminated sites—orphan, or otherwise.

I note that a parallel bill, the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill, which gives effect to the export prohibition requirements of the Stockholm convention, has been introduced and given a first reading by my colleague the Hon John Tamihere.

I will now briefly outline the key provisions of the present bill, which provides amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. As I noted earlier, the main purpose of this bill is to provide for the absolute prohibition of the manufacture, import, or use of persistent organic pollutants in Annex A and Annex B of the Stockholm convention, unless specific exemptions have been granted in accordance with that convention. All prohibited chemicals and any exemptions, together with the expiry dates, are recorded in new schedule 2A of the bill. In fact, members will see that the bill is largely made up of annexures and schedules. The only specific exemption granted is for the continued use, for a limited time, of polychlorinated biphenyls already approved under the Toxic Substances Regulations.

There are three further more general exemptions provided for in the Stockholm convention that apply to each persistent organic pollutant chemical. The Environmental Risk Management Authority can approve small amounts of a persistent organic pollutant chemical to be imported or manufactured in containment—firstly, for use as analytical standards, and, secondly, for research in a laboratory. The third exemption provides for the importation of persistent organic pollutants for the purpose of environmentally sound disposal; and I understand that is if somebody from the Pacific Islands wanted to bring material over to us. This will enable a treatment service to operate in New Zealand and import persistent organic pollutant chemical waste for the purpose of environmentally sound destruction disposal. Where the manufacture, import, or use of a persistent organic pollutant chemical is prohibited in New Zealand—that is, there are no exempted uses recorded in new schedule 2A, or an exempted-use has expired—the Environmental Risk Management Authority can issue a direction requiring any amounts of the substance already in New Zealand to be disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.

Because additional substances may be added to the annexures of the Stockholm convention—this was a point Dr Lockwood Smith was making—the bill contains an Order in Council mechanism enabling persistent organic pollutant chemicals that are added to the convention, to be included in new schedule 2A of the hazardous substances legislation. Any exemptions permitted by the convention, which New Zealand decides to adopt, can also be added. This mechanism also allows the Environmental Risk Management Authority to approve the import and manufacture of a persistent organic pollutant for use during a foreseeable emergency—such as the use of DDT in the event of a malaria outbreak. Any such emergency use must, however, be approved in accordance with the rules of the Stockholm convention.

In conclusion, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill, together with certain amendments to the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill, will enable New Zealand to ratify the Stockholm convention. We did want to do this at Johannesburg, but because of the weight of legislation going through the House we did not meet our commitments to get the bill through in the legislative timetable. I am quite sad about that. However, New Zealand will be able to ratify the convention and be within the first 50 nations to do so. In company with the global community, New Zealand will act responsibly. We will commit to eliminate the use of persistent organic pollutant substances, to meet other Stockholm convention obligations, thereby protecting the health of New Zealanders and strengthening New Zealand’s image. I wish to emphasise that the Stockholm convention enjoys an almost unparalleled level of support among United Nation countries. It is supported by the chemical industry and by the full spectrum of non-governmental organisations concerned with the safe use of chemicals, the protection of human health, and the environment.

It is hoped that the passage of this bill and of the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill will proceed expeditiously through the House so we can ratify the convention.

National members will be supporting the referral of this bill to a select committee, and we welcome the fact that the two bills that are closely related will both be dealt with by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

I want to challenge the Minister on a number of issues of process that are quite untidy and sloppy. Again, the first is the issue of timing. I think it reasonable to expect that when bills come before this House, there is some accuracy associated with them. With both this bill and the previous bill debated by the House, we have an oxymoron on the very first page. The second paragraph of this bill states: “The enactment of the Bill (together with certain amendments to the Import Control Act 1988) will enable New Zealand to ratify the Stockholm Convention before or at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in August-September 2002.” That is a nonsense. How can the Minister come to this House, 6 months later, and say that that is what the Government will do?

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: Because the bill was sitting waiting and ready to go.

Well, is it not too much to ask—

💬 David Benson-Pope: Sit down and keep it rocking.

