Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:611;Page:8239] 
5.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does she stand by her statement of 24 July 2002 that the “Government never deviated from its policy of zero tolerance for GM contamination in seed imports.”? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s head of biosecurity and the Ministry for the Environment’s head of hazardous substances and new organisms write a briefing paper to her on 24 May 2001 stating: “We have had to change the policy from December 2000 which was for a defined level of tolerance of GM because it was not consistent with the legislation”; how could they advise that unless there was a contamination tolerance that broke the law? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I understand that briefing paper also notes that back in November 2000 tests on seeds that had come into the country could not confirm that GM seed was present. It also states that Cabinet noted in December 2000 that inspection systems were being developed and that on 19 December I announced publicly that testing would be put in place to detect the presence of GM seed to the extent possible. The briefing paper shows the Government never deviated from its policy of zero tolerance of contamination. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Is the Government’s policy still one of zero tolerance of GM presence in seed imports? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes. The Government is very clear about its policy—unlike others in this House—because contrary to Dr Smith Dr Hutchison keeps calling for us to introduce a tolerance level for GM seed. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister is not responsible but I would be happy to seek leave to make a full statement of National’s policy if the House were interested. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was making a comment which was a very short one. She finished what she had to say. The next supplementary question can take place. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Could the Minister please explain to the House how she continues to claim a zero tolerance policy when two organisations she has responsibility for the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the MAF Biosecurity Authority have both signed a memorandum of agreement that clearly states that the certification of imported seed allows for a tolerance of GM contamination of up to 0.5 percent? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Without actually looking at that particular quote in front of me I know that this Government allowed for a 0.5 percent tolerance of uncertainty and a zero tolerance of contamination. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I seek leave to table the memorandum of understanding which might help the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member could have raised this at the end of the question. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How does the Minister explain the memo from Bas Walker the Chief Executive Officer of the Environmental Risk Management Authority on 6 December 2000—the day the decision was made to allow the corn to grow—in which he stated: “Our conclusion is that measured against a contamination tolerance of 0.5 percent that existing material is acceptable i.e. it contains to a high level of probability less than 0.5 percent contamination. On this basis there is no case for destroying the grain or the crops. All of this however hangs off the acceptability of a 0.5 percent tolerance level. My assumption is that the Cabinet paper being prepared will seek Ministers’ agreement to this.”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That question was a little long but I will allow it. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The Cabinet paper quite clearly says to us that we will have a zero tolerance of contamination. We do accept a tolerance of uncertainty. I repeat again as I said in the House the other day one can have 100 percent certainty that there is no contamination only by testing every seed and by destroying every seed. Scientists will not accept any test that says it can guarantee that—that 100 percent tolerance of certainty. 
Larry Baldock 
: Was the Minister ever confused about the difference between a legal tolerance for the presence of GM and the accuracy threshold of scientific tests for the presence of GM; if not can she explain that difference for the benefit of those who do appear to have the two confused such as Dr Nick Smith? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question is all right. The second is ruled out. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No I was always clear that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act required zero tolerance of known GM seeds and to have been otherwise would have required me to change the Act. But I was also clear that there were limits to the testing. Testing could show down to a level of 0.5 percent that no GM seed was present. The two tolerances that are being confused throughout this whole hearing—by the authors of the book and by some of the people writing to each other in memos but never by this Government—is the zero tolerance of contamination that this Government held to and the 0.5 percent tolerance of uncertainty. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister expecting the House to believe that the head of biosecurity in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the head of hazardous substances and new organisms implementation within the Ministry for the Environment had it wrong when they advised her: “The initial approach by officials in December 2000 was to define a low level of acceptable GM presence. This was not consistent with the HASNO Act which does not allow any unapproved GM organisms. Our new approach is to reject any consignment that tests positive for presence of GM material.”; and how can that be interpreted in any way other than there was an allowable level of GM contamination? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: What officials may argue is very different from the policy that the Government followed. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Could the Minister consider the memo from Ruth Wilkie to the Prime Minister on 28 May 2001—in which Ms Wilkie said: “There is a change of approach from that in December last year. Any positive test now will mean that the seed lot will be rejected.”—and tell the House what the change was that was being referred to? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I believe that Ms Wilkie was also confused—and said so in the committee of inquiry—between the notions of tolerance of contamination and tolerance of uncertainty. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that Dr Basil Walker who is in charge of the Environmental Risk Management Authority has said there was an acceptable level of tolerance noting that Dr Ruth Wilkie from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has said there was an acceptable level of contamination noting that Steve Vaughan— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please come to the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: —who is in charge of the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation within the Minister’s own department has said there was an acceptable level of contamination as has the head of biosecurity— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have allowed the member to use the word “noting” in three examples. I said that the third one was sufficient and he will now come to the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Are we to believe that the head of the Environmental Risk Management Authority the Prime Minister’s adviser and the head of biosecurity in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry have all got it wrong; if so how can we possibly have any confidence in the systems of biosecurity this country is running if the Minister is the only one with it right? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: There are two points I would like to make. In the member’s preliminary question before he made a second attempt at the question he was talking about levels of contamination levels of tolerance and levels of something else. Those are the kinds of arguments and the kind of misuse of terms that have been used by officials. The fact that we have clarity in our policy and absolutely zero tolerance in terms of knowingly accepting any genetically modified organism into this country has not changed since the day the Act was passed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If this is the same Minister who told the Local Government and Environment Committee that she had not read the Hager book because she did not want to contaminate her memory and who admitted that she wrote an article criticising the book—then could not remember whether she had written that article but could remember that she had certainly approved it—how are we to understand the workings of her mind over those minds of obviously qualified officials? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Mr Hager’s allegations were well canvassed in the media at the time and I heard them all. Once the facts had been checked I was easily able to rebut his allegations of a cover-up because there was no cover-up. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a briefing paper to the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Biosecurity on 24 May that refers to the contamination policy as being illegal. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a briefing note to the Prime Minister from Ruth Wilkie saying the policy needed to be changed because it was unlawful. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.