Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill

The title of this bill might sound quite simple, but, again, we run into problems with the meaning of a title. Those who are familiar with the principal Act that this bill amends will know that the Act is not involved in exactly the same things as this amendment bill is. The title does not make clear exactly what this bill is doing. When there is such a title as “Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill”, the restrictions could be for any reason at all. This legislation does not make clear the fact that we are adding to the old Import Control Act 1988 a whole new dimension in the control of exports. The reason that is being done is to control the export of hazardous substances. The problem with the title is that one would not pick that up from reading it, at all. The restrictions being applied could be restrictions on exports for any reason. A restriction might be being applied, for example, to trout. In Zealand people are not allowed to export trout. They are not a hazardous substance. [Interruption] My colleague says people are allowed to export them but are not allowed to sell them. The point I make is that, quite clearly, there are restrictions that this title could refer to that are not covered at all by this bill.

The bill is very specific. The bill in fact covers only certain hazardous substances. It is even more specific than that. It gives effect to particular conventions: the Rotterdam convention, the Stockholm convention, the Basel convention, and the Waigani convention. If people read the title “Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill”, they will have no notion that that is what the bill does. The restrictions could be for any purpose at all. My colleague Pansy Wong will be putting forward an amendment to the title, to make it clear that the restrictions being referred to are restrictions on hazardous substances. I think the Committee would have to agree that that was a sensible amendment, because it will assist someone looking through our statutes and trying to find the law relating to controls on the exports of hazardous substances. People would see from the title that that is what this legislation does. With the current title, someone reading through our statutes and checking the indexes would have no notion that the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Act in fact controlled the export of hazardous substances.

What makes the point even more clear is this bill’s sister legislation, which we are also considering today—the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill. These two pieces of legislation cover very similar issues, yet the titles are totally different. From reading the titles, people would have no idea that these two pieces of legislation were actually involved in New Zealand’s implementation of the Stockholm convention. That is not good law drafting. From the titles, there is no guidance that these two bills together enable us to comply with the requirements of the Stockholm convention. I think we have a problem with the title.

I think that, at least, at a minimum, the title should be changed to what my colleague is going to recommend, which is that, following the word “Restrictions”, we put the words “on Hazardous Substances”. That would assist because, in principle, clause 9, which is the main functional clause, enables Orders in Council for the prohibition of the exportation of certain specified goods and classes. Those specified goods and classes, of course, are the substances covered by our commitments under the Rotterdam convention, the Stockholm convention, the Basel convention, and the Waigani convention.

I suppose that where this measure becomes more serious is over the issue of whether the Government intends to use this power more widely. That is the issue. Concern was expressed at the select committee—and we will come to this when we get to Part 2—that clause 9 gives a wider power than is absolutely necessary to meet our commitments under these conventions. Is it the Government’s intention to go wider?

I join my colleague Lockwood Smith in expressing concern about the title because of how wide it is. I want to draw a matter to the attention of the Minister in the chair, the Hon John Tamihere. In concluding, my colleague Lockwood Smith asked whether the Government was intending to use this measure for some other purpose. I want to talk to John Tamihere about an issue that is close to my heart. I notice that Ken Shirley is in the House, and he will know about this issue, too. We now have the Minister for the Environment in the chair, the Hon Marian Hobbs, which makes me now even more suspicious.

This Government, in respect of the issue of sustainable native forestry, has proposed to use export restrictions on wood-chip from the South Island, even if it comes from sustainably managed forests. That is being used as a negotiating tool to screw down property owners—in this case, Māori property owners. There has been a long, sad history of High Court decisions. The use of export controls has been contested in the highest court in the land. My concern about both the title—a concern that Lockwood Smith rightly pointed out—and the purpose is that there is no mention of hazardous substances. All we have is mention of restricting the exportation of certain goods.

