Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill

I am intrigued by Part 1. It contains the commencement clause and the purpose clause. It is interesting that the commencement date, the day the legislation comes into force, is the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent. That in itself is not surprising; we have had that before. What is surprising is that this bill addresses two conventions: the Rotterdam convention, signed on behalf of New Zealand by Don McKinnon on 11 September 1998, and the Stockholm convention, signed on 23 May 2001. A number of years have passed since those times. It is nearly 5 years since the Rotterdam convention was signed, and 2 years since the Stockholm convention was signed. This bill has been introduced at a very late date. We understand that it is to come into effect on the day after it receives the royal assent, which I assume will be within the next few days, or certainly within a week. That tells me that this Government is not a Government of action.

I know we have covered the title, but why is it that we do not acknowledge in the title the fact that the bill addresses the Stockholm convention and the Rotterdam convention, and, in terms of the commencement date, why has this bill been introduced so late in the piece? Are those two conventions important to this Government, or are they not? The Labour Government has been in office for 4 years, and it has known about the significance of the Stockholm convention since 1998. It thinks that convention is so significant that there has not been much in the way of speeches from the Minister in the chair, John Tamihere, or from members on the Government side. The Government did not introduce the bill into the House until now, when we are in urgency in 2003, and not until 5 years after one convention was signed and 2 years after another convention was signed. So I put it to members that although we are seeing something purposeful—the fact that the legislation comes into effect on the day after it receives the royal assent—this Government has been very sluggish indeed in the way it has brought in legislation to give effect to its obligations under those two conventions.

I would like to see the Minister in the chair and his Labour Party colleagues address the Committee on this matter. I would like them to tell us why the Government has been so sluggish in bringing in legislation to give effect to our obligations under those conventions, which it considers so very, very important—so important that it brings the legislation to the House under urgency. Here we are; all of us held back from working in our constituencies with a bill that parties generally support—a bill that Government members consider so important to sign off on and get royal assent for. Yet it has been 5 years since the Stockholm convention was actually signed by Don McKinnon on behalf of New Zealand. I put that to the Minister; I would like him to address that issue. The second clause in Part 1 is the purpose clause, which states: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to give better effect to its international obligations …”. Clearly, this Government does not feel particularly obligated if it has taken it 5 years to act on the Stockholm convention. Clearly, this Government does not take its obligations too seriously if it has taken it 2 years to act on the Rotterdam convention.

My concern about Part 1 is threefold. The Rotterdam convention relates to the exchange of hazardous chemicals, and is really about sustainability. The concern I have about this whole concept is that there is a fundamental belief that pervades the left—that trade is unsustainable; that one does not build prosperity without building trade—and it seems to be unable to take the steps that enables a free flow of trade.

We have heard very eloquent speeches and addresses from a former Prime Minister, Mike Moore, on the importance of trade. However, the very first thing this Government did was to restrict trade by increasing the tariffs on clothing and footwear. That harmed New Zealand consumers and it harmed international trade. Thus it harms welfare generally—both in the developing countries that want to sell those goods, and for ourselves as the consumers who want to buy them cheaply. So it is a fundamentally flawed philosophy.

I know that the Minister in the chair, John Tamihere, who has been carefully analysing this bill—because people are mooting him as a future Minister for Economic Development—will be noting that. But the bill is not really about that; it is about hazardous chemicals. That, of course, is true, and no one is going to suggest we should be freely releasing into the environment polychlorinated biphenyls, persistent organic pollutants, and so on. But if we have too great a number of restrictions on trade that are multilaterally driven, then we end up limiting trade. It is all very easy to sign up to these conventions one by one—all of which look perfectly reasonable on the face of it, and I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge that it was National that signed up on them, but we also have to step back and ask whether, overall, this is promoting trade. That is one of the points I wish to make.

My second point is about the use of urgency to deal with legislation that, to be honest, most members support. I find it something of an abuse of the Government process that the Government is using urgency for quite specious reasons; to put through what I would call largely machinery-type legislation. In fact, I would go further.

