Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) : 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.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (New Zealand First) : 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.

BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) : 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.

IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) : 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.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) : 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?

SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) : 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.

SIMON POWER: 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.

SIMON POWER: 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.

DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) : I move, That the question be now put.

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

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : 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.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : 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.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: 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.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

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

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: I am not making a point of order on the closure.

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

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) : 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—

LINDSAY TISCH: 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.

IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) : 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.

IAN EWEN-STREET: 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.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) : 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.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : 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?

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) : 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.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) : 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.

JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) : I want to speak to Standing Order 139, “Acceptance of closure motion”, because that is what the member is alluding to, at the end point. I point out that standing up and telling the Chair how to do the job is quite unparliamentary and is relitigating a Standing Order that has been in place for as long as this Parliament has been around. There is no debate around a closure motion. Members should not direct the Chair how to execute the business, but leave it to the Chair to decide.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I want to make this point, once and for all. There will be no discussion during points of order—Mr Heatley is lucky to still be here, and he has been warned. I cannot hear the points of order, if members are making a noise. I remind the Committee that Ms Fitzsimons was asking whether we could have a wider-ranging debate on the commencement date.

SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) : In terms of the Standing Orders, I think Mrs Pettis is dead right. However, when you took the closure on the title you indicated that you would allow a wide-ranging debate on the remaining parts. I am not sure whether Ms Fitzsimons was in the Chamber then, but you did indicate that the remaining parts would be dealt with more liberally in respect of the numbers of calls you would allow.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am taking this from what Ms Fitzsimons said. The point is that the title debate is on the title only. The commencement debate is on the commencement only. As per the Standing Orders, members often seek that the debate be wide ranging. I understand that that is what Ms Fitzsimons is seeking.

MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) : Very simply, this matter has been extensively canvassed by the Education and Science Committee. The member might have had a point, if there had been no select committee process. But there has been a very full debate in the select committee so there are no grounds for you to do anything other than chair the Committee in accordance with normal procedures.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I just want to clarify that the member wants to set aside the Standing Orders so that we can have a wide-ranging debate on the commencement clause.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: No, Madam Chair, that is not what I was seeking, and that is the point I am wanting to clarify now. I was not asking that leave be given—or even sought—to extend the debate beyond the question of the coming into force date. I was asking the Chair to take into account, when accepting closure motions, that the coming into force date is a very central matter to the bill and therefore there were likely to be a number of speakers wishing to draw out the implications of the coming into force date, with regard to the matters covered in the bill. I was not asking for a suspension of the Standing Orders. I was not asking for leave of the Committee. I was not telling you how to do your job, or debating the closure. I was merely drawing attention, as I have heard many members in the Chamber do, over the 7 years I have been here, to the fact that this next clause is a substantive one, not just a technical one as often is the case, and that therefore members would like the opportunity to debate it properly.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) : This is exactly the point that I made, following the closure on the title. I sought an assurance from you that there would be a wide-ranging debate on these, and you ruled that you would take that into consideration. That is all Jeanette Fitzsimons is asking for, but all members want to be assured that this debate will be a debate with speeches allowed and calls to be taken by as many members as want to take them. As I said earlier, this bill is one of the most controversial measures that we are going to deal with. That is all the Green Party is asking for, and you gave an assurance—indeed, we could check the Hansard about what I asked at that time and what you said. That is all we are asking for. We are not asking for the Standing Orders to be set aside. We just want a fair go.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : I am wanting to endorse that we are not telling you how to do your job, but just bringing this to your attention so that you comprehend that this commencement clause is much more significant in this case than in most cases. Therefore we ask that it could be more fully debated—not broadening the scope of it but just more fully debated in terms of time. The other thing I want to draw to your attention is that Part 2 is it! There are Parts 3, 4, and 5 but I do not think anyone is going to be able to take a call on them. But we really do require very, very full opportunity in Part 2. I just bring it to your attention, so that you can make your own judgment call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I take the member’s point, and I am sorry if I misinterpreted what Jeanette Fitzsimons said. Certainly, what Mr Donnelly and Mr Tisch have said is clearly understood, and I do not think we need to relitigate this any more. I have made the ruling.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) : In commencing this debate, it is important to reiterate to the people from United Future who seem confused that we are also commencing four future Acts. Those four Acts are the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Act, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Act, the Medicines Amendment Act, and the Biosecurity Amendment Act. The commencement date states 30 October 2003, and it has huge significance because there appears to be great confusion as to whether this legislation actually removes the moratorium, and it clearly does not. The moratorium was set down to be removed, anyway. In fact, there is confusion over where a legislated moratorium came into place through the Labour Government, and where there was a voluntarily industry moratorium that came into place in 2000 and was observed by industry throughout New Zealand until such time as the Labour Government chose to put in its traditional blunt instrument, a moratorium. Nevertheless, that happened, and this legislation is consequential to that being lifted, anyway.

