Hazardous Substances and New Organisms(Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill

Undoubtedly, over the course of the last hour or two, while we have debated the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill, there has been concern as to the clarity of the title and whether, indeed, it reflects appropriately the meaning and the content of that bill. Once again, we have a title that refers to the Stockholm convention, and that is quite proper. However, it does not say anything about persistent organic pollutants. In the mind of the public, persistent organic pollutants could be a whole variety of things, whereas in this bill they are confined to a variety of chemicals that each has the characteristic of being environmentally persistent, toxic, bioaccumulative, and able to be transported by movement or air, water, and migratory species to places far from its original point of release. They all have somewhat complicated chemical names associated with them. In speaking to this title and trying to make it have some meaning to the average New Zealander out there wondering what this debate is about, I propose that it would be relevant and appropriate for the title to make some mention that this bill refers to persistent organic pollutants. We could add the words “Relating to Persistent Organic Pollutants”.

I have been troubled by the related bill, the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill, which is inextricably related to this bill. The Stockholm convention is very much part of this bill, but so, too, are the Basel convention, the Waigani convention, and one other convention that is important. It was made very clear in the previous debate that it would be appropriate to add to the title of the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill, after “Restrictions”, the words “on Hazardous Substances”. But we still have the difficulty that if we confine this title purely to the Stockholm convention, which is related to the other conventions; there is still no hint of this bill being applied to persistent organic pollutants, which is the whole point of it. New Zealand has used them widely in the past in the agricultural sector. There is great concern about the danger of residues to people building their houses or playing in fields close to places where persistent organic pollutants have been used in the past. But this bill’s title does not indicate that the Stockholm convention is all about persistent organic pollutants. That is somewhat unsatisfactory.

The Minister in the chair could perhaps take a call later on to explain to us why, both in the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill and in this bill, no mention is made that it actually concerns persistent organic pollutants. Undoubtedly, they are hugely important. The Stockholm convention has wide international support, and it is right and proper that this Parliament becomes a signatory to it. The National Party is happy to support that.

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.

I would like to continue to elaborate on the concerns Dr Smith put to the Committee. I look forward to the Hon Dr Smith tabling his amendment, and I am glad that he has done that. As a trade Minister involved in all sorts of issues to do with conventions overseas and signing treaties, he has a better understanding than most. I am happy to say—he cannot say this himself—that he has a better understanding than most of what it is to sign up to a convention, and the significance of it. We look at the title of this bill, the “Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill”, and we know that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith and other senior members here, and a very few members of the public—perhaps even the Minister in the chair—will know what the Stockholm convention is. However, I have to concede that many members in this House do not know what the Stockholm convention is, or what it covers. The Stockholm convention is in the title, so I would like to make it clear what it is.

New Zealand signed that very convention on 23 May 2001. It knew what it was signing and did that with its eyes open. The convention seeks to protect human health and the environment—not just the environment in New Zealand, but the world environment, and particularly the environments of countries that signed up to the convention. That is done, firstly, by banning the production, use, and trade of certain persistent organic pollutants. It does that by minimising the emissions of 10 highly dangerous substances—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is a narrow debate.

I am talking about the title. The Stockholm convention is in the title. The convention minimises the emissions of 10 highly dangerous substances, eight of which are also covered by the Rotterdam convention. Only Dr Lockwood Smith, myself, Judith Collins, member of Parliament from Auckland, and maybe a scattering of others, would know that. The Stockholm convention in the title also refers to protecting health in the environment by taking measures to reduce emissions of two further products—and perhaps the Minister in the chair should tell us what those products are—and by also providing for financial contributions and for the appointment of a designated national authority.

I want the Minister in the chair, who believes that this bill should be called the “Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill”—what a tongue-twister—to tell us very clearly what that refers to. I have given members a brief about the Stockholm convention, but there are holes. It talks about 10 highly dangerous substances. What are they? People who are looking for information on those particular substances will not know that they are particularly related to the Stockholm convention. I would like to know what reducing emissions of two further by-products is, and what are they? I would like the Minister in the chair to take a call to tell us what those are.

