Parker David: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19296] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 This bill which has been drawn from the members’ ballot seeks to relitigate what this nation has been through ad nauseam over a very long period of time following the very lengthy Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. 
GE issues are difficult and serious health and safety issues do arise. There are difficult technical and scientific issues that are beyond the ability of many people to grasp because they do not have the training in the sciences that they need in order to get down properly to the nitty-gritty of the issues. 
The Government has all along taken the approach that issues like those which are so technically difficult ought to be decided through a robust process. That process started through the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification which was chaired by a High Court judge and which included representatives of the scientific community of ethicists—namely a minister of religion—and of representatives of tangata whenua. Their very very lengthy hearings and processes were thorough and anyone was able to submit to them. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: That’s not true. 
DAVID PARKER 
: I am sorry but it is true. I know of no one who was prevented from submitting and I know from having read many of the submissions that the full breadth of opinion was presented to the royal commission. 
I have no doubt that the commissioners were very well informed before they made the recommendations to Government that they did. The commission’s main recommendation was to proceed with a very strict regulatory regime but not totally to ban the potential future release of genetically modified organisms. Its recommendation was adopted by the Government. That recommendation was also the issue that was at the fore during the last election which this Government won so there is a mandate for the policy that has been put in place by this Government. 
It is worth noting the protections that are needed for the environment. I am one of those people who acknowledges that serious issues need to be addressed if and when any application is made for the release of a GE plant. But mechanisms are available through the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the legislation that created it to take properly into account the concerns that any interest group against the release of such plants might like to raise. 
There were criticisms about the robustness of the authority’s processes. Again those criticisms were highlighted by independent reviews and were not covered up. They were taken into account by the Government when it imposed an even stricter regime on the authority—so strict that one of the questions in the House today attacked the Government for the fact that the rules have become so strict no one can ever negotiate their way through them—that rather than being too lax they are too strict. 
I am comfortable with where we are at as a Government. We have a very strict regime under the Environmental Risk Management Authority. I do not want to relitigate what this Government and the public worked out in the 3 years prior to the last election so I for one will be voting against this bill.