However, what is really important is that New Zealanders understand the realities of this legislation and what will commence. There are several clues to that. The real probability of whether there will be commercial release of genetically modified crops in New Zealand is extremely low. That has been clearly reiterated from two sources. Firstly, about 2 months ago there was a conference at the royal society on biofarming, and there the chief executive officer of the Environmental Risk Management Authority stated quite clearly that he did not expect there to be any commercial release of genetically modified crops in New Zealand in the next few years. However, he said that there is a possibility that there may be a few applications for conditional release, and that could include conditional commercial release. These distinctions are not well understood by the majority of people in the public and they are confused by many parliamentarians, as well.

But to add to that, the other source comes from the Minister herself in answering questions from Jeanette Fitzsimons. She herself said in this Parliament that the reality of commercial release in New Zealand under this bill is just about zilch while she happens to be the Minister for the Environment. She might like to take a call and reiterate that, but it happens to be the fact of the matter, as I understand it.

So when we talk about this commencement date we must also consider whether this legislation is very much a Clayton’s moratorium that has been imposed by the Minister for the Environment and that, indeed, instead of there being a blunt instrument, she has just transferred that over to a somewhat insidious Clayton’s situation. It is very, very important to understand the implications for that in situations that might cause New Zealanders to rethink the circumstances in New Zealand, such as an epidemic of cholera, for instance, where, indeed, it is important to have legislation in place when there may be a need to have a genetically modified organism introduced into New Zealand reasonably quickly to save many hundreds of thousands of lives. That is just one possibility. It is important to be aware that this commencement date has a lot of significance, and to understand what differentiates.

What has concerned me a little bit has been one of the amendments put up by New Zealand First, which is somewhat unusual. In fact, I would call it an act of pre-medieval Druidism by New Zealand First.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : Obviously, the commencement date is very important because it is 30 October. The significance of that is that it is the day after the moratorium expires that was put in place through the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Act 2001. It is important to realise that when the moratorium comes off we will not see this country flooded with GE crops the next day, as some people would have us believe. It will simply not happen. What will happen is that people will start to prepare some applications for conditional commercial release. It will not be immediately in the food and cropping area. Tony O’Connor’s article recently stated that we are looking at several years away. In relation to rye grass, it will be 5 years away.

Ian Ewen-Street: So why the hurry?

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: That is a very good question. For a start, a degree of hurry in terms of putting in place certain things is necessary because there are certain applications of this new technology that New Zealand First believes can proceed in the best interests of New Zealanders and humanity. However, as I suggested in my question to the Minister in the House yesterday, one of the things that has to be recognised is that there is no evidence, either empirical or theoretical, that demonstrates that any harm has been caused to human health from the eating of GE foods. That has to be recognised. However, Dr Hutchison fails to understand that New Zealand First is talking about economic risk—an economic risk based on people’s perceptions.

