Hazardous Substances and New Organisms(Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill

It is extraordinary that we are in our third day of urgency—technically, it is 1 July in this bizarre place in which we work—giving importance to passing legislation that will enable New Zealand to comply with a convention that was signed more than 2 years ago. What sort of Mickey Mouse Parliament are we running that, under urgency, we are being asked to advance legislation that Parliament did not see for more than 20 months after the convention to which it relates was signed by the Government?

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: It’s bizarre.

It is bizarre. If we had a matter of some urgent environmental need that required Parliament to be in urgency, then there might be some justification. [Interruption] Mr Larry Baldock tells me to sit down. Actually, I take seriously the role of Parliament, and I do not mind Parliament being in urgency when there are urgent issues. But I ask United Future members what is so urgent about passing the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill, when that convention was signed more than 2 years ago, and when nobody has ever contacted me, or anybody else I know of in this Parliament, saying that it has got to be passed today? [Interruption] My colleague Paul Hutchison is a very competent member, and he has given some excellent speeches on this bill. But even he would be of the view that one could not possibly justify Parliament pretending that the date is 1 July and being in urgency to pass legislation of this sort. It is indeed a joke.

I want to come to a substantive issue. I feel very strongly about the sovereignty of the New Zealand Parliament and about making sure that when we pass laws New Zealanders have the opportunity to comment on those laws and on what Parliament writes in them. What concerns me in Part 1, as it relates to the convention, is what happens if—and this is a question for the Minister—the rules of the Stockholm convention are changed as they apply to organochlorine pollutants. Will the New Zealand Parliament have the opportunity to revisit any subsequent amendments? That would be perfectly proper.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: No, it will not.

My colleague Lockwood Smith says that it will not. I have respect for international institutions, and I believe we should be part of agreements such as this, but it must finally be the decision of the democratically elected Parliament of New Zealand to make the laws of the land. If the rules of the Stockholm convention are subsequently changed—if there are subsequent amendments—then those amendments should come back to this Parliament. It worries me that in Part 1 we are effectively giving carte blanche to an international institution that is not democratically elected the opportunity to affect the rights of people who should have a chance to have a say. It worries me that we are to pass legislation that allows someone else to make decisions for New Zealand.

So while I am in favour and supportive of the Stockholm convention as it currently sits, I do not believe that the New Zealand Parliament is creating good law by saying that whatever is decided at the Stockholm convention in future automatically becomes part of New Zealand law. I do not think that is good law. We must come back to the people of New Zealand and say that, no, we want to make that the law of the land; we will not simply ride off with somebody else and say that, effectively, we will abrogate our job as the Parliament of New Zealand to make the law of the land. So I would like the Minister in the chair, Marian Hobbs, to answer the question, specifically in respect of clause 3, about whether under this bill, if there are subsequent amendments to the Stockholm convention, we are automatically bound by them. Or will the Government of the day come back to the New Zealand Parliament, put that bill through a proper select committee and public process, and give New Zealanders the opportunity to determine the law of our land?

I am pleased to speak to Part 1 of this important bill, which includes the commencement and the purpose clauses. The way that the Labour Government has handled both those issues has troubled me considerably with regard to this very important bill. Firstly, we should go to clause 2, “Commencement”, which obviously states that the Act comes into force on a day to be appointed by the Governor-General. As the Hon Dr Nick Smith has pointed out, the Stockholm convention was signed 2 years ago. But perhaps even more relevant is the fact that this bill was put on the Order Paper on 21 May 2002.

Here we are in urgency, dealing with a bill that has languished, because of this dilatory Labour Government, unnecessarily for a great deal of time. We have a Minister in the chair, the Hon Marian Hobbs, who says that she is interested in environmental concerns, yet she has been extraordinarily dilatory when it comes to progressing New Zealand’s involvement with the Stockholm convention, a convention which does enjoy an almost unparalleled level of support amongst United Nations countries. So here we are, with a dilatory Labour Government and a lackadaisical Minister who is really just cruising along. I must say that in the earlier part of this debate the Hon Peter Dunne from the United Future party was concerned that I might have been critical of him for not progressing this bill. That is not the case, at all. Mr Dunne is a highly competent chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. Once he finally got the bill in February, he made sure that it was progressed expeditiously. It is undoubtedly the Government, a Government that purports to be interested in the environment, that has unfortunately delayed this bill’s passage, and finally out of sheer convenience has suddenly, after a knee-jerk reaction—and we cannot understand why—decided to bring it through under urgency.

