New Organisms and Other Matters Bill

As many who have spoken on clause 2 have commented, the commencement date outlines 30 October 2003 as the D-Day date. On that date the provisions contained in this bill will come into effect. As has been discussed, three existing pieces of legislation will be amended.

Since the Committee last met to discuss the issues further, some interesting developments have taken place in various parts of Parliament grounds. No doubt, those types of concerns will continue to be expressed in a way that has a visual impact on the nature of the bill, and we will continue to have argument.

The commencement date is important, because it signals the end to the moratorium that the Government placed some time ago on the development of new organisms. We have seen an interesting flow of events since that time. I have outlined to the House on a number of occasions the issues relating to the Minister’s call-in powers, which will come into effect on 30 October 2003. I look forward to going into some more detail on those during the debate on Part 2 and also on those matters relating to reverse burdens of proof, which have been covered in earlier stages and will be covered in more detail in later parts of the debate.

Concerns have been expressed by members on both sides of the Chamber relating to the role of local government in the enacting, or otherwise, of parts of this legislation, and the confusion that exists around those issues as signalled at the Education and Science Committee by a number of members. I see that the chairman of that committee, Brian Donnelly, is nodding on that point. Those issues will be covered in detail by members on this side of the Chamber once we get into the debate on Part 2. But, of course, the important matter to focus on at this point—for the sake of keeping the debate relevant to the part under consideration—is that those clauses will be triggered by the date we are currently debating.

Members on this side of the Chamber have indicated on more than one occasion that they are supportive of the bill in most phases. But the Committee has heard me express a number of reservations in respect of the two or three issues just raised. We on this side of the Chamber still reserve the right to continue to question the clarity of the law more than its spirit. Members will know that the National Party has supported the Government on the passage of this bill in general, but we retain the right to express our concerns about the nature of its drafting, and in particular the uncertainty that it will present for users of the mechanisms it creates. In the case of this legislation, we should consider what that means for applicants, and, in particular, what burdens they will have to incur by way of reversals of proof and connections of the causal links between harm and the release—if that occurs, conditional or otherwise—of organisms, going back to the original legislation. That is one of the issues in relation to which I do not believe that this legislation has been sufficiently well crafted.

On a number of occasions I have raised the issues relating to the role of local government in this matter. I think the bill is appallingly crafted around those particular clauses, and I had great concern when members of the Government who were on the select committee simply said that these things get sorted out in the fullness of time. Actually, no, they do not. What happens is that a whole lot of unelected people, called judges, get to make law in respect of very important issues like this. It is an abdication of the democratic responsibility of members of Parliament to allow that level of judicial activism. It is something I have seen occurring during my 4 years in Parliament, and I am concerned about that level of activism.

Before I call the next speaker, I remind members that we are dealing with Part 1, which is the commencement, and we have already had 10 speakers on it. The Committee may wish to move on to the next part.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You were not here during the discussion the last time we were in Committee, but it was pointed out to the Chair at the time that the two significant parts are this part and particularly Part 2. There was a little bit of leniency on the question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for that. Does he seek the call?

Yes, I seek the call. This debate concerns the commencement date. Obviously the commencement date is critically important in terms of this bill, because the moratorium comes off at 12 o’clock on the night before the legislation commences. The legislation aims to put in place a whole pile of recommendations from the royal commission for when the moratorium comes off. The Green Party put up an amendment that would make the commencement date 30 October 2008, and I want to explore the implications and effects of the passage of that particular amendment.

The first question is whether the moratorium would be extended for another 5 years. The answer, quite unequivocally, is no. The moratorium is going to be lifted. The amendment means that we would have no legislation in place to accommodate some of those things. There would be no conditional release category available for the Environmental Risk Management Authority to apply to those applications that it may assess as requiring certain conditions to be put against them. There are other implications too. For example, Ngā Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao exists at the moment purely and simply at the whim of the Environmental Risk Management Authority, as there is no statutory obligation to have this consultative body with Māori in place. This bill makes it a statutory responsibility. There would otherwise be no statutory responsibility for the authority to consult Māori in this particular way. It is the Green Party, remember, that is the guardian of tino rangatiratanga, yet it is wanting to take away for another 5 years something that New Zealand First would support because we believe that it is part of the whole process.

The Green amendment would take away the extensive additional penalties for anybody or any organisation that is in breach of the rules of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. In other words, somebody who brought in GE organisms without authority would face huge increases in the penalties involved. The Green amendment would, for the next 5 years, put those large-scale penalties—obviously with companies like Monsanto in mind—on the back-burner. There is also the issue, for example, of streamlining the importation of low-risk GE organisms, which the royal commission accepted needed to be streamlined through the institution-based science committees. When the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Act was put in place, everyone agreed that we should try to get them in place as soon as possible, because it was certainly seen as an obstacle to some of the scientific progress in this way. This would be put once again on the back-burner for another 5 years.