Dr Hutchison, even in his speech, recognised that the majority of the public do not understand these issues. If the majority of the public do not understand these issues, nevertheless it will still influence some of their consumer decisions. What we did not get, as a result of the process that we went through of investigating what has taken place over the last 2 years, is any evidence from the Environmental Risk Management Authority that it had in place a robust enough mechanism to be able to determine risk around the big economic picture of New Zealand and New Zealand’s exports.

In fact, that is demonstrated by two things. First, Cabinet itself has asked the Environmental Risk Management Authority to do more work and for that to be reported back in over a year’s time. So the Cabinet committee is not happy with it, and the Minister said she will use her call-in powers for the first application for commercial release, suggesting that she does not have confidence in the mechanism that the Environmental Risk Management Authority has. Yet New Zealand is a food-exporting nation—we are absolutely dependent upon our food exports. If we are going to give the perception that we are releasing GE foods—and we do not know what impact that will have on our markets overseas, because we do not have a risk-management system in place—then it would seem to us in New Zealand First, particularly when, in fact, no applications will come in for the next couple of years, that that is rather stupid, and purely and simply proceeding on an ideological basis rather than a practical basis.

So New Zealand First says: “Yes, it is important this legislation is put in place by 30 October 2003.” The legislation also puts in place some other further rigid regulations. However, we do not believe that this legislation should be giving possibilities of applications for commercial release of GE foods at this particular point in time. Therefore we will be amending the legislation, or putting up an amendment. If that fails we will be putting up a member’s bill to ensure that we can re-impose a moratorium on certain applications—just certain ones—so that we can safeguard New Zealand’s economic future.

MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) : I want to take a call on this, because—it does not need a lot of discussion, in my view; the clause is very short, but it does do exactly as Brian Donnelly said: it makes sure that once the moratorium lifts we have a regime in place that will manage the way in which hazardous substances around these particular new organisms are dealt with into the future. The only other option is for the moratorium to totally drift off into the wilderness, and that is why the ACT party voted against the title, and will probably vote against the bill.

Ian Ewen-Street: I voted against the title.

MARK PECK: OK, that member voted against the title. I suppose that is consistency, and we do actually appreciate consistency in Parliament, and I congratulate the member on that. But let me say this in response to Brian Donnelly’s concerns about whether people are ready to release, and things of that ilk. It is important that when the moratorium is lifted there is a consistent, understood, and coherent regulatory regime around which genetically engineered research can be undertaken. Because the lead-in time on these matters is not short. Having spent some time—

Ian Ewen-Street: Why the hurry?

MARK PECK: That member is one of those who would have said that electricity was a huge problem. Indeed, the economic history of electricity shows that there was a good 20-year lead-in period before there was any significant positive economic effect for our economy. This technology, like any other, will probably have a very similar lead-in period. But as far as this is concerned, I am saying that the scientific community needs an opportunity to plan its science into the future. The regime needs to be in place. It needs to be clearly understood. Otherwise we will see that those who seek to develop the technology in New Zealand will go elsewhere. That is clearly the significant problem that exists if we do not get this legislation passed, and if we do not provide those who will seek to put their effort into developing new ideas—and not just the investment into developing new ideas—a clear understanding of how they can operate.

I was privileged to have a look at three trials, one at the Lincoln Centre for Resource Management, one at the Forest Research Institute, and one at Ruakura Research Centre. I want to talk about the potato trial, which has been variously trashed by some of those who decided they wanted to go and breach the biosecurity of that particular trial. We are talking about a scientist who has dedicated 12 years of her life to that problem. Let me tell members about this scientist. She is not a mad scientist with long hair and bushy eyebrows; she has children. She actually wants this country to be a good place in which to bring up her children, and there is no way she would go about developing something that would put her family at risk.

I say to those who oppose this sort of technology that they cannot have it both ways—either on food or on medicine. I find it fascinating that in this debate we will never see someone who is opposed to this technology stand up and say that we should not let cystic fibrosis sufferers take advantage of the genetic engineering research in this country. But they will not let us eat a bit of genetically engineered corn.