But more important than that is the purpose of the bill. Again I ask, as did the Hon Dr Nick Smith, whether the chance is available for New Zealanders to have a say if the Stockholm convention is changed. After all, we are a sovereign nation. Surely, as the Parliament of a sovereign nation it is absolutely important that where international conventions that we are signatory to are passed through our Parliament and there are changes to the parent convention, we in this country are able to have a say in those situations if the changes are significant to us—and when a convention is to do with importing and exporting, that can be profoundly significant to us. I hope that the Minister, who has shown a fair amount of dilatoriness in terms of bringing this important bill to the Committee, will take a call and assure us that that will be possible.

The purpose of this bill is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. I believe that my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith will move an important amendment—and I will not go on to say very much about it—to insert after the word “with” the words “certain requirements of”, because the purpose here is inflexible. It means, in many respects, that we would have to abide by the whole Stockholm convention, whether or not it applied to New Zealand. I hope the Minister will take notice of that important amendment.

I want to briefly answer the questions that have been raised about the possibility that the Stockholm convention could be amended after an internal process, with all the international experts involved, by adding a new persistent organic pollutant to the list. Under clause 13 of the bill—and not under Part 1, which we are debating now—it actually states that we would add that pollutant to the list of persistent organic pollutants as specified in the Stockholm convention, and add it into the text of the Stockholm convention set out in the schedule of the bill by Order in Council. I tell members that whenever we are doing anything as serious as an Order in Council—and I make this absolute commitment—we will be out there consulting with the chemical industry, which up to this time absolutely supports, both internationally and inside New Zealand, the number of pollutants that are listed here. We will work with that industry, internationally and in New Zealand, if we were ever to consider ourselves in line with an amended Stockholm convention, should that happen.

I do not know how naive that Minister, the Hon Marian Hobbs, actually thinks we are. She is trying to sort of mollycoddle us and say we should not worry, because if ever at some subsequent stage when she is still the Minister—she has only a couple of years to run, but be that as it may—she will, by Order in Council, engage in consultation with everyone and everything will be done right. Well, let us look what has already happened under this urgency motion. We can see the Government has rammed through legislation without any consultation, with no calling for submissions, and with no referral of bills to the select committees. So it is a bit rich for the Minister to say we should trust the Government to always consult and follow due process. We know that this Government does not follow due process; it fails to do that at every turn. So I am sorry, but that reply from the Minister was very hollow and very unconvincing, and she will have to do a lot better than that if she is to address the very real concerns that have been raised.

The irony, again, is that we generally support this legislation. We signed the Stockholm convention 2 years ago, and I understand we have to pass this legislation before we can ratify it. That is what this legislation is all about, but why on earth are we debating it under urgency? This legislation has been ticking away on the slow burner, simmering away, and bouncing along at the bottom of the Order Paper. The Government did not have the presence of mind to bring it up the Order Paper, but has then put it in the urgency motion and tried to ram it through the House under urgency. I put it to members that this bill would have gone through the House a lot easier and a lot less acrimoniously if the Government had put it through the House in normal parliamentary time, and not under urgency. Understandably, the Opposition parties become suspicious when these sorts of issues are put through urgency and bypass the due process.

I now turn to the issue of what will occur if the international convention is subsequently amended—and we know that these conventions are always amended. Someone will try to raise the barrier and add a new chemical or substance to it. That will bind us, and there is no safeguard here. The Minister is saying that that will go through under an Order in Council. That does not involve having the scrutiny of Parliament. It abrogates our sovereignty. The danger is that our bureaucrats go off to these UN conventions and committees—and there is one held every week somewhere in the world; it is as though they decide to meet somewhere in the spring. Those committees meet all over the world, at huge cost. The bureaucrats and non-governmental organisations that have no mandate and no accountability go off to them, and play a huge influence in these environmental conventions. Countries sign up to them, and that abrogates their sovereignty because if there are changes, then we will have to be bound by them.

The bill is quite helpful with regard to this issue, because it actually has the convention attached to it. If members look at article 21 of the convention in Schedule 1AA, they will see it covers the situation of amendments to the convention. It states: “Amendments to this Convention shall be adopted at a meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to the Parties by the Secretariat at least six months before the meeting at which it is proposed for adoption.” So in other words, all the unelected, unaccountable non-governmental groups that control the processes in terms of such UN conventions can, through the back door, impose controls and restrictions on New Zealand law. I say to the Minister, Marian Hobbs, that that is bad. Her explanation, when she leapt to her feet previously, failed to satisfy us because it did not address the issue. The mere fact that she says she will consult before an Order in Council is issued is very hollow words. We want some sort of assurance that it will be brought back to Parliament and referred back to the select committee, so that submissions can be called for and the due process followed.

