Hutchison Paul: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8929] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to speak on the commencement in Part 1 of this very important New Organisms and Other Matters Bill. Undoubtedly the commencement ushers in a new era of change from the moratorium that was imposed somewhat blindly but certainly bluntly by this Labour Government. It welcomes in an era in which there is a glimmer of hope that there will be an evidence-based scientific approach to new organisms in New Zealand. I say there is a glimmer of hope; National is supporting the bill only because of this fundamental scientific evidence-based approach that Labour is attempting to achieve but the glimmer of hope is somewhat shadowed by the fact that the bill is entangled in compliance costs and hurdles with particular reference to medium and higher-risk research. As I said earlier on the bill does streamline low-risk research but that should have happened 2 years ago when there was an opportunity with the earlier amendment bill. The Labour Government chose not to do it then which is very regrettable. 
However what is important is that one of the fundamental recommendations of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification was that it was critical for New Zealand’s future that research is continued. Here is a bill in which medium and higher-risk research is entangled in compliance costs and other such hurdles that are reminiscent of the difficulties that organisations like AgResearch had when they came to put in their applications. 
But the commencement of this bill has also highlighted the way that the Greens get themselves into a huge frenzy—a more or less maniacal morris-dancing mentality to which they have certainly risen on this occasion with some extraordinarily extravagant claims and often some very inaccurate claims. This is absolutely related to the commencement because in Jeanette Fitzsimons’ speech on the second reading we heard her say that there had been no testing done on GE foods. That is patently absurd. In fact the European Commission in its report pointed out that GE food is as safe as if not safer than conventional food because of the evidence of 400 different trials taken over 15 years. That statement was countersigned by 3500 scientists including 13 Nobel laureates and further countersigned by such organisations as the World Health Organization the United Nations the Royal Society and a whole host of other highly reputable organisations throughout the world. 
 I think that despite Jeanette Fitzsimons making these somewhat absurd and superficial claims it is important that she does look to mainstream peer-reviewed international literature for the evidence. It is quite clear that mainstream peer-reviewed international evidence shows that there have been no problems with food safety over the last decade. The evidence is quite clear in this country where we have been eating GE foods for 10 years that there have been no food safety problems. 
But this commencement also ushers in what one could describe as the era of the mediaeval Druid approach of the New Zealand First Party. Once again that party has almost reflexly chosen the populist road and wanted to extend the moratorium. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Ian Ewen-Street to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “30 October 2003” and substitute the words “30 October 2008”.