I say to the member who wanted to table her chips in the House the other day that she should have given them to me. I would have been into them—in hunks. I do not give a brass rat’s whether they are genetically modified or whether it is conventional. I am absolutely certain that I have eaten genetically engineered corn when I have been overseas. I say to those members that it really is time they grew up and realised that this technology provides us with some significant advantages in the way we will operate in the future. We have some of the smartest scientists in New Zealand. [Interruption] I thank Sue Kedgley, who has just given me some chips. I appreciate that. They are great stuff. Could I pass them around? I just want to make the point that we need to encourage our scientists to develop their experiments. We need to ensure that we are able to take advantage of technology, because I would hate, in 20 years’ time, to find us sitting down and saying: “Oh deary me. Why did we miss the boat?”.

GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I waited until the member finished his speech, because it was a very good speech. I am a new member, but I have a feeling that somewhere in the Standing Orders they state we are not supposed to eat chips in the House.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is perfectly right.

Mark Peck: I withdraw and apologise, but I cannot give the chip back.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : Part 1, which sets the date for the bill to come into force, is the reason I cannot agree with Brian Donnelly that this bill is not about the lifting of the moratorium, and does not provide for the lifting of the moratorium. I have to admit that at first I was wrong on this. Some months ago I went around the country trying to explain to New Zealanders that this bill was not the bill that lifts the moratorium, that that happened last year, and that this bill was about putting conditions in place. Then, when I thought about it carefully, I realised that I was wrong. This is the bill that, not in law but in practice, lifts the moratorium, because without this bill no applications for release will be approved. Under the current law, only applications for full release can be approved, a buffer zone cannot be set, a code of practice cannot be required, monitoring cannot be required, and no conditions at all can be required to protect the neighbours of the crop. There will be no approvals under the law as it stands. So if this bill does not go through, even I could accept the lifting of the moratorium—how about that! I know that, in practice, there would be no releases, and our objective has always been to prevent release into the environment.

We have all had some letters from members of the community who are pleading with us to keep the moratorium in force by amending this bill. The National Beekeepers Association has outlined very carefully its concerns that bees cannot be stopped from flying where they are meant to fly and cannot be stopped from picking up pollen, and it is really concerned that the geographic information system whereby bee-keepers are supposed to get their information then go to all the trouble of moving their hives somewhere else, only to find that somebody then grows a crop in the next paddock, is a completely impractical way to observe the recommendation of the royal commission that a strategy should be in place to protect bee-keepers. We have had letters from the Soil and Health Association, Organic Farm New Zealand, and from the Bio Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association setting out in detail their reasons that the legislation will affect them very badly.

We have had a letter from the Cystic Fibrosis Association stating that sound science saves lives, but not offering a single shred of evidence for what it is talking about. The association was asking for the moratorium to be lifted, but it did not give us any evidence, research, or argument.

Had I been able to speak to the title debate, I would have suggested that perhaps the bill should be called the “Regulatory System for Totally Hypothetical Things That Do Not Exist Yet Bill”. In fact, there are no GM crops that offer any benefits to the consumer or to the New Zealand economy. They are at least 5 years away, and we are setting up a regulatory system in this bill for things that do not yet exist. That is leading 68 percent of New Zealanders, our big food exporters, and everybody else I talk to, in the media and everywhere else, to ask what the hurry is and why we do not wait. For that reason I invite members to support the amendment from my colleague Mr Ian Ewen-Street that simply changes the date to 5 years hence, which will do us fine.

However, the Government has been so keen to see the moratorium expire that it has legislated to do it twice. A clause that was inserted in the bill at the last minute, that was not even in the officials’ report back to the committee, and that I discovered only after the committee had deliberated, provides for Part 5A of the Act, as inserted last year, to be repealed. New clause 39A provides for that part to be repealed when, in fact, it already has an expiry clause in it. So we are repealing it twice—so determined and so anxious is the Government that not a shred, not a skerrick, of moratorium could possibly remain after 29 October. That is a sign of true desperation.

