New Organisms and Other Matters Bill

The title of this very important legislation will be the “New Organisms and Other Matters Act”, although there is a Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister for the Environment stating that the bill will be split into four. Those four titles are relevant because they reflect the four basic Acts that this bill is built on.

But in terms of thinking about the title “New Organisms and Other Matters Act”, we certainly have to think about the first principles relating to genetic modification in New Zealand and the recommendations of the royal commission. I note that one of the major recommendations was that continuation of research is critical to New Zealand’s future. As in the past, we should go forward but with care. What worries me about the title and the way in which the Labour Government has managed this bill is that while, in words, there are opportunities for research to go forward, in actual fact the bill only strengthens the hurdles when it comes to anything other than low-risk research, and increases the compliance costs. I think, perhaps, it would be more appropriate to consider a title along the lines of: “Labour’s Let’s Heap Compliance Costs and Hurdles on to Research Act”.

That is a theme of this Labour Government. There was an opportunity with the Resource Management Act to make some huge differences to progress New Zealand forward, but Labour did the very opposite. Here, there was also an opportunity, but again, unfortunately, it has done the very opposite. Its own biotechnology strategy and biotechnology taskforce have been absolutely clear. They have said that in order to progress in New Zealand we must have transparency, predictability, and best regulatory practice. Unfortunately, this does not happen, and the title does not reflect it. Maybe the title should be the “New Organisms and Promotion of Unpredictability and Lack of Transparency Act”. Again, that is a theme that the Labour Government has perpetrated, not only in this very important Act but also in other legislation that it has brought to Parliament.

I also note that one of the other major impediments to progress that the Labour Government has brought in, in terms of this legislation, is the widening of the call-in powers of the Minister. Maybe we should be calling it the “New Organisms and Extend the Call-in Powers of the Minister Even Though We Know it is Daft Act.” The Minister has said that recommendation 14.1 does call for her call-in powers to be widened. However, if we go to the major recommendations of the royal commission, we note that one of them is to form Toi te Taiao, the Bioethics Council, which will, at a higher level, have a hugely important place in addressing these issues. The bill does not define “cultural”, “spiritual”, or “ethical”, yet the Government goes ahead and, once again, puts in a major block in terms of making things practical, and, instead, perpetuates a very difficult, complicated situation. So the title of this bill in no way reflects the reality of this legislation, which Labour has painstakingly managed to increase the bureaucracy of and the complexity of, so that it works in reverse of Labour’s own biotechnology strategy.

After the performance in the House of the Mothers Against Genetic Engineering, I noted in the report-back speech that some people obviously thought that “NOOM” stood for New Orgasms and Other Matters Bill, rather than New Organisms and Other Matters Bill.

The exercise in this part of the debate this afternoon is to look at the name—the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill—and ask ourselves whether it clearly relates to what this bill is all about, and whether it fairly reflects what the bill is doing. There has been some difficulty, because the name does not clarify that. Many people believe that this legislation lifts the moratorium imposed 2 years ago to give the Government time to put in place certain things. This bill does not do that. Possibly the title of the bill could have been “Lifting the Moratorium (Not) Bill”, which would have clarified the bill for everybody. It would have saved a lot of people a lot of trouble and a lot of problems, trying to gum up the works—thinking that if they did not get this bill through, then the moratorium would stay indefinitely. That is not the case—the moratorium disappears on 29 October, regardless of whether this bill goes through. It is very important that the public understands that. It could have been done if we had changed the name of the bill to clarify that particular point.

There is a reason for calling it New Organisms and Other Matters Bill, rather than the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Act—I notice from a Supplementary Order Paper that when the Minister changes the bill into four parts, she will go back to that—and it is to demonstrate that this legislation is about putting in place the recommendations of the royal commission around gene technology, rather than the “hazardous substances” of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. It focuses very much upon that.