There is another thing that would be put on the back-burner for another 5 years, and it is very interesting that the Greens should be asking for this. This particular legislation extends the reasons for which the Minister can use his or her call-in powers to include cultural and spiritual values. We do not believe that it makes a whole lot of sense to have call-in powers on that basis, anyhow, and probably there should be an extension of the commencement date right out to infinity. But the Greens are saying that they want to put it on the back-burner for another 5 years. It seems so inconsistent with the Greens’ position, to put up an amendment like this to put this legislation off for another 5 years, when many of the things in it comply with the very things the Greens have been asking for.

The rationale is that if we put in place conditional release, the chance of some commercial release increases. It does not make any difference at all to the field trials that are going on. They have been going on for the last couple of years, funded, I remind members, with money that has been voted in a Budget supported by the Greens. The Greens have voted for the money for field trials and experimentation in GE technology, and there has been no moratorium on those for the last couple of years. Development trials have still continued, and there has been no moratorium on those. Yet the money for funding those trials was voted for by the Greens—not by the National Party, even though it supports this legislation. I suggest that the position taken by the Greens does not make sense.

I am enthusiastic to talk about Part 1 but I must say, by way of your interest, Mr Chairman, and the interest of my colleagues—who are heckling me more than those on the other side of the Chamber—that the interest would have been greater if the purpose clause, which is in Part 2, had remained in Part 1, as we would also be debating that now. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts as to why the purpose was shifted into Part 2. Perhaps she could make a comment on that after my speech, because I know that some members sit here with bated breath, wondering and worrying why the purpose was shifted to Part 2. However, I will speak on the commencement date.

This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent, which is 30 October 2003. I would like to clarify some confusion in the Chamber and out amongst the public, which was brought about, not least, by some recent speeches made in the Chamber and by press releases to the public. The bill does not deal at all with the expiry of the moratorium. It only sets in place regulations that come into effect when the moratorium ends.

The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Act 2002 specified that the Environmental Risk Management Authority was not to approve any applications for the release of GM until after 29 October 2003—and we are well aware of that. The fact that the legislation we are now debating will come into force the following day is simply a management issue. When that GM moratorium is ended, there will be regulations and guidelines in place to deal with applications of GM experimentation and release. At the time of the passage of that legislation back in 2002, just over 12 months ago, I recall that, without the passage of this bill now, the law would revert to the framework that was in place previously—namely, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act of 1996.

There is no vote to lift the moratorium on GM, and that is a given. My suggestion to the Greens is that if they really wanted a vote on the extension of the moratorium, they might have tabled some legislation themselves. It could have been quite possible for them to table legislation. I remember their protesting and running out of Parliament. I recall their calling in protesters to show off their brassieres up in the public galleries. I know they paid their relatives today to stand and lie out on the grass in front of Parliament, stark naked. Apart from all the nudity and exposure, perhaps the Greens could have done something sensible like present legislation to the House extending the moratorium. That would have been the sensible way of doing it. That is the kind of action this Parliament has done for well over a hundred years. I would suggest that in the future, rather than the Greens reverting to streaking and all sorts of other ways of tackling legislation, they could do it the way everyone else does it, because it does tend to be successful.

Under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, the Environmental Risk Management Authority can approve commercial release of GMOs after notifying various authorities, and it is that legislation that would come into play on 30 October, if this bill is not passed and if it did not have a commencement date of 30 October 2003. That is why Part 1, dealing solely with the commencement date—that being the day the moratorium lifts—is so significant. Normally, a commencement date is not so significant, but this one certainly is.

I am pleased to speak in support of the commencement clause. The entering into law of this legislation on 30 October this year will be the culmination of a very long process, when one realises that the gazetting for the whole thing started way back on 11 May 2000. So it has been before the House for over 3 years. This process—which has taken more than 3 years—has been stalled for most of that time, because of the moratorium. There has been a stalling, and I think it has been well worth it. It will ensure that we have an environmentally regulatory regime that is among the most cautious and robust in the whole world. So it was time well spent.

When it comes to protecting our environment, our public health, and our economic well-being, every effort must be made to do those things. I believe the process has been as cautious as it can possibly be. It has been as cautious as possible, short of stalling progress altogether. We note that the necessary partner for our cautious approach has been—and must always be—progress. The potential of genetic technology is too great, I believe, for our largely agriculturally based economy to be left by the wayside. The royal commission concluded that we should proceed with some caution, and I believe 30 October 2003 is high time for us to begin. That is why United Future supports the commencement of this legislation, which will impose the regulatory regime that will oversee all applications that come into effect after that date.