The member for Dunedin South, Mr Benson-Pope, wants to stand up for the great parliamentary process, but tells me not to bother reading it. The fact that the bill is a bloody nonsense—excuse my French—should have no impact at all; we should just forget about it! Frankly, I would be being derelict in my duties as a member of Parliament. If the bill presented to the House is a nonsense, our duty is to point that out and hold the Government to account. It is not too much to expect that a bill presented before the House makes some logical sense, and this one does not. Further than that, I wonder whether the member, Mr Benson-Pope, has read the regulatory impact statement that is provided in the bill.

💬 David Benson-Pope: I have seen the one on Meridian.

The member does not want to talk about the bill; he wants to talk about everything else. He wants to talk about irrelevancies, and he wants to get into personality attacks—as he did yesterday. I asked him to address the bill before the House, and I ask him whether he has read the regulatory impact statement.

💬 David Benson-Pope: It is my duty. Don’t waste your time.

If the member had bothered to do his job and read the regulatory impact statement contained in this bill, he would know that it is a nonsense. He would know what the statement was meant to do. As members would well know, the whole purpose of regulatory impact statements is to try to ensure that costs of compliance are addressed, and are not a total nonsense. The analysis of benefits and costs is grossly deficient, and we on this side of the House say it is simply not good enough. If the process of regulatory impact statements is just going to produce that sort of garbage, all we are doing is bowling over trees for no good purpose.

I want to challenge the Minister further on timing, because this Minister has a bad habit. Time after time we are seeing timetables slip behind in important environmental areas. Take the Resource Management Amendment Bill, which we were promised would be dealt with in October 2001. October 2001 came and went. The Minister responsible for that bill then told us it would be passed in October last year. October 2002 came and went. The reason the Minister has given for the delays on the Resource Management Amendment Bill is that there is no House time. Anybody who knows some of the issues associated with resource management knows that that bill has a far higher priority than this one. I want to know why the Minister would put this bill as her No. 1 legislative priority, albeit it—like the Resource Management Amendment Bill—is months and years late.

This bill and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants are sound and well-based conventions. I made a point earlier with regard to chemicals in New Zealand that are outdated and need to be disposed of. There are shocking stories of shonky businesses buying up dangerous chemicals, taking them out on the high seas, and tipping them overboard. Every single New Zealander, and every citizen of this globe, knows that that sort of conduct is totally irresponsible, and that we need conventions like the Stockholm convention to be able to deal to that sort of behaviour and ensure the proper management of such chemicals.

We have a concern that we want to explore with officials in the select committee, and that is the provisions that allow the Cabinet, by Order in Council, to add to the list of prohibited chemicals provided for in schedule 2. We do not have a difficulty with those that are specifically listed in schedule 2, but if, for instance, a new chemical—a pesticide or an industrial chemical—is going to be added to the list of prohibited chemicals, we need to be careful that there is a proper process around it. There needs to be some consultation, and we need to be satisfied that there will be a thorough process around adding those chemicals to the schedule and to this legislation.

So National members say yes, good job, but we need to have clear rules around those particularly dangerous chemicals and persistent organic pollutants—because they are toxic and biocumulative, and because they are persistent. We think this is a pretty good framework for doing it, but we wish to pursue some fine points in the select committee and make sure that we get it right. I challenge the next member of the Government to provide some explanation for the completely illogical statement on page one of the bill. I cannot believe any Minister would want to come to the House with such a statement, which, given its timing, is a nonsense

United Future will be supporting this bill going to the select committee. As we have heard, the two bills tie in together. This is really just dealing with the Stockholm Convention aspect of the bill, and most things have already been said about it. Our gallant leader, the Hon Peter Dunne, will chair that committee, and so I have no doubt that we will have his normal common sense approach as the committee deals with all the issues.

As I read this bill, look at the time it has spent on the Order Paper, and see just what it will achieve, I think we have to be concerned about the way the Government handles its legislative programme. This bill has been on the Order Paper since 21 May 2002, as was the previous bill. We are not taking terribly long in the first reading to move it on to the select committee, and one wonders why 20 or 30 minutes were not allocated 10 months ago to move this bill along. If this bill is important, it should have been moved on; if it is not important, why are we bothering with it? The Government really does not seem to know what it is doing when it comes to legislation before this House.