There is no need for clause 2. There is no need for this bill. The bill would be OK if we put it on hold for 5 years, if we passed it with a 2008 date for it to come into force, and had 5 years to think about the amendments that we might need to pass before it actually happened.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) : I think I heard the point being made, that in fact the commencement of this bill will occur on 30 October, which is the day after the moratorium is lifted—not wiped out by law; Jeanette Fitzsimmons is absolutely right—on 29 October. This bill will come into force the very next day, on 30 October. There is quite a significant difference.

To me, one of the most important reasons for the lifting of the moratorium and, indeed, for the commencement of this bill is that, with some degree of luck and a fair wind, we may well see the hysteria that has been generated by the Greens over the commencement of this bill start to subside once the realities start to strike. I shall read an article on this subject from the New Zealand Herald on 10 July 2003: “A man described as ‘a brilliant scientist’ ”—we do not have too many in New Zealand—“has quit his job after breaching strict containment rules imposed to stop the spread of genetically modified organisms.

“Dr Richard Forster, who was chief scientist of the plant division at Genesis Research and Development, was suspended last month after he took willow plants from a containment facility in Parnell to his property … near Pukekohe. He chose to resign even though the willow plants had not been genetically modified.” That article illustrates vividly why we have to move forward, and relatively quickly, to stop this nonsense. I have not had time to find out what exactly has happened to Dr Richard Forster, but it seems to me that this country can ill-afford to lose scientists of this nature—“a brilliant scientist”, as he has been described in the New Zealand Herald.

On 30 October the science community will start to get a little bit of certainty surrounding the whole issue of GM crops and GM food, which seems to be occupying the minds of the Greens and a handful of other people at the moment. While we are talking about a specific date, I make the point that this technology is not new. It is not just 6 months old or a year old. We are talking about technology that is 30 years old.

Ian Ewen-Street: Rubbish!

GERRARD ECKHOFF: The Green member Ian Ewen-Street says “Rubbish!”. What a wonderfully descriptive term he uses! The first genetic modification, as I understand it, took place in America 30-odd years ago, when the ice-minus gene, as it was known, was inserted into strawberries. Other than Mr Ian Ewen-Street, I do not know of anybody who has turned into a strawberry parfait as a result of eating those strawberries. Thirty years is a heck of a long time to have some sort of stand-down period. In that time—and it is important to talk about time frames, because this part of the bill is talking about a time frame—over those 30 years, to my certain knowledge not even one person has become ill because of having eaten or ingested genetically modified food. Yet the Greens tell us that it is hugely dangerous, and too dangerous to release into the environment.

The Greens are perfectly happy to release products that are very closely related to marijuana. Those products come into this country without an environmental impact report. That seems to be perfectly acceptable to the Greens. We have the impact of kiwifruit in this country; in some areas it is decimating native forests. That seems to be OK. But when we talk about genetically modified products or organisms that may well have a huge future in this country, we are told that we should not proceed with releasing them.

I want to talk just briefly about another issue surrounding the importance of the enactment of the bill. It is a concern that I have as a member of the agricultural community. So few members of this country seem to understand—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) : It is a pleasure to participate in this debate, but I say that we are largely participating in an exercise of charades. I particularly challenge Mr Mark Peck on his contribution, and I want to recall a little bit of history as we approach the lifting of the moratorium.

I well remember during the 1999 election campaign when Labour members said that the regulatory regime was not nearly safe enough, that there were all these concerns about genetic technology, and that the big, bold Labour Party was going to save the nation with a moratorium.

Mark Peck: And we did!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I tell Mr Peck that the problem Labour has is that it has created the whip that it is now being flicked with as a Government. Right throughout 1998 and 1999, Labour members raised the concerns that the public had about gene technology, and now it is coming back to bite them on the bottom.

