Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I will be recommending that the House refer the bill to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for its consideration, that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during questions for oral answer and during any evening in a day on 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), and with an instruction that the committee report back to the House by 8 May 2003. That report back date should allow New Zealand to ratify the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions before they come into force.

This bill amends the Import Control Act in order to provide for the making of export control regulations, to give effect to the requirements of the Rotterdam, Stockholm, Basel, and Waigani conventions, and any other international obligations that bind or become binding on New Zealand. That provides for the restriction on, or the prohibition of, the exportation of certain chemicals, products, organisms, wastes, or other substances that pose a risk to human health or to the environment. Members may wish to refer to reports of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee that examined both conventions, and that reported to the House in February 2002 that there were no matters to bring to the attention of Parliament.

Importantly, members should note that it is expected that there will be no cost to the economy arising from the export controls in the bill. The key measure in the bill mirrors the Import Control Act’s import control mechanism, and provides for the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to make regulations that prohibit the exportation of specified goods. Any prohibition may be general, limited, absolute, or conditional. A conditional prohibition permits exportation of goods, subject to the grant of a licence or permit by the Minister or prescribed person.

The bill also includes provision for export controls to be made to meet the requirements of the Basel convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal. The Waigani convention is to ban the importation into Forum Island countries of hazardous and radioactive waste and control the transboundary movement and management of hazardous waste within the South Pacific region. Currently, export controls to meet New Zealand’s obligations under the Basel and Waigani conventions are in place through in Order in Council under the Customs and Excise Act. Those must be reviewed every 3 years. The bill provides a more durable mechanism to meet the obligations in those conventions, and will consolidate the existing export controls with those required to implement the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions.

The bill, together with certain amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, will enable New Zealand to ratify the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions, thereby adding value to efforts to protect the health of New Zealanders, the quality of our food, and demonstrating our commitment to multilateral solutions to global problems. I commend the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill to the House.

The National Opposition will be supporting this bill to the select committee, because it covers some important issues. The Basel convention and the Rotterdam convention are matters that have been around for some time. The Basel Convention was signed way back in 1992, and the Rotterdam convention in 1998. The Stockholm convention is rather more recent, with New Zealand signing it in 2001.

The issues are important ones, and they do need to be dealt with carefully by the select committees that deal with them, because there is the potential to get things a bit wrong. It is not simply a matter of ratifying these conventions but of making sure that New Zealand’s law complies with them. One of the first things I would recommend to the Government is to make sure it sends both this bill and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill to the same select committee. I do not know whether the Government is planning to do that, because I did not hear the Minister who gave the first reading speech on this bill mention that both bills would go to the same committee, although he mentioned the amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.

Let me explain why I think that is quite important. The purpose of the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill is “to enable New Zealand to give better effect to its international obligations to restrict the exportation of certain goods.” So the purpose of the bill we are debating right now relates only to restricting the exportation of certain goods. However, clause 6 defines what the international obligations for New Zealand mean. Members should remember that the purpose of the bill is to give effect to those international obligations. If we look at the interpretation of international obligation, we see that the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants includes all the documents that are, or will become, binding in New Zealand. That, in this bill, is the interpretation of our international obligations. Quite clearly, this bill does not give effect to all of our international obligations under the Stockholm convention. I hope the Minister is listening to this, because it is quite important. I do not know whether he has even read the bill, but if he does read his Government’s bill he will see that the interpretation clause states that the legislation will enable New Zealand to implement the requirements of all the documents that are part of the Stockholm convention. They will become binding on New Zealand. This bill does not do that. The purpose clause does not do that.

We should go back to the explanatory note of the bill and have a look at what the Stockholm convention is all about, because I would not mind betting that most members of this House have never heard of it. I have to confess that I was not aware of it. The Government signed this one back in 2001, and I had to find out exactly what was covered by the Stockholm convention. I was aware of the Rotterdam convention and the Basel convention because they were signed under the last National Government, but I was not aware of the Stockholm convention. It is interesting to see that the Stockholm convention is not just about banning trade in certain pollutants. The Stockholm convention also includes requirements on countries that ratify it. It includes requirements on them to control internally the emissions of those pollutants.

I come back to why this bill and the next bill on the Order Paper should be considered by the same select committee, because quite clearly this bill, according to its purpose, does not enable New Zealand to ratify the Stockholm convention. I make that very clear. This bill would not enable New Zealand to ratify the Stockholm convention. I believe it would enable New Zealand to ratify the Rotterdam convention, the Basel convention, and probably even the convention around the control of transboundary movement and management of hazardous wastes in the South Pacific region, commonly known as the Waigani convention; but the Stockholm convention includes a domestic matter, not a trade matter. The Stockholm convention includes controlling the emissions of certain dangerous substances. This bill does not provide any mechanism for New Zealand to do that.

I think there is a need for the next bill on the Order Paper to receive its first reading. I have not looked at the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill, but I presume that it is the legislation that will, in conjunction with the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill, enable New Zealand to meet the requirements of the Stockholm convention. But, as it will affect what can happen domestically in New Zealand, not just our trade, the whole thing becomes much more complex. I believe that both these bills should go to the same select committee, and New Zealanders need to have time to have a decent look at them. We need to make sure that what is being slipped through in this legislation, which is something most New Zealanders are totally unaware of, is something that New Zealanders think makes sense.

For example, with regard to the list of dangerous substances that are covered by the Stockholm convention, is New Zealand satisfied that the emissions from those substances should be minimised or constrained in New Zealand? Is there a provision in the Stockholm convention to extend that list? What other substances of economic significance to New Zealand might be incorporated in that Stockholm convention list? If New Zealand ratifies this, what other mechanisms are there for New Zealand to satisfy itself that it is not locking itself into minimising emissions of some economically important substance to New Zealand? I think it is fair to say that the 10 substances covered by the Stockholm convention at present are the kinds of things that New Zealand would be pretty happy to minimise the emissions of. They are the kinds of things we have used in New Zealand extensively in the past. I am just trying to see whether I can find a list of them, but from memory they include things like dieldren and aldrin, which were used in New Zealand quite extensively in my youth and childhood. In fact, I have had plenty of dieldren and aldrin sprayed all over me because they are the active ingredients in sheep dip. All I can say is that if they are as evil as this Stockholm convention would have us believe, then I am obviously in for a pretty bleak future, because I have had a fair bit of contact with them at a pretty young age—and for a number of years, what is more. I do not believe it has done me too much harm just yet, but one never knows what is around the corner with these things.

These are serious matters, and that is why I think it is in order for a parliamentary select committee to be able to assess whether New Zealand should ratify these conventions, especially the Stockholm convention, because that is a new one. New Zealanders have had less time to be aware of it. I believe that both these pieces of legislation, the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill, should go to the same select committee. There should be focus on satisfying New Zealand that the list of substances involved in the Stockholm convention, which is not just about trade but about domestic emissions as well, is one that New Zealand feels is sensible, and that any mechanism for adding to that list is a mechanism that New Zealand is satisfied with. We must make sure that we do not get ourselves bound up in a treaty that we have ratified that may prevent us from using a substance of economic importance to New Zealand.

This is important legislation. We do support it to the select committee, but it needs thorough examination. There will not be many members of this House who are very familiar with the four conventions that this legislation covers. They are important, but we need to make sure we satisfy ourselves that there are no fish hooks in any of them. That is National’s position on this important legislation, and I trust the House will support its passage to a select committee.

Debate interrupted.