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 third time. When the bill was first introduced, it was said that the Government’s intention was to ratify the Stockholm Convention as soon as practicable. The benefits of ratifying the Stockholm Convention and implementing it through this bill include protection of the health of New Zealanders, now and in the future, by reducing exposure to persistent organic pollutants; safeguarding the quality of their food, especially meat and dairy products; strengthening and protecting New Zealand’s clean, green, image; addressing persistent organic pollutant stockpiles, waste, and contaminated sites; and demonstrating our commitment to maintaining and enhancing the global environment.

It is worth noting that there are obligations under the Stockholm Convention that will be addressed by non-legislative means. These obligations are to minimise and, where feasible, eliminate, emissions of dioxin; to ensure that stockpiles of persistent organic pollutant chemicals are identified, managed, and disposed of in an environmentally sound manner; to identify and remediate, if possible, sites contaminated with persistent organic pollutants; and to prepare and report progress on New Zealand’s national implementation plan for meeting convention obligations.

I thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for its constructive amendments to the bill, notably with regard to the disposal of persistent organic pollutants and the regulation of polychlorinated biphenyls. The Environmental Risk Management Authority can give directions as to the environmentally sound disposal of a persistent organic pollutant substance, and holders of current polychlorinated biphenyl use and storage exemptions are able to extend these exemptions until the year 2016.

Of the 151 countries that are signatories to this convention, 33 have become ratified parties. By passing this bill into law, we will be within the first group of 50 ratifying countries, and hence responsible for bringing the convention into force. I commend the bill to the House.

The National Party supports the aims of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill. We believe they are very important because, as has been stated, the whole purpose of the Stockholm Convention is, undoubtedly, to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutant chemicals. Those substances are affectionately known as “POPs”—not to be confused in any way with elderly people, but referred to in that way because they are environmentally persistent, toxic, bioaccumulative, and able to be transported by the movement of air, water, and migratory species to places far from their point of origin. They are significant and of concern, and it is appropriate that New Zealand is a signatory to this convention.

But what has troubled me about this bill is the way the Labour Government has been dilatory in bringing it into the House. The convention was signed up over 2 years ago, and the bill has been on the Order Paper since 21 May 2002. Here is a Labour Government that says it is interested in the environment and in the United Nations, yet it has been extremely dilatory in bringing this important bill, which is relevant to two of its key pieces of rhetoric, to the House. It has been absolutely slow in progressing the bill, and here we are, in urgency, finally bringing through this necessary legislation. I have been troubled by the way the Labour Government has, once again, been dilatory, both in ensuring that environmental issues are addressed, and in ensuring that international obligations to do with the United Nations are being addressed.

The other area that has troubled me is the lack of attention to detail that this Labour Government has applied to the process. There were three important submissions. One was from Geocycle Ltd, which is related to Holcim New Zealand. Holcim Cement is one of the largest, if not the largest, cement supplier in the world. Geocycle’s focus in New Zealand is on the collection and uses of oil nationwide. It supported the bill, but was very concerned about the requirements for the unintentional production of dioxins and furans, and how New Zealand applied these within this bill.

Geocycle was particularly concerned about the development of national environmental standards, and, in fact, requested the Government to develop national environmental standards that provide for the use of waste and hazardous waste in the manufacture of cement and lime, saying that, where appropriate, environmental standards can be achieved. Geocycle went on to say that it would be very important for the Government to develop national guidelines for dioxin emissions under the Resource Management Act, because they are enforced variably, and there is a lack of consistency under Part 5, Annex C, of the bill before us.

As we see in the commentary to this bill, one of the unfortunate parts of these deliberations is that because dioxins are a by-product of some combustion processes and not a substance used in those processes, they are not included in this bill. We are therefore left up in the air as to what the Government will do in terms of enforcing national environmental standards. I am sure that Sue Kedgley, from the Greens, will be deeply concerned about that particular issue.

The second submission came from Transpower New Zealand. Again, it is highly relevant, because Transpower wished to ensure that the provisions for the continued use of polychlorinated biphenyls—which are critical to Transpower, and are under exemption for a specified period of time—were accommodated by this bill. Transpower has in the order of $30 million of equipment that it hopes to phase out over 16 years. I am pleased to report to the Committee that most of Transpower’s wishes were granted and accommodated within this bill.

