Hazardous Substances and New Organisms(Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. At the outset, I want to say that I am not relitigating the closure motion; I accept that you are the sole judge of that. I raise a point of order in terms of Speakers’ ruling 54/2 that was made by Speaker Statham in 1931 and reconfirmed by Speaker Burke in 1990. It has stood the test of time, and says that the chairperson is the best judge of whether the closure motion ought to be put. Both former speakers expressed the hope that the ruling would not be applied too harshly. I am raising the issue in relation to the schedules debate because Dr Lockwood Smith raised a matter with regard to the ability of researchers to work on substances such as dieldrin and DDT. My reading of it is that they cannot. I did not have a chance to debate that in relation to the appropriate clause. I was waiting my turn, but I was denied it. With appropriate reference, I believe I can raise the matter in the schedules, and I am seeking your assurance that you will indulge me to that extent—given that I was denied the right to address Part 2 of this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I recognise the point the honourable member is making. I am sure that he will be given the opportunity to debate the issue in the schedules.

As we move to the schedules of this bill, it is the standard problem—the devil is always in the detail. Firstly, in schedule 1AA we have the Stockholm convention. It is classic UN-speak. Many members would have been to various UN committees. They are horrifying experiences, captured by the Non-Government Organisations around the world. All the bureaucrats gather and come up with language like this, which is in every paragraph: “Recognizing that persistent …”, “Aware of the health concerns of women in developing countries …”, “Acknowledging that …”, “Conscious of …”, “Mindful of …”, and “Recalling …”. It goes on and on—“acknowledging”, “reaffirming”, “taking full account of”. In other words, it is everything to everyone. There is even something for the small islands of the Caribbean here. We end up with a mishmash of nonsense, and often contradictory nonsense.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The schedule debate is a very narrow debate, and it goes to whether the schedules match the substance of the bill. The member has been speaking for over a minute now, and has not debated the schedules.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): To that point of order, the previous Chairperson clearly used his discretion and assured Mr Shirley that he could speak to the bill in general.

I am grateful for that, but I can understand the Minister wanting to close it down. I will now move on to the core issue, and I want him to get up on his feet in the schedules debate and answer the question that was raised by Dr Lockwood Smith. It is that under this bill as proposed—and there is a reference to the chemicals concerned, dieldrin and DDT, in the schedules—research work will quite clearly not be able to be undertaken on anything that produces an organic pollutant. Moreover, one cannot use one.

I know that critical research is going on. I even have a distant relative doing a PhD on the breakdown of DDT, which is vital work for this country. We have contaminated soils; we have DDT levels in some of our Canterbury meat, and in some from Southland. That means that we cannot put that meat in some of our markets. It is critical that we do the research to break down these substances. Some very exciting work is being done, but under the legislation that the Government has cobbled together and brought to this House, it will not be possible to do that. This legislation has specifically forbidden people to do research work involving these organochloride substances.

That issue has been raised with the Minister, but we did not get a satisfactory reply, and even at this late stage of the debate, I ask the Minister of Education to address it. If he cannot, would he please get one of his colleagues to do it—perhaps the Minister for the Environment, who might be more knowledgeable about such substances. Who else? I cannot think of anyone else.

💬 Jill Pettis: That member has an awful cheek questioning anybody about it.

Perhaps the member for Whanganui knows something about the issue and could perhaps explain it. The Government has an obligation to not just dismiss the issue and treat Parliament like some perfunctory thing that goes through the motions and does not address the real issues that are raised. It is clear from the wording of that bill that absolutely no research work whatsoever can be done on these substances, and that will stop important research work in its tracks. It is not just important from the research perspective; it is vital to the New Zealand economy that this work proceeds, and we would like to hear from the Minister in that regard.

Schedule 1AA lists all of the various substances that are included, and all of them are chemicals that have been widely used in this country. Dieldrin, a widely used insecticide, has been mentioned in the debate so far. It is widely used for sheep dips—part of an industry that has been the backbone of the New Zealand economy in past years, and is still a very significant component of it. DDT has been used with a lot of success for grass-grub control and many other uses, but we have moved on.

