Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 12 to 30 and the Schedule: consequential and other amendments. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to come to new section 62, “Grounds for reassessment of a substance or organism” in clause 21. While we were told that classification of new organisms was out of scope of the bill, could the Minister please clarify if the grounds for reassessment of a substance or organism will be liberalised as a result of replaced section 62? In particular, what grounds will the authority use to reassess conditionally released new organisms and any qualifying organisms released with controls?

The reason I ask that, Minister, is because “New Zealand Inc.” has made a number of commitments to reduce our carbon emissions, our emissions of greenhouse gases, and yet we don’t have the benefit of biotechnology that would allow New Zealand to meet its commitments more quickly, at less cost, and with less disruption. So I’m interested, Minister: will this replaced section 62 provide a more liberal pathway to reassess biotechnology for release? Minister, we’d just appreciate some clarification on that.

No, it won’t. It’s not dealing with what rules should be applied to approvals for the release of new organisms, including genetically modified organisms. I think this relates to where the organism has been previously assessed—can there be a reassessment. So it’s not liberalising the release, for example, of a genetically modified organism.

That said, we do have work under way to look at the liberalisation of laboratory research and the medical uses of genetically modified organisms, because there is a general view held by the Chief Science Advisor and the Royal Society that some of those rules are too restrictive and that the rest of the world has moved on to a certain extent in respect of those. We’re not going so far as to liberalise the release into the environment of a genetically modified organism that can replicate, for example, or approving the use of genetically modified seeds or animals. That is a debate for another day. The release of those organisms is not prohibited under New Zealand, but those people that wanted to release GMOs of that nature would have to go through the existing provisions in the legislation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Minister, just to clarify, this legislation actually provides grounds to reassess new organisms, assuming that they’ve been used in some way—most likely in containment or in a laboratory—for some time. I’m assuming the reassessment would be because new hazards and risks have been discovered. So could you just please clarify that this legislation provides to put things that are in the lab or being assessed into the incinerator—destroy them, remove them, reassess them so that they can’t go any further—but it doesn’t allow for any pathway for, say, genetically modified grasses that do self-replicate, because they’re a grass species, to be used which could actually reduce carbon emissions. Could you just clarify that, please, Minister?

Yes, I can. This amendment doesn’t change the existing law in that regard. People that wanted to produce a GM ryegrass, for example, and release it into the environment in New Zealand can apply under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act for an approval to release that organism—no one has. The member’s quite correct to say that it is hard. It’s not impossible; no one’s tried. It would be controversial in New Zealand because there are people in society who think that would be the wrong thing to do, for reasons of—

💬 Simon Court: Debate for another day, perhaps, yeah.

That’s debatable, and I’m not expressing a viewpoint in favour of or against that. But there are also other people who would say that irrespective of whether it is wise environmentally or from an environmental point of view, there would be important economic consequences for the country to consider on both sides of that equation. I know that, for example, our most successful apple growers in New Zealand, in the Hawke’s Bay, very large and successful exporters, think that they would suffer a diminution in the price that they obtain for their apples if we were to do that. They might be wrong, but they do argue that, and all of those issues would have to be taken into account by the Environmental Protection Authority if an application was to be made under the existing statutory framework.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m quite surprised by the Minister’s comments here, given that I think everyone in this room has had two jabs of a genetically modified organism into their arms. I think it’s extraordinary that he would think it was so reluctant for genetically modified organisms to be used in New Zealand. I think the world has changed and I think that the Environmental Protection Authority and the Minister might want to reconsider their position.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! We’re having a wide-ish ranging debate, but I think coming closer to what is actually in the bill, I think we’re about at that point. Do you want to respond?

I do feel a need to respond to that, because there is actually a significant difference. I wouldn’t want people to think that by being vaccinated they are changing their genetic makeup because they’re not. There is a difference between that and a genetically modified grass that replicates and creates a heritable trait, which a vaccine does not. And I wouldn’t want to leave listeners or observers of this with the impression that being vaccinated means that you are being genetically modified, because you’re not, and that is a very, very important issue to be careful with at the moment in New Zealand.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to focus on section 62, in clause 21—this is “Grounds for reassessment of substance or organism”—and, in particular, section 62(2), which sets out a range of matters that the authority may decide are grounds for reassessment of an organism or substance after taking some factors into account. Now, there are several subjective definitions in paragraphs, (a), (c), and (d). Words like—in (a), “that significant new information relating to the effects”—what is determined as “significant”? In (c), it says “that another substance with similar or improved beneficial effects”. Who decides what is “similar”, “improved”, and/or “beneficial”—or, indeed, in paragraph (c), “reduced adverse effects”? In (d), again, there is reference to “significant change of use, or a significant change in the quantity manufactured, imported, or developed, has become available;”.

So I’m interested in the Minister’s view as to the test that the Environmental Protection Authority and then, ultimately, the chief executive, would have to satisfy themselves with in terms of meeting those relatively subjective definitions as to “significant”, “similar”, “improved”, “beneficial”, “reduced”, “adverse”, and those sorts of words that are used in the legislation. Thank you.

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has technical panels that report to it, and those panels would provide them with technical advice as to whether there was significant new information relating to the effects of the organism. That new information could be that it is more harmful than was previously thought, but it has to be significant before they would trigger the grounds to reassess at the request of somebody. So this is where there are requests for reassessment, and if there has been no significant change, then you can understand that the EPA would want to put its resource somewhere else that was an area of significant change.

In respect of clause 21, which inserts new section 62(2)(c), the wording there is “that another substance with similar or improved beneficial effects and reduced adverse effects has become available;” So that’s intended to cover the situation where there may have been no decent alternative to the chemical which had been approved for use, albeit on restricted grounds notwithstanding adverse effects. The authority might, on the request of somebody, think, “Well, we’ve got this other chemical that does the job just as well with far fewer environmental effects. We should look again at the original approval for the more dangerous chemical.” In respect to all those issues, it will be a matter of discretion for the authority.

Part 2 agreed to.

We move on to the Schedule. The question is that the Schedule stand part.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3