But because of this Labour Government’s lack of attention to detail, the third submission, which came from the National Council of Women of New Zealand, has not been satisfactorily accommodated by this bill—despite the willingness of the Opposition parties, which include the ACT party, New Zealand First, and National, to make very constructive amendments to try to sort out the problems. To give members an example, the point is made in the schedules that it is extremely important for there to be an international understanding regarding research, monitoring, and development of persistent organic pollutants. We pointed out that that the bill consistently refers to “small-scale” research, as does the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. All that would have been required was to have removed “small-scale”, and we would have had consistency and consensus, but the Government was just not willing to do that.

The National Council of Women’s submission pointed out how important research was to New Zealand. It pointed out that it was important both to have funding for research into the management and remediation of toxic waste, and to anticipate new ways to get rid of persistent organic pollutants, such as phytoremediation. My great concern is that despite pointing out to the Government that we could overcome the regulatory hurdles that this bill has imposed technically, this dilatory, and now inattentive, Labour Government has just failed to respond to the very constructive amendments of the Opposition parties. We believe that the environment is very important, and that international efforts such as this are very important—as does the National Council of Women. It was very disappointing that the Government did not respond to the suggestions of the submitters, or of the Opposition parties, in these important, detailed areas.

Again, I was concerned when with regard to Dr Lockwood Smith’s very important amendment regarding the relevancy of clause 8, and his suggestion that research into persistent organic pollutants might be excluded by this bill, the Minister rose and said that members should look at clause 7, and that if one went back to the principal Act, it was actually tidied up by the wording there.

💬 Dail Jones: Was that clause 8?

No, it was clause 7 that he referred to. However, if one looks—

I am pleased to rise in support of this sensible and overdue legislation.

No one in the country will have missed the irony in the comments of the previous speaker who said that this has not been moved on fast enough. I just wonder why the National Government took no steps in this direction, when it was in power for 9 years. This bill is timely for two reasons. Firstly, it is timely because it restates our position as a responsible member of the international community, and for that reason we support the objectives of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Secondly, in ratifying the convention, we are clearly stating that, by playing our part internationally, we are also helping to make New Zealand a cleaner and safer place for our residents and visitors.

New Zealand First also supports this bill. The point has been made about the Government’s delay in bringing the bill to this stage, and after the comments made by Clayton Cosgrove after my last third-reading speech, I intend to take my full 10 minutes on this occasion. If Labour Party members want to insult those members of the House who are trying to be cooperative—especially when they speak after those members rather than before them—they can expect the full treatment the next time they stand up. I therefore attribute and commend this speech to Clayton Cosgrove.

This bill has been long in gestation. During the Committee stage, I raised my concern with the Minister about the intention in Supplementary Order Paper 97 to insert new clause 4B, “Delegation by Authority”. Trying to understand where that clause fitted into the bill and into the Act of Parliament itself was something of a work of art. It would have taken about 30 seconds for the Minister in the chair to clarify it, but one Minister in the chair after another just sat there woodenly. Given that I got no response from any Minister in the chair on that matter, it was necessary for me to go through and have a look at the statute—fortunately, I have some ability in that area—and try to work it all out for myself.

I am concerned that that particular clause, and even the legislation itself, allows for a great degree of delegation to people who are not even members of the Environmental Risk Management Authority, and that those people who are not even employees can make decisions. If there is no employee with relevant experience, any other person with relevant experience can make decisions, in terms of clause 4B, which is inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 97 to amend section 19(2) of the principal Act—which, in a long-winded sort of way—inserts new paragraph (ca), which refers to section 97, relating to enforcement, inspection, and ancillary powers.

Those members of the Opposition who have tried to take a reasonable approach to urgency, and who ask a simple question, should be given some degree of respect by the Minister in the chair, otherwise, one is forced—through one’s own constitutional process as an Opposition MP—to make a song and dance about the situation. On behalf of the people of New Zealand, one must find out what is intended by legislation, and have that contribution recorded, especially with legislation like this, which is brought in at a late stage during urgency.

As previous members have said, this bill has been around for a long time, yet here we have something dated Tuesday, 1 July 2003 bringing effect to the legislation. Of course, today is still Tuesday, 1 July 2003—

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: It is in that member’s little world.

I am sorry? What did Mr Cosgrove say to extend my speech this time? He said nothing this time. Today is still Tuesday 1 July 2003 and here we are in urgency being required to debate and pass this bill.