These are my concerns. The Stockholm convention being mentioned in the title of the bill does not give any member of Parliament—apart from those, as I say, who have had a long history in this Parliament involved with trade and treaties—any idea of what the bill addresses in particular. We know that it does address persistent organic pollutants, but they are not mentioned in the title. They are mentioned in the background three times, and the interpretation three times. They are mentioned in the definition once. They are mentioned 12 times under the title “Continuation of PCB exemptions”, yet they are not mentioned in the title at all. I put it to the Committee, and I put a high degree of pressure on the Minister to take a call, to explain to us why the words “Stockholm Convention” should enlighten people, and “PCBs” not enlighten people.

In addressing the title, I think that the point has been made very clearly; however, I would like to re-emphasise in relation to the title, and ask the Minister in the chair why, indeed, the reference to new organisms is there. It is all about addressing the provisions of the Stockholm convention and allowing us to be able to ratify it. That of course relates specifically to persistent organic pollutants—the “POPs”, as they are known—and the schedules name those persistent organic pollutants covered by it. But nowhere in the bill—and I have looked at it, and if I am wrong, the Minister should take a call to show me—is there any reference whatsoever or addressing of new organisms. The bill has nothing to do with new organisms. It is about hazardous substances, so why on earth has the “new organisms” reference been put in the title? We have other legislation such as the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, but that is no explanation or reason to put it in the title of this stand-alone, separate legislation. It simply does not make sense.

I do not know what Cabinet committees do these days, but I would have thought that that sort of problem would have been picked up there. Perhaps it just takes its leave from officials and does not give it adequate scrutiny. That is why legislation is brought to Parliament. It is so that Opposition members do scrutinise it. There is no reference whatsoever to new organisms, so why on earth put it in the title? It is understandable that a person who picks up the title or reads a reference to the title will expect something to do with new organisms. [Interruption] I will not respond to that member’s interjection. There is no reference to new organisms whatsoever. Indeed, parties are indicating their support for this legislation in an overall sense, that the persistent organic pollutants are a concern—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Keep to the title.

It is being addressed, and that is why that aspect does belong in the title, but certainly not the new organisms. It is not too late. We can make a change here. That is why we have the Committee stage. Perhaps the Minister needs to consult the Leader of the House, who I notice is here, and to take his leave from him, because the title is wrong. It is a misnomer. It is very bad to pass into legislation something that carries the wrong name. It can only create confusion. It would be very inappropriate. We will be debating the aspects of this when we get to Parts 1 and 2 and the schedules, but let us start off on the right foot and get the title right. If we cannot get the title right, it will be very difficult as we move on through the latter stages of this legislation.

I think we can get this debate completed by about 11 or 12 o’clock tonight, if we apply ourselves. Let us get off on the right foot by getting the title right. This title is not appropriate, and, once again, I urge the Minister to take a call. If she cannot explain to us why there should be a reference to new organisms in this bill, which has nothing to do with new organisms, will she please indicate that she is prepared to have it deleted, and adopt the very good amendments that are being proposed by Opposition members.

I move, That the question be now put.

Let us start again on this access-to-justice issue. All the points that have been made by members on this side of the Chamber about the title and the very strange things in it—which have very little to do with the bill—deal with this access-to-justice issue. We make laws day after day in Parliament, year after year, and we have to have laws where the title reflects the contents of the bill. Otherwise we would not bother having a title; we would just call them “Bill No 2” or “Bill No 3”. The purpose of having a title is to let people who are looking for the law, be able to find the jolly thing. With words like “New Organisms” in this bill, one would think it had something to do with new organisms. But it does not. The honourable member Lockwood Smith, my colleague, has put forward an amendment to omit the words “(Stockholm Convention)” and to substitute the words “(Persistent Organic Pollutants)”. That change would reflect a lot of what this bill is about. But I also have to wonder about what “New Organisms” is doing in this particular bill.

I make a plea to get rid of the jargon used in these bills. This is yet another bill that is full of jargon, and the name itself is just jargon. This title includes the words “Stockholm Convention” but what do those words mean? Most people looking at that would sit there and say: “Has this got something to do with that new prostitution bill?”; that is exactly what they would be thinking. Then they would say: “What’s this about ‘new organisms and hazardous substances’?”. That would absolutely confirm it in their minds. This bill is not supposed to be about that, yet we have, once again, some sort of jargon.