I want the question that was raised by Lockwood Smith to be answered by the Minister in the chair. Will these provisions be narrowly defined to mean hazardous substances and the international obligations set out in clause 6; if so, why do the title, the purpose, and clauses 8 and 9 take things substantially further? We do not want to see the freedom of New Zealanders to be able to export other products being inadvertently used by Big Brother State to achieve policy objectives that are outside the international conventions that we have signed up to. It is particularly relevant in terms of the Government’s own stated policy of wanting to put a ban on the export of sustainably produced timbers.

I want to know from the Minister and from the Government just what they are up to. Can I have an absolute assurance from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Marian Hobbs, that this bill will not be used as a vehicle for imposing that Government policy? Is the Minister, who is paid a ministerial salary, and gets a ministerial car and all those services, able to answer that question? Will this provision of export controls be able to be used to stop sustainably produced native forest products, as is stated Government policy? The silence is deafening. Given that the old Minister in the chair was deadly silent, can the new Minister in the chair, the Hon John Tamihere, whose South Island Māori have a very real interest in the stupid Government policy potentially to ban the export of sustainably produced native wood products, give me an absolute assurance that no current or future Government could use these provisions for that purpose?

💬 Hon John Tamihere: No current Government.

I see. The Minister has just said: “We won’t, but someone else could.” I say to the Committee that that is not good enough. I hope the Government will see fit to support amendments in the name of the Opposition that make it absolutely plain in the title, in the purpose clause, and in the operative provisions, which are clauses 8 and 9, that this bill is about hazardous substances only. If it goes beyond those provisions, then, quite frankly, members on this side of the Committee have quite a problem. This bill should not be used to restrict trade. We are a party that supports trade and supports the freedom of New Zealanders, where there are not environmental or other issues, to be able to trade their goods. I ask the Minister in the chair why we would pass legislation that gives power to any Government to go beyond the intent of this bill.

I must say that I too am extremely befuddled by the Government confining the title of this bill entirely to imports and exports. Clearly, in no way does that reflect the inextricable link that this bill has with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill. Those bills clearly interdigitate. I ask the Minister who is sitting opposite me to give me an assurance that anyone in New Zealand could in any way guess that this bill has anything to do with persistent organic pollutants. Yet it is inextricably linked with that. Therefore, it would have been only right and proper if this Government had actually thought about it and called this bill something along the lines of the “Imports and Exports (Restrictions)”—because, indeed, restrictions are imposed, and, provided they do not go too wide, are beneficial for New Zealand—and then added “and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill.”

There is no doubt that not only the Stockholm convention but also the Rotterdam convention, the Waigani convention, and, of course, the Basel convention need to be mentioned when referring to the title of this bill. They are all interlinked with the fact that controls on imports and exports relating to persistent organic pollutants are required to be signed up to by international convention and treaty, of which it is, indeed, right and proper that New Zealand becomes a signatory.

The Government has been dilatory in terms of bringing this bill to the House, and I must say that I was deeply concerned to hear the chairman of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—an excellent chairman, and an excellent committee—suggest that any concern should be levelled at his committee for the dilatory way that this bill has been introduced to the House. That is not the case; it has been entirely the fault of the Government. This Government says it is interested in the environment, but has taken over 1½ years to bring this absolutely appropriate legislation to the House.

But we have a bill that has an absolutely befuddling restriction in its name. I again challenge the Minister to ask anyone in New Zealand whether this title in any way suggests that the bill has anything to do with persistent organic pollutants. I hope the Minister will take a call to explain the reason that the title is so narrow and is clearly not reflective of what the bill is supposed to achieve. It is important to realise that the Stockholm convention is very much an international convention, and unless a large number of countries throughout the world do sign up to it, that convention will naturally fail in its use. For instance, the United States has tended to comply with, but not to officially ratify, that sort of convention, because of the difficulties it has within the different states. The US was very keen on a technically science-based convention to act as a reference to the conventions that are associated with this bill.

