Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8326] 
8.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: How does she reconcile her statement on National Radio on 11 July 2002 that “ERMA was in with MAF advising Ministers from the outset and the advice we got was that there was no GE contamination.” with the statement by Dr Basil Walker Head of the Environmental Risk Management Authority on 12 July 2002 that “I should make it clear that at no stage have we said categorically there was no contamination.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I was referring to the advice Ministers had received which was that there was no reliable evidence of contamination. Presumably Dr Walker was making the point that unless one destroys every single seed one can never be 100 percent sure. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the Minister for the Environment in giving evidence to the select committee said that there was a significant difference between saying that there was no contamination and saying that there was no evidence of contamination does she now concede that what she said on National Radio was incorrect and will she be re-examining her conscience? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do have the transcript from that particular  
Morning Report 
 where I said: “Firstly I can state categorically that the tests confirmed there was no evidence that there was GE contamination.” I later went on to leave out the words “no evidence” but I really think it is neither here nor there. As the member knows unless we destroy every seed we will never know. I note that on 11 July and in other places where Dr Walker was interviewed he said: “The conclusion we reached”—that is the Environmental Risk Management Authority—“was that there was no reasonable case for assuming that genetically modified contamination had occurred.” There was no evidence. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In view of her admission to the House today that her earlier claim that documents were not withheld was incorrect and in view of her false claim on National Radio on 11 July: “The advice we got was that there was no GE contamination” will the Prime Minister retract her invitation to the Hon Nick Smith to examine his conscience—as requested by him—and instead look in the mirror and examine her own conscience? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Most certainly not. I have yet to be presented with any evidence that that corn was contaminated. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: In that same National Radio interview she said: “I am sitting here Sean looking at the sampling sheet that came back. There is no positive test revealed. Every inquiry we have made of officials confirms there were no positive tests”. How does that compare with the fact that there are 38 documents from different agencies referring to positive tests and having gone through 1800 pages of documents I cannot find the sampling sheet that she was referring to? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My advice is that there was no credible evidence of positive tests. I well recall the slip of paper I was looking at. There were two columns and one had to have presence proved in both to go on to run another test as I recall to show conclusively a positive. There was never such conclusive evidence. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: With the advantage of hindsight and after reading again the memos that were written at the time will she now agree that the evidence from the corn tests—which included some positive and some negative indications—was inconclusive rather than that it proved no contamination? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is not my understanding. My recollection is that we had to have a line-up of positives. It was not just enough to have one indication; one had to have matching indications. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table 38 documents that refer to positive tests. I also seek leave to table the transcript in which the Prime Minister said there were no positive tests. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is next sought to table the transcript. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is unclear—Mr Mark Peck—I want to be clear as to whether I can table the document. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard an objection quite clearly twice. Objection was taken. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: In view of the case that this inquiry is hinging centrally on the nature of the testing that was done in Melbourne and the nature of those preliminary positive results from tests that were never quite completed can the Prime Minister offer us any help at all in getting the seed company responsible and the testing laboratory to give evidence to the committee? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think the member asked me a similar question last week. I do not have the power to make them appear at all.