Eckhoff Gerrard: Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15080] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I rise in the House this evening to speak on this bill sponsored by Mr Nandor Tanczos. I am sorely wounded by his remarks that I somehow inflicted agony upon him when he came before the Primary Production Committee and promoted this bill. It might surprise that member to know that I actually came down to the House this evening after talking with my colleagues to vote for the bill. Now I face a dilemma. I have been mortally wounded by this man and his remarks about me. I am faced with an appalling dilemma in that I want to vote for the bill—and I will give my reasons for that—but now after being chastised severely by Mr Tanczos for my comments I am not so sure. 
Mr Carter was quite right: I did ask the officials who supported this bill whether this product had had proper biosecurity clearance. What was the answer? They looked at the roof they looked at the floor they sort of shuffled their feet and they said: “Well actually no.” If any one of us brought an organism into this country that had not gone through the proper biosecurity checks and environmental impact reports we would be strung up by our thumbs—and rightly so. So my question was how on earth did this product get through the system. Nobody seemed to know. As a farmer who is totally aware of the importance of environmental impact reports and those sorts of issues I do not think it unreasonable that I exercised my right to be terribly concerned about that particular aspect. 
Then after thinking long and hard about this I asked myself: “Well what is the THC level—the chemical level?”. When I asked the question of Mr Nandor Tanczos he replied that the level was so low that it would have no effect. In fact—and this is the salient point—if this product crossed in the wild with marijuana plants which are illegal it would destroy their chemical potency. I then wondered whether that would be a bad thing and came to the conclusion that I did not think it could be. Imagine it: we should be spreading hemp seeds all over the country to destroy the illicit growing of marijuana. All over the North Island we should be bucketing out hemp seeds instead of 1080 and destroying the marijuana crop—once they cross-pollinate of course as they inevitably would. I think that would be a very very good thing. 
As I have no understanding of the marijuana plant—I have never grown the stuff—I asked Mr Tanczos earlier today to tell me what the visual difference is between industrial hemp and the illegal plant. He told me there is a significant difference in appearance. My concern was that individuals could grow the illegal plant marijuana in the middle of hemp fields throughout New Zealand. With the help of the Global Positioning System they would know precisely where their plants are and the authorities would not know the difference. But Mr Tanczos assures me that those who know about these things recognise that there is a significant difference. I thought that his answer was pretty good and that there did not appear to be any major problem in that sense. 
I reflected deeply on that and I reflected deeply on the fact that probably the impact of such plants on our environment could not be worse than that of gorse broom or indeed kiwifruit. I am told that in areas where kiwifruit for example is grown it is rife throughout our native forests. The seed has blown in amongst our native forests causing all sorts of problems. I am told that the hemp plant will not cause those sorts of huge problems in our communities. That seemed to me to be perfectly acceptable and a reasonable reason to allow this measure to go through. 
But I have to say that as a farmer—as a woolgrower—there is an extremely good reason to ban hemp: good taste. Here we see before us a pure wool merino suit and there we see Mr Tanczos in his hemp suit. I ask members which they would prefer to own. I say to the House—perhaps with my tongue firmly in my cheek—that hemp should be banned for one reason and one reason only: good taste. And for the perpetuation of the merino industry which as everybody knows produces the finest-quality suits and materials in the world. 
Darren Hughes 
: Why doesn’t the member wear polyester suits? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I cannot hear what that carrot-top is saying. 
Hon Member 
: Polyester suits. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: No no—that is for Labour Party people. We over here wear the genuine McCoy—and they drive second-hand Skodas as well. So I have to say as an ACT party man who is very much in favour of choice that if somebody wants to wear a hemp suit then it is not for me to say he cannot. But I will stick with my merino suit. 
I talked to my colleagues about this bill. We discussed it and they said it was actually pretty hard to say no. But I make the observation—and I think Mr Carter made it as well—and I make it in all seriousness that had this bill been sponsored by Craig McNair or perhaps by Marc Alexander who is sitting in the House this evening then I think it could have had a different outcome because the issue of marijuana hemp illicit drugs and so on is unfortunately associated with one person in this place. There is I think a natural inclination not to vote for things he promotes. That is probably unfair but I think it is the reality of the situation. 
I do not know whether this might destroy Mr Nandor Tanczos’ role in the Green Party—his career and his promotion of drugs—but I say that the ACT party is going to vote for his bill. Perhaps he might like to take a short call and recant those brutal words he uttered about me earlier on this evening. However although my speech this evening has been a little bit flippant to say the least this is a serious business. I know that there are a number of very responsible farmers who want to grow hemp. I certainly cannot grow it on the hills at 5000 feet in Roxburgh but that is OK; I am sure there others who can grow it. It is a little disappointing that it looks as though the House will not vote for the bill this evening. But the bill has been an exercise in democracy and quite an interesting one for me because I was quite determined not to vote for it but on reflection and after chatting with others I thought we should give it a go. So I am delighted to tell the Greens including Mr Tanczos that we will vote in favour of his bill this evening.