New Zealand First is only too pleased to make a contribution on this matter. We had meant to make a very short contribution, but if the Government will not play its part, by answering simple questions in the Committee stage, it makes a farce of the situation. If the Government insists on having urgency on something like this, surely it then has a responsibility to at least answer a simple question, thereby saving a whole lot of time and trouble, and speeding up the whole situation rather than delaying it. Instead, members have to go away and do their homework to discover that people who are not even members of the body itself can somehow have delegated powers to do various things. When one looks at section 97 of the principal Act, one sees it has various subsections, going from (a) through to (h), which relate to a wide variety of areas, including the Gas Act, land transport safety, the Commissioner of Police, civil aviation, marine safety, and the Resource Management Act, to name but a few. It is a shame that the Minister did not take the trouble to answer the question.

As far as the point raised by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith in the Committee stage is concerned, I was sufficiently concerned to have a look at it, but, in my mind, there seems to be some confusion as to whether it relates to clause 7 or clause 8 of the bill. If members do look at it, as I did, I believe they will find that the point raised by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith is a valid one, and we may be coming back to this House again in the not too distant future to have the matter corrected.

Of course, the Stockholm Convention, which is given effect by this bill, is still not international law. When the bill was introduced earlier on by Marian Hobbs, she said there were a number of countries—numbering in the late forties—that had ratified the convention, and that we needed 50 countries to ratify it before this bill could be regarded as international law. However, when the Minister spoke on it today, he said the number of countries required were in the thirties; perhaps if we wait for another 5 or 6 months the numbers will decrease even further. If we accept the words of Marian Hobbs, and then the words of Chris Carter, it seems to me that there is less and less international support for this legislation.

The point is that New Zealand has been doing this for many, many years, anyway. New Zealand First has continuing care and concern for the environment, and the type of materials that have been taken out of agricultural practice by this legislation have been out of good farming practice for some considerable time, anyway. A country like New Zealand does not really need conventions to tell it what to do. Most of the conventions relate to those countries that ought to be doing these things, but which never ratify the conventions, and so are never bound by them, whereas this Government is very, very keen on conventions, with this convention, for example, being a classic one in that it has not yet been accepted by international law, but it has been given effect in New Zealand.

That is a practice of this Government that should be drawn to the attention of the country, and the same goes for the Kyoto Protocol, which has not yet been approved in international law either, and which is never likely to be. If we bear in mind that the Kyoto Protocol requires the ratification of 55 percent of those countries with carbon dioxide emissions who are party to it, and note that the United States and the Russian federation—which, respectively, have 36 percent and 17 percent on their own—both oppose it, we can see that it will never come into effect. However, that does not stop the Government from taxing farmers, and getting money from them on what are virtually false pretences in respect of international law. That is clearly the situation, but the Government is still pursuing these conventions.

I think it is a good idea to have conventions brought to Parliament, and I know that Keith Locke will be delighted to see this process occurring. But there is another problem that arose in the Committee stage that should be drawn to the attention of the House, which is the fact that, although the convention itself is being approved by Parliament, any amendments that are made to the convention will be privately—and, one might almost say, secretly—approved by the Government by Order in Council, and will not be brought to Parliament. Successive Governments have established a process of bringing conventions to the House, and it is a great shame that the minority Labour Government has decided that amendments to this convention will not be brought to the House. That seems to be an inconsistent, poor, and unfortunate stand. It seems logical to me that if one brings a convention to the House, one should also bring any of the amendments to the convention to the House.

On the whole, with our longstanding regard for the environment, New Zealand First supports this legislation, and looks forward to its continuing implementation in the New Zealand scene.

I rise to make a brief contribution to the third reading of this bill. As I said in my speech on the second reading, this bill was reported back from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee with largely uncontroversial changes. However, a Green Party member said that that was not the case, and that some of these things were very controversial. I think that reveals that the Green Party sees a lot more things as controversial than most others do.

The debate has so far been very interesting. Some MPs have complained about how long this very basic legislation sat waiting for its time in this House, and to be passed into law. I have not yet heard anybody point out that the select committee in the last Parliament reviewed the Stockholm treaty, and reported to the House in February 2002. This legislation was then drafted from that report. The bill was introduced into the House in 2003, and had been going through its stages in a normal way until this week.

