Smith Lockwood: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6989] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
:  
These are very serious matters. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that considered this legislation I can tell members that the concerns of the Regulations Review Committee with respect to the way this legislation might enable an outside authority to import into New Zealand’s domestic law matters that this country has no say in were dealt with after the select committee really finished with this legislation. I remain concerned about that issue and it is my view that the select committee has not dealt with it adequately. When one reads the select committee’s report one can see how confused the committee was on it. 
In my last contribution I would like to address clause 8 which purports to provide exemptions from the Act for small-scale research on hazardous substances. Clause 8 has to be read in conjunction with section 33 of the principal Act. Section 33 provides for exemptions from the Act for small-scale research on hazardous substances. As I read it if we amend section 33 by adding the new paragraph (ba) in clause 8 of this bill research on persistent organic pollutants will not be possible. I do not think that is what is intended because if we cannot do any research on persistent organic pollutants how can we ever improve the way we get rid of them? They exist and like polychlorinated biphenyls they will be around for a long time and research needs to be done on how to get rid of them. 
But the select committee is very confused in what it says. The committee says it looked at clause 8 to see whether any clarification was required on the issue of research on hazardous substances in relation to persistent organic pollutants. It goes on to say that clause 8 needs to be read in the context of section 33 of the principal Act—which is quite right—and that the effect of clause 8 is that if the small-scale use of a substance in research and development creates or involves persistent organic pollutants then the provisions of the Act are deemed to apply. But the provisions of the Act say that one cannot do that. 
I say to the Hon Trevor Mallard that if I am wrong I am very happy to be proven to be wrong— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You’ve got to read it in the context of the rest of the Act and at that point it does not matter. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I have section 33 right in front of me and if we add what clause 8 asks us to add which is a new paragraph (ba) I cannot see how that would allow any research at all on persistent organic pollutants. That is why I have proposed an amendment to omit clause 8—we do not need it. Section 33 already covers the use of hazardous substances in research. It is already protective of New Zealand and if we do not amend the Act it enables careful research work to be done to improve the way we handle persistent organic pollutants. That is important research and I am blowed if I can see how that would be allowed. I am no lawyer; I absolutely accept that and it may be that clause 8 does in some convoluted way allow the use of persistent organic pollutants in research. 
But I say to the Hon Trevor Mallard read what the bill says. It states that: “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;”. That means that the exemption that is normally provided for small-scale research under section 33 must not create or involve a persistent organic pollutant. I do not see how that can possibly allow small-scale research on persistent organic pollutants. I think it is worth the Minister taking a call to point out how the law would work to enable small-scale research on persistent organic pollutants. It is an important issue and we must be able to continue research on it. Polychlorinated biphenyls will exist in this country right through till 2016 at least and their use will be allowed right through till then so research is very valuable in terms of how we will dispose of them. 
I fail to see how clause 8 enables the use of persistent organic pollutants in research when it seems to very specifically say the opposite—which is that one cannot use persistent organic pollutants in small-scale research. I really would appreciate the Minister explaining how that would work.