Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee carefully considered the bill and reported it back in April. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Import Control Act in order to provide for the making of export control regulations that will enable New Zealand to ratify the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade. This bill, together with certain amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, will also enable ratification of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. The bill will also give effect to any other international obligation that is, or will become, binding on New Zealand that provides for restrictions on, or the prohibition of, the exploitation of certain chemicals, products, organisms, wastes, or other substances that pose a risk to human health or to the environment.

New Zealand signed the Rotterdam convention on 11 September 1998 and the Stockholm convention in May 2001. The Rotterdam convention requires information about trade in hazardous chemicals to be exchanged between parties before any trading takes place. Once parties are informed of potential trade and their attention is drawn to any related health or environmental risks, they may consent to importation with or without conditions, or not consent to the trade at all. The Stockholm convention seeks to protect human health and the environment by banning the production, use, or trade of certain persistent organic pollutants. These persistent organic pollutants—or “POPs”, as they are called—are highly toxic. These pollutants can accumulate in living tissues and pose a threat to the quality of food, particularly meat products.

The key measure in this bill mirrors the Import Control Act’s import control mechanism, and provides for the Governor-General by Order in Council to make regulations that prohibit the exploitation of specified goods. The bill also includes provision for export controls to be made to meet the requirements of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, and of the Waigani Convention to Ban the Importation into Forum Island Countries of Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes and to Control the Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within the South Pacific Region. New Zealand ratified the Basel convention in 1994 and the Waigani convention in 2000. Currently, export controls to meet New Zealand’s obligations under these conventions are in place through an Order in Council under the Customs and Excise Act that must be reviewed every 3 years. The bill provides a more durable mechanism to meet the obligations under those conventions, and will consolidate these existing export controls with those required to implement the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions.

The select committee considered an amendment to clause 6 to incorporate the trade ban amendment to the Basel convention. The trade ban amendment would ban hazardous wastes exports for final disposal or recycling from what are known as OECD countries to non-OECD countries. Currently, a study is being undertaken—which New Zealand supports within the Basel convention process—that is considering the likely social, economic, and environmental impacts of the trade ban amendment. There is an expectation that the question of whether to ratify this amendment can be presented to the Government once the study is completed at the end of 2004. This bill is not the place to determine the issue, and, as the Associate Minister of Commerce, I do not intend to enter into the debate. I would, however, draw the attention of the House to paragraph (c) of section 2(1) of the principal Act, in clause 6(1), which automatically includes any amendments to the conventions when they become binding on New Zealand. Therefore, by supporting this legislation the House is putting in place a framework that would facilitate a decision either way.

In conclusion, the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill, together with certain amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, will enable New Zealand to ratify the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions, thereby adding value to efforts to protect the health of New Zealanders and the quality of our food, and demonstrating a commitment to multilateral solutions to global problems. The bill provides a durable mechanism to meet the obligations in these conventions, and consolidates export controls for implementing international obligations relating to certain chemicals, products, organisms, wastes, or other substances that pose a risk to human health or to the environment.

Finally, I wish to thank the members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for their work in considering this bill. I would also like to acknowledge the submitters of submissions, both written and oral. I commend the bill to the House. More particularly, I commend members of the Opposition, who, in the first reading debate and in the select committee, supported this bill without amendment. It is great to stand up in Parliament and note that everyone is of one mind on this bill, and it will be passed rapidly. Kia ora.

This is a fairly simple bill, as the Associate Minister of Commerce has just said. Clause 9 is the clause that provides the mechanism for the control of exports. Even though it is a simple bill, none the less it is an important one. It is important that people understand exactly what we are doing here.

In the past, New Zealand had an Import Control Act, but that did not enable us to fulfil the requirements of several international conventions to which this country is a party—the Rotterdam convention, the Stockholm convention, and the Basel convention, not to mention the Waigani convention. So it is obvious that we have to amend that old Import Control Act to enable us to put in place some controls around the export of hazardous substances. That is why this bill is needed. To enable us to comply with the requirements of those international conventions, following our ratification of them, this bill on its own does not do all that we need to do. That is why it needs to be considered in conjunction with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill, because together, once they are enacted, we will be able to comply with the Stockholm convention.

I suppose one of the issues that caused a wee bit of concern, and was a worry to some of the people who made submissions, was the possibility that the export of some hazardous substances—for example, polychlorinated biphenyls, which are bad substances—for environmentally sound disposal might be prohibited by this legislation. Obviously, that would not be a good move. If we can dispose of some of these hazardous substances in an environmentally more appropriate way, through exporting them to a place that specialises in the disposal of them, that makes a lot of sense. That issue was raised at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee by Transpower New Zealand, because, I think, polychlorinated biphenyls are produced by some of its activities. Transpower finds it necessary to export those polychlorinated biphenyls for environmentally sound disposal.

