Eckhoff Gerrard: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7002] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: It was once noted by a chief executive of one of the major industrial companies of the world that it does not really matter about the standards that a company does or does not comply with because ultimately companies that do not comply will not be around for very much longer. [ 
Interruption 
] I am getting a bit of bantering from the Green Party but I say to Ms Fitzsimons that the reality is when we think about it that those countries that have the highest environmental standards are also the wealthiest. Those that have low environmental standards and pour pollutants out into the atmosphere are those that are poor; that somehow believe that if they do not tap into resources their country is going to be extremely wealthy because in fact they are very very poor. The logic is absolutely perverse. 
This bill is about import and export restrictions. New Zealand of course is a country that lives by its exports. We cannot and will not survive unless we do export. I think of a product that we exported to the Pacific Islands—and I believe have stopped—that is regarded by the health authorities as a very hazardous substance. I am sure that Ms Kedgley would agree that mutton flaps for example which are exported to the Pacific Islands are a hazardous substance to the health of those people. Do we now by passing this bill actually seek to ban the exports of mutton flaps? Now I would agree that to the Pacific Islands that is probably a very sensible thing to do but there may be other countries in the world that would very happily further process these products and turn them into something that we have not even thought of. But are we going to ban these products just for the sake of this legislation? 
I sometimes fear greatly that we pass what seems to be quite sound legislation only to find that the law of the unintended consequence triggers constantly because we do not understand the full implications of what we do—just as when we are exporting mutton flaps to the Pacific Islands. Perhaps that is not the greatest example but it does illustrate that we did not fully appreciate—and the meat companies and farmers probably—that this was going to have some quite deleterious effect on the health of the peoples of that particular region. I make this point: is it also a problem if we export hazardous substance to for example the arid areas of Australia which very rarely sees a man or beast by comparison with trying to do something with the substances dioxin for example that we have in our own country a very high rainfall country in this part of the world? Is it not a better idea to export to those parts of the world where these products can be contained and indeed not break down—if that is what they want to have happen—by climatic events? So it does seem to me that these sorts of issues perhaps have not been totally thought through. 
I also think of the difference of opinion that many people have about what should be imported and what should be exported. I note that one of my colleagues in the Green Party would say that it is perfectly acceptable to introduce certain types of drugs into this country. I say that that is totally and utterly wrong. But where in this bill does it give me or other people of like mind some comfort that these things will not occur? Again this is what we do when we put in what I would call a driftnet approach and allow the bureaucrats to determine what is going to happen and what is not going to happen. 
I think it is incumbent upon the Parliament of this nation to actually specify as much as it can those things—which we believe which we have learnt from constituents and indeed from our own research—on which we specifically wish to impose a ban that is not appropriate. But if new technologies come along as they do almost monthly or certainly yearly and these bans then become totally inappropriate we have to change our thinking. I think a very good example in terms of imports and exports is this question of genetically modified (GM) food. We have heard for a long long time for example that the European Union would not allow the importation of GM food into Europe. We now know of course that it was nothing more than a glorified tariff barrier. It had nothing to do with food safety whatsoever. But there are sections in our society who utilise the scaremongering tactics and try to impose their will on other people for their own potentially very selfish reasons. 
 We found just this very day—the  
Dominion Post  
reported it—that the European Union has lifted the ban on genetically modified foods. So it has accepted that the ebb and flow of imports and exports should take place. Yes of course it is always subject to some controls and some constraint but we move into very very dangerous ground when we start to impose control and regulation. As a farmer I am certainly not going to stand in this House and say that we should not have sensible regulation especially around the export of our food products for example which have internationally been regarded as probably the best in the world. We do also accept that from time to time there are absolute requirements especially around the issue of DDT for example and on the imposition of that product into our dairy products or our meat products. Although the world has an opinion that DDT should be banned perhaps science could also give us a very good reason that DDT should not be banned. We will die of old age in this country before we ever die from an accumulation of DDT. So we do get things wrong. 
While I am on the subject of banning substances like DDT I have to say that I am not quite sure how many of us can live with our conscience when we realise that in round figures 3 million to 5 million people a year die because we refuse to allow the ebb and flow of a product like DDT to kill the malaria mosquitoes. That is highly significant. Again this is one of the unintended consequences we have when we start in legislative houses throughout the world banning products that in an emotional sense or at a cursory glance do cause some problem. But the reality is that we have to rely on the science to get it right. Although science does not always happen to be correct all the time by and large the science does come right and we do get very very good standards. 
Finally there is one other point that I would like to make and that is that we do export. Dunedin City will be exporting a toxic substance as it pours sewage out into the ocean. I am sure the resource consent will allow it to do that. Where will that toxic substance end up? In the territorial waters of New Zealand? I suspect those toxic substances will end up anywhere the oceans’ currents take them. So those are the sorts of double standards that I would like to draw to the attention of the House and the public when we debate such issues. We have come to the third reading of this bill but things are just not as clear as they would seem to be on some particular issues. But in general it is appropriate that this House agrees to ratify these international conventions.