Hutchison Paul: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6984] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: I would like to reiterate that I too am deeply concerned about what appears to be an error in the drafting of Part 2 of this bill which my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith brought up. I would like to speak on that further but I would also like to bring to the Committee’s attention an issue in clause 8 “Exemptions from Act for small-scale research on hazardous substances”. The clause states: “Section 33 of the principal Act is amended by inserting after paragraph (b) the following paragraph: ‘(ba) the use does not create or involve a persistent organic pollutant; and’.” The National Council of Women fear that this bill as drafted may mean that research into this area will be excluded. That would clearly be very unfortunate and would require some changes. 
But perhaps even more important is that the provisions of the original Act the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the bill before us are both restricted to “small-scale” research. I believe we have no definition of what small-scale research is and again I think that the Minister in the chair David Cunliffe hopefully will be able to take a call on and clarify that issue because it is important. The National Council of Women makes a submission that supports the bill and gives particularly strong support for increased funding for research into the management and remediation of toxic waste. 
The National Council of Women also believes that it is important through clause 8 that research into persistent organic pollutants is continued. The council says that in its view clause 8 contains the inherent contradiction that research use of hazardous substances is permitted—as long as it does not involve a persistent organic pollutant. That implies that research into persistent organic pollutants cannot use persistent organic pollutants in that research and the council questions how such research can proceed without involving those substances. The council suggests strongly that this provision is clarified to enable research such as that into remediation strategies to proceed expeditiously. 
To further confuse the issue I add the question of what “small-scale” research constitutes. Certainly when I have the opportunity I will be putting forward an amendment to clarify it to mean research. We will take out the wording “small-scale” because it is confusing. Any research that goes through the Environmental Risk Management Authority or the responsible authority will be considered on a case-by-case basis using the precautionary principle. I believe that the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification got it right when it endorsed the work and activity of the Environmental Risk Management Authority in its report 2 years ago. The authority is an organisation that we should have confidence in. Perhaps it needs some sharpening but once again I believe that with wording such as “small-scale” we just have another stumbling block that may require Parliament’s interpretation. So I intend to try to amend both this bill and the parent Act in order to take out that wording. As the National Council of Women said research into persistent organic pollutants is very important and should be able to continue.