I tell Mr Peck that the truth is that the provisions provided in this bill change little. The vast bulk of these provisions have been in the operational plans of the Environmental Risk Management Authority all the way along. There is the odd provision that makes it worse, but the reality is that in 1999 we had a pretty robust and good regulatory regime, and the royal commission concluded that. The moment the moratorium was put in place it was always going to create a huge tension at the time it was lifted. It is not much different from when Sir Robert Muldoon introduced the old wage and price freeze—they are the easiest things in the world to put on, and they are the hardest things to take off. I say to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Marian Hobbs, that she should be honest—she played politics with this issue for all it was worth in 1998 and 1999, and she spent $6 million of public money on a royal commission. It added little to the argument.

Mark Peck: Have you read the report?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I have read every single page of the report. The thing that is interesting about it is that it added so little to what Ministers said. The Minister in the chair was one of a number of Labour members who ran around the country saying that a trial of 400 sweetcorn plants was irresponsible and that it was wrong, even though every single plant had to have a bag that was pollen-proof and waterproof. They said that we were taking extraordinary risks. Yet 12 months later when they found out that, in effect, 28,000 GM corn plants had been inadvertently introduced, they covered it up. They played secrets.

Members on this side of the House say: “Let’s be honest and upfront with New Zealand. We have GM in the food chain right now, we should be honest with the public about it, and it is no risk.” Members on this side of the House are not like the Minister, Marian Hobbs. When she was asked whether she would eat GM food, she said: “Ah, I don’t know.” What sort of answer is that from a Minister of the Crown in charge of our GM regulations?

I have to speak on behalf of members on this side of the House. If the food has been properly approved by the proper regulatory authority, I am happy to eat it because I have confidence in the regulatory authorities. It is a confidence I have had since 1996, when the legislation was passed, and it is a confidence that members on this side of the House continue to have. I say again to Mr Peck, to Ms Hobbs, and to the Prime Minister that they have got themselves in this pickle over GM because they have played politics when they should not have. If they want to run the science-based argument, why did they not run that argument in 1999? This has been an exercise in “rejiggery” for the Labour Party.

Mark Peck: What the hell is “rejiggery”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: What it means is that in 1999 Labour members raised the public’s fear about GM, but when they got into Government they had to try to control the dragon they had created themselves.

Mark Peck: Have you read my member’s bill?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member opposite is one of those in the Labour Party who made a huge deal out of the moratorium. They said that we had to have the moratorium because the controls were not good enough. Three years later what we have in this bill is very minor tinkering. I challenge members opposite to be a bit more honest about this issue.

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) : I move, That the question be now put.

IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) : I propose an amendment to this clause, to change the date on which it comes into effect to 30 October 2008. That will give us another 5 years. The reason for my amendment is that, as my colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons says, this is the bill that enables the so-called protections to be put in place for the expiry of the moratorium. The moratorium itself initially was put in place so that the recommendations of the royal commission could be enacted. That was a good idea. However, they have not been put in place. Many of the royal commission’s recommendations still have not been satisfied.

I can see the Minister smiling, but she knows that the recommended research, such as into horizontal gene transfer, has not been completed. Horizontal gene transfer is a reasonably technical subject that I do not want to delve into. However, it does involve the asexual transfer of DNA between bacterial species at a plasmid level—that is, plasmid DNA transfers not through sexual reproduction but just by proximity. We just do not know what the consequences of that will be. I have been informed that, as we stand now, the research on horizontal gene transfer is some years away from completion.

The Minister, Mark Peck, and others say that nothing is in the pipeline in terms of open release of GE into the wider environment. If that is the case, what is the hurry? Why do we have to do this right now? I know that Labour members have painted themselves into a political corner, but a test of their character would be for them to say: “We accept that we have made a mistake. We accept that what we thought we could do we are not able to do. Let’s put it off for 5 years. Let’s take the pressure out of the situation, and let’s get it all sorted out before we allow the moratorium to expire.”

