New Organisms and Other Matters Bill

I am happy to yield my call to the Minister, on the understanding that I am able to perhaps seek your indulgence to have the next call in order to respond to the Minister.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sure that will be possible.

For the benefit of the Committee and of the listeners to this debate—because this is a delicious schedule—I say this schedule has nothing to do with genetically modified organisms. It is about the Ministry for the Environment tidying up its list of prohibited new organisms arriving in the country. We are not allowed to have any Arctic foxes, any mongooses, any skeleton weed—I miss the fact that we cannot have skeleton weed—or any hairy thorn apples. That is not to do with genetic modification. It is a good reminder that the Act we are amending is the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The genetically modified organisms are only one part of that Act. There are many new organisms that could give this country a lot of problems, and we are trying to keep them out.

The schedule is the last part of this legislation. I thank the Minister for taking enough interest to make an initial call. I am delighted to see that Ms Kedgley will also seek a call on the schedule, and that my colleague the Hon Ken Shirley is indicating that he would like a call on the schedule, too. That will be a nice way to round things off.

The Minister has outlined that schedule 2 of the Act lists prohibited new organisms. I have to say at this point that the Minister skirted her responsibility when I asked her during my contribution on Part 5 to run us through the scientific name for the American grey squirrel. Perhaps I could suggest that one of the speakers following me may like to have a crack at that, because it is beyond me.

What caught my eye about the schedule of prohibited new organisms were the references to venomous reptiles, venomous amphibians, and other things, including the prairie dog. I thought that was interesting. The schedule also includes any gerbil, which probably is not very interesting, and any pocket gopher. I would be interested to know from the Minister what the difference is between a gopher and a pocket gopher. [Interruption] “Smaller”, says the Attorney-General from across the House. One assumes that the giant gopher is fine, and that we are quite happy for that particular beast to roam our lands. But the pocket gopher, a creature more difficult to track down, is now prohibited, and that is interesting. I would be interested to know whether there is another breed of gopher that is not a pocket gopher, but that—

💬 Russell Fairbrother: “Gopher” home!

Does Mr Fairbrother want to “gopher” home?

I see that the mongoose is prohibited, and any mole is prohibited, which I thought was interesting. Also prohibited are any members of the—and I shall have a crack at this one—Phalangeridae family. How have I done, officials? I do not know what that family is, but, other than the Australian bushtail possum, it is prohibited.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Marsupials.

I thank the member. The list includes any stickleback and the giant African snail. We have an inconsistency there. On the one hand we are concerned only about pocket gophers—not big gophers—and on the other hand we are concerned only about the giant African snail. Smaller snails that are not from Africa are, presumably, off the hook. I did not see “Any predatory snail”; that must have snuck in there. One has to ask oneself how a snail can be predatory.

The list goes on to include any cane toad, Negro root, skeleton weed, hairy thorn apple, leafy spurge, Star of Bethlehem, and poverty weed. I am no expert on those sorts of things or on witchweed, snakeweed, and butterbur. No doubt Ken Shirley and Sue Kedgley may be able to throw a bit more light on some of those things than I can. Again, the list seems inconsistent. It includes the American grey squirrel and any red squirrel. A squirrel that does not fall into either of those categories—in other words, one that is not an American grey squirrel or a red squirrel—and that is not easily mistaken for a pocket gopher is in. The odds are good, as my colleague Mr Tisch points out.

I shall finish here by saying that this debate has been a lengthy and an emotional one, on an issue that has raised the interest of the New Zealand public in a way that I have not seen before in my time in this Parliament. This legislation has been contentious, and it has not been an easy process for many members of this Parliament. I look forward to participating in the third reading of this bill.

I call Sue Kedgley.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Perhaps you have got the parties out of order with regard to the call. As you know, Madam Chair, the ACT party has consistently received the call in advance of the Green Party.

💬 Sue Kedgley: I would be very happy to have the member of the party of eight take the call.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have been looking at the schedule as listed, and my question to the Minister in the chair is why schedule 2 of the Act lists only macrofauna. It seems that microfauna are not listed. I am thinking particularly of the Asian gypsy moth, the painted apple moth, or the tussock moth—the organisms we are spending vast sums of money on trying to eliminate in the Auckland and Hamilton regions at this time. There is a wide range of other micro-organisms. Perhaps an explanation of that is provided elsewhere, but one issue that immediately leaps out at me is that the organisms listed are just the macrofauna—things like the pocket gophers, beavers, foxes, mustelids, mongooses, and all the ones Mr Power read out for us. That is one question I would like the Minister to respond to.