I look at some of the aspects set out in the explanatory note. They state that there are “no major disadvantages to the Stockholm convention entering into force for New Zealand.” We read statements such as: “It has been unlawful to use POP pesticides for agricultural or horticultural purposes since the Pesticides Board finally deregistered such uses in 1989.” I speak mainly as a lawyer, not a farmer, but all I can say is that if these things are illegal now, why do we need this bill to do something that is already the case? What is the point of this legislation? Is this Government so short of legislation that we now have to spend time, some 10 months later, as a fill-in job, because the Government has nothing better for this House to do?

I wonder what the costs will be. The explanatory note states: “No additional costs will be imposed as a consequence of the proposed legislative amendment.” But then it states: “Economic costs to the public sector for controls on import, use, and export have been estimated as follows: Ministry for the Environment NZ$0.024 million…Secretariat NZ$0.018 million…”. We cannot get away without having some bureaucracy being created by this Government, but the note further states: “Costs to the economy of measures aimed at import, use, and export controls are expected to be $0, based on the current lack of use and trade.” So we are passing legislation for something that seems to be illegal. “Use and trade” are currently lacking, but we will spend the House’s time on it and send it to the select committee. If it is that simple a measure, why has it taken so long for this Government to bring it before the House? We in New Zealand First do not intend to delay it any more. We look forward to the report of the select committee in due course.

I would like to be so bold as to offer the member who has just resumed his seat a little bit of advice. If his wish is to have a legislative procedure progressed rapidly, he can assist that process by sitting down quickly after the beginning of his speech, rather than using the full 10 minutes he is entitled to. I certainly intend to follow my own advice on that very point, because the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill should be progressed as rapidly as possible. I support it.

I thank Ruth Dyson for her short contribution. We have to worry: fresh from victories in managing Television New Zealand, “boo-boo” turns up with a high-sounding bill—the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill. This is what the general policy statement says, and I ask Paul Swain to reflect on these words: “The enactment of the Bill ... will enable New Zealand to ratify the Stockholm Convention before or at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in August-September 2002.” The Minister is interjecting and getting all excited; I can imagine her concern. The legislative programme failed because, obviously, the Government could not ratify the convention in August-September 2002—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. I refer members to Speaker’s rulings 51/5(3): “a running commentary of interjection is out of order;’’.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, but I do not need any protection from Marian Hobbs. In fact, I am quite pleased to agitate her and get her to do something.

The other point I want to make is that in her speech to this great nation that we all inhabit, the Prime Minister said we had a very full legislative programme. Yet I remind Dr Nick Smith that here we are in the second week of this Parliament, and what do we have? We have a bill before us that should have been passed before August-September 2002. We look down the Order Paper to what this Government has been promising the people of New Zealand in terms of the amendment to the Resource Management Act, and we see that it just sits out there. Nothing happens.

It might upset Marian Hobbs that members of the Opposition want to point out the failure of this Government’s legislative programme, its failure to do something positive for the economy, and instead its grand gestures—as my colleague Mr Dail Jones has pointed out—that take up Parliament’s time. We will take the opportunities to hold this Government to account—not just for its policies but also for the handling of its legislative programme.

💬 David Benson-Pope: ACT should hold its members to account.

David Benson-Pope is sitting over there getting excited, but why does this Government not give some priority to bringing legislation to this House that will be of benefit to New Zealanders—something that Government members have been talking about over the summer break—rather than legislation that was not important last year? Here we are in the second week back in Parliament after the summer break, and this bill is what the Government brings into the House.

When members of the Government bring legislation to the House, they should explain what is going on—both good and bad. They should not rely on the spin that comes out of the ninth floor of the Beehive to explain everything away. The Minister must try to treat this House with the dignity it deserves—that is, with an explanation why this bill was not passed last year. The second paragraph on page 1 of the explanatory note states that it was supposed to be passed before August-September 2002—so that Ministers could look good at the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Clearly, that time has passed, and even the great Helen Clark cannot take us back there yet.