We have to ask ourselves whether the bill has done what it set out to do—in other words, what the moratorium was put in place for, and why it allowed a space of 2 years for this work to be done. Some of the things in it certainly have, so the bill justifies the name it is being called. Certainly, it has in terms of conditional release, which we in New Zealand First believe is one of the most important aspects of this bill. The royal commission identified a real gap in the regulatory framework, which was that if an application came in for commercial release, it had to be all or nothing, and not anywhere in between. If that is to be controlled in any sensible fashion, conditional release is a quite essential category, particularly for therapeutics and medicinal developments.

This legislation most certainly puts in place a conditional-release regime. One could argue that therefore that justifies the name New Organisms and Other Matters Bill, defining quite clearly that the legislation is to put in place what the royal commission was talking about. It does a few other things—for example, it clarifies the liability regime. Once again, that was something the royal commission said needed to be put in place, so this bill attempts to do it—which justifies once again the name it was given. It has also streamlined decisions around low-risk GE organisms. Dr Paul Hutchison pointed out in the minority report that that could have been done in the hazardous substances and new organisms amendment legislation that was done a couple of years ago. I think the Government was saying at that time that there still needed to be a bit of tidy-up work around it, and so it would prefer to leave it—as it has done.

However, the Government has left out a whole lot of things that the royal commission said should be put in place. For example, mandatory conditions around buffer zones, etc., and codes of practice are not there. The bill contains no clarification, at all. It has left the poor old local governments right in the lurch, and so could be called the “Partial Response to the Royal Commission on GE Bill”. I note the word “partial”, because of the things the bill has missed out.

I want to talk also about the local government issue, and why this particular bill could very well be called the “Leaving Local Government in the Lurch Bill”. This bill, purely and simply, ignores local government.

I support the title clause of the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill. In my view, this title properly reflects what the bill is all about. As others have said, it implements the recommendations of the royal commission for strengthening the already robust safety mechanisms regulating the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment.

The phrase “New Organisms” in the title serves to illustrate something very fundamental about genetically modified organisms that is usually lost in all the emotive rhetoric that surrounds—or shall I say, obscures—the GM debate. It illustrates that a genetically modified organism is nothing more and nothing less than a new organism, in exactly the same way that an exotic species that already exists overseas is classified as a new organism when it is imported and released into the New Zealand environment. In other words, a genetically modified organism is not “Frankenfood”, it is not a contaminant, and it is not by definition some sort of soup organism designed by evil multinationals to wreak havoc on our environment. A genetically modified organism is a new organism—just like any other exotic species. As such, its release is effectively a biosecurity issue that, given the right regulatory regime, can be managed by the Environmental Risk Management Authority on a case by case basis. In respect of that, the title is particularly apt for a bill that strengthens the safety regulations governing the release of genetically modified organisms.

It is also interesting to note that a large number of lobby groups and political operators remain opposed to this new organisms legislation, because much has been made in New Zealand of the need for a knowledge economy, and for innovation in business—and for very good reason. It is only through the application of knowledge and innovative techniques to economic activity that New Zealand can hope to move forward and prosper in this world. Yet when it comes to technology such as genetic science that is particularly relevant to New Zealand’s main strength, which is land-based industries such as agriculture, we have a very vocal lobby of people who want to stop it dead in its tracks, just because it is something new—as stated in the title.

People could call for more longitudinal or other studies on almost anything to ensure beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was 100 percent safe, but—as “corngate” has demonstrated—it is impossible to prove a negative. One thing is sure: if a 100 percent certainty threshold was applied to everything, nothing new would ever be developed. The title clause of the bill is perfectly apt, and it has United Future’s support.

I find the “New Organisms and Other Matters” title completely misleading. Yes, we are talking about new organisms, but why do we not call this bill the “New Organisms Are Alien Species Bill”, because that is what they are. Let us not forget that all GE species are alien species. That is why they are created in the first place—so that their owners can take out a patent on them. It is a crazy situation whereby half of a company says how different the organism is so that it can be patented, and at the same time the other half of the company says: “Well, actually, it is not that different after all. In fact, it is substantially equivalent, and we don’t need any new regulations for it.”

