Hobbs Marian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19287] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 The Labour Party will be opposing the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill. I want to remind members why we instituted a moratorium that prevented the Environmental Risk Management Authority from considering or approving applications to release genetically modified organisms. Labour assumed Government late in 1999. We had made a commitment to hold an inquiry or a royal commission into how New Zealand coped with the technologies surrounding genetic modification. One of the differences I suppose between the Labour thinkers in the Labour Government and the Green thinkers is that our minds were open. They were not predetermined. We are thinkers. 
The royal commission sat and produced a four-volume report much of which we have discovered has remained unread by many people. It made a number of recommendations including law change and research. We needed time to enact the recommendations of the royal commission. That is why we had a moratorium on the release of genetically modified organisms. The moratorium was set to end on 29 October 2003 and it did. People undressed in this Chamber and lay naked on the lawn but the lifting of the moratorium did not result in flying pigs or potatoes with frogs’ legs as I can remember some of the advertisements portraying. It was absolutely the epitome of mis-education which really antagonises me as a teacher and as a believer in veritas. In fact no GMOs have been fully or even conditionally released in this country. Is there any acknowledgment of that by the Greens? Not on your nelly! They want to tell people that GMOs are all around them escaping under their chairs and in their mattresses. 
The Environmental Risk Management Authority has had no new applications for genetically modified organisms. It has focused on hazardous substances. During the endless debates I was told that supermarkets overseas featured GM-free products. In the summer of 2003 I went on a private visit to Ireland and I drove my daughter mad. At every town we stopped in we went into Tesco or whatever supermarket was there and around the shelves we went. I found fewer numbers of shelves containing organic foods than in the supermarket in Thorndon. One day in Tesco I found one cornflakes packet that stated in its small print that it contained no genetically modified organisms. Not only that I stayed on organic farms and discussed all these issues with the people there. I was not convinced of the strength of that marketing argument. 
I listened to the speech made by my good friend Ian Ewen-Street who talked about the human genome project. 
He said as though it were news that it told us that it is not a precise measurement that it is now clear that genes do not work in isolation and that it is complex. OK—is that not fabulous? Is that not absolutely fabulous? A key to 21st century biology will be understanding molecular regulation at a network level. Is that not beaut? That is a new way of moving forward. Is it not fabulous that we have a convergence of disciplines just as we have had in engineering? 
Why is it scary that we now have chemical genetics epigenetics and this convergence of new disciplines? I am not afraid of new knowledge. I embrace new knowledge. That is the real essence of learning. That is what I did as a principal by the way. My problem with this whole opposition to technology from the Greens is their conviction that they know that X is wrong. It is so non-scientific to say hand on heart: “I know it is wrong.” God save us! 
Rod Donald 
: So nuclear power’s safe too is it? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I will come to nuclear power. Then the member talked about the losses of some companies. But let us go to the point that those members have been asking for. I read an article written by Ian Ewen-Street that stated: “Let’s wait until we get to the fork in the road.”—the fork in the road being maybe the difference between genetic modification and smart breeding. I say to the member who laughs all the time that I prefer a case by case approach over blanket moratoriums. A case by case approach allows us to use our brain and to say that OK maybe this is not the time to genetically modify every dairy cow in the country. Also the two approaches that are being used on that fork in the road refer only to crop production. They are not about genetic modification which is used in a far wider way with animals and in other agencies. 
Finally what about the waiting? What about those moratoriums that are waiting until we reach the fork in the road? That is like telling us to wait until climate change happens before we do anything about it. That is a bit like telling us to say: “There is a cyclone coming. Oh my God—we’re in the Cook Islands!” and then telling us not to do what the wonderful people in the Cook Islands did which was manage the risk. That is what we are on about: risk management. 
There is another thing that those members sometimes complain about. Another Green member said that we should not be giving money towards looking at genetically modifying rye grass. That work of course is happening in Australia. Again those members say: “Don’t invest.” Well maybe it is too late. If we have the attitude that we know everything and that all those potential answers are wrong maybe it will then be too late to invest and to come up with an answer as to how we can reduce methane emissions through improved rye grass. That is a possibility. The member says: “No no I wouldn’t possibly look at that.” so the member is denying a solution to another problem. I do not want to make a personal comment but if the member had my hair colour he would know that things are no longer black and white and that is the nature of science and the nature of knowledge. 
There is another way of looking at this too. If we are looking at genetically modified rye grass—which I say to all listeners is not about to happen in New Zealand today; it may be 7 or 8 years before the research in Australia ever bears any fruit if it bears any fruit—and if we said that we would not look at any of those issues at all there might be an answer that we would miss about growing better animals so that there are fewer animals on the western side of Taupo and less nitrate going into our waterways because we are managing the issue more effectively. In other words if we were to stop research altogether and say: “I know it all. I know that genetic modification as a technology is absolutely wrong. I know it all.” we would deny any chance to answer a number of problems. 
I come to nuclear technology which is pretty dear to my heart. Yes there is a simplistic slogan that says “Nuclear-free New Zealand” but it is about weapons and it is about energy. Every one of us who goes into a hospital and has radiation treatment is subjected to the use of nuclear technology. In a whole number of ways we use nuclear technology. To say that we think any science or technology should be totally banned is absurd. Yes it is true that in New Zealand we do not need nuclear energy—I could probably have an argument with my good friend from ACT on that matter. However there is an even better reason for our stance which I explained to somebody the other day. As members may have seen if they read the  
New York Times 
 this morning President Bush has said that he will control all the sources of enriched uranium in the world whether it be for weapons grade or for energy grade. That would make us fairly dependent and we would become price-takers rather than price-makers. I would rather go into renewable energy. 
I am saying that there is no way to wipe out a whole technology so there is no analogy in saying that genetically modified - free equals nuclear-free. We said “nuclear-power free” we said “nuclear-weapons free” but every one of us who has a mammogram is subjected to the use of nuclear technology. Is that not right? Why do we not therefore choose case by case where we go with genetic modification rather than choose this absolutely slap-on and denying approach? I was brought up knowing about Galileo and about what the Pope did to Galileo when he said that he was evil because he tried to think outside the square. The Greens are like the Pope of that time who said: “There is only one answer. I know it and I have all the secrets.” That is so arrogant! This is about veritas it is about truth and it is about managing the risk.