Unlike some other members of the House, the Green Party believes that these two bills do deal with serious and important issues, and that we ought to be debating the content rather than the trivia. Obviously, the Green Party supports these two pieces of legislation, which are needed to ratify the Stockholm convention, the Rotterdam convention, and to enforce the Basel convention and the Waigani convention, which New Zealand has already ratified.

The 10 persistent organic pollutants outlawed by the Stockholm convention are extremely hazardous and extremely persistent. Despite not having been used in pastoral farming since the 1970s, DDT still contaminates soil in Canterbury to the extent that it is unacceptable in some of the produce that is grown there. Environmentalists have been agitating for many years for those materials to be outlawed, and it is good to see it happen. Of course, it will make no immediate difference in practice, because they are not currently used. But until there is a law that actually prevents them from being used, the convention is not being implemented and cannot be ratified. These two bills provide mechanisms, and I want to deal with the two bills together. The House is dealing with them side by side and the select committee is dealing with them side by side, so I am not going to confine myself totally to the second of the two bills.

The bills provide mechanisms to control the movement of hazardous substances as specified by those international conventions, but they still allow the export of hazardous and other wastes, if approved by the Minister of Customs, under certain conditions, in accord with the Basel convention. The problem is that the Basel convention itself is an inadequate tool for ensuring the environmentally sound management of wastes, which is the supposed objective of the convention, because it actually regulates and legitimises trade, rather than stopping it. It allows the trans-boundary movement of wastes from industrially developed to industrially less developed nations. Yet the latter countries generally have neither the technical capacity nor the regulatory provisions to ensure environmentally sound management of those wastes.

The Basel convention was adopted in 1989, although New Zealand did not ratify it until 1994. It was seen as a means of legitimising the waste trade, rather than restricting it. As a result many European and developing countries negotiated and passed in 1994, under the convention, the Basel ban, despite opposition from the USA, Canada, Australia, and international chambers of commerce and industry organisations. That ban prohibited all exports of hazardous waste from OECD countries to non-OECD countries. To come into force of law, the Basel ban requires 62 parties to ratify it. As of last month only 35 parties had done so. New Zealand has not ratified the Basel ban, but instead we are one of the countries that has supported a study that is actually a vehicle for continuing the questioning of the efficacy and the viability of the ban. New Zealand is actually trying to undermine the ban so that non-OECD countries will continue to be recipients of wastes from the industrially developed world—basically to continue to be our hole in the ground.

In reply to an oral question last December, the Minister stated that some non-OECD countries have perfectly sound disposal facilities. When I further asked what monitoring we do of the hazardous wastes we export, the ways they are treated, and the environmental and health effects, the Hon Pete Hodgson, answering on behalf of the Minister for the Environment, was not able to say. Let me tell the House what I found when I followed up with some written questions.

New Zealand exports hazardous wastes to the Philippines as well as to several OECD countries. The receiving facility in the Philippines has been assessed for its capacity to manage the materials in an environmentally sound manner, and tracking documents confirm that it has been received there. So that looks very good on the face of it. The Philippines obtains all of its lead for car batteries from recycling imported used lead acid batteries. However, the official licence facility contracts most of the work out to unlicensed, unregulated, backyard, and home-kitchen operators, which leads to massive exposure of people and the environment to highly toxic lead. Children of battery workers have been tested at five times the blood lead level that is associated with reduced intelligence. Sulphuric acid from batteries is dumped into streams. Backyard smelters do not filter emissions. Soil lead has been measured in the Philippines at 26,000 parts per million, which compares with 140 parts per million around smelters in Europe. We have moved past the time when such environmentally unsound waste management is acceptable in our own countries, and we should be supporting measures to protect non-OECD countries from pressure to be our dumping ground, by ratifying the Basel ban.

Instead, New Zealand continues to support only the convention—a legacy from the right-wing extremism of the 1980s and 1990s, which legitimised the waste trade. It is time to reassess this position. But, once again, the World Trade Organization trade rules have caused some concern that if we stopped sending hazardous waste to the Philippines, they might succeed with a complaint to the World Trade Organization. The bigger picture is that we should be arguing for a clear rule that international environmental treaties take precedence over trade rules under the World Trade Organization.

