Ewen-Street Ian: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Ewen-Street Ian: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8936] 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 The explanatory note recognises that there are “enforcement and liability issues” associated with the release of new organisms. The key point of this is that GE release may potentially result in harm to individuals or the environment that is not covered by present law. The explanatory note also goes on to describe how a new statutory strict liability regime will be put in place. It sounds great but it is just rhetoric. If members look at the bill they will see that it does not happen. It fails to deliver. 
The strict liability regime described in the explanatory note is limited to compensation for harm caused by activities in breach of the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation. If a GE release goes feral in some way there is liability only if the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation has been breached. If the law has not been breached there is no protection under statutory liability. In the event that say an application was in some way defective or perish the thought the Environmental Risk Management Authority made a mistake or there were unexpected adverse effects there is no liability. The applicant is within the law. 
The effects however on individuals or the environment are just as serious irrespective of whether they were foreseen or admitted by the applicant. Why should the Environmental Risk Management Authority provide what is effectively an insurance policy to private individuals who put in an application and gain consent to release genetically modified organisms for their personal gain when innocent members of the public have no protection? I think that that is a very reasonable question and members of the Committee should vote in favour of Jeanette Fitzsimons’ amendment. 
There are lots of types of damage that can be serious to the individual and one that I am not sure has been addressed is the idea of brand name. The wine industry for argument’s sake has spent millions of dollars promoting its “riches of the clean green land” brand. If there were a GE release in this country that for some reason went badly awry and this country became known as a GE country which it is in danger of doing what happens to the clean green image? It is very difficult to put a figure on that but it is none the less easy to establish that people have suffered damage. People have not broken any law yet they are being damaged and they have no protection in a legal sense. 
Basically the odds are stacked very heavily against the innocent. There is not even a requirement in this bill for the applicant to be a person of substance. It does not have to be a big company or a person who puts up a bond. The most likely scenario is that the people who put up the application will be a shelf company—“Monsanto No. 22 Shelf Company 1999 Inc.” So when something goes feral it goes out of business and that is the end of the story. 
I want to turn to section 124H(2)(c) which allows companies and directors to absolve themselves from liability if they “did not know and could not reasonably have known” of a breach. We have occupational health and safety legislation in this country. Surely the very least that a company engaged in GE release can do is to have a very very strict risk management programme. 
Simon Power 
: They will! 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: According to this legislation they will not. It needs to clearly identify all of the risk and set out the responsibilities the audits the staff training and the reporting requirements. It is not good enough for a company to say that it did not know of a risk because it did not bother to look for it. It is simply not good enough. The Minister should also pause and ask herself for a moment why it is that big companies want to do this in New Zealand. Why do they not do it in America? If they put a GE release out in America and something went wrong they would be sued to blazes. The liability regime in New Zealand is pathetic. That is why people want to do it here.