In addressing the title, I would have expected, as would other members, the Minister in the chair, the Hon. John Tamihere, to clarify the point that has been raised. It is a very valid point, and I had not picked it up until I quickly read the bill and followed the debate thus far. The point is this: what is the scope of this legislation? We do not know that. The general sentiment of the Committee is that we generally support the broad intentions of compliance with the Stockholm convention, and of limiting the trade in those hazardous substances, whether they are exported or imported. Certainly, we know that in the past some developed countries have taken advantage of the lack of controls and regulations in undeveloped countries, and exported their pollutants and wastes to them, and that is not good. The international community has adopted conventions, whether they are the Basel convention or the Waigani convention, to address those issues.

However, the point has been raised that the provisions of this bill are very general, particularly when we look at the title and then at the clauses under the title. I put the question that Dr Smith put to the Minister, of whether this bill would cover the ban on the export of beech chips in the South Island. Currently, there is a ban on the export of beech chips, and I ask whether the Government could use this legislation to do that. That ban is an utter nonsense, because we are talking about wood chips from sustainably managed forests. Surely the issue is whether there is an environmental impact. If the forest is being grown in a sustainable way, then one has complied with the environmental concerns. What one might then turn the product into, whether it is chips, sawn lumber, or whatever else, is not the business of the Government, and one should be free to export it in whatever form one likes. We do not tell our sheep farmers that all their wool has to go out as woolly jumpers, or tell our strawberry growers that all their strawberries have to go out as strawberry jam. So why cannot a person who is growing a beech forest sustainably export wood chips from it, when that has no environmental impact whatsoever? Such people are entitled to cut down their trees, and once they have cut them down, the environmental impact is totally neutral.

The Minister should take a call. This is a very important issue. This country does have certain quirky export bans, for very spurious reasons, and we would be aghast if the intention is to use this legislation to extend those sorts of controls. We are very suspicious of the way that the bill is worded and, clearly, of the way that the title has been compiled. It is not good enough to say that this Government will not use this legislation in that way, but a future Government may do so. We are setting legislation in place here today. We are legislators, and it is important that we get things right. I know that the National Opposition has foreshadowed an amendment to address that issue. I would like the Minister at least to give an assurance that he will support that amendment, or otherwise, to take a call and tell us why he will not. This is a very valid point, and it has not been responded to.

The explanatory note of this bill states that the key measures provide for the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to make regulations that prohibit the exportation of specific goods. Any prohibition may be general, limited, absolute, or conditional. That makes me even more worried. The first part of the explanatory note makes it very clear that the restrictions are on hazardous substances, but later on it states that the bill gives the Governor-General the power to impose any prohibition. I think that is too wide. I believe that my amendment to add the words “on Hazardous Substances)” after the word “(Restrictions” would make it very clear to the public what we are debating here today. It would also make the life of the Governor-General a lot easier. She would know, in effect, that Parliament wants her to exercise her authority to prohibit only the exportation of hazardous substances.

Unfortunately, we are debating this legislation under the urgency motion, and I did not have time to give plenty of notice that I would be putting forward my very sensible amendment. I know that I can count on my National colleagues to support me. I have discussed my amendment with New Zealand First members, and they can see its sense. Immediately, the Hon Ken Shirley, who is always quick off the mark and can focus concisely on an issue, said that of course he would support my amendment. Then I approached the two United Future members Marc Alexander and Paul Adams, and I said that I believed that United Future should see fit to support such a sensible amendment. However, I was concerned that before those two good members even had the opportunity to open their mouths the Labour senior whip, David Benson-Pope, stared at me and said I was wasting my time, because the United Future members would not vote for it. I thought I was talking to United Future; I was not seeking the support of the Labour Party whip for my amendment.

That was an abuse of the parliamentary process. I thought that this was a democratic House, where the public has voted us all in, and that we should be able to exercise our own judgment and independence, and to stand up for what we believe in. So the challenge is out this morning for the United Future members to demonstrate once and for all that they are not doormats for the Labour Party.