Others in the debate have very eloquently tried to suggest that, because this legislation is based on a treaty, it is somehow a foreign takeover of our nation. I am afraid that even though they have been very eloquent in their argument, they have failed to convince me that there is any danger to us as a nation inherent in this legislation.

Others have asked why it is being rushed through in urgency, and that is something worth considering. To those outside this Chamber, all legislation is urgent. Some legislation, though, is more urgent than others, and I believe that those of us in this Chamber should remember that fact. To the people waiting for legislation to be passed through this House so that it can be enacted into law, every minute we waste in this House is of importance. When I first came to this Chamber last year, I was informed of the cost of delaying legislation in this Chamber: every 5 minutes costs somewhere in the region of $80,000, and that is of concern to the taxpayers of New Zealand. So when we make our speeches, it is important for us to remember that there is urgency in relation to all legislation; all legislation should go through in the most expeditious way.

Nick Smith spoke of the importance of democracy and of debating all legislation, and I agree with him: it is important, and we should not rush things through without doing the job properly. However, the debate needs to be sensible. The public and taxpayers want robust debate, but we must focus on what we are debating about. There have been some very good contributions during this debate—and I do not discount those, at all—but if the public heard some of the contributions in this Committee stage, they would have wondered what on earth we are being paid to do in this Chamber. They would have been disappointed, because some of the contributions have simply been time-wasting.

On the other hand, some have said that this legislation is being rammed through the House. I only wish that were true! We can only hope that, in the future, legislation as straightforward and as simple as this will be passed through the House with a lot less fuss, so that we can get on to other things that are of huge importance. This bill had its first reading, and was then referred to the select committee, in February 2003. There were three submissions on this bill; the public have had a chance to have their say. Now, it is being passed through this House, and will finally be enacted into law, and that is something that United Future is pleased to give its support to.

At this very late hour, before the evening dinner break, I rise with some considerable reluctance, but due to the lack of Government members wishing to make a contribution—

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

I am here on behalf of my colleague Ken Shirley, who has made a very substantial contribution to this bill. Mr Shirley, of course, as the whole House is aware, hopefully, is the only true scientist in this House.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: What!

I see that Dr Lockwood Smith disputes that; certainly, there is no one on the Government side who could get within a bull’s roar of Mr Shirley’s knowledge of science. Unfortunately, he cannot complete his contribution, but I stand in for him.

I was delighted to hear the contribution from Dr Paul Hutchison, who informed the House that the Government was not prepared actually to listen, or to accept any of the amendments put forward by the Opposition. This is a bill on which, by and large, there is a lot of unanimity. The House does accept that there is importance surrounding polychlorinated biphenyls, persistent organic pollutants, and other hazardous substances, and that there has to be regulation surrounding them. So why were those amendments not accepted, given that there is very, very profound knowledge of this matter on this side of the House? It is widely accepted, of course, that the Government does not have a mortgage on wisdom. It is with some disappointment that I note that Opposition amendments that were put forward in a very sensible way were not accepted by the Government.

The ACT party does agree that ratification of the Stockholm convention is an important contribution to the world environment, despite what I can only describe as the “chemophobia”, the fear of chemicals, in this world today. That fear is exacerbated to a very large degree by the Green Party. Why do we ignore naturally occurring substances? Why they are not incorporated, along with polychlorinated biphenyls and persistent organic pollutants, is mystifying to me. The most toxic substance known to man is a naturally occurring—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: The ACT party!

I am sorry—known to man or woman. I do apologise to the honourable member. The most toxic substance known to humanity, shall we say, is a product that kills 4,000 people a year in Indonesia alone. It would seem to me that any reasonable international convention would include such a substance. I am not sure that members of this House even understand what that particular product is: it is a hugely toxic fungus that grows on, of all things, peanuts. It is amazing. At certain temperatures and certain levels of humidity that fungus, one of the most toxic carcinogens known to mankind, grows at a prolific rate and is hugely toxic.

But there are also other examples that the Stockholm convention is ignoring. We know that tobacco, a naturally occurring substance—I see that Mr Nandor Tanczos is very interested when I start mentioning these sorts of products—is a hugely toxic substance. Inestimable numbers of people throughout the world die from that highly toxic substance. So why does the international convention not understand the significance of incorporating naturally occurring products along with man-made or woman-made—I say that just to appease Ms Dalziel over there—products?

