Hutchison Paul: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — First Reading 
Hutchison Paul: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5348] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
:  
Undoubtedly the outcome of this bill is hugely important to New Zealand and hugely important to science. National will be supporting the bill going to the Education and Science Committee but with grave reservations. Those reservations are very much about the onerous process provisions in this bill because unless this bill is substantially and wisely amended at the select committee it stands the chance of becoming the Resource Management Act of biotechnology. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: On steroids! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Maybe; that is absolutely right. Undoubtedly the most contentious aspects of this bill are the provisions that relate to conditional release and to the lifting of the moratorium on 31 October which will allow commercial release. But what are the realities of this actually happening? Only last week at a “biopharming” conference held at the Royal Society Dr Basil Walker of the Environmental Risk Management Authority said that there was little chance of any commercial release occurring in the medium term. Presumably the medium term means 1 to 4 years. I also understand that the reality of unconditional release is that there is likely to be only two or three applications. They are likely to be highly monitored almost akin to the monitoring of a field trial. So perhaps this is taking a bit too far the royal commission’s advice to proceed with caution. 
It is important to remember what the royal commission did say about the new category of conditional release. It said it was a further assurance of safety to enhance the management of risk. But this bill on its application by the regulatory body the Environmental Risk Management Authority undoubtedly has to allay public concern through its scientific rigour. But I have absolutely no doubt that the process that it contains needs substantial and serious amending in order to allow both affordable research and timely research to be carried out in New Zealand. 
It is relevant that the royal commission did state that continuation of research is critical to New Zealand’s future. In its growth and innovation strategy this Labour Government chose biotechnology as one of the ways that New Zealand would add value to its primary commodities and thus help lift us into the top half of the OECD. It is highly relevant that around the world competing countries are pouring huge amounts of money into biotechnology. Singapore for instance—the size of Lake Taupo and with no dependence on primary products—has a multibillion-dollar programme for biotechnology alone. Singapore describes its commitment to biotechnology as the fourth pillar of economic growth in that country. Australia also has committed vastly greater resources than New Zealand both publicly and privately to this field of biotechnology. 
But what is in huge contrast to New Zealand’s legislation is that while Australia has a system that is scientifically robust and rigorous its system ensures that the applicant will have his or her project processed including publication within 6 months and at minimal cost. It is a huge worry that in New Zealand where on the one hand the royal commission says the continuation of research is critical to New Zealand’s future the reality of the hurdles and costs created by this bill in relation to the carrying out of research are so highly onerous that even before the bill is passed we have two examples of AgResearch having to pay over half a million dollars to have its applications processed. That sort of money is simply not within the reach of the smaller biotechnology companies. 
One of the good aspects of this bill is that it makes it easier to process low-risk applications. But Labour should not feel smug about that. Streamlining low-risk applications has been requested up and down the country by the Crown research institutes the universities and research institutions over the last 3 or 4 years and it should have happened at least 2 years ago. So the Labour Government should certainly not feel smug about finally getting round to it—finally taking away one of the small hurdles and thus indeed progressing science in New Zealand. 
Another issue of real concern is that only last week the chief executive of PPL Therapeutics at the “biopharming” conference of the Royal Society said that so long as each and every Environmental Risk Management Authority application for transgenic herd production was subject to public debate investment by biotechnology companies would dry up and wither away. He also noted: “The treaty and Maori considerations create yet another level of uncertainty of the outcome of any application which investors find extremely difficult to comprehend.” Inherent in this bill is the possibility of absolutely endless public consultation and endless delays due to the amendments that “allow or extend the grounds on which the Minister may call in specific applications to include significant cultural ethical and spiritual effects.” The regulatory onerousness of this legislation is diametrically opposed to the Government’s rhetoric of wanting to lift our economic growth by focusing on and progressing biotechnology. 
It is also of huge concern to the New Zealand scientific fraternity when the Environmental Risk Management Authority tells it that it can process the science in 6 weeks but the bioethics may take from 6 months to infinity. I hope the Minister is listening to this because it is hugely important that the science indeed is rigorous but it is just as important if we are thinking about economic growth in New Zealand that we do not have the drawn-out process that her bill at present unfortunately is totally enwrapped in. The regulatory processes of the bill that apply to medium-risk and high-risk research are just too complex and too uncertain. 
It is interesting that the Sustainability Council has expressed its support for genetic engineering in relation to medicine but believes there will be substantial negative impact by changing our so-called clean green image or GE-free status. The council advocates that the moratorium on release should remain for a further 5 years. But it is highly significant to look around the world and see what the reality of experience is. For instance Argentina with over 11 million hectares of genetically engineered crops increased exports of organic honey to Europe between 2000 and 2001. 
This month we have had two New Zealand Government reports dealing with coexistence and with the economy. Of course the Greens have interpreted those reports extremely differently from the Government. They have zero tolerance of the release of genetically modified organisms yet this very night in the science debate in this complex we heard from the chief scientist at Lincoln University that zero tolerance is an absolute impossibility. It is high time that the Greens accepted the reality of risk management. 
I end by saying that the processes involved in this bill must be considerably amended before it goes through the select committee.