Eckhoff Gerrard: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10130] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I rise with some trepidation to speak about the bill. It has some perfectly sound and valid points and by the sound of things is likely to go to the Education and Science Committee. My great concern surrounds the huge amount of restriction and control that it seems to me will almost become some sort of Clayton’s system. So when organisations companies individuals or whatever apply for consents to use a so-called hazardous substance the controls and especially the cost structures will be so great that in a small country like New Zealand where the market is relatively limited the individuals or companies concerned will say that it is not worth the effort. They could make some money in particular areas by ensuring their products are better than those they were using in the past but to spend what essentially could well run into millions of dollars will not be worth the effort. 
The impact of that will be that young—and perhaps not so young—members of our science community will decide there are better opportunities beckoning. They beckon almost daily from Australia from America and from the European Union. Those countries of course have hazardous substances—or what are determined by our society to be hazardous substances. As the Green Party pointed out this bill is not just about genetically modified product; it is also about the use of products like 1080 poison which Mrs Fitzsimons mentioned before. That is a substance the world says we should ban and New Zealand says we should not. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Great stuff. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Well we need to keep 1080 poison in New Zealand because it is the most sensible logical way of controlling the possum and rat populations etc. that are decimating our environment. On the one hand the world is saying to us it does not like the use of this hazardous substance in New Zealand and on the other hand many in New Zealand are saying we should ban the use of technology or biotechnology surrounding the genetically modified product the world by and large accepts. Despite the rhetoric we hear from the anti-GM lobby the world accepts it. Gracious me there are so many products coming out of South America that are genetically modified—fed to cattle in Europe for example—and then put on the European market and nobody complains. It is a perfectly understandable and acceptable commercial practice but it is not occurring—it is not even on the radar screen—in New Zealand. 
As a farmer I know of no people in this country who are breaking their necks to grow GM crops. Just recently a group of onion growers said that until they see relevance around the situation they do not want to grow GM crops. Everybody else in this country it seems to me seems to be an expert on the subject of what farmers should grow and the poor old agrarian is left down at the bottom of the heap being told by everybody else. I know that people out on the land who will or will not decide to grow whatever crops they wish will make decisions based on science on sound common sense on reasons of practicality and also on the price they will receive for those products. If producers have been shown that genetically modified products will not reach the sorts of levels required to enable producers to sustain their properties themselves and their families then they will not grow those products. It is as simple as that. Yet the farming community seems to have been pushed aside in this whole debate because “politicians know best”. Pardon? Since when has that been the case on anything? 
In the explanatory note of this bill it seems to me that the salient words used are the words about managing risk—not having open slather—and the word “practical”. That is hugely important. “Practical application” and “practical use” are hopefully what this bill will be about especially once it has gone to the select committee. This bill is about the practical and common-sense use of technologies and biotechnologies and that is all this country seeks. It is not about some sort of pie-in-the-sky requirement of the Green Party; it is about the sound practical management of hazardous substances. We manage that extremely well with products like 1080 poison and our products of wool meat beef or whatever are not banned by European communities because they find that 1080 poison is an outdated or impractical solution to our environmental problems. 
As I mentioned earlier one of the great concerns I have is with regard to the biotechnology that surrounds a whole host of products but that especially relates to the genetic modification debate. There is a huge amount of hysteria—and that is the only word that can be used—surrounding that technology. One could be forgiven for believing that this country of ours is the first to try that new technology. Absolute rubbish! It has been around in the world for 15 years and virtually every First World country utilises the benefits of genetic modification or GM technology. For example our near neighbour Australia has very substantial areas planted in genetically modified cotton and I have no doubt that most members—including probably the Greens—are wearing genetically modified cotton right now. GM is a reality. It is part of our world and we will not change that regardless of what New Zealand does. 
I have heard Ian Ewen-Street and the Greens talk about their great concern over the problem of what they call “contamination” or what I would call “cross-pollination”. Well we cannot stop it. It is a mere 1200 miles across the ditch—a couple of thousand kilometres across to Australia. Pollen gets into the atmosphere and comes to New Zealand anyway. We will not stop that— 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. No clause in this bill has anything whatsoever to do with genetic modification. Could you ask the speaker to stick to the bill he is debating? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that this bill is all about supposedly hazardous substances. There is no question that many people in New Zealand today see GM technology as being concerned with a hazardous substance. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thought that what Mr Eckhoff was saying was both interesting and relevant. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Thank you very much for your endorsement Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Utilising the experience of scientists is surely the way New Zealand should proceed. Science has developed to a level in First World countries where we do not rely on hocus-pocus or the technology of the Middle Ages. Indeed some believe in organic concepts and they believe that if we all went back to them our environment would be so much the better. But we know that science has moved us forward and has done so with great caution. Yes there have always been problems with new concepts and new technologies. We recognise that and we have heard about the problems we had in the past with things like DDT. Although those products were of great benefit to our society many today say they are hazardous substances and we should move to ban them from New Zealand. The reality today is that our society has moved on from the Middle Ages where witchcraft and hocus-pocus were problems. We now understand through the benefit of science just how our society can progress. Science can advance our causes whether in the field of crops or in the field of medicines. It seems to me we have great opportunities in the field of medicines especially even though in inappropriate doses some substances may be hugely hazardous. But the opportunities that are advanced to our society are huge.