Eckhoff Gerrard: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7013] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: At this very late hour before the evening dinner break I rise with some considerable reluctance but due to the lack of Government members wishing to make a contribution— 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I am here on behalf of my colleague Ken Shirley who has made a very substantial contribution to this bill. Mr Shirley of course as the whole House is aware hopefully is the only true scientist in this House. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What! 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I see that Dr Lockwood Smith disputes that; certainly there is no one on the Government side who could get within a bull’s roar of Mr Shirley’s knowledge of science. Unfortunately he cannot complete his contribution but I stand in for him. 
I was delighted to hear the contribution from Dr Paul Hutchison who informed the House that the Government was not prepared actually to listen or to accept any of the amendments put forward by the Opposition. This is a bill on which by and large there is a lot of unanimity. The House does accept that there is importance surrounding polychlorinated biphenyls persistent organic pollutants and other hazardous substances and that there has to be regulation surrounding them. So why were those amendments not accepted given that there is very very profound knowledge of this matter on this side of the House? It is widely accepted of course that the Government does not have a mortgage on wisdom. It is with some disappointment that I note that Opposition amendments that were put forward in a very sensible way were not accepted by the Government. 
The ACT party does agree that ratification of the Stockholm convention is an important contribution to the world environment despite what I can only describe as the “chemophobia” the fear of chemicals in this world today. That fear is exacerbated to a very large degree by the Green Party. Why do we ignore naturally occurring substances? Why they are not incorporated along with polychlorinated biphenyls and persistent organic pollutants is mystifying to me. The most toxic substance known to man is a naturally occurring— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The ACT party! 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I am sorry—known to man or woman. I do apologise to the honourable member. The most toxic substance known to humanity shall we say is a product that kills 4000 people a year in Indonesia alone. It would seem to me that any reasonable international convention would include such a substance. I am not sure that members of this House even understand what that particular product is: it is a hugely toxic fungus that grows on of all things peanuts. It is amazing. At certain temperatures and certain levels of humidity that fungus one of the most toxic carcinogens known to mankind grows at a prolific rate and is hugely toxic. 
But there are also other examples that the Stockholm convention is ignoring. We know that tobacco a naturally occurring substance—I see that Mr Nandor Tanczos is very interested when I start mentioning these sorts of products—is a hugely toxic substance. Inestimable numbers of people throughout the world die from that highly toxic substance. So why does the international convention not understand the significance of incorporating naturally occurring products along with man-made or woman-made—I say that just to appease Ms Dalziel over there—products? 
There is a whole raft of substances like tobacco. Alcohol is a toxic substance. What about cocaine? It is totally naturally occurring. I note that in New Zealand we have large numbers of people wanting to ban a highly toxic naturally occurring substance called 1080 poison. Yet those things are not mentioned by the Stockholm convention. It mentions just polychlorinated biphenyls and persistent organic pollutants. Nicotine is with regard to the insect world a nerve gas. It is hugely effective. Of course nicotine addiction is a huge problem for the human species. We have a problem in New Zealand in that we focus on some toxic substances and not others. 
The real problem I think is that we overlook the manufacture of dioxins in this country from landfills. How can we ignore the huge problem that that creates when we have perfectly viable alternatives? I mention high-temperature incineration. Why does the Government not promote the use of high-temperature incineration to ensure that dioxins which undoubtedly are very very toxic to our environment are lessened to a very very large degree in our country? The Government has the opportunity to ensure that dioxins do not occur in New Zealand. 
I also make the point that with the best will in the world mankind over the years has developed substances that we thought at the time were very very advantageous to humanity. I can think of one product that has received huge attention over the years and that caused major problems to pregnant women. That product is thalidomide. There were huge calls throughout the world to ban that highly toxic substance—and it was highly toxic but only to pregnant women. Now the world is starting to understand that thalidomide does have real medical advantages for certain conditions and certain people and it is now being used again. 
I cannot help but wonder whether there is something of an overreaction to products like DDT. As I mentioned in an earlier speech—I think it was my speech on the imports and exports legislation—the banning of DDT which is regarded as a hugely toxic substance is actually killing millions of people a year because we are not wiping out mosquitoes like we used to and malaria kills millions of people a year. Yet the world through the United Nations has decided to ban DDT. We in this Parliament with all sorts of securities are making these kinds of judgments for other people who are going to die because we have decided from our ivory tower in this country that it is not appropriate for the Third World to be sprayed with these substances in order to give people there the opportunity to live. 
I make one final point about toxic substances. Many years ago people were highly concerned about a substance that was contaminating water wells and it was of course oil. It was considered a highly toxic substance at one time then it was utilised by mankind and it has contributed enormously. We are very concerned about nuclear power. Nuclear power in France generates in round figures 70 percent of its electricity needs yet France I am sure is a signatory to this convention. What does it do with its toxic waste? There does appear to be some sort of double standard attached to some of these issues. Most chemicals that are man-made have in fact given huge advantages to the world in the past.