There is a whole raft of substances like tobacco. Alcohol is a toxic substance. What about cocaine? It is totally naturally occurring. I note that in New Zealand we have large numbers of people wanting to ban a highly toxic, naturally occurring substance called 1080 poison. Yet those things are not mentioned by the Stockholm convention. It mentions just polychlorinated biphenyls and persistent organic pollutants. Nicotine is, with regard to the insect world, a nerve gas. It is hugely effective. Of course, nicotine addiction is a huge problem for the human species. We have a problem in New Zealand in that we focus on some toxic substances and not others.

The real problem, I think, is that we overlook the manufacture of dioxins in this country from landfills. How can we ignore the huge problem that that creates, when we have perfectly viable alternatives? I mention high-temperature incineration. Why does the Government not promote the use of high-temperature incineration to ensure that dioxins, which undoubtedly are very, very toxic to our environment, are lessened to a very, very large degree in our country? The Government has the opportunity to ensure that dioxins do not occur in New Zealand.

I also make the point that, with the best will in the world, mankind over the years has developed substances that we thought at the time were very, very advantageous to humanity. I can think of one product that has received huge attention over the years, and that caused major problems to pregnant women. That product is thalidomide. There were huge calls throughout the world to ban that highly toxic substance—and it was highly toxic, but only to pregnant women. Now the world is starting to understand that thalidomide does have real medical advantages for certain conditions and certain people, and it is now being used again.

I cannot help but wonder whether there is something of an overreaction to products like DDT. As I mentioned in an earlier speech—I think it was my speech on the imports and exports legislation—the banning of DDT, which is regarded as a hugely toxic substance, is actually killing millions of people a year, because we are not wiping out mosquitoes like we used to, and malaria kills millions of people a year. Yet the world, through the United Nations, has decided to ban DDT. We in this Parliament, with all sorts of securities, are making these kinds of judgments for other people who are going to die because we have decided, from our ivory tower in this country, that it is not appropriate for the Third World to be sprayed with these substances in order to give people there the opportunity to live.

I make one final point about toxic substances. Many years ago people were highly concerned about a substance that was contaminating water wells, and it was, of course, oil. It was considered a highly toxic substance at one time, then it was utilised by mankind, and it has contributed enormously. We are very concerned about nuclear power. Nuclear power in France generates, in round figures, 70 percent of its electricity needs, yet France, I am sure, is a signatory to this convention. What does it do with its toxic waste? There does appear to be some sort of double standard attached to some of these issues. Most chemicals that are man-made have in fact given huge advantages to the world in the past.

I am pleased to rise to speak on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill, and to follow a speaker from the ACT party, who was speaking about double standards. I say that ACT members would know all about that, considering that ACT is polling at below 5 percent. ACT is a party that said it would campaign on values, not politics, but when its members get into this House they want to make it a cafeteria. It is the ACT party that has nine votes in this House but only ever votes eight or less. It would know all about double standards. I think that member is excellently qualified to talk on that subject.

We are now close to the final phase of this bill. Ahead of us lies a vote, the preparation of a fair copy of the legislation, the signature by the Governor-General, and the promulgation of this legislation upon the populace. National supports this legislation, but, of course, as members will know who have listened to this debate, we have significant reservations about at least two aspects of it. During the course of my remaining time I plan to deal with one of those reservations.

The bill is a short bill with only 17 clauses in two parts. It has two schedules, one of which annexes an international treaty, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, done at Stockholm on 23 May 2001. This legislation, together with certain amendments to the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill, will enable New Zealand to ratify the Stockholm convention. The purpose of the convention is to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutant chemicals. Those chemicals are identified in schedule 2 of the legislation as aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mirex, toxaphene, polychlorinated biphenyls, and DDT.

The bill is necessary because the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, while providing a general framework for compliance with the Stockholm convention requirements, does not guarantee that prohibitions on the import, manufacture, and use of persistent organic pollutants will be put in place and maintained, as required by the convention. Thus this amendment is required to prohibit as a matter of course the import, the manufacture, and the use of the persistent organic pollutants listed in the convention. Each one of the identified chemicals has the characteristics of being environmentally persistent, toxic, bioacccumulative, and able to be transported by the movement of air, water, and migratory species to places far from its original point of release. With the exception of small quantities of polychlorinated biphenyls still in use by the electrical sector in New Zealand, and subject to a regulated phase-out timetable, New Zealand basically does not use these toxic and bioaccumulative chemicals and has no need of them.