We know that substances like dieldrin and DDT have been very widely used in this country. Dieldrin was the basis of our sheep dips, and DDT was used extensively to fight grass grub, so there are large residues of that. Polychlorinated biphenyls were used in electricity transformers and tipped all over the landscape for many decades. Those have been widely used common substances. Fortunately we do not use them now, and that is good. However, we do need to be assured that if new substances are added to the list in the convention, adequate consideration will be given to that by Parliament.

In Part 1 we are dealing principally with the commencement and purpose of the bill. A number of concerns have been raised in relation to the purpose. The problem arises whereby New Zealand’s domestic law could be changed without either this Parliament or even an Order in Council being involved in that. It is a matter of grave concern to the Opposition. I will be speaking on that point more specifically when we come to Part 2, because I know that the Regulations Review Committee raised with the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee a concern about that. I believe that the way the select committee responded to that issue was inadequate, and I will go into that in some detail when we come to Part 2.

But in respect of Part 1, I will just cover a concern I have with the purpose laid out in clause 3, which reads: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.” I say this bill does not provide for that. That purpose is wrong. This bill, which will become an Act, does not enable New Zealand to comply with all the requirements of the Stockholm convention. In fact, it is very clear that Part V of annex C, which is part of the Stockholm convention, will not be implemented in New Zealand. It is an active decision of the Government not to implement Part V of annex C. So there is one part of the convention that is not being implemented in this bill. What is more, this bill covers only certain issues or certain requirements of the Stockholm convention. It does cover matters concerning the importation of persistent organic pollutants, their manufacture, their use, and their storage, but it does not cover matters relating to their export. That is covered in different law—in a different Act.

So I submit that the purpose stated in the bill is incorrect, because this bill does not enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm convention. That is factually wrong. It does not enable New Zealand to implement Part V of annex C, and it does not cover issues that are required by the Stockholm convention in respect of the export of persistent organic pollutants. That is why I have proposed and will be moving an amendment to add to clause 3, “Purpose”, following the word “with”, the words “certain requirements of”. If my amendment is incorporated, the purpose clause would read: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to comply with certain requirements of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.” That is a correct statement, and a correct and truthful purpose. It is honest, whereas the provision in this bill is not honest. The bill simply does not enable us to comply with the Stockholm convention, but only with certain requirements—or certain parts—of it.

If the Minister does not like my words, I say that all I am getting at is that this bill does not enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. It is factually wrong for the purpose clause to make that claim. What we should indicate is that the bill will enable us to comply with some aspects of the convention, some requirements of it, or certain aspects of it. I am easy about the words that should be used, but I believe that clause 3 should be changed in order to state the purpose of this bill correctly. The way that it is currently worded is simply not correct.

That is my main submission in respect of Part 1. I have already pointed out that I have a major concern about how the purpose is carried out in this bill, and I will turn to that when we come to Part 2. I believe that the way the purpose is being given effect to in this legislation is flawed. I think it is faulty. It leaves New Zealand’s domestic law in the hands of the people who are involved in deciding changes to the Stockholm convention. From the way that this bill is worded, as I read it not even the Government of New Zealand could stop changes to the convention from becoming part of New Zealand’s domestic law. I think the way that the purpose is being given effect to is a serious issue, but my first concern is that the purpose statement itself is simply not correct, and should be amended.

I move, That the question be now put.

I would like to carry on from the comments and the very, very good contributions from this side of the Chamber. [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The barrage from that side of the Chamber is extremely distracting when I am trying to speak on this important issue. I wonder whether you could make a ruling.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Strictly speaking, members can be heard without interruption, but, of course, the convention has been somewhat relaxed in order to elicit questions.

This bill, which is about making the Stockholm convention part of New Zealand’s law, does raise some very serious issues, and one of the reasons it raises serious issues is the issue of the sovereignty of New Zealand. When New Zealand signs up to international conventions it almost invariably gives up part of its sovereignty. It is a price that we are often willing to pay as a country, but the country needs to know about it. That is one of the very real concerns that we on this side of the Chamber have with the fact that this bill is being rammed through under urgency, without any proper discussion with the people of New Zealand.