Why do we have to refer to it as the “Stockholm Convention”, because that is something that only those in the know are allowed to know about? Yet again it is all about access to justice. We have laws, and I say: “For goodness’ sake! Make it easy for people to find them, and thereby live by them.” Most people actually do want to go through life living by the laws of the land, and they expect Parliament to take some notice of the names of bills and what is in them. That is why it is great that in our party, and in the Opposition, we read the bills; we look at these issues, and we actually understand them. I would really like to hear from the Minister, because she has always struck me as someone who will listen when we bring up issues; and the Leader of the House is normally quite good at listening.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: We’re good listeners.

They are the only two on that side who do listen. So that is quite good. The Minister of Education could listen occasionally, and that might do him some good. When we have bills like this, which are going to be almost impossible for anyone to find, other than a few lawyers who are involved in this area, then it will make it harder and harder for manufacturers, scientists, and people like that who actually do the work in the country and make the money for us—and make the money that pays the taxes that pay the wages of everyone here—to be able to find legislation.

Why do we have to have such silly titles? This title bears very little relationship to the bill. What sort of drafting is this? I am appalled this issue was not picked up on in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I am sure the people on the committee did their very best, but at the end of the day it obviously was not good enough. There is a feeling in the Parliament that we are all supportive of the bill and its contents, except for a few amendments. One concern would have to be the title. I really would like to hear from the Minister. I know she wants to tell us which hazardous substances and new organisms are in this bill, and why the words “Stockholm Convention” are included, rather than substituting the words “Persistent Organic Pollutants”. That change would make some sense to people who are looking in this particular area. I am sure the Minister would like to tell us about it. I can see she wants to tell us. I would really like to hear from her.

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Before I call the next speaker, there is too much conversation going on. Members should not conduct conversations in the Chamber, unless it is necessary to do so; and then so as not to disturb the proceedings. I find it somewhat difficult, at times, to concentrate on the member speaking, when there are so many conversations going on. For those who are wandering around the Chamber, I refer them to Standing Order 82.

Mr Chairman, I would like to join in your general round of condemnation of members who chat idly in the Chamber when issues such as the title to a bill are being discussed. It is not often the case that we are drawn to look at legislation of this importance, nor that we are drawn into a debate touching on the critical importance of a title. In starting any discussion on the issue of a title, one would surely start with the proposition that the title should first be legally accurate, and, secondly, that it be factually appropriate. As other speakers have said, there are real doubts in this regard about this title. I am frankly surprised, with the calibre of the members who were on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which reported back on the bill, that insufficient or perhaps no time at all, was given to consideration of the title. If one looks at page 7 of the explanatory note to see who those members were—and I instance the Hon Peter Dunne and Graham Kelly—one would have thought this would be a consideration at the very forefront of their minds. Instead, it is not the subject of commentary in the bill, and the issue comes before us afresh, or, as lawyers would say, on a de novo basis.

So how is it that this title fits within those two tests that I have suggested? Is it legally accurate? I would say no. Is it factually appropriate? Clearly, it is not. Other members have made the good and strong point that the full title of the bill is misleading, and that is because it is titled Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill. And one looks in vain, I suggest, in the content of the bill to find any reference at all to new organisms.

Sure there are preliminary provisions. Sure there are amendments to the principal Act made by Part 2. Sure there are two schedules. But not in any of that material is there reference to new organisms. That is really the first point.

The second point I would like to make is the reference to the Stockholm convention. As a starting point, there have been a number of conventions in Stockholm in the last few years, and they have ranged across considerable activity in that country. There have been meetings convened and called, for a wide variety of purposes, which have a convention quality. In looking at the use of the phrase “Stockholm Convention” in this case, I would have thought that the Government would go to the trouble to identify which particular convention in Stockholm had been singled out for reference in this bill. That is not done in the heading, and instead one needs to grope—I suggest that that is the appropriate word—through the legislation to Part 2 to see that “Stockholm Convention” is given a starkly narrowed meaning.

It has been defined there as meaning the Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, done at Stockholm on 23 May 2001, and the annexes to the convention—a copy of the English text of which is set out in schedule 1AA. So the drafters have gone to some trouble, it seems, to identify in this particular paragraph—albeit not in the title of the bill—the convention that is to be accorded recognition in the context of the legislation. What this bill does, and what should be reflected in the title, should be drawn from clause 3. It is apparent, reading clause 3, that the purpose of the Act is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Why does the title not say that? This is simply a piece of domestic legislation that incorporates a foreign treaty instrument.

I move, That the question be now put.