If the Government had chosen not to deal with this legislation in urgency, and had dealt with it in the normal course of events, there might well be a shorter debate. The Government might therefore ask why we are raising the issue. We are raising it because there is a point of principle. Urgency is supposed to be used for matters that are, in the eyes of the Government, urgent and in the public good. Obviously, the Opposition will not agree with that generally, but at least in the eyes of the Government that is what urgency is supposed to be used for. This use of urgency would have to be the most frivolous use of urgency that I have seen in the 6 years I have been in Parliament. Almost all the legislation—with the exception of the immigration legislation that was dealt with yesterday, and the health professionals legislation—is essentially non-contentious. I would say to the Government that when it is thinking about good parliamentary process, it should reserve urgency for the issues for which it can put up a genuine case. It should not use it just as the machinery of good Government. I accept that the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill, even though it is poorly named as my colleague pointed out, is essentially good Government machinery, but I think it is an abuse of the urgency process.

My third point is that I note that the Ministry of Economic Development is New Zealand’s competent authority in relation to this legislation. I note that we have in the chair a Minister who has been widely touted in the media as being the next Minister for Economic Development. So I would like to hear from the Minister today where he sets out his philosophy for economic development. I have been reading articles that he has written, and he must have a coherent philosophy on that.

In speaking to Part 1, I think it is important to focus on the second clause, and that is the purpose clause. What has become of concern to National while this debate has progressed is the fact that the purpose the Government intends is not clear on the face of this bill, at all. The Government claims that the purpose of this legislation is to enable it to implement its international obligations under those various conventions: the Stockholm convention, the Rotterdam convention, the Basel convention, and the Waigani convention. If that is the case, it should be stated in the purpose. That is why I am moving an amendment to clause 3. My amendment inserts after the words “international obligations” the words “as specified in section 2(1) of the principal Act.” The effect of inserting those words would be to establish that the purpose of this legislation is to restrict the exportation of certain goods in relation to the international obligations specified in section 2(1)—the section that specifies the conventions we are signed up to. It specifies the Rotterdam convention, the Stockholm convention, the Basel convention, and the Waigani convention, and it allows for any other international obligation that will become binding on New Zealand. The reason that is important is that it leaves no doubt as to the Government’s purpose, and without putting that into the purpose, and given the broad nature of clause 9 in Part 2, it is quite clear that the Government could use this legislation for other purposes, and that is wrong. I think the Minister should take the call and tell the Committee whether it is intended that this legislation should be used only for export constraints relating to those international obligations. Otherwise, it is simply open-ended legislation.

I think it is important that the Government gives consideration to this amendment because the purpose is not sufficiently clear. The Government could claim that it is regulating to impose exportation restrictions on certain goods in relation to all kinds of perceived international obligations. Whereas, if we refer to section 2(1) of the principal Act, we make clear the international obligations the Government is driven by in imposing the export restriction. I think it is a perfectly sensible amendment that I am proposing. I am sure it is one that other Opposition parties would support, because it does make more clear the purpose of this bill. When my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith asked the Minister to clarify to the Committee whether it was intended to use clause 9 in Part 2 of this bill for a purpose beyond the hazardous-substance requirements of these conventions, the Minister would not answer.

💬 Hon John Tamihere: I did.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: No, the Minister just went “Humph!” I say to the Hon John Tamihere that a young Minister should take his legislation seriously. The purpose is important. One does not have a purpose clause in a bill if it is not important. It is an important part of the legislation, and it should establish the purpose very clearly. But it does not, and that is why I argue that the amendment I have proposed would help clarify the purpose of the legislation. It would tie it back into the conventions that the Government claims it will be able to uphold by passing this legislation. So I strongly urge the Government to consider that simple amendment, which inserts after the words “international obligations”, the words “as specified in section 2(1) of the principal Act.” That then makes the purpose of this legislation much clearer.

If the Minister does not take a call, and if the Government does vote against that amendment, it brings into question absolutely what the Government’s purpose is with this legislation. Either it is intended to do what it says it will do, or the Government has some ulterior use. That is the worry, and the select committee was concerned. At the select committee we were told that the Government has no intention to exceed the requirements of the international obligations listed in clause 6—and I cover those in my amendment because they are in section 2(1) of the principal Act. If the Government told the select committee it has no intention to exceed those obligations, it should make it clear on the face of the bill.

I would like to indicate at the outset ACT New Zealand’s support for the amendment just outlined by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. It is a very sensible amendment, and it should be right up there in clause 3, the purpose clause, which is in Part 1. That is where it must be spelt out. The clause, as it is at present, states: “The purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to give better effect to its international obligations …”. But that is a vague statement. We have all manner of international obligations, and, if it is the case that Part 2, as it suggests, is confined to the Basel convention, the Waigani convention, and others, then why should we not say so in the purpose clause? That is where people will take their lead.

