Smith Nick: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5345] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 In speaking to the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill I firstly must take issue with the Minister for the Environment who is developing a reputation as one of the most devious Ministers with regard to parliamentary process. I want to outline exactly why I hold those views. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not believe that that is acceptable parliamentary language and I ask that it be withdrawn. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not out of order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let me tell members why the Minister for the Environment is being devious. One would not have to be an Albert Einstein to recognise that the Green Party has some interest in genetic modification (GM). I would suspect that even if one were the most remote disinterested observer of New Zealand politics one would know that the Green Party has an interest. I have a very different view from the Green Party on the issue of GM but to deliberately send a bill that goes to the core of environmental policy to the one committee on which the Green Party is not represented can only be described as devious. The Labour Government which for 3 years depended on the votes of the Green Party to keep it in Government now wants to pull off that sort of a dirty trick. That is wrong. 
I say to Larry Baldock who supports that dirty trick that it is like saying that a bill on family issues—one that might be of importance to the United Future party—is to be sent to the one select committee on which his party is not represented. Would the member think that was fair? Would the member think that was good parliamentary process? Of course he would not. But that party—United Future—is being a party to parliamentary processes that are a complete abuse of Parliament. Let me ask Mr Baldock why this is going to the one select committee on which the Green Party is not represented. [ 
Interruption 
] Is that not interesting! I ask why that Minister is in bed with the United Future party on this issue when he argued strongly that the original hazardous substances and new organisms legislation had to go to an environment committee? I have it in  
Hansard 
. Why is this bill not going to the Local Government and Environment Committee? Can any Government member opposite tell me why legislation that amends the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is not going to the Local Government and Environment Committee? I say that one reason is that the Government is determined to thwart the process. 
The second challenge I have for the Minister is this: 18 months ago the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification released its report. The Minister has had over a year to sort out the Government’s policy yet now she wants to rush the parliamentary process. Having had so long to consider it as Minister and saying: “I can stuff around for months and months and months.” she now includes a rushed process in her motion on this bill. I ask the Minister how many times that will happen. I know of no other Minister in my 13 years in Parliament who has developed such an appalling reputation for abuse of Parliament. The Minister stands up as the schoolteacher in support of open democracy and then introduces a bill into the House that locks out any submissions whatsoever. That Minister keeps on abusing the parliamentary process and at the same time is introducing the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) and the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill which are all about consultation. I say to the Minister that she should start practising what she preaches. She cannot introduce bills into the House that demand proper process when she keeps breaking the rules and cheating. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I really object to that language. I have never cheated. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: You haven’t! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I sustain the objection. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let me tell members exactly what the Minister is doing. This is a bill about the environment and this Minister is not sending it to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I raise a point of order Speaker. This bill is about science. There is nothing wrong with sending legislation to the Education and Science Committee. I still object to that member calling me a cheat. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. It is a debatable issue. However I ask the member because the Minister has taken offence and I consider that to be a personal reflection under Standing Order 117 to stand and apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I apologise but that Minister cannot get away with the way in which she abuses parliamentary process. She brings the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2)—which we debated earlier today—into the House and shuts down submissions on it. She gives an instruction to the committee that we cannot hear from anybody but her officials and then has the cheek to introduce bills that are all about openness of process—everybody being involved. 
I say to the Minister that she should start practising what she preaches. I ask her why this bill is being sent to the one committee that does not have Green Party representation. Is that not a bit sneaky? Is that not a bit dirty? It would not take a guess to know that the Green Party has some issues about genetic modification. It is one of the biggest political issues of the last 5 years and this sneaky Minister moves that this bill be developed by the Education and Science Committee. When we were in Government the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Bill went to an environment committee but that Minister is intent not only on shortening the process but also on denying a party that has a legitimate interest in the process. That is an outrage and that Minister needs to have a damned hard look in the mirror about the way she is treating Parliament because she is disrupting all its processes and traditions for dealing with sensitive legislation. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Boo-Boo Minister. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is as my colleague Tony Ryall says. She is a “Boo-Boo” Minister by name and “Boo-Boo” Minister by nature. I then challenge the timing of these issues. I want to know from the Minister and from the Government—[ 
Interruption 
] Give them a little bit of stick and hold them accountable for the legislation they advance and Mr Benson-Pope starts to get all stroppy and sensitive! I want an answer to this question. How is it that the Government has 18 months to consider the royal commission report and now wants a truncated select committee process? The Minister should start treating Parliament with some respect. If she is to take 18 months to consider that report how does she now justify saying to the House and to the select committee that they cannot have the normal length of time to consider the bill? The reason I say to the Minister is that she not been on top of her job. She has not been keeping up. We should have seen amendments— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: The weakest link. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The weakest link my colleague Tony Ryall says and I suspect he is correct. 
I also want to point out to the House just how bureaucratic and costly the Government is making biotechnology. Effectively the Government is saying that it favours and is on the side of science; but in the next breath it says it is creating a regulatory regime that is so expensive and bureaucratic that it makes science well-nigh impossible. I say to the Minister that she may as well sign up to the Green Party’s policy of a GE-free New Zealand because she is putting such large expenses and processes in place that the only organisations that are likely to meet the costs will be the public sector science entities funded by the good old taxpayer. 
The fourth point I wish to make is this that again the Minister is having us chase spirits. There are clauses in this bill that ask us to take into account the spiritual effects of genetic technology. I thought we were to take a science-based approach. I thought we were to have legislation that allowed decisions to be made on the basis of the best science possible. I say to the House that it is an awful error of judgment for this Minister time and time again to roll legislation into this House that has us dealing with spiritual elements. How are we to have scientists courts and lawyers arguing about how you protect spirits with the Resource Management Act and now the new spiritual effects that must be taken into account under this hazardous substances bill? I want the Minister to explain. How does one protect the spirits? How can one when making a decision about whether to approve or not approve a genetic modification—or some other element contained in this legislation—possibly make judgments in that regard? 
We on this side of the House say that one should have respect for people’s spiritual beliefs but it should not be put in law. The Government is treading all over that and upsetting the balance by on the one hand saying it wants a science-based approach and on the other putting all of this sort of spiritual nonsense into law. It will add to the compliance costs and the uncertainty it will be a field day for lawyers and it will not serve New Zealand’s interests well. I say to the Minister that it is another boo boo another botch-up and another truncated select committee process. There are a few elements in this bill that have some merit but my goodness there is a lot more harm in it than good.