There are some who still argue that we have not done enough and that the moratorium should be extended for yet another 5 years. In my view that is nothing but a blatant stalling tactic. There will always be something to which the opponents of GE technology can point and claim that we do not yet know enough about, because we want it 100 percent safe. There will always be a reason that someone can give as to why the moratorium should be extended just a little bit longer. The tests of proof that the opponents of GM are demanding to have in place are so high that practically no technology would have been passed if we had applied this rule in the past. I am talking about developments that we all enjoy today, such as electricity and even the motor car, for that matter.

I support the commencement of this legislation on 30 October 2003. Failure to do so would be a sign that we are no longer interested in either scientific or economic progress. As long as it is done in a considered, cautious manner—which it is—I see no reason to delay this progress any longer.

I move That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just to reiterate what the Hon Brian Donnelly pointed out to you earlier on, that we did over a considerable length of time have reassurances from the Chair that Part 1—

There are no reassurances, but I understand fully what the member and Mr Donnelly are talking about, and we do not have a problem.

The ACT party supports this legislation, and in particular Part 1, which has but two clauses—that is, the commencement and the purpose. We support the bill, though with some considerable reservation.

Our position is that we did not favour the moratorium in the first instance. We believed it was unnecessary. The Government of the day sought to put in place a moratorium, which is actually an admission of political failure—an inability to grasp the issues before the Parliament or the Government. It is a kick for touch, and it was done, as we all know, as a political manoeuvre in this instance.

Notwithstanding that, I acknowledge the very good work that has been done by the select committee, and I acknowledge Mr Donnelly, because I have heard some very good reports on the very thorough job done on this bill. I am sure that it has been improved in many respects.

The commencement clause, of course, is very critical when one talks about legislation that is effectively coming out of a moratorium situation, so commencement becomes very important indeed, and I see no reason whatsoever to delay it further. I know there have been all sorts of campaigns, and the Green Party and others have been deeply involved with those, trying virtually to have an infinite moratorium. I think their preferred position would be to have the moratorium extended forever. That clearly will not happen. Others are lobbying hard to have food exempted, and that would require qualified moratoriums that were ongoing.

I have looked at that position rather closely and spoken with the many groups, and it seems that they are really coming from a position of marketing and labelling—market perception. The people I have spoken to have no objection to the science at all, but they fear that their customer base, either in Europe or Asia, may be averse to it. They want to paint themselves with, and ride on the label of, the clean, green New Zealand image. They feel that if the GM-status of New Zealand changed, it could jeopardise that image.

I do not believe that is so. An interesting marketing survey that was recently done—I think Otago University carried it out, as I recall—clearly showed, in fact, that that is most unlikely to be the case. As we know, Europe has substantial GE-food products and, indeed, has a threshold level, I think, of 0.5 under the European standards, so it really becomes a labelling issue as much as anything. It is time for New Zealand to move on.

On that point, I say that this Government has been exposed for its ridiculous policy of zero tolerance. Zero tolerance is a nonsense. The Minister knows that. I know she does, and, in appearances at the select committee, has made it quite clear that the Government has put itself in a very awkward position by trying to cling to the pretence that it has zero tolerance, when that clearly defies scientific reality.

I note the streamlining of the importation of organisms of low risk. That is a useful improvement to the bill. I think that a lot of other measures could have been streamlined, also. There is also an extension to the call-in provisions on cultural and spiritual grounds. ACT certainly opposes that. We believe that the provisions in the bill, and the weight put on spiritual, cultural, and metaphysical issues, are totally inappropriate and will be very problematic. I note there are a number of amendments in various Supplementary Order Papers that we will be discussing during the debate on this issue. We will certainly be supporting the Supplementary Order Papers that propose to drop those cultural and spiritual references, which, clearly, are not appropriate in the context of the bill we have before us.

ACT is supporting the legislation overall, although we would like to see less prescription. We think that the regulatory regime to be put in place, and the compliance costs, are over the top. They could have been streamlined further, and any future Government of which we are part will be looking to streamline them. We know that the New Zealand economy is based on our biological resources, and that the new GM technology is critical for us and for our future. Therefore, we believe that we should have a much more favourable regime than will be delivered under this bill.

I was not planning to speak again on Part 1, but, as it happens, statements have been made by a couple of speakers that cry out to be rebutted.

I start with Mr Heatley, who needs to read the bill. It is, perhaps, not surprising that he has not picked up on clause 39A, which repeals the moratorium, because it was not in the bill as introduced. It snuck in at the select committee without the select committee even being aware of it or discussing it. It just went through as part of what the officials brought to us in that last, hasty meeting. Clause 39A does repeal Part 5A of the principal Act—quite unnecessarily so, as Part 5A expires naturally anyway, as a result of last year’s Act, but they decided to have a belt and braces approach and expire it again in this bill. That is what that clause does.