But that is not the point—we have to be assured that through hasty, badly drafted legislation, the Government will not prevent researchers doing the important work of addressing the residues of these widely used substances. As it stands, that is the way the bill reads, so I again call on the Minister in the chair to take a call to explain that. If the Minister needs more time, I am sure the House would indulge him in that. We want to address this matter and get it right. We cannot just say that it is covered in the context of the bill. It is not. I do not think the Minister really knew what he was saying, so I would ask him to reflect on that and answer that point directly.

I am speaking to the schedules, but the issue relates to clause 8, “Exemptions from Act for small-scale research on hazardous substances”. That is a good and sensible measure, but then paragraph (ba) has been inserted in clause 8: “the use does not create or involve a persistent organic pollutant;”.

The member asked a reasonable question, and the reasonable Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith also asked one earlier, as well. If I may reverse back a little bit to answer the member, clause 8, as I indicated by way of interjection, must be read in the context of both the Act and the whole bill. The Act applies if the use creates or involves a persistent organic pollutant. Clause 7 amends section 30, and new section 25B(3) inserted by clause 5 allows approvals to be granted by the Environment Risk Management Authority for the use of persistent organic pollutants as analytical standards, and also for research in laboratories. I think that covers all the points that the member made.

In speaking to the schedules of this very important bill I thank the Minister for his explanation, but, unfortunately, I do not think it is sufficient. However, I will first just concentrate on the schedules, because they are somewhat voluminous and encompass a lot of the international obligations that we, as a sovereign nation, will have to make sure that we comply with. For instance, the objective in article 1 states: “Mindful of the precautionary approach set forth in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the objective of this Convention is to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants.” The National Party certainly supports that sentiment, and supports this bill. But we are deeply concerned about the way that this Labour Government has forgotten to look at the detail.

It is always the detail that is hugely important in legislation—and, in this case, the consistency between the bill and the principal Act. If we look at article 11, we see a heading: “Research, development and monitoring”. There is nothing about small-scale research there. Highly relevant to the schedules is the fact that the amendments I have put in suggest that as we have no definition for small-scale research, it would only be consistent with the schedules of this bill to omit small-scale research from both the bill and the principal Act, if they are to be consistent with the schedules that we have before us.

After all, one of the most important submissions on this bill came from the National Council of Women. Members of that council said how important it was from their point of view to ensure that New Zealand as a country is promoted as being clean, green, etc., although the image and reality do not always match and we have many sites contaminated with persistent organic pollutants. Because of that, it is important to ensure that ongoing research is carried out in order to make sure that the problem we have at present is remedied. But it is also important to explore alternative measures of mitigating the problem, such as using phytoremediation, and also to ensure both financial support for research to be able to be carried on and that hurdles are not put in the way by means of legislation.

We have a problem in article 11 of these schedules, and I am very concerned that this Labour Government has not been prepared to look at the detail. We have individuals, such as those in the Green Party, who from time to time are concerned about detail—and quite rightly so. Sometimes I find that somewhat tedious, but here we have a problem in that we have reference to small-scale research in the bill and the principal Act, and the convention refers to research in general. For the sake of consistency it is absolutely important, when we are dealing with international conventions such as the Stockholm convention, to make sure that we, as a sovereign nation, are very thoughtful and pay attention to detail. We should make sure that there are no traps in signing up to this convention, which we heard earlier on today could, and may, change without this Parliament having the opportunity to comment on it. So it is hugely important that we have consistency between our legislation and the convention.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member who is about to speak. I thought I heard you say to the Hon Ken Shirley that we are not to debate the actual contents of schedule 1, which sets out the convention itself. Have I got that right?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No. That was just a ruling that the previous Committee chairperson made in relation to Mr Shirley’s request. We are debating the schedules.

So when I do get to speak, I can speak on them?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes, the member may speak on the schedules.

There are two schedules. The first schedule is the actual Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants done at Stockholm on 23 May 2001, and the annexes to the convention; and the second schedule, which surprisingly is labelled schedule 2, lists the persistent organic pollutants. If time permits I would like to talk about schedule 2, but I will confine my comments to schedule 1, and express real concern that the United Future party does not seem to have understood the significance of the debate as it has gone through the Committee stage, and has been foolish in the extreme in not looking at the implications of the proposed amendments.