Our sovereignty should mean something to us. Part of that is the fact that the laws of this country should be made by Parliament, not by officials going on UN junkets, and other things, to talk about all sorts of exciting things at conventions. If any members want to have a look that—maybe they think that Judith Collins is being just a little harsh—then they should have a look at the Stockholm convention. One clause in the convention talks about the health concerns, particularly in developing countries—and I am sure that all members in the Chamber would agree on that—resulting from local exposure to persistent organic pollutants. The clause mentions, in particular—and this is the part that is very annoying—the impacts upon women and, through them, upon future generations. I say that because men are also important. I think that is the point that is often missed by this Government and its poodle puppy dogs—that men are actually very, very important and it takes more than just a woman to make a baby for future generations. The Stockholm convention starts off by talking about how women’s health is very important. What about the health of men? It is like everywhere—[Interruption] I say to Mr Shirley that this bill is actually all about looking after women’s health.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: What’s the reference for this?

It is schedule 1—“Aware of the health concerns”. That in particular is worrying to me, because I do not believe that women’s health should be put on such a pedestal, as opposed to men’s health. Men have to live and die like the rest of us, and men must be a valuable part of our society and of our world. When they are not, they will become a very negative part of our society. Why is it always that this Government, which says that women can be fathers, wants to go along with any of those nice, touchy, feel-good sort of conventions? I do not trust that this Government will have proper consultation. I understand the comments from the Minister, and I think that, genuinely, she would like to think that she is right. But, unfortunately, I do not think that we can trust that the Government will have proper consultation and care. Otherwise, why would it be ramming this bill through under urgency, on what is officially 1 July, without any proper consultation with the public?

I wonder; should the public not actually be having a say in this legislation? Should they not know this is happening? Should not 49 percent of the population know that their health does not actually count for much? That is what they should know. This purpose clause states that the bill enables New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. That sounds great—in which case, why was it not stated in the title? Persistent organic pollutants could almost mean a whole range of things that are daily, household things. I have serious worries about why this bill is going through under urgency.

I too would like to speak on Part 1, “Preliminary provisions”, which contains the commencement clause and purpose clause. I see that clause 2, “Commencement”, states: “This Act comes into force on a day to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.” We suspect that that will be in the very, very near future. The purpose of this bill is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Interestingly enough, the Stockholm convention was actually signed on 23 May 2001. This Government thought it significant enough, I assume, to wander over to Stockholm, taking copious numbers of officials with its delegation, and sign that convention. Well, I say: “Good on them.” But why it is that although the Government signed the convention well over 2 years ago, it is only now coming into force? That is what I want to know.

The Government thought it significant enough to go all the way over to Stockholm, taking officials with it, experience the thrill of signing the convention, and wander back. But it has taken 2½ years for the Government to bring this bill to the House—and it has done so under urgency. Is that significant or is it not? That is the case I put before the Committee about the commencement date. It is not flash, is it, that the Government would do that. I raise the matter of the significance of the convention. Is it or is it not important? It is certainly not important to this Government if it takes well over 2 years before it even enshrines it in legislation.

The purpose clause states: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.” I know that the convention covered persistent organic pollutants when the Government signed it on 23 May 2001; I know that this bill we are looking at now deals with the manufacture, use, and storage of persistent organic pollutants. But I also know that this bill does not deal with the export of any products, organisms, or anything else from this country that may contain persistent organic pollutants. I raise that point with the Committee, because the purpose clause clearly states: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.” But it does not. It might enable New Zealand to comply with some of—we could even put ‘very few of’—the Stockholm convention provisions, but it certainly does not require or mean that this country complies with all of them. So it does comply with certain requirements of the Stockholm convention, but certainly not all of them. I think there is a degree of mistrust on this side of the Chamber about the specifics of the purpose, as outlined in Part 1.

I am also concerned—and we will, no doubt, further on in the debate, be putting forward some amendments to fix the problem—that by passing this bill today, we will run roughshod over members of Parliament who are sitting in the Chamber and listening, because Parliament will not have a say at all. In fact, one could say that the purpose of this bill is to run roughshod over members of Parliament, because Parliament will not have a say at all on this convention, which was signed off well over 2 years ago. Even the provision “by Order in Council” will be bypassed as well, I believe, through the passing of this bill. I know that Judith Collins brought in an amendment for the last bill we discussed in the House, and I hope that she brings in a similar amendment to address the issues in this bill.

I move, That the question be now put.