Anderton Jim: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Anderton Jim: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15197] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 We are away from new clause 2A I know but the speech has been given so I have no choice but to respond. Now we have the conspiracy theory to this point. These officials at the front of the Chamber have been waiting for the Court of Appeal to have a case that it makes a decision on which presumably they knew in advance and when the court makes that decision they will strike. So this is their strike! But having struck now they are going to strike again after the election! So which is it: are they striking now or striking after the election in collusion with the Court of Appeal? This is not my mad scenario I suggest to the member from the Green Party; it is what she is telling the Committee. This is lunacy if anyone thinks about it for more than 5 seconds. 
Here is the point. If this is so nefarious so dangerous and so bad why is the member of that party letting it go for another 18 months? She should be fighting against it right here and now to stop it now and it should be so bad that it could not possibly last another 18 months. Think of all the terrible things this conspiracy is going to do in the next 18 months! If the member adheres to her principles she would not want it in for 1 second let alone 18 months. But she is saying 18 months is OK but longer is not. 
An awful lot of damage can be done in 18 months but here is the point. What is the law? Let us get down to it. Here is what members are invited to vote for. They are invited to vote for incidentally imported new organisms to have certain requirements around them or not. The definition of incidentally imported new organisms is under clause 10(2). It clearly does not include “(a) an essential or constituent part of those goods: (b) imported in or on the goods with the intention of concealing the presence of the new organism:”. That is these are not allowed in. These are not allowed in. 
Thirdly what is not allowed in is a genetically modified organism—which the member has just told us is coming in. We are asked to pass a law that says it cannot and the member is voting against it so presumably she wants genetically modified organisms in here because this law says they cannot come in. What is wrong with that? If there is something about “cannot come in” that the Green Party does not understand if there is something about a genetically modified organism not being able to come in that the Green Party does not understand here it is in writing. I did not make this up; it is here printed for everyone to see. There is no conspiracy; it is clear as day. Why cannot the Green Party read that? It is pretty logical; even I—as a relative layperson in the biosecurity area—can understand that a genetically modified organism is not allowed. That is what the bill says. We are inviting the Green Party to honour its own policy. I do not think that is a hard call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I call the Hon Tariana Turia who I expect will talk on new clause 2A.