The other one that leaps out is item 20 in schedule 2 of the Act, which is “Any predatory snail”. The list includes “Any giant African snail”, which is very specific, and then “Any predatory snail”. A lot of New Zealanders perhaps do not realise that we have native predatory snails. They are carnivores, and they are big characters. The Powelliphanta snail and the Paryphanta snail are very prolific in the north-west Nelson region. One can go out at night and the bush tracks are just carpeted with those great big snails as big as one’s fist, and they are carnivores—they are predators. I would like to know how they fit into the schedule. I would hate to think that we are banning our own predatory snail that is already here. Perhaps the Minister could explain that one to me.

Another one is No. 29 on the list—and Mr Power drew attention to it—which is the Star of Bethlehem. I take it the following name, Pua-hoku, is Māori. Perhaps the name is not Māori. However, if that plant does not belong here, why does it have a Māori name? That is a fair question, is it not? How has it got a name in the indigenous language if it is not an indigenous species? We know that Māori made up a name for orange roughy when it was discovered in the 1980s, and perhaps there is a similar explanation in this case. Perhaps the Minister could tell the Committee whether the name comes from elsewhere in Polynesia, because I am not sure whether Pua-hoku is a Māori name or is from another Polynesian language. It is an interesting question. If the star of Bethlehem is not a native plant, how come it is listed with a Māori name? We also have the Latin name Hippobroma longiflora, so that is an interesting one.

The Minister also said she thought we should be able to have skeleton weed. Perhaps the Minister could tell members why she made that comment. She said it is more is the pity it is prohibited, and that she would like to have some skeleton weed. That is a very interesting statement coming from the Minister for the Environment, as the Minister in the chair. Why would she like to see skeleton weed in this country? Perhaps there is a reason for that. I cannot think of one, but I would like to hear from her what that reason may be.

Those are just a few questions, and I would certainly like the Minister to answer them prior to the close of this debate.

Just before I comment on the schedule, I will respond to a comment that Mr Power made. He made the observation that it was very interesting that the two major political parties—one not so major any longer—agree in a substantive way on this legislation. That is a very, very interesting point, and one that has been noted up and down the land. Why is the Labour Party acting and sounding like the National Party on this bill? Why is it ignoring the majority of the opinion in New Zealand? Why is it ignoring the views of many of its own members? Why is it proceeding with this legislation? Why is it to lift the moratorium and risk contaminating our environment, in order to grow food that there is no market for, that has not yet been safety-tested, and that there are no consumer benefits from, when even the claimed producer benefits have not yet come to pass?

Up and down the land people ask me why the Labour Party is doing this, and why the Labour members are silent on this issue—why they are in a cowed silence. Two days ago in a hall in Wellington, a Māori person stood up and asked why the Māori representatives in Parliament were agreeing to lift the moratorium, why they are silent, and why we never hear them speak out about this issue, when we know Māori have very real concerns about it. It may be a cosy little club in here in Parliament, and, as Simon Power said, the major parties may agree in a substantive way on this legislation. But I can tell that member he is completely out of touch with political opinion and with public opinion in this land—as we will see on Saturday, when people up and down this land will be marching. This cosy little club, where members are all giggling and chatting and patting each other on the back, is completely out of touch. Frankly, most New Zealanders would be appalled to hear this jolly little debate about a bill that will have such serious consequences for the future of New Zealand.

This schedule prohibits the beaver, the prairie dog, and so on. We are worried about introducing a new species like the hairy thorn apple, when this bill will allow what are basically alien species—because that is what genetically engineered species are—into New Zealand. They are novel species. In order to get patents, it has to be proved that genetically engineered species are completely new, novel, and alien organisms. These new organisms are unpredictable in their consequences. We are worried about the red or silver fox, but at the same time we are to allow these inherently unpredictable and untested organisms into our environment, so that we can grow food that there is no market for, and that consumers are rejecting. The only reason any consumers around the world are eating GE food is that they are forced to eat it because there is no proper labelling regime. That, of course, is the case in New Zealand. We are being forced to eat genetically engineered food. Our labelling system is so pathetic that we cannot avoid GE ingredients, because so many of them are unlabelled in New Zealand, and that is the only reason that consumers are eating such ingredients in New Zealand.

So why are we risking our status as a clean, green producer of pure food? Why are we lifting the moratorium, against the overwhelming public opinion of this land? Why is the Labour Party sounding like the National Party? Why is it in substantive agreement, as Simon Power said, with ACT and National on this bill? People are asking whether the Labour Party is returning to the 1990s. Why is it listening to a handful of multinational corporations, and no doubt to George Bush, and ignoring the people of New Zealand? Why are the ordinary Labour Party members so silent on this issue? I challenge the Māori members—there are three Māori members, each of whom I deeply respect, sitting in this Chamber now—to explain why they are so silent on this issue. Why are they not speaking, as the person asked in the hall last night, on behalf of Māori on this matter?

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I specifically asked the Minister to respond to my questions. I have not heard an answer.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. That is not a point of order. It is entirely over to the Minister whether she takes a call.

I move, That the Committee divide the bill into the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2), the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2), pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 144.