So we had a very good look at the details of clause 9, which is the clause that enables the Government to put in place the prohibition on certain exports. I must say, my having gone through that in some detail, I think the National Party is satisfied that the provisions are flexible enough to enable the environmentally sound export of hazardous substances. If one looks at the various new sections to be inserted in the principal Act—sections 3A and 3B in clause 9—one will see that there can be conditional prohibition of exports. A licence or permit can be granted by the Minister or a prescribed person, and that licence or permit can prescribe conditions for the export of certain substances. We in the National Party are satisfied that the concerns expressed by some of the submitters to the select committee are met in the wording of clause 9, and that it will be possible, once this legislation is passed, for hazardous substances to be exported without this law being breached, if they are being exported for environmentally sound disposal. That was the main concern of those who took a particular interest in this bill.

It is interesting that one controversial bit did come up. One will note that this bill also enables us to meet our obligations under the Basel convention, which New Zealand signed way back in 1989, and ratified in 1994; so the Basel convention has been around for a fair while. But some countries are trying to expand the Basel convention with something they call the Basel ban amendment. Some members of this House, I think the Green Party members in particular, tried to use this bill as a vehicle to push their interest in the Basel ban amendment. I do give some credit to the Government—and of course the National Party supported the Government in this—for not allowing this legislation to be used as a vehicle to push the Green party’s particularly extreme views on the Basel ban amendment.

I think that what is important, though, is that, should the Basel Convention be modified in the future—and it is possible that any of these conventions could be modified as we learn more about hazardous substances and their handling—I am satisfied that the way this bill is drafted is such that it enables the Minister to make appropriate regulation under this legislation to meet any commitments New Zealand might enter into in the future. The bill does not put those commitments into law; it enables the Minister, through an Order in Council, to put in place appropriate regulation to meet changes to those international conventions. I think the drafting of the legislation is sensible in that regard.

I have no doubt we will hear from the Green Party. I am sure its members will be pushing their desire to see the Basel ban amendment given greater consideration by New Zealand. They have prepared a minority report from the select committee. I must say I think it wise that the amendment not be included in this legislation. As I said, it is not excluded, because if New Zealand does ever commit to changes to any of the main conventions that this bill enables us to give effect to, then the wording of this legislation will enable us to do that.

I think a lot of people, when they hear the words “Rotterdam convention”, “Stockholm convention”, and “Basel convention”, wonder what they are all about. All that the Rotterdam convention does is require parties to it to exchange information about certain chemicals that are considered hazardous. The convention currently lists 31 chemicals about which all parties to the convention must notify import requirements. If countries that are party to the convention are notifying import requirements, then, obviously, that requires them to be able to have regulations around the export of those 31 chemicals. The Rotterdam convention requires that exchange of information, which makes good sense.

The Stockholm convention, on the other hand, focuses on persistent organic pollutants. From memory, I think 10 substances are currently covered by the Stockholm convention, and eight of them are also covered by the Rotterdam convention. The Stockholm convention requires a ban on the production and use of dangerous persistent organic pollutants. This bill on its own, of course, will not do that. That is why we need the sister legislation, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill, because that will enable us to meet the requirements of the Stockholm convention that we ban or prevent the use of persistent organic pollutants.

Those are the major conventions, and that is the effect they have. Members can see that this legislation is required for us to give effect to them, just as the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill is also required for us to give effect to them. National supports the bill. I think the legislation is sensibly drafted, and it is sound legislation.

I stand to support the legislation.

I had the privilege of speaking on the first reading of this bill on behalf of New Zealand First. At that time I made only the one point, and that was with regard to clause 9 and the fact that it was so wide and allowed various rules to be made in terms of Orders in Council. I am interested to see that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee did consider clause 9, and made a comment that I wish to read into the record. The report, under the heading “Orders in Council making provisions to give effect to International obligations”, states: “We considered amendments to clause 9 of the bill. We note that there is the potential in clause 9 for the Government, in making Orders in Council to give effect to an international obligation, to establish a higher threshold than the international obligations as defined in the bill. However, we are advised that the Government has no intention to exceed the requirements of the international obligations listed in clause 6. Moreover, in making Orders in Council related to export prohibitions, the Government is constrained by both the requirement that the prohibition be “necessary” to give effect to the international obligation and its other international trade obligations.”

That is the only point I wished to make. I wanted to have it written into the record so that we had the select committee’s view on the record for any future reference. New Zealand First supports the bill.

Bill read a second time.