Another of the recommendations of the royal commission that has not come to any satisfactory conclusion is the question of coexistence between genetically engineered and non-genetically engineered crops. I have heard the Minister talk about case by case situations. I have heard about buffer zones, and things like that. What interests me is the report commissioned by that other pro-GE person, Tony Blair, in the UK. He commissioned a report on coexistence. He wanted to prove to the public of Britain that coexistence was possible, and they should therefore listen to him. The report he got back—the report he himself commissioned—was highly embarrassing, because it proved beyond any doubt at all that coexistence could not happen; that it was a physical impossibility.

I have heard the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry mutter about a 5-kilometre buffer zone. That sounds reasonable. It does overlook a few facts, though. The first is that bees can fly more than 5 kilometres, and regularly do when they are foraging for pollen. Who will stop the bees from flying from a non-GE place into a GE place, and back again? Seriously, will we put up signs saying “No bees past this point.”? The bees do not care. Can the Minister come up with any solution? She is nodding. I am looking forward to hearing what the solution is. Can she also come up with a solution as to why pollen will not be borne on the wind for many, many kilometres? We get pollen from Australia arriving here on the wind. A 5-kilometre buffer zone will not stop that. One further question for Mr Peck, who, I am led to believe, is a highly intelligent man—

David Benson-Pope: That argument has gone right out of the window.

IAN EWEN-STREET: Okay, I have blown it—a 5-kilometre buffer zone is actually a 5-kilometre radius of a circle. A 5-kilometre radius circle—[Interruption] I withdraw and apologise for calling Mark Peck intelligent! A 5-kilometre buffer zone implies there is a 5-kilometre radius circle. A 5-kilometre radius circle has an area of 78 square kilometres. I want to know who owns the land in that 78 square kilometres.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : I would like to speak in favour of the amendment to the commencement date that my colleague Ian Ewen-Street has tabled, proposing that the enforcement of this Act be on 30 October 2008.

One of the points my colleague made is that the whole premise of the royal commission was that we could allow all the different forms of agriculture—and this is the premise of this bill, as well—happily to coexist. The whole premise was that we could allow farmers who practise conventional farming, organic farming, or GE farming happily to coexist. That is the premise on which the royal commission reached its conclusion, and it is the basic premise underlying this bill. The trouble is that in the years since the royal commission came to this fundamental assumption, the whole idea of coexistence has proved to be a fallacy, or, indeed, a fantasy.

I wish that the Minister for the Environment—and Gerry Eckhoff and many others—would visit Canada. Canadian farmers embraced GE. They believed all the hype and that it was possible for coexistence to occur. Now we have the head of the Canadian National Farmers Union going off to England and saying to the farmers there: “Don’t touch the stuff.” We have the head of the Canadian National Farmers Union and the head of the Canadian Wheat Board exhorting Monsanto to withdraw its application for growing GE wheat in Canada, because they do not want it and because they have found widespread contamination of GE canola and other crops in Canada.

As the former Canadian Minister for the Environment said when he came to New Zealand, if widespread contamination of GM crops with regular crops in Canada—where there are thousands of acres of prairie—cannot be avoided, then sure as hell it cannot be avoided here. In Canada they have come to the conclusion that the whole idea of creating separation distances, which is the premise of this bill, is a nonsense. The Independent Science Panel in the United Kingdom, after assessing all the science, also concluded that it is impossible to grow some GE crops without contaminating organic and conventional produce. The whole premise of the royal commission, and of this bill, is therefore a nonsense.

My colleague has pointed out that many, many recommendations of the royal commission have not been implemented. Let me read just one of them. Recommendation 10.6 states that all parties concerned will work to resolve the Wai 262 and the Wai 740 claims currently before the Waitangi Tribunal as soon as possible. To my knowledge, absolutely nothing has happened to resolve those claims.

• Progress reported.