Hutchison Paul: Third Readings 
Hutchison Paul: Third Readings 
[Volume:612;Page:9123] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 The passage of this legislation which regulates genetic engineering in New Zealand is extremely important for a variety of reasons. Firstly it is a litmus test as to whether political parties listened to the findings of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification a commission that was well regarded around the world for being comprehensive and thoughtful in its recommendations. But secondly it is also a litmus test as to whether New Zealand will allow a rational evidenced-based scientific approach to prevail in New Zealand. 
National is supporting this bill but with reservations. We are supporting it because we view it as fundamental that we approach biotechnology in its widest sense with the best tools available and that we are cautious but that we use best-practice risk analysis following that evidenced-based scientific approach. 
We are also supporting it because as a country that has depended on agriculture and horticulture for well over 100 years it is vital that we remain at the forefront of biotechnology. There are many reasons for this. The reasons are not only to progress and advance our primary products and add value to them but also to apply the most contemporary technology to the very real biosecurity risks and threats we are faced with every day in this country. If we look back to Captain Cook in 1769—I think it was his second trip—when he introduced the buck and the doe rabbit to Queen Charlotte Sound we see that we have had more serious threats to our biosecurity imposed during the 200 years since then than world-researched GE technology will ever present to New Zealand. 
The possibilities of biotechnology in a huge range of areas are vast. Not only does it encompass agriculture horticulture medicine and pharmaceuticals but it also provides very important tools to enhance and protect our environment. The royal commission absolutely explicitly drew attention to the fact that being GE-free in New Zealand was impractical and it is quite wrong for the Greens—or for that matter the Sustainability Council—to pretend that such a status for New Zealand is practical realistic or in our best interests. In the field of medicine alone if GE technology were not available to the thousands of diabetics in our country they would have to rely on pig insulin with enormous associated risks. In my own field of gynaecology women requiring reproductive treatment would have to rely on preparations made from pooled post-menopausal women’s urine rather than a highly purified GE-recombinant DNA preparation. In the case of the diabetics they would be highly likely to be exposed to the sort of infections we have with mad cow disease. 
The opportunity costs of making research difficult in this vital area of biotechnology should not be underestimated. In the first reading of this legislation Jeanette Fitzsimons as usual made great claims about food safety that she just cannot substantiate. She wants epidemiological studies that are not possible; no other foods have been subjected to the sorts of ridiculous studies she is calling for. It is curious that while the Greens want zero tolerance for GE foods and vaccines they themselves are happy to bring in herbal remedies willy-nilly and all sorts of other foods that have had absolutely no testing. I note that Mr Ewen-Street made fun of a certain cannabis compound—and he should not have. The Greens rationality and sincerity in this area just does not stack up. 
It is important to re-emphasise the findings of the European Commission which stated that after 15 years and 400 trials GE food was as safe as if not safer than conventional food. That finding was co-signed by 3500 scientists 13 Nobel laureates the World Health Organization the Royal Society and a whole variety of other highly reputable organisations. 
But what is important is the way forward. The royal commission emphasised that research is critical to New Zealand’s future. Even this afternoon in question time the Minister for the Environment shied away from the fact that medium and high-risk GE medical research in New Zealand will be made so much harder because of the added compliance costs she has insisted on. Labour has not only insisted on imposing compliance costs in the Resource Management Act but the Minister is making this legislation the biotechnology equivalent of the Resource Management Act. 
The Government has failed to listen to reasonable suggestions or to accept a comprehensive Supplementary Order Paper from National to diminish compliance costs and hurdles but instead has insisted on widening the call-in powers of the Minister to include cultural spiritual and ethical issues. That is over and above the royal commission’s suggestions of installing the Bioethics Council Toi te Taiao and the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s Maori advisory committee Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao. 
I am deeply concerned that the very thorough efforts of the Sustainability Council may backfire on New Zealand. It should listen to the mainstream producers in New Zealand who have supported the lifting of the moratorium and I cite Fonterra the forestry industry the meat producers Federated Farmers and many others. I do acknowledge that Zespri Heinz-Wattie and Sanitarium have a different view. However it is extremely important that options are kept open that we proceed with caution in a rational manner and that we do not resort to blunt instruments such as moratoriums. The Sustainability Council should take note that while Canada was increasing its area of GE crops to 15 million hectares its exports of beef to “highly sensitive to GE” Japan went up tenfold. That is the reality of the situation. 
Of course it is absolutely vital that we are extremely cautious with the possibility of any conditional release. This legislation underpins the fact that that caution will occur. The hurdles in this legislation are quite extraordinary and the reality is that commercial release will not happen without a compelling case. Given the outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome and of AIDS a few decades ago we should certainly have legislation and research in New Zealand that keeps open the possibility for us to be able to respond to that sort of outbreak in a rational scientific way. It keeps us at the forefront of this hugely important field of biotechnology. 
I end by saying that the National Party has consistently supported an approach that is evidence-based and that looks to science in a highly rational way. National is very conscious that it is hugely important for our New Zealand agriculture horticulture and biosecurity and for the enhancement of our environment to have legislation that is not entangled by the hurdles and compliance costs that I believe the Labour Government under pressure from the Greens has succumbed to. I welcome this era in New Zealand in which we at least have a rational evidenced-based scientific approach to biotechnology.