These two bills are a good step forward, but I urge the Government to consider the wider issues involved under the Basel convention and to consider seriously ratifying the ban in order to protect the people and the environment of countries like the Philippines from the appalling practices that are happening there at the moment with our wastes.

LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere): This is a good bill. This bill will enable New Zealand to ratify the Stockholm convention. By becoming a party to that convention, New Zealand will contribute to global efforts to protect human and animal health, and the environment. It is yet another example of this Government holding its head high on the world stage. I commend this bill to the House.

SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country): I rise in support of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill. I recommend that it goes to the select committee for a number of reasons, but not for the reason that is obvious and that most have already spoken about—that the Government have the ability to ratify the Stockholm convention by August-September 2003, because clearly that is going to be pretty hard to achieve. I congratulate Clayton Cosgrove on suggesting that I would have some learned comments to make on this, because he is absolutely right. Even the Rt Hon Helen Clark will struggle with the spin on being able to get this convention ratified in that time frame.

I suggest that the underlying reason this bill has suddenly been given urgency by the Government to come up the Order Paper and be in the House today is so the Rt Hon Helen Clark can once again stand on another world stage as a signatory to something that will give her an opportunity to promote herself in a job beyond being the Prime Minister.

The bill does a few things that I think are essential. Schedule 2 lists hazardous substances that should not be dumped, disposed of, or used willy-nilly in pastoral New Zealand. The one that particularly sticks out as far as I am concerned is DDT. As someone who has been involved in farming for a long time, I understand the reason that DDT was used extensively in the 1940s and 1950s. It was used to control grass grub, a highly invasive insect that used to wipe out pastures and drop production in pastoral farming by up to 50 percent at times. But there is an irony in the fact that the Green Party strongly supports this process. It was through the use of gene technology, and the development of pasture species able to resist insects like grass grub, that we have been able to move away, over years, from using some of these chemicals that were clearly detrimental, and still are. The residues are still there. They are still an issue in the dairy industry because they can be detected in milk and milk products, and create problems for our clean, green image in terms of exporting our products around the world.

I come back to the point that in this country we could have either extremists on the right or extremists on the left, given that the Green member spoke of extremists on the right, and this type of science and technology development would be stopped if we let them have their way. That would have meant that chemicals that are obviously not ideal would continue. As far as I can tell, and without a helluva lot of knowledge about them, on the surface the Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions seem to be a very well-principled concept. I suspect that most Western nations will sign up to that. But that is the reason this whole process should be subject to a very robust select committee process. I hope the Government resources that select committee with the scientific knowledge it will need to make a decision on this. The chemicals listed in the schedules, such as Aldrin and Dieldrin, were used extensively in farming in my youth. As far as I know they have had no detrimental effect on me, but who knows? There will be members on the other side of the House who will have a different view of that, I am sure. I would not be sure that some of those members have been on something much more toxic than these chemicals. But I can be sure that the use of those chemicals over the years has reduced substantially, because of technological advances. That is a good thing, and long may it continue. The clean, green image that we have in terms of our trade is an absolute essential.

The other issue that has been raised in this bill, in the commentary, and in the research notes, and so forth, that I have that go with the bill is having consistency of labelling around the world. Different chemicals can have a different name in a different place. Nobody actually knows what is being talked about unless there is some consistency. I congratulate any moves that the Government may be taking in that regard, but I do have some concerns that cost may be loaded on to the end-users of these substances. There will be reasons that some of these substances should be used—that is, medical reasons, and a whole range of other reasons. I ask the select committee to make sure that it gives fair time—and that the Government gives the select committee the opportunity to have fair time—to exploring some of those issues and making sure we do not have preservation at all costs and with no regard for business.

The final point I would like to make, and this is very significant, relates to introducing a convention that bans the exporting or manufacturing of a listed number of substances and the connection between that and biosecurity. The fact is that there is an overlap in these things. We will intercept this at our borders, through customs, through our biosecurity checks, and through the personnel in the various departments that are involved, and detect these substances if they are coming in. If somebody wants to import them illegally, then that is how it will be found.