I think another possible title for this bill would be the “Bio-insecurity Bill”. These alien species are like the alien species—as my colleague Bernie Ogilvy has just mentioned—that come from overseas. We spend $130 million a year at our wharves and airports keeping them out. Why on earth do we want to release them from inside our economy? We do not know, and we cannot possibly know, what the long-term consequences of these organisms will be for our ecosystems. We do not know, and we cannot know, whether they will be the possums, gorse, rabbits, or whatever, of the future.

Another possible title is the “Economic Stupidity Bill”. We are a market-driven economy, and it is incumbent on us to provide what our markets demand. The market signals are exceptionally clear: our foreign markets do not want GE food—period. What they want—and are signalling to us—is GE-free food. They want clean, green, safe food.

Perhaps we should call this the “Economic Treason Bill”. Members should have a think about the US corn growers. They lost 98 percent of their export market to the European Union—[Interruption] The Minister obviously thinks it is funny, but I do not. At the same time, Canadian canola growers lost 100 percent of their market to the European Union. They survive only because they have subsidies; we simply would not survive.

I have a question to ask the Committee. I have asked it in the House before, I have asked it up and down the country, and I have never had a decent answer to it. Can anybody in this room tell me the name of one genetically engineered food product that we could grow in New Zealand for which there is any demand in any of our export markets? Silence. There is none. Why are we doing this?

Perhaps we should call this bill the “Anti-democracy Bill”. We have 68 to 70 percent of the population of this country opposed to having GE organisms released into the environment. Why does the Government not listen to the people? Let us go back to the royal commission. Eleven thousand people took the trouble to make a submission to the royal commission, and 2 percent supported what the Government is doing now. Ninety-two percent were opposed, and 6 percent did not have an opinion. Why on earth is the Government doing this? It is madness.

Perhaps we should call this bill the “Why Don’t We Learn From the Mistakes of Others Bill?”. For instance, the Americans have found that they have lost all of their markets to the European Union and Japan. They cannot even sell their products as animal feed, because organisations like McDonalds refuse to sell meat products that are raised on GE food. The ultimate indignity for the American farmers is that they cannot even give their food away as aid for the developing world. Do members remember the Zambian incident? They have starving people, but they refused even to accept GE food as aid. Why is the Government imposing that bizarre scenario on New Zealand farmers?

Perhaps the bill should be called the “Why Don’t We Just Accept That This Madness Comes From US Pressure Bill?”, because the US has painted itself into a corner. The US has embraced GE food and found that it cannot do anything with it.

I am elated to have the opportunity to talk about this hugely important bill. There are few occasions in one’s lifetime when one can stand and talk about a new bridge to the future. If those people who invented the internal combustion engine all those years ago had had an Environmental Risk Management Authority in those days, and if they had gone to it and said they had discovered an invention that would kill 20 million people during the period from then to now, how many people in this Committee think that the internal combustion engine would have been introduced to this world? No one thinks that, yet we know that that invention has totally taken this world of ours out of servitude. But, of course, there is a danger associated with it. There is a danger in getting out of bed in the morning, and I know that the Greens are totally concerned about such matters.

I say the importance of this bill is not underscored in the title. The title does not reflect anything near the significance of the bill, in terms of the new bridge that we will have to the future. The Greens would like to call this something of a red flag bill, which we should be running in front of. But I put it to the Committee that we are not talking about substances that will cause almost immediate death. We are not talking about a substance that will cause one in a thousand New Zealand citizens to go into anaphylactic shock. That happens today with a common substance called the peanut, so why do we not ban peanuts? Why do we not have street marches and women whipping their tops off in Parliament, saying that we must ban the outrageously dangerous product called peanuts? One in a thousand people go into anaphylactic shock when they ingest that product, so it should be banned! Science has shown us the way forward, and we have learnt to manage those things. We do not stand up and say we should ban the internal combustion engine, peanuts, electricity, and anything else that may harm us. Instead, we move on.

