Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8189] 
4.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: In what ways has the Government honoured Labour’s 1999 election policy that they would “ensure that agencies with responsibility for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) including GM foods are accountable and involve the public in decision-making processes”? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 We achieved that through among other things increasing funding to the Environmental Risk Management Authority by 35 percent and implementing the recommendations of the Environmental Risk Management Authority review to ensure it can carry out its task. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Where is the accountability when she promised extra tests which did not exist; when she wrote an article damning a book which she did not read; when she said there was zero tolerance when all the papers state there was 0.5 percent tolerance; when she said there was no contamination when the head of the Environmental Risk Management Authority said: “You couldn’t say there was no contamination.”; and given all those errors why do we not see some accountability by her resigning? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: This may be a long reply. I will not attempt to deal with all the four objections but let us deal with the first one. The first matter I was accused of then was of not following the policy of zero tolerance. At no time did the Government in the area of November-December 2000 decide to break the rule—the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act—by deliberately allowing and knowingly allowing any new organisms to enter the country. The policy of zero tolerance was followed through to the letter. 
On the question of no contamination—I think that is what I heard—and whether I could say there were no seeds that were contaminated at no stage did we ever say that although in shorthand time in some arguments one will find that people say “no contamination”. When the Environmental Risk Management Authority was asked this question it said that one can never say that one is absolutely positively sure that no seeds have entered the country unless one tests every seed. In the testing of every seed one destroys every seed. The question that the officials were arguing about and trying to explain to people out there and to Ministers and to Cabinet was setting the statistical limit of tolerance to be able to detect down to 0.5 percent. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Does the Minister have confidence that agencies with responsibility for genetically modified organisms can carry out their responsibilities after the expiry of the moratorium on applications for general release? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes. Parliament imposed the moratorium to enable the Government to implement recommendations of the royal commission and to ensure the Environmental Risk Management Authority has the tools to do its job. The work included revising the law to include conditional release and that is the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill before the House; the strengthening of liability which is also in the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill before the House; a review of the Environmental Risk Management Authority; and a biotechnology strategy for New Zealand—to name a few. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Given the answer to the previous question will the Minister confirm that the Government has demanded that the Environmental Risk Management Authority develop more robust tools for analysis of economic cost benefits and risks but that officials do not have to report back until 31 October 2004 creating a 2-year vacuum from the time of the expiry of the moratorium? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: With due respect the questioner is actually confusing two different pieces of work. The Environmental Risk Management Authority has been working to strengthen its current decision-making methodology to take economic considerations into account and will have finished that strengthening of that work by the time the moratorium expires in October. Treasury and other people are involved in ongoing work which it is only wise to do on any possible monitoring of the markets out there in terms of economic impact. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Could the Minister please explain to the House what she meant when she told the Local Government and Environment Committee this morning that she resisted the temptation to read important technical reports because it might contaminate her thought processes and memories? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I will give a serious answer. When in 2002 a book was published that included reference to many papers and many arguments I decided at that time to concentrate absolutely on what had been given to me what had been told to me and what had been reported to me so that it was therefore a process of my decision-making and my advice to my colleagues in Cabinet—rather than reading all the reports and arguments that occurred between officials. There is a difference between argument between officials and advice officials give to Ministers. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Why did her officials involve the corn seed industry and its scientific and public relations advisers in the decisions about how to interpret test results and what to do about the Novartis corn that had been planted but not involve the organics industry or the neighbours of the farms where it had been planted? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I am not actually responsible for whom my officials engage with but I would make the point that officials did talk because it was the industry that raised the issue with the officials and they communicated backwards and forwards on that. It was not a decision about whether we pulled out the genetically modified corn. Because there was no genetically modified corn there was no need and there was no threat to the organic farmers next door. 
Larry Baldock 
: With regard to Labour’s 1999 election policy is the Minister prepared to be publicly accountable by using her call-in powers under the Hazardous Substances and Other Organisms Act if after the moratorium expires in October the Environmental Risk Management Authority receives an application that may have significant effects on the New Zealand economy? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Once the Environmental Risk Management Authority can receive applications on the release—in other words once the moratorium has been lifted—I will be advised of applications as they are received. In fact I am currently advised of applications as they are received. I am prepared to call in an application that may have significant economic impacts. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the Minister by my count on 23 occasions has said that there was no cover-up what is deliberately withholding from public release an important gap in the paper trail if it is not a cover-up? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I had released from my ministry all the documents that were known at the time. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: With reference back to the primary question about involving the public in decision making in what ways will she involve the 68 percent of the public who do not want the moratorium lifted in decisions about that moratorium? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I think that this Government has done the absolute ultimate. It has set up a royal commission which is the highest body we have for giving advice to the Government. That royal commission gave us the advice 2 years ago to proceed with caution. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the Minister deflected my earlier question about her repeated statements that there has been no cover-up and that a key document was not released can she simply answer how deliberately withholding an important gap in the paper trail as the Government did is not a cover-up? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I am making a presumption here because which document it is has not been stated in the House in that question. I presume the member is referring to the document from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. I undertake that that document was advice on top of a Cabinet paper so it does not add any significance. However it was explained very clearly this morning by the chief executive officer of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet when he was giving the reasons that he withheld that document. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister say to Parliament that the document was of no significance when the official who attended more meetings than any other Ruth Wilkie said in a note to the head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet that it left an important gap in the paper trail.? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: There were two documents and I understand that the document that is sometimes quoted by Dr Smith is a document that is the cover page which adds no more information than is in the Cabinet paper that was released to the public.