Shirley Ken: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6992] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: As we move to the schedules of this bill it is the standard problem—the devil is always in the detail. Firstly in schedule 1AA we have the Stockholm convention. It is classic UN-speak. Many members would have been to various UN committees. They are horrifying experiences captured by the Non-Government Organisations around the world. All the bureaucrats gather and come up with language like this which is in every paragraph: “Recognizing that persistent …” “Aware of the health concerns of women in developing countries …” “Acknowledging that …” “Conscious of …” “Mindful of …” and “Recalling …”. It goes on and on—“acknowledging” “reaffirming” “taking full account of”. In other words it is everything to everyone. There is even something for the small islands of the Caribbean here. We end up with a mishmash of nonsense and often contradictory nonsense. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The schedule debate is a very narrow debate and it goes to whether the schedules match the substance of the bill. The member has been speaking for over a minute now and has not debated the schedules. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: To that point of order the previous Chairperson clearly used his discretion and assured Mr Shirley that he could speak to the bill in general. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I am grateful for that but I can understand the Minister wanting to close it down. I will now move on to the core issue and I want him to get up on his feet in the schedules debate and answer the question that was raised by Dr Lockwood Smith. It is that under this bill as proposed—and there is a reference to the chemicals concerned dieldrin and DDT in the schedules—research work will quite clearly not be able to be undertaken on anything that produces an organic pollutant. Moreover one cannot use one. 
I know that critical research is going on. I even have a distant relative doing a PhD on the breakdown of DDT which is vital work for this country. We have contaminated soils; we have DDT levels in some of our Canterbury meat and in some from Southland. That means that we cannot put that meat in some of our markets. It is critical that we do the research to break down these substances. Some very exciting work is being done but under the legislation that the Government has cobbled together and brought to this House it will not be possible to do that. This legislation has specifically forbidden people to do research work involving these organochloride substances. 
That issue has been raised with the Minister but we did not get a satisfactory reply and even at this late stage of the debate I ask the Minister of Education to address it. If he cannot would he please get one of his colleagues to do it—perhaps the Minister for the Environment who might be more knowledgeable about such substances. Who else? I cannot think of anyone else. 
Jill Pettis 
: That member has an awful cheek questioning anybody about it. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Perhaps the member for Whanganui knows something about the issue and could perhaps explain it. The Government has an obligation to not just dismiss the issue and treat Parliament like some perfunctory thing that goes through the motions and does not address the real issues that are raised. It is clear from the wording of that bill that absolutely no research work whatsoever can be done on these substances and that will stop important research work in its tracks. It is not just important from the research perspective; it is vital to the New Zealand economy that this work proceeds and we would like to hear from the Minister in that regard. 
Schedule 1AA lists all of the various substances that are included and all of them are chemicals that have been widely used in this country. Dieldrin a widely used insecticide has been mentioned in the debate so far. It is widely used for sheep dips—part of an industry that has been the backbone of the New Zealand economy in past years and is still a very significant component of it. DDT has been used with a lot of success for grass-grub control and many other uses but we have moved on. 
But that is not the point—we have to be assured that through hasty badly drafted legislation the Government will not prevent researchers doing the important work of addressing the residues of these widely used substances. As it stands that is the way the bill reads so I again call on the Minister in the chair to take a call to explain that. If the Minister needs more time I am sure the House would indulge him in that. We want to address this matter and get it right. We cannot just say that it is covered in the context of the bill. It is not. I do not think the Minister really knew what he was saying so I would ask him to reflect on that and answer that point directly. 
I am speaking to the schedules but the issue relates to clause 8 “Exemptions from Act for small-scale research on hazardous substances”. That is a good and sensible measure but then paragraph (ba) has been inserted in clause 8: “the use does not create or involve a persistent organic pollutant;”.