I am a little concerned to see at this early stage of the debate that the rather innocuous title of the bill is inappropriate. I think the words “in New Zealand” should be added to the title, because these are not new substances or organisms. As I think my colleague from United Future has pointed out, these organisms exist throughout the world. The Green Party does not seem to understand that something like 200 million acres throughout the world—and that figure is increasing daily—are being planted with these new organisms, yet it tells us that there is no demand for them. That is absolute bollocks. It is to the advantage of some within the political lobby groups—those who are closely aligned with Greenpeace, etc.—to say that we do not want those things in our environment, because if new organisms prove to be highly successful, the reason for being of those groups would disappear. That is one of the great problems that the environmental lobby groups have. They do not want anything new, because the new religion called environmentalism that has swept the world will be shown to be completely false when we allow our scientific community to enhance our way of living.

I have not mentioned yet the huge benefits that new organisms will bring to the lives of those who suffer from the appalling diseases afflicting not just New Zealanders but people in the rest of the world. Why can we in New Zealand not discover new organisms and new ways of doing things that will enhance the health of not just New Zealanders but many people throughout the world, whether they live in Africa, Asia, or elsewhere? What would it take for the Green Party to say it was wrong? What would happen if a New Zealand scientist discovered a cure for AIDS through the use of new organisms?

Madam Chair, I thank you for catching my eye. I appreciate your giving me the call. I point out to my colleague Bernie Ogilvy, who spent some time on the relevancy of the title of the bill, that that title is likely to disappear as the bill is subsumed into four other pieces of legislation, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 144, put forward by the Hon Marian Hobbs. That will see the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill being separated into four separate bills: the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill; the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill; the Medicines Amendment Bill; and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. On that basis, spending a whole lot of time on discussing the relevancy of the title of this bill is probably not the most productive way for the Committee to spend its time. But in the spirit of this debate, I will suggest some alternative titles for this bill.

Dr Paul Hutchison and Brian Donnelly, in particular, have raised a couple of serious issues. The National Party has indicated it has reservations about one or two crucial things in respect of this bill, and I am extremely concerned, as I have mentioned on numerous occasions during the select committee process, about the provisions relating to liability and penalties. On that basis it would probably be quite proper, as an alternative title for the bill, to call it the “Reversal of 120 Years of Criminal Law Burden Bill”, because as this bill progresses through Parliament we will see a distinct change in the way in which that burden of proof is to lie on applicants. There is a distinct change in the way in which that cause of action must be met. Specifically, the harm that is caused is not in any way linked to a breach of the legislation’s concerns. That is a unique position, the seriousness of which should not be underestimated.

The officials and others who came before the Education and Science Committee and the members of that committee know that I have raised that issue a number of times. As we proceed through the various clauses of the bill, I will certainly—if I am lucky enough to catch the Chair’s eye—go into those matters in some detail. I do worry when the burden of proof is flipped in that way, and I do worry that there needs to be far more linkage in terms of causation between a breach of the legislation and the harm that is caused. To separate those two things out really does fly in the face of a considerable period of common law history in New Zealand.

It is also worth picking up on Brian Donnelly’s points about local government’s role in all of this, because this is the “Local Government (Caught Down the Creek Without a Paddle) Bill” when it comes to the issue of GE. I am a bit worried now because I have the Greens nodding, including “Mr Development” over here, “Ian Ewen – Cul-de-sac”, a man who wants to see everything go backwards. What worries me most about the introduction of this bill, with regard to the issue of GE, is that the various units of local government have now been put in a position where they are unsure—as the Government members of the select committee stated in the committee’s report—how this legislation will apply to their rights if, for instance, they wish to declare a GE-free area.

💬 Sue Kedgley: They’ve got no rights.

Sue Kedgley says they have no rights. That is certainly what the Government members say. I believe what will happen is that that will end up in the courts. Nothing is more sure than the fact that that particular issue will end up in the courts, and we all know who wins when issues end up in the courts: the lawyers.

💬 Jill Pettis: Yes, the lawyers.