I hope that the Government recognises the importance of this particular interest in biosecurity, because up until this point in time there certainly has not been a great deal of evidence of it. We have breaches of our biosecurity all over the show, and it is not only by people who are illegally importing stuff. I have heard that as much as 800 tonne of raw meat products were intercepted. It is good that we intercepted that amount. But how much did we actually not catch at the borders? One has to wonder how much of this type of foreign substance—if that is what we want to describe it as—could be imported into this country, undetected, in a range of ways. I suggest to this Government that it should give some real teeth to biosecurity on a range of issues, but in particular to hazardous substances as this is the bill we are discussing today.

I suggest to biosecurity Ministers—there have been a number of them in this portfolio already—that they go back and have a look at all the options there are for people to import hazardous substances, along with other types of biosecurity breach, and have a thorough investigation as to what might be done there. We are talking about an insurance policy here. In my view, the security of biosecurity is more important than any other type of security and it needs to be given the attention it deserves. I do not believe it is getting it at the moment. I certainly do not believe that the Minister—the Minister for Trade Negotiations, the Minister for Rural Affairs, the Minister of Agriculture, and the “Minister of This, That, and Everything Else’—can honestly give the time necessary for all these important portfolios. I know that the Minister is fairly earnest in his work, but he is not a miracle worker and he will not be able to do it. This Government needs to give the resources to those different areas.

When we look at the reasons the Government has decided that the legislation dealing with the prohibition of import, manufacture, or use of persistent organic pollutants is so important—other than the fact that it is now about 6 months past the time by which the Government was to ratify the Stockholm convention—one really struggles to find what the potential major breach was that brought this legislation to the House today for the debate that it is getting at the moment. The only conclusion I can come to is that it will give the Rt Hon Helen Clark an opportunity to travel overseas once more, stand on the world stage, present her credentials to the world in terms of a potential future job, once she finishes as the Prime Minister of New Zealand in a very short time, and take up some grand role where she can tour around and drink lattes.

I am pleased to rise in support of this legislation. In terms of the timing, the sooner the two matters are sent to the select committee, the sooner we will be able to make the ratifications necessary.

I want to take a call on this bill because there are three important issues that I have picked up on.

💬 Rodney Hide: What does your mother think?

I am sure my mother would be distressed if she could read some of these things. [Interruption] I will explain very shortly. My mother is well read, and she worries about those sorts of things. I will tell the House of the three things that are of concern, not only to my mother, but, indeed, to a whole number of New Zealanders.

The first thing that Parliament will want to consider is on page 2 of the explanatory note of the bill. In the paragraph headed “Stockholm Convention” we find that parties are required to provide financial contributions. I carried on reading the bill, and I thought that I would find a clause that told Parliament what, specifically, that meant. If we are under an agreement—a world agreement—signed in Stockholm, one assumes, seeing as it is called the Stockholm convention—

💬 Rodney Hide: It’s a worldwide tax.

What does that mean for New Zealand taxpayers? I would have thought that we would have heard an explanation of that, because we know in this country that although the Government’s coffers are going to be quite full this year—[Interruption] No, quite full.

💬 Richard Worth: They’re going to be plump.

That is right. Indeed, it is estimated that the Minister’s expectations will be fulfilled and more. The worry is that, in the next year or two, the slump in world commodity prices, the droughts that we are experiencing, the energy crisis, the possible loss of the America’s Cup, and the possibility of a war in Iraq will impact on the Government’s income. I ask the Government this: if those things come upon us in the next year, or two, or three, what does that mean with regard to the providing of financial contributions, as the parties are required to do?

💬 Rodney Hide: Does “Boo Boo” know?

I cannot answer that question. I am not sure whether anyone in the House can. The Minister may well be able to. I would have seriously thought that the Minister would want to give quite an explanation about that aspect. Given that that explanation has not been made, I thought it was my responsibility to bring that to the attention of the House. I expect that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee will want to pay a whole lot of attention to that issue of providing financial contributions. That is point No. 1.

The second thing I want to draw to the House’s attention is also in the paragraph headed “Stockholm Convention’’, in the explanatory note of the bill. Are members listening? It states: “10 POPs”. When I read that, I wondered why the Minister did not explain to us what “10 POPs” means. I thought it was quite extraordinary. I have seen all sorts of terminology and hieroglyphics used in this Parliament, but—[Interruption] Yes, I do know what “10 POPs” means but we need to make sure that the public knows.

