Peck Mark: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Peck Mark: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8862] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I want to take a call on this because—it does not need a lot of discussion in my view; the clause is very short but it does do exactly as Brian Donnelly said: it makes sure that once the moratorium lifts we have a regime in place that will manage the way in which hazardous substances around these particular new organisms are dealt with into the future. The only other option is for the moratorium to totally drift off into the wilderness and that is why the ACT party voted against the title and will probably vote against the bill. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: I voted against the title. 
MARK PECK 
: OK that member voted against the title. I suppose that is consistency and we do actually appreciate consistency in Parliament and I congratulate the member on that. But let me say this in response to Brian Donnelly’s concerns about whether people are ready to release and things of that ilk. It is important that when the moratorium is lifted there is a consistent understood and coherent regulatory regime around which genetically engineered research can be undertaken. Because the lead-in time on these matters is not short. Having spent some time— 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Why the hurry? 
MARK PECK 
: That member is one of those who would have said that electricity was a huge problem. Indeed the economic history of electricity shows that there was a good 20-year lead-in period before there was any significant positive economic effect for our economy. This technology like any other will probably have a very similar lead-in period. But as far as this is concerned I am saying that the scientific community needs an opportunity to plan its science into the future. The regime needs to be in place. It needs to be clearly understood. Otherwise we will see that those who seek to develop the technology in New Zealand will go elsewhere. That is clearly the significant problem that exists if we do not get this legislation passed and if we do not provide those who will seek to put their effort into developing new ideas—and not just the investment into developing new ideas—a clear understanding of how they can operate. 
I was privileged to have a look at three trials one at the Lincoln Centre for Resource Management one at the Forest Research Institute and one at Ruakura Research Centre. I want to talk about the potato trial which has been variously trashed by some of those who decided they wanted to go and breach the biosecurity of that particular trial. We are talking about a scientist who has dedicated 12 years of her life to that problem. Let me tell members about this scientist. She is not a mad scientist with long hair and bushy eyebrows; she has children. She actually wants this country to be a good place in which to bring up her children and there is no way she would go about developing something that would put her family at risk. 
I say to those who oppose this sort of technology that they cannot have it both ways—either on food or on medicine. I find it fascinating that in this debate we will never see someone who is opposed to this technology stand up and say that we should not let cystic fibrosis sufferers take advantage of the genetic engineering research in this country. But they will not let us eat a bit of genetically engineered corn. 
I say to the member who wanted to table her chips in the House the other day that she should have given them to me. I would have been into them—in hunks. I do not give a brass rat’s whether they are genetically modified or whether it is conventional. I am absolutely certain that I have eaten genetically engineered corn when I have been overseas. I say to those members that it really is time they grew up and realised that this technology provides us with some significant advantages in the way we will operate in the future. We have some of the smartest scientists in New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] I thank Sue Kedgley who has just given me some chips. I appreciate that. They are great stuff. Could I pass them around? I just want to make the point that we need to encourage our scientists to develop their experiments. We need to ensure that we are able to take advantage of technology because I would hate in 20 years’ time to find us sitting down and saying: “Oh deary me. Why did we miss the boat?”.