It is well illustrated in article 18. Article 18 is all about settlement of disputes, and for those United Future members who are present in the Chamber and may be following this issue, it is set out at page 32. I will make two points about article 18. The first is to draw the attention of United Future members to article 18(2)(a), which is all about the possibility of arbitration in accordance with procedures to be adopted by the conference of the parties in an annex “as soon as practicable”. The point that speakers from this side of the Chamber have urged on the Government is that because the bill is worded in the way it is, there may be later events—and here is an illustration of a later event—this annex will be developed, will become part of the treaty, and as a result of the clumsy drafting in the bill it will become part of New Zealand domestic law.

It is a simple illustration, and there may well be multiple illustrations within the context of the treaty. There was an opportunity for United Future members, if they were thinking members of Parliament, to have looked at this issue and resolved it. They failed to do that. The allusion can easily be made to their being little more than the marionettes of the current Labour Government. That is a sadness, because if their role is to stand as a party that can add value to the process, then they fail so significantly in this case. United Future members sit dumbly; the Labour members barrack.

I would like to come back to the second point, which is concerned with the settlement of disputes provision in article 18. A process is set out in article 18 for the settlement of disputes through negotiation or other peaceful means. It is an interesting trend in international treaties, particularly environment treaties, that those dispute resolution provisions are becoming increasingly common. One could not say that 10 years ago, but now there are about 180 treaties of an environmental character, as this one is, that contain quite sophisticated dispute resolution provisions. We have a plan for negotiation, or other peaceful means, and the ability for parties to stipulate for one of two options. The first is arbitration, and I have referred to that clause in article 18(2)(a). The second possibility is a submission of the dispute to the International Court of Justice. That is not a customary provision to find in dispute resolution provisions in environmental treaties.

There are subtleties in the way these provisions have been developed. Clause 6 of article 18 in Schedule 1AA states that if the parties to a particular dispute have not stipulated for one of those two procedures, or if they have and there is not concurrence in respect of the choice that the two disputing parties have made, the dispute then goes to the conciliation commission. We see immediately the difference between that and the arbitration process.

I would like to address the matter of the schedules and could I cast members’ minds back to the debate we had earlier regarding the Stockholm convention. Members will recall that we talked about it in the debate on the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill. We also talked about what is in Schedule 1AA, “Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants”. It is good to see that arise in this bill, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill. Members will recall that at that time we put up an argument about what is listed in the schedule in the other bill and why it was not listed in the schedules of that bill. I am delighted to see that the Stockholm convention is listed as part of the schedules of this particular bill. I remember a clause in the other bill that Judith Collins requested to be removed, because it stated that when conventions like the Stockholm convention were passed, in future they would automatically become law without this Parliament addressing it and without even Orders in Council. We put that concern forward.

I say that, because Schedule 1AA “Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants” states things like “Recognizing that persistent organic pollutants possess toxic properties, … Aware of the health concerns, … Acknowledging that the Arctic ecosystems … Conscious of the need … Mindful of decision … Recalling the pertinent provisions”, and on it goes: “Reaffirming”, “Encouraging”, “Recognizing”, “Determined”. All those words are highly emotive, stating activity, things like “Recognizing”, “Aware of”, “Acknowledging”, “Conscious of”, and “Mindful”.

The point made by Judith Collins was that we are not mindful, we are not aware, we are not recognising, we are not conscious of, we cannot recall, we are not reaffirming, we cannot encourage, we are not determined to, and we have not agreed to. Any convention might be passed in the future, so why would one secure it in legislation for ever, without members of Parliament being able to scrutinise it; and without even an Order in Council? That is what the member of Parliament for Clevedon, Judith Collins, was referring to. That was her concern, and those schedules only build on her argument.

I put it to the Chair and to the new Minister in the chair that the schedules simply back up what Judith Collins was putting forward to this Committee. The Minister in the chair should be mindful of that. I would like him to acknowledge that, to be aware of that, recognise that, and recall that. I would like him to encourage that, to be determined and to agree with that. I hope that the Minister takes a call and acknowledges Judith Collins’ forethought in regard to the schedules.