💬 Rodney Hide: I don’t know.

See? There is the problem. Here we have a member of Parliament who is listening to the debate and does not know what “10 POPs” means. Was it explained what “10 POPs” means?

💬 Rodney Hide: No.

Does it mean the hit parade? Does it mean a convention of grandfathers? It worried me when I read it. Then I read the first paragraph of the explanatory note, which mentions “Persistent Organic Pollutants” and I thought that maybe it did mean a convention of grandfathers! I looked through this bill for an explanation, and I could not find one. What is more, I wondered why we ended up with 10. What is so significant about 10 POPs? Why can it not be 12 POPs? [Interruption] My very good colleague Richard Worth has just pointed out that although there are 10 POPs in the explanatory note, there are only nine in the schedule.

💬 Richard Worth: A POP has been added.

No, it has not; a POP has been lost. We have lost a grandfather! I ask the Minister to explain to the House why there are 10 POPs in one part but only nine in another.

💬 Shane Ardern: 10.

Oh, is it 10? Well, it was a good point while I was making it. We have just had a recount and found out that there are 10. My final point is something that does worry me—on all sorts of legislation, particularly legislation relating to this Government. The explanatory note states: “The Bill contains an Order in Council mechanism”. One of the things this Government said when it came to power was that it would be open and accountable.

💬 Rodney Hide: The member didn’t believe it though, did he?

Well, one is always hopeful that a Government means what it says. Here is a Government that stands on the world stage and on stages around the country and says that it is open and accountable. What is it about to do? It is going to do things by Order in Council—which has become an absolute habit with this Government—which is merely a sneaky way for Cabinet to pass laws without telling the public. It gives more power to a small select group of people, selected by the Prime Minister, which then carries out her every wish and requirement. Did the public get an opportunity to have a say? Not on your nelly! That whole issue of Orders in Council really worries me. I accept that there are occasions when it is sensible to have an Order in Council mechanism for urgent reasons or emergencies, but it has been done far too often. I urge the select committee to take that point on board and study it deeply to make sure that there is a necessity for that Order in Council mechanism.

I refer to the wider issues of the bill. My very good friend and colleague Shane Ardern made a very good address with regard to the whole issue of biosecurity, and we must make certain that the legislation fits in with the whole issue of biosecurity. Shane Ardern has already made that point. He is not sure whether this legislation does dovetail neatly into the current situation. He is uncertain as to whether this is going to be of assistance to our rural sector.

💬 Shane Ardern: The backbone of New Zealand.

Yes, the backbone of New Zealand; the people who keep this country going. If there is anyone who knows about these issues, it is Shane Ardern, and if he is questioning this, then it really, really worries me. Shane Ardern knows more about issues like biosecurity than Phil Goff has ever heard about.

💬 Shane Ardern: That’s right. He doesn’t know what it means.

That is the problem. We have a Government that is uncertain, but here we have a member who knows about it, lives in the community, works in the community, and understands these issues, and he is raising questions about it. I have to say that members on this side of the House will be perturbed. If Shane Ardern is perturbed about it, we will be perturbed. Absolutely so!

💬 Rodney Hide: If the National Party is perturbed, the country will be perturbed.

There we are. If the National Party is perturbed, the country will be perturbed. We should be concerned about this bill. There is a lot of work for the select committee. I hope it is able to spend enough time on this bill, because it is an important piece of legislation. It is not one of those sorts of bills that members can get up and speak on for 10 minutes, not knowing what they are talking about. It is an absolutely important piece of legislation that this Parliament should take seriously. I hope that others can make a contribution of the quality of the one that has just been made.

In the light of the speech made by the member who has just resumed his seat, I say that I support the bill.

Bill read a first time.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): I move, That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and that the committee be instructed to report back to this House by 8 May 2003.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just so the House understands, it is because the bill is being reported back early that we are objecting and intend to vote against this motion.

I seek the leave of the House for the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c). This is in order to be consistent with the previous bill, which we want considered at the same time.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.