I turn to Mr Donnelly’s very elegant attempt to criticise the Green amendment in the name of my colleague Mr Ewen-Street. Mr Donnelly said that if the commencement of the bill is delayed for 5 years, a number of terrible things will happen. First of all, he says, delaying the commencement by 5 years does not extend the moratorium. Legally, of course, that is true but, as I pointed out in my speech, in practice it does extend the moratorium, because without conditional release there will be no releases. That is all the Green Party has ever tried to achieve. The moratorium is a means to an end. It is not an end in itself. Preventing release of these organisms into the environment is what we have always been on about.

He then went on to say that it would prevent the legal establishment of Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao, and that is true, too. But ngā kaihautū exists now. I do not think the Environmental Risk Management Authority is on the point of abolishing it if the bill does not go through. So I do not see that there is any great practical effect from that one.

He then said that the very severe penalties would not be available, and that is also true. However, those very severe penalties are needed only if releases into the environment are approved and they do harm or break their consents. So there is much less need for severe penalties if this bill does not go through and there are no releases.

He also pointed out that the streamlining of low-risk approvals would not take place, either. That would be a shame, because the Green Party—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Would the member please come to the commencement?

This is all about the commencement, Mr Chairperson. I am speaking to the amendment in Mr Ewen-Street’s name. If the streamlining of low-risk matters has to wait 5 years, that is unfortunate, because the Green Party does not oppose streamlining of provisions for low-risk work in contained laboratories—we never have. But if that matter is put in the same bill as provisions that lift the moratorium, then that is unfortunate and it just has to suffer.

Finally, Mr Donnelly said the call-in powers would not be extended. Well, the call-in powers will not be needed, either, if there are no releases.

So, in fact, Mr Donnelly’s objections to our amendment do not stand. I commend the amendment in the name of my colleague Mr Ewen-Street, and I hope the Committee will vote for it.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak on the commencement, in Part 1 of this very important New Organisms and Other Matters Bill. Undoubtedly, the commencement ushers in a new era of change from the moratorium that was imposed, somewhat blindly but certainly bluntly, by this Labour Government. It welcomes in an era in which there is a glimmer of hope that there will be an evidence-based, scientific approach to new organisms in New Zealand. I say there is a glimmer of hope; National is supporting the bill only because of this fundamental, scientific, evidence-based approach that Labour is attempting to achieve, but the glimmer of hope is somewhat shadowed by the fact that the bill is entangled in compliance costs and hurdles, with particular reference to medium and higher-risk research. As I said earlier on, the bill does streamline low-risk research, but that should have happened 2 years ago, when there was an opportunity with the earlier amendment bill. The Labour Government chose not to do it then, which is very regrettable.

However, what is important is that one of the fundamental recommendations of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification was that it was critical for New Zealand’s future that research is continued. Here is a bill in which medium and higher-risk research is entangled in compliance costs and other such hurdles that are reminiscent of the difficulties that organisations like AgResearch had when they came to put in their applications.

But the commencement of this bill has also highlighted the way that the Greens get themselves into a huge frenzy—a more or less maniacal, morris-dancing mentality to which they have certainly risen on this occasion, with some extraordinarily extravagant claims and, often, some very inaccurate claims. This is absolutely related to the commencement, because in Jeanette Fitzsimons’ speech on the second reading we heard her say that there had been no testing done on GE foods. That is patently absurd. In fact, the European Commission in its report pointed out that GE food is as safe as, if not safer than, conventional food, because of the evidence of 400 different trials taken over 15 years. That statement was countersigned by 3,500 scientists, including 13 Nobel laureates, and further countersigned by such organisations as the World Health Organization, the United Nations, the Royal Society, and a whole host of other highly reputable organisations throughout the world.

I think that, despite Jeanette Fitzsimons making these somewhat absurd and superficial claims, it is important that she does look to mainstream, peer-reviewed, international literature for the evidence. It is quite clear that mainstream, peer-reviewed, international evidence shows that there have been no problems with food safety over the last decade. The evidence is quite clear in this country, where we have been eating GE foods for 10 years, that there have been no food safety problems.

But this commencement also ushers in what one could describe as the era of the mediaeval Druid approach of the New Zealand First Party. Once again, that party has almost reflexly chosen the populist road and wanted to extend the moratorium.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Ian Ewen-Street to clause 2 be agreed to:

to omit the words “30 October 2003” and substitute the words “30 October 2008”.