Donnelly Brian: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — First Reading 
Donnelly Brian: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5338] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 Bill English the leader of National dwelt a bit in his speech on the select committee that the bill is to be sent to. I could say that that is probably because of the quality of the chairpersonship within that select committee but I will not. The reality is that when the last bill which put on the moratorium came before the House and was slightly modified for the Government it was sent to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. One would have assumed that bill would go to the Local Government and Environment Committee and it was pretty transparent as to why the Government did not send it to that committee. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Why was that? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: The reason for that was pretty transparent even though it had to be explained to Ken Shirley at the time. In this particular case however it should be pointed out that whilst this bill is to go to the Education and Science Committee—and we do not have any objection to that and realise there are members on that select committee who were on the Finance and Expenditure Committee review—the thing to note is that the Greens do not even have a vote on the Education and Science Committee. 
The House really has to ask itself what is behind that strategy which leaves the Greens in a very awkward situation. That party said that it would bring down the Government if it was to lift the moratorium. The Green Party has been slapped in the face by this particular manoeuvre so will it continue to support on a case by case basis any legislation this Government puts through that United Future may object to? I leave it to members of the House and to people listening to this debate to consider whether that does not put the Greens in a real quandary. 
New Zealand First is a centrist party and as a result of that when it comes to any of these particular issues we need to balance up the competing interests and to consider them from there. We certainly did so when it came to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. We assessed that it had come to some very very sound and sensible conclusions and therefore we were prepared to support the Government’s position on the royal commission’s findings. Although the royal commission did not specifically state that a moratorium should be put on it did imply that by stating that before any releases were made certain work needed to be done. Obviously that work had to be done over a period of time so therefore there was the implication that there would be some sort of delay in any approval of applications. 
Once again New Zealand First did not see that as being an unsound process although it seems to have taken an inordinate amount of time. The key issue in that legislation—and it was not there and did not exist before—was that under the existing legislative framework there was no category of conditional release. An application would go in and it was either a question of complete release or non-release because there was no halfway shop. That seemed a rather silly arrangement. 
For example PPL Therapeutics has a contained experiment in sheep; it has a flock of 2500 genetically modified sheep in the mid-Waikato. The world has not caved in as a result of that and rather than having concerns about the sheep getting out PPL Therapeutics is more concerned about some randy rams from outside getting inside its valuable stud. The issue is that if PPL Therapeutics wanted to proceed on a commercial basis and wanted to put in an application in the legislative environment prior to this it would have had to put an application in that applied across the whole country. PPL Therapeutics does not necessarily want to do that; it wants to keep the experiment limited for the time being. The potential gains that may come from that particular project would provide relief for people with cystic fibrosis and emphysema. Anyone who knows anything about cystic fibrosis knows it is a very very cruel malady and we should be doing anything we can to assist in providing relief from it. 
The unfortunate situation with regard to those who would put a blanket ban upon all genetic engineering (GE) work within New Zealand is that those very opportunities would be missed. That is why it is essential that this legislation goes through. It puts in place the conditions under which the moratorium can be lifted. I attended a “biopharming” seminar last Monday and what came out of it was very interesting. Neil Barton said that it was highly unlikely—impossible—that there would be large-scale cropping of GE crops in the foreseeable future. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Absolutely impossible? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: He did not say absolutely impossible and that is be fair enough. It is highly unlikely because large-scale cropping does not make any economic sense. In fact what will occur is the small-scale stuff with conditions around it in the field of “biopharming” biotechnology and bioreactors etc. That work is already at the experimental stage and could be moved on. 
But there is another issue in this particular field as to why it is so important that this legislation goes through even though there are one or two areas that I have to point out we have some concerns about. That issue is that the economic benefits of this new technology will not go to the people out on the farms; they will go to the people with the intellectual property rights. If we lose our opportunities to keep up the intellectual property rights—and we are very good at creating intellectual property—we will lose opportunities for the future. Marian Hobbs has talked about best-case and worst-case scenarios economically. I think we do have to keep a very close eye on the economic modelling because it depends upon the assumptions and the models we use as to what the consumers’ reaction is expected to be in different countries overseas. 
If there is a concern felt by New Zealand First it is the fact that when the Environmental Risk Management Authority makes a case by case decision there is no requirement for the authority to make any consideration of any potential economic impact whether good or bad. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: There is. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: OK. One of the things I say to the Minister is that when we go through this bill we will scrutinise it rigorously. We will do that over another particular issue and that is whether the processes that are put in place will allow for frivolous litigation by groups like Mothers Against Genetic Engineering purely and simply on an ideological basis to hold up worthwhile projects just by putting in submissions through the public process. That cannot be allowed to happen. 
There are two things that the royal commission suggested needed to be done prior to any release. The first was to do further work on horizontal gene transfer and I would have to say we would be much more comfortable if some of the work had proceeded a little bit further down the track because that is still an unresolved issue. The second suggestion—and it was reported at the symposium on Monday—relates to a piece of research around pollen spread and trying to find out what the movement of plant materials is that is being carried out by Lincoln University. Obviously that is very reputable research. However it has only just been commissioned. That is the sort of information the Environment Risk Management Authority needs right now when it is making its decisions. We have to ask why the Government has delayed commissioning some of the research that is quite important for the authority in terms of being able to make its conditional judgements. Baz Walker told the symposium that it is highly unlikely that anyone will get an unconditional release application approved at this point in time. It was good to hear that given the parameters in which he is operating he could not see the likelihood of that occurring in the immediate future. 
Finally I say we have genuine concerns about the call-back processes around the issues called “spiritual” because that term is actually ambiguous. It has two particular meanings and depending upon which one of those meanings someone is utilising mischief could be made. We have for example a secular education system but we still talk about promoting “spiritual values” and it is not religious spiritual values but values of a different nature that are being promoted in this bill. I believe it is really important that we look at that word and at what it actually means to different people in order to ensure we do not have mischief made as a result of the wording of this legislation. 
Nevertheless I say New Zealand First will be supporting the bill and we guarantee it will be given the scrutiny that is justified throughout the select committee process.