It is a very serious matter when Governments start imposing restrictions and controls on trade. Trade is the lifeblood of prosperity—a wealth generation. Through the ages trade has occurred between clans, tribal chieftainships, and kingdoms. In the modern global market economy trade between nations is critical, and the freer the better. All the evidence in the world suggests that the more unrestricted the trade the greater the mutual benefit for both parties engaging in the trade. So restrictions are serious. One does not do them lightly. I fear this Government’s natural tendency to be a control freak—to enjoy controlling everything. It is a worry. It is the socialist way, of course. Socialists tend not to like trade. They think there is something dirty about commerce and trade. But it is the lifeblood of prosperity.

We therefore call on the Minister to spell it out for us. We raised an example in the debate on the title, and we raise it again here in this debate on Part 1. The example was outlined by Dr Smith, and I support him on it. Will the legislation be confined to the conventions in the bill? If the answer is yes, then the legislation should state that it is. We see under clause 6—I know it is in Part 2, but it relates to this aspect of Part 1—that it just says “any other international obligation”. It does not confine the legislation to the conventions outlined. That is what we are asking for.

We are concerned about some of these international obligations. Increasingly, bureaucrats and Government officials go to committee meetings all around the world. Often the non-governmental community, without any mandate or any accountability, has a huge influence on some UN committees. One would not believe some of the nonsense that bureaucrats sign up to and commit us to at these international fora. We are then at risk of importing those commitments into our domestic law, through the back door. I drafted a member’s bill that covered this issue, and Keith Locke had a parallel one, also expressing concern but for quite different reasons. My concern is that we get all sorts of wacky lobby groups that capture UN committees, then impose controls on what should be unfettered trade. We accept that we support the intentions of the Basel convention, the Stockholm convention, and the Waigani convention. We are not arguing against that. But if the legislation is confined to that—if the answer is yes, it is—then the Minister should say so and put it in the purpose clause. That is what Dr Smith’s amendment does, so I ask the Committee to please support it. If the answer is no, then we have very great cause to be concerned. The very problem that we are outlining would prevail, and in the future we could have all manner of Governments and people using this legislation to try to control, restrict, and limit trade.

The woodchip case is exactly one such example. We can say we can produce woodchips from sustainably managed beech only, but then have an export restriction on woodchips. There is no logic in that. There is no point in that. We are fearful that a Government that is captured by lobby groups and powerful non-governmental groups could very well inappropriately use these sorts of measures for no good purpose, and, in fact, for considerable harm to the economy. I say to the Minister that it is a very straight issue. Could he please hop up on his hind trotters and tell us whether it is confined to those conventions—yes or no. If “Yes”, it should vote for the amendment; if “No”, then we have to be very worried.

I have three quick points in response to members’ queries. Firstly, I acknowledge and commend members for supporting the bill, to the extent that it aligns our legislation with our international conventions. Secondly, the export controls can relate only to the international obligations as defined in the bill. The simple answer to the question raised by the Hon Nick Smith and colleagues is no. The final point I make is that there is a very strong protection mechanism, notwithstanding, and that is with regard to the Order in Council process.

It was indeed interesting to hear the Minister, and I am glad that he commends the support from the Opposition parties for this bill, which generally indeed is appropriate. But in focusing on Part 1, which deals with both the commencement and the purpose, I would particularly like to support my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith’s amendment that clause 3 be amended by inserting after the words “international obligations” the words “as specified in section 2(1) of the principal Act.”

There is absolutely no doubt that the purpose, which, as stated, is to enable New Zealand to give better effect to its international obligations to restrict the exportation of certain goods, does not in any way enlighten us as to what those obligations are, or the depth and width of them, and it is very important that we do have a bit of precision. After all, if we look at the commencement date, we see that this bill was introduced to the House in May 2002. This is a non-controversial bill that, if passed, would show the goodwill and the compliance of New Zealand to its international obligations. But, sadly, this dilatory Labour Government just waited and waited before finally bringing it to the House under urgency. That is an indictment on the way it does business.