What does this bill do? It ratifies the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, or at least permits that possibility. It bans the importation, manufacture, and use of persistent organic pollutants except in particular circumstances. New Zealand must be able to use persistent organic pollutants in limited circumstances for disease vector control, research and development, environmentally sound disposal, and trans-shipment. For example, DDT is shipped to the Pacific Islands for mosquito control. The bill provides for all these uses with oversight by the Environmental Risk Management Authority. [Interruption] I say to Mr Benson-Pope, who is attempting to interject, that there was an idea to ban outright DDT in New Zealand, but the right decision was made to retain it as a weapon of last resort in any war on malaria-carrying mosquitoes. As I said, all the persistent organic pollutants banned by the Stockholm convention have already been phased out of use in New Zealand, except for polychlorinated biphenyls, which are already regulated and will be phased out in 2016.

I would like to talk about an issue that I have spoken about earlier today, and it relates to the definition of “Stockholm Convention”. For members opposite, clause 4 of the bill as reported back from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee is the relevant clause for them to read. I am grateful to see members shuffling their papers to turn to that page so that they can follow closely the intricacies of this argument. [Interruption] I plan to speak slowly because, as we all know, the intellectual capability of some members, including one member in particular who I am currently looking at, are quite limited. It is proper that he have an opportunity to follow these issues in a broad and easy way. I have taken from his constant interruptions that he is struggling with some of the issues in this bill. It is not for me to enlighten him, but it will be helpful, perhaps, if I at least give him an opportunity of understanding the issues that arise. So I turn to the definition of “Stockholm Convention”.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: For goodness’ sake, this is the third reading!

As the member opposite said, this is the third reading. That is a good comment for her to make. It is an insightful comment, and she is right. Clever her to note that!

The point about this definition is that it includes the clear possibility that if there are later changes to the Stockholm convention, those changes, as a matter of law, will pass into the domestic law of New Zealand. That surely cannot be intended. Schedule 1 contains the treaty. Although there may be many illustrations of this aspect, I shall note just one such illustration, in article 18. There is work yet to be done to bring this treaty to its final form. That is because, in respect of a dispute mechanism possibility in article 18, there is reference to arbitration “in accordance with procedures to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties in an annex as soon as practicable;”. So further work is to be done. When that conference of the parties occurs to do that work, we in New Zealand will have no control over an outcome that will see the embellishment of that multilateral instrument, then its passage into domestic law in New Zealand.

We have dealt with this issue of secondary legislation, and also tertiary legislation. It is the old problem of incorporation by reference. But here the Government in its wisdom, one assumes through ignorance or oversight, has failed to deal with a possibility that in constitutional terms is quite significant. There exists the possibility of wholesale changes by protocol, by side letters; of a new arrangement or modification of the treaty that would see substantial changes that New Zealanders would have no opportunity to deal with, but would have to bear the brunt of. That can surely not be satisfactory.

There is a printing error, which members opposite will have observed, in schedule 2, on page 60. It may well be that the opportunity should be taken to correct that error, rather than it simply passing into the legislation. I refer to schedule 2A, and the column headings in that schedule. They are “Substance” “Use or storage”, then, in what seems to be a misprint, “Manufacture Expiry of permitted use or storage”. If one looks down the column one sees that the heading is an error. What the economic consequences of that may be, who can say? But the error persists, and one imagines it may have a consequence in later times.

It is a pleasure to follow the erudite constitutional lawyer opposite who, I am pleased to say, has given his support to the bill. I find it very interesting that the bill has been before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which looked at the convention and found that there were no significant reasons, advantageous or disadvantageous, why New Zealand should not ratify it. For those reasons I support the bill.

That short speech from that Government member is a good example of the problem we have had today with this legislation and its passage through the House. Earlier on today, in the second reading, I told the House that National would be supporting this legislation, and we do support it. It is important legislation. However, the way it has been handled by Parliament, in the select committee and in the Committee stage, has been inadequate. The processes that have been applied to this legislation have been absolutely inadequate.

I want to share with the House just three things in particular in relation to the bill, in its third reading. The first one is not major. During the Committee stage it was pointed out that the purpose of the bill, as spelt out in clause 3, is not strictly correct. Clause 3 states: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.” The bill does not do that. No one can claim that it does that. In fact, very clearly, it does not do that. As we all know, sister legislation that we have been working on today is necessary to help us comply with that Stockholm convention. This bill does not do that. It is not a big issue, but it is careless law to make a statement in the purpose clause of a bill that is wrong. It is simply careless law drafting.

