Tamihere John: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Tamihere John: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8943] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I am just following on from Dr Paul Hutchison with regard to the wording of that particular clause. Members on this side of the Chamber argued very very strongly when the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Act went through that it was worded very poorly and would lead to litigation. It did lead to litigation in this case and the judge ruled that a literal interpretation would be an absurdity. In other words members of the Opposition were right all along. However now that we actually have a judicial ruling on it it would be another absurdity to put some other wording in there because it could be relitigated. We could be opening up the thing again. 
I want to refer quickly to the ministerial call-in power. People have not seen that this is a two-edged sword and that it is not there just to create additional risk management elements. We could have a scenario whereby a Minister was very keen to see certain applications proceed. Under the interpretation of an application having significant economic effects—and one would assume that any commercial application would have significant economic effects—the Minister could call it in put whomever he or she wanted on the Environmental Risk Management Authority board then ensure that the decision that came out at the end was in line with what he or she had really decided upon. That begs the question of why we have the Environmental Risk Management Authority in the first place—if the Minister has call-in powers to that extent. 
I go back however to the amendment that is very critical to New Zealand First. We would support this legislation and support the conditional release category being brought in if it did not apply to foodstuffs high in the human food chain. At this stage for applications along those lines we ask why we should add to the risk. When asked in the Chamber the Minister herself said that the first such application will be called in automatically. If it is going to be called in automatically then there has to be something special in the particular case for that to be done. 
We ask why we do not clarify the situation put it off for a couple of years make sure the methodology is correct make sure that we have done some of our research in terms of market perceptions then make a decision on it. It is not necessary at this point in time to rush ahead when we are dealing with some unknowns. Economists like Caroline Saunders have raised some of these issues and they have been ignored. New Zealand First has said that we should be sensible about this matter and go along those lines that we know will not have a negative impact upon our overseas markets but in areas where there could potentially be risk let us make sure that we proceed with extreme caution. In this case it seems that the Government is rushing ahead on an ideological basis—and it has had fights with the Greens on that—rather than on what the evidence seems to be suggesting. 
New Zealand First has taken a position on what the evidence is suggesting to us at this time and it has come through with this amendment. We will not be able to vote for Part 2 if the amendment is not supported because we believe that we would be putting New Zealand’s best interests at risk under those circumstances. We in New Zealand First have always said we should proceed with extreme caution and the Environmental Risk Management Authority did not convince us that it has the methodology in place. The Minister herself knows that as of this date the methodology is not in place yet the legislation is going to open up applications on 30 October for the commercial release of foodstuffs. We do not believe that that makes good economic sense so New Zealand First will be voting against this part if our amendment does not stand up.