I reiterate the point that it is almost an instinctive impulse of a socialist Labour Government to have the word “restrictions” in the title of a bill. As I think the Hon Ken Shirley pointed out, is this again the Pavlovian dog rethinks coming out once more—control, restrict? This is the Labour Government that we know of old. Its true instincts are once again coming out. The amendment suggested by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith is eminently sensible, because, after all, one of the international conventions we are concerned about is the Rotterdam convention, which was signed by New Zealand as long ago as September 1998. It requires New Zealand to exchange information between parties about trade in hazardous chemicals, before any trading takes place. Parties may consent to allow importation, impose conditions on imports, or not consent to the trade at all, control exports, and notify an international secretariat of all additional chemicals currently banned or severely restricted at national level. The convention currently lists 31 chemicals, and of course there is the ability to add to or subtract from that list, as is appropriate. The other two conventions that are appropriate are the Stockholm convention, and the Waigani convention, which was signed in Papua New Guinea as long ago as 1995. The Waigani convention bans the importation into forum island countries of hazardous and radioactive wastes, and controls the transboundary movement and management of hazardous wastes within the South Pacific region. That convention was finalised by Pacific forum countries, Australia, and New Zealand as long ago as 16 September 1995.

Once again we see here a hugely important aspect of this legislation that is not at all implied in the title or the purpose clause. I must say that it is wonderful to have in the Chamber people like Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, who has such a tremendous sense of knowledge and institutional experience that he can make such eminently good amendments.

I move, That the question be now put.

I speak in relation to Part 1. Clearly, clause 2, “Commencement”, simply states that the Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent. Clause 3 then goes on to talk about the purpose of the bill. The purpose, as stated, is to enable New Zealand to give better effect to its international obligations to restrict the exportation of certain goods. Unfortunately, those “certain goods” are not stated anywhere, and therefore it has given us tremendous cause for concern. I wonder, at the end of the day, whether we should be supporting all of this bill. Obviously some of us will be making further suggestions for amendments to the bill.

I note Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has moved that clause 3 be amended by inserting after the words “international obligations”, the words “as specified in section 2(1) of the principal Act.” I think that is very important because it is during urgency that all sorts of bills come before the House, and invariably get passed in one form or the other, and not a lot of thought goes into all of the clauses. Quite often there are catch-all clauses and catch-all phrases that are supposed to save the time and effort of coming back to the House to amend bills.

It is very important that whatever we put through in these times, we have to take particular care with it. A lot of these bills have been languishing, and this bill has been languishing since last year. I note that the bill itself is well over a year overdue, since the date of the Stockholm agreement, yet nowhere in the bill does it actually state what the exportation of those certain goods are. Later on, the bill tells us that maybe certain goods means the things referred to in Part 2, which seem to be “certain chemicals, products, organisms, wastes, or other substances that pose a risk to human health or to the environment”.

But almost anything can pose a risk to the environment—even the Minister for the Environment. We would say that plastic bags are certainly a risk to the environment if they are uncontrolled and not dealt with in a sensible way. Yet will this bill in fact be used to stop the export of goods that are packed in plastic bags or polystyrene, or all those sorts of things? None of the polystyrene or plastic goods do any good at all for the environment—certainly not in their current form. So this sort of bill could be used to stop that. Is that a sensible use of the Stockholm or Rotterdam conventions? I say that it is not. The purpose clause of this bill should be extended to include exactly what we are talking about with these “certain goods”.

In addition, the Hon Ken Shirley posed the question about beech chip that supposedly will be stopped from being exported. In my opinion, that matter could come under new paragraph (e) in section 2(1) of the principal Act, inserted by clause 6(1), as one of the “certain goods” referred to in clause 3, “Purpose”. I am sure that somebody in the Government would say that that was a risk to the environment, to human health, or to both. Consequently, it is very important that we put in place bills that are finite because, at the end of the day, this Parliament should not be trying to restrict trade. It should be about encouraging trade and doing business but, at the same time, promoting a healthy and decent environment in which we, our children—for those of us fortunate enough to have children—and, hopefully, one day, our grandchildren can grow up in. So that those of us who feel—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Some of us do already.

I hear that several members are grandparents. Well done! It is important that we do this, and it is absolutely important—

💬 Ron Mark: And I am a father.

Mr Ron Mark wants it noted in Hansard that he is a father. Well done! I come back to the purpose of the bill. I say that it should be very strictly defined.

I move, That the question be now put.