But that is not the biggest problem with the bill. Again, I come back to the careless way in which a quite simple bill has been handled. Quite a while back, the Regulations Review Committee of Parliament had a look at the bill because of its regulatory implications. That committee raised with the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which was examining the bill, its concern that—to use the words of the report of the select committee—amendments to the Stockholm convention could apply automatically in New Zealand’s domestic law, if this bill was not amended. That is a serious issue. My colleague Richard Worth has just referred to that. I cannot think of any other legislation that I am familiar with whereby decisions that are made elsewhere and that New Zealand may not even agree with become part of our law. Where a country is party to a convention such as the Stockholm convention, it only takes the agreement of a certain number of the parties to that convention for it to be amended. Those changes could be made off shore, somewhere in another country. The Regulations Review Committee was concerned that those changes would then apply in New Zealand domestic law without this Parliament, or even the Government of New Zealand, being able to do anything about that. Sure, the Government may have been involved in discussions about changes to the Stockholm convention, but it may not have agreed to the changes. But, from the way this legislation is drafted, they will apply in New Zealand law. Members of this House have to be concerned about that.

The select committee was advised of that issue by the Regulations Review Committee at the end of the process of our looking at the bill. I remember it well. I expressed my concern to the chair of the committee, saying that I was not convinced that we had dealt with the concerns of the Regulations Review Committee. If members read our report, they will see that our response is almost inept. Sadly, I was away when the report was finalised. However, in response to the Regulations Review Committee saying it was concerned that amendments to the convention may apply automatically in New Zealand’s domestic law, and therefore proposing an amendment to the definition of “Stockholm Convention”, the select committee said—and I am quoting directly here—“Rather than amend this definition, we have substituted a new definition of environmentally sound disposal so that the rules about disposal are set by ERMA, rather than being set directly by the Convention.”

That is almost an inept response to the concern raised by the Regulations Review Committee. There is nothing wrong with what the select committee did there. There is nothing wrong with the amendment the select committee recommended that we add a new definition of “environmentally sound disposal”, so that rules for disposal can be set by the Environmental Risk Management Authority. There is nothing wrong with that, but it does not address the concern raised by the Regulations Review Committee. One has only to read what I have quoted to the House to see that it does not address the concern raised with the select committee by the Regulations Review Committee.

In my view, the first problem was that the select committee did not deal with the legislation seriously enough. The select committee did not engage with the concern raised by the Regulations Review Committee, and the way we have handled it in our report back to Parliament shows that we did not understand the issue properly at all. The rest of the process has resulted in what I think is unsatisfactory legislation going through on an important issue that we support. The way in which the bill is worded is unsatisfactory.

Of course, the process involved now is urgency in this Parliament; the Committee stage is being dealt with in urgency. I think the Minister in the chair was aware of the problem and understood it, but felt that it was not possible to deal with such a complex problem today under urgency in this Parliament, during the Committee stage of the bill. That is no way to handle legislation as important as this. This legislation involves putting international obligations in our domestic law, and the way to deal with that is not simply to say that, OK, it may not be right, it may be that any changes to the Stockholm convention will automatically become part of our domestic law and we may not be able to do anything about it, but because we are debating the Committee stage under urgency we cannot do anything about it. The bill has gone through two bad processes. The select committee process was inadequate, and the Committee stage being heard in urgency was also inadequate. That means that faulty law will go through this House.

My final concern is about clause 8. Everyone knows that research is being conducted on persistent organic pollutants to improve their handling and disposal, because they are going to be around for a while yet, despite this legislation. It will be 2016 before polychlorinated biphenyls go, and research on how best to dispose of them is important. I point out to the House that, from my reading of clause 8, it makes it impossible for research to be carried out on persistent organic pollutants. That seems to be exactly the opposite from what was intended. When I asked the Minister to explain to the House why I was wrong in my reading of the bill, the Minister could not do that. The dilemma is that if the face of the legislation is so obtuse that it conveys the wrong meaning, then there is a real problem with the law.

Although National supports the bill, we are saddened that its wording is sloppy and inadequate, and that is not good enough. When Parliament passes legislation as important as this, the wording should be more properly and soundly thought through. We support the bill, but are not happy with some of the detail of it.

Bill read a third time.