💬 Opposition Member: Puppets!

I have always defended United Future, and said that surely all those labels are too harsh for that party, which believes in integrity and values. This morning is an opportunity for United Future to show its supporters and the public that it can indeed exercise its independence in voting, and will not be subject to coercion by the Labour whip.

It seems to me that the Minister in the chair, the Hon John Tamihere, should appreciate that the year is now 2003, and that we believe in being concise and upfront in terms of the purposes and titles of bills. The title “Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill simply does not fit into the contemporary modern parliamentary process. The Labour Government always says that it believes in transparency, and claims that it keeps the public informed. The favourite statement of the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, is that she likes to tell it as it is. I hope that the Labour caucus will listen to its leader and agree to this very sensible amendment to add the words “on Hazardous Substances”. That would make the debate very clear and focused, and members of the Committee would not drift on to debate restrictions on imports and exports on salmon, trout, or any other goods.

I move, That the question be now put.

I will just add to the very good arguments made by speakers from the Opposition side of the Chamber—

Hon member: Brief, though.

—brief too. I include the speakers from ACT and New Zealand First. This legislation is actually an access-to-justice issue. It is as important as that. There must now be thousands of Acts on the statute book, which everybody is supposed to comply with. With that comes an obligation on everybody—from the most highly educated to the least-educated in this country, and from those with the greatest access to law to those with the least access to it—to understand the law and to know what it is. That is expected, because ignorance is no excuse under the law. Therefore, it behoves us to help people a little bit, by making sure that a title bears some relationship to the contents of a bill.

The title “Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill” makes me think we have now gone into full socialism mode. Any exporter looking at that title on the Brookers list of statutes would think this legislation will stop them from exporting clothing, shoes, or something else. That is what that title looks like. It would be a simple little thing to fix the title. All that needs to be done is for this Parliament to work together, as it so often does, across the parties—even with Labour and the “PC party”—in the best interests of New Zealand. My colleague Pansy Wong has put up a very, very sensible suggestion. It is not frivolous; it is very sensible. Her amendment would insert after the word “(Restrictions)” the words: “on Hazardous Substances”, so that people looking through the statutes would know that this is the legislation that they need to look at in terms of the Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions, or of anything to do with hazardous substances.

Another argument has been put forward today about whether there is a conspiracy going on—whether the title is particularly wide and the contents are wide in order to allow some sort of restriction on the export of beech chips, for example. Some people would think that is trying to come the raw prawn, but I think there is a sensible argument there. I note that in Part 2, which we will address very soon, there is a very wide definition about what will be included. It really worries me that when we have these sorts of concerns, and when the farmers of New Zealand are asking what has gone wrong with this Government and the silly old Kyoto Protocol—because it is putting a burp tax in place—they will look at the title of this bill and wonder what it is about. That creates a tremendous amount of concern in the community, and it does not need to exist if things are properly explained.

I really do not understand why the Minister in the chair, the Hon John Tamihere, cannot see the sense of this amendment. He should talk to his own party and to the “PC party”. He should tell United Future that it actually is an independent party that can make up its own mind and act in the best interests of New Zealand, by saying this title should be amended to “Imports and Exports (Restrictions on Hazardous Substances) Amendment Bill”. That would mean that people who are looking for bills, and even the lawyers who have to deal with this area of environmental law and international law, can find the jolly thing and advise people, so that they do not break the law. Surely, as an access-to-justice issue, preventing people from breaking the law is far more beneficial to the community and to those people than allowing them to break the law, and then telling them afterwards they were had—that they were fooled into thinking it was a bill about something else. It is very important, when the House is dealing with legislation, that when we can come up with some sensible amendments and suggestions, the parties should be a little bit bigger than they normally want to be, and try to think about what is in the best interests of New Zealand.

I move, That the question be now put.