I am intrigued with schedule 1AA, “Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants”, which talks about the Rotterdam convention and makes reference to it. It is a fascinating convention. Many members here would have lain awake at night reading about that one. We know what it says—members should know what it says. That convention was passed on 11 September 1998. Members did not have the luxury of my wisdom in this House at that time, but they have it now. That convention was passed on 11 September 1998. However, the Stockholm convention refers to the Rotterdam one, and we have a bit of background on that. I have information on that that I have shared. However, we do not have any information on the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal—that is referred to in this schedule. Does any member here recall the details of the Basel convention? Mr Prebble does not recall that. Does any member here recall the Rio declaration, which has also been referred to?

Schedule 1 in particular has some concerns for us. I notice that the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants is contained in schedule 1AA and I have looked at that convention. Most of New Zealand will not have had a chance to look at the Stockholm convention, or have had any input to it, and they would be wondering what is going on when they see that it starts off with all sorts of talk about health concerns, especially in developing countries, resulting in local exposure to persistent organic pollutants. Of course, in New Zealand we know about this. People in this country have long claimed that they have been adversely affected by persistent organic pollutants, but they probably did not use those terms. They probably called them chemicals.

It then goes on about the particular impacts on women, and, through them, the effects upon future generations. I have made this point once, and I shall make it again: why does our Government sign up to agreements that talk just about particular impacts upon women, when men are also part of our population? In fact, they make up 49 percent of the population, and why is it that everything has to be put down like this? Why did they not just put “women and children in the lifeboats first”? What our Government is signing up to is absolute twaddle. I am quite happy to go along, and I am sure everyone on this side of the House is quite happy to go along, with the general feeling of the convention and a lot of its specifics, but when we have this sort of wishy-washy, wimpy, white socialist liberal rubbish going on here—I am sorry, for the Act party; I did not mean to say “liberal”.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Why does this have to go through under urgency?

Exactly. Then we go further and I see that we are acknowledging that the Arctic ecosystems and indigenous communities are particularly at risk, because of the biomagnification, and that it is a public health issue. Well, golly gee, is that not a concern of the entire world, that all people need to be concerned about this? What about the people of Africa? I would have thought it was of particular concern in Africa. Is it not a particular concern in New Zealand, Australia, and the United States? Why is it just the Arctic ecosystems in indigenous communities, and what is indigenous? It is absolute twaddle that our Government is signing up to and it has that sort of ecospeak at the start, when really, we should be looking at what is really important. I have raised those issues before about the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the whole ability for us to be able to deal with this convention.

Article 2 of schedule 1AA talks about the parties to the convention, and they are parties that agree to be bound by it. I would like to see annexed to that schedule a statement of which particular States have signed up to the convention. I think that would be interesting reading.

It would be interesting to know whether our major trading partners have signed up to it. It would be interesting to know whether the major polluters of the world have signed up to it. Why is it that in little countries like New Zealand officials and Ministers become overawed when treated as though they are important, for once in their lives, and are always willing to sign us up to things, and tie us in, and give away a bit of our sovereignty, just so they can feel they are doing the right thing? We could talk about the programme for sustainable development of small island developing States, which is included in schedule 1AA of the hazardous substances legislation. We could say that we are pretty much a small island developing State, but I would like us to have better information on this. Who has signed up to this convention? Has it been signed up to by the People’s Republic of China? Has Taiwan been given the opportunity to sign up to it? Has the USA signed up to it? Has Australia signed up to it? Has the UK signed up to it? Has Barbados signed up to it? Has Zimbabwe signed up to it? I want to know. Who else has signed up to it? I hope the Minister who is now in the chair will have that information. I am sure he could get that from the officials.

It is important that we know what we are signing up to—who else thinks it is important that we give away a bit of our sovereignty. When I talk about that, and sovereignty, and treaties and conventions in general, we all accept that at some times we do have to give up a bit of sovereignty to make the world a better place, and a better place for a small country like ourselves. But we should never do so willy-nilly, and we should never do so just because an official decides it is a good thing to do.

I move, That the question be now put.