Mrs Pettis is right. Some good will come of that. Let us be clear about one thing: the GE issue was signalled very strongly by the officials at the select committee. I know that although Jeanette Fitzsimons and I perhaps disagree on the outcome, we do agree on the fact that that area is very unclear and uncertain. I stated unequivocally at the select committee that the responsibility of Parliament is not to encourage a whole lot of judicial activism in areas like that, but rather to seek clear and certain rules that local government and others will be able to follow.

I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We cannot hear what you are saying. We heard no call for a vote here on the Opposition benches, at all. How are we supposed to respond when we are not able to hear you call a vote or call that the question has been put?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank Mr Donnelly. I will call for order next time.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It is very early to take—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): There can be no point of order on the closure of a debate.

A lot of members who have not yet spoken at all are seeking to speak. Our party has never been known for filibustering. A lot of things need to be said about this bill, and we have had only one call. I am seeking a call on the title.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): There is no debate on the closure.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I will not take a point of order on the closure.

I am not making a point of order on the closure.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Lindsay Tisch called for a point of order first.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I will not query the decision you have made, but since this bill is probably the most controversial bill that will be before Parliament over the next few months and needs full disclosure and debate, I ask that there be a free, frank discussion on the commencement and on all the parts following that from all parties. I take on board the point that Jeanette Fitzsimons has made. She has been very much part of the select committee process, and for the Green Party not to have had more than one call on the title was very unfortunate. We want every party to be able to have as many calls as possible—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member has made his point. There is—

My point is simply this: I want an assurance that for the parts coming up after this clause there will be opportunities for as many speeches as possible. That is what I ask for.

💬 Stephen Franks: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I do not need any more assistance. I am dealing with Mr Tisch’s point of order; that is all. There is no debate on the closure.

💬 Phil Heatley: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, please be seated.

💬 Phil Heatley: This is a new point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I am dealing with Mr Tisch’s point of order. I take his point and tell him that, certainly, that will happen.

💬 Stephen Franks: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I ask the member whether this is a new point of order.

💬 Stephen Franks: Yes, it is.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Point of order, Mr Franks.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. When the closure procedure was in progress there was such an uproar that I did not hear the vote being called for. I suggest, at least, that the debate on clause 1 proceed. I do not believe that Mr Eckhoff voted either way. He did not hear the vote being called; I did not hear it. The first I knew that there had been a vote, or what was purported to be a vote, was when I heard Mr Tisch calling for—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank the member. That point has been made already. Mr Ewen-Street, is this a new point of order?

💬 Ian Ewen-Street: Yes, it is.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Mr Ewen-Street.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I would like to seek the leave of the Committee for my two colleagues Jeanette Fitzsimons and Sue Kedgley to give speeches on this particular clause. There may be members from other parties in the Committee who wish to speak, and who feel they have been unfairly shut out of the discussion.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The closure cannot be debated. Members must seek leave for themselves.

I seek leave to make a further contribution to the Committee in this debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. I will put the vote. All those in favour say “Aye”; to the contrary—

💬 Simon Power: This is the vote for the closure?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I cast an incorrect vote. National is voting for the title, so that is 20 votes in favour.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It was the same situation with New Zealand First, because of the confusion around the vote. We wish to vote in favour of the title, so could we—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I tell the member that I called for the vote on clause 1. Could the Clerk call those again, please?

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Before the result is announced, I ask whether my ACT colleagues want to reconsider their vote. I am buying a bit of time in case they do.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I did not hear a word of what Mr Tisch said, but we are voting against clause 1.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please, there must be silence during voting. Mr Tisch has raised a point of order, but it is not really a matter for a point of order.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National): Well, it is, because of the confusion that we have had over the vote. We understand, at the National end of the Chamber, what the votes are and what we are voting on, but my colleague Gerry Eckhoff might not have appreciated that the vote was for the title. By buying him some time I am giving him the opportunity, if he wants it, to reconsider ACT’s position before the vote is actually announced. At that stage, it may be too late.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions