Smith Nick: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8865] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to participate in this debate but I say that we are largely participating in an exercise of charades. I particularly challenge Mr Mark Peck on his contribution and I want to recall a little bit of history as we approach the lifting of the moratorium. 
I well remember during the 1999 election campaign when Labour members said that the regulatory regime was not nearly safe enough that there were all these concerns about genetic technology and that the big bold Labour Party was going to save the nation with a moratorium. 
Mark Peck 
: And we did! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I tell Mr Peck that the problem Labour has is that it has created the whip that it is now being flicked with as a Government. Right throughout 1998 and 1999 Labour members raised the concerns that the public had about gene technology and now it is coming back to bite them on the bottom. 
I tell Mr Peck that the truth is that the provisions provided in this bill change little. The vast bulk of these provisions have been in the operational plans of the Environmental Risk Management Authority all the way along. There is the odd provision that makes it worse but the reality is that in 1999 we had a pretty robust and good regulatory regime and the royal commission concluded that. The moment the moratorium was put in place it was always going to create a huge tension at the time it was lifted. It is not much different from when Sir Robert Muldoon introduced the old wage and price freeze—they are the easiest things in the world to put on and they are the hardest things to take off. I say to the Minister in the chair the Hon Marian Hobbs that she should be honest—she played politics with this issue for all it was worth in 1998 and 1999 and she spent $6 million of public money on a royal commission. It added little to the argument. 
Mark Peck 
: Have you read the report? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I have read every single page of the report. The thing that is interesting about it is that it added so little to what Ministers said. The Minister in the chair was one of a number of Labour members who ran around the country saying that a trial of 400 sweetcorn plants was irresponsible and that it was wrong even though every single plant had to have a bag that was pollen-proof and waterproof. They said that we were taking extraordinary risks. Yet 12 months later when they found out that in effect 28000 GM corn plants had been inadvertently introduced they covered it up. They played secrets. 
Members on this side of the House say: “Let’s be honest and upfront with New Zealand. We have GM in the food chain right now we should be honest with the public about it and it is no risk.” Members on this side of the House are not like the Minister Marian Hobbs. When she was asked whether she would eat GM food she said: “Ah I don’t know.” What sort of answer is that from a Minister of the Crown in charge of our GM regulations? 
I have to speak on behalf of members on this side of the House. If the food has been properly approved by the proper regulatory authority I am happy to eat it because I have confidence in the regulatory authorities. It is a confidence I have had since 1996 when the legislation was passed and it is a confidence that members on this side of the House continue to have. I say again to Mr Peck to Ms Hobbs and to the Prime Minister that they have got themselves in this pickle over GM because they have played politics when they should not have. If they want to run the science-based argument why did they not run that argument in 1999? This has been an exercise in “rejiggery” for the Labour Party. 
Mark Peck 
: What the hell is “rejiggery”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What it means is that in 1999 Labour members raised the public’s fear about GM but when they got into Government they had to try to control the dragon they had created themselves. 
Mark Peck 
: Have you read my member’s bill? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member opposite is one of those in the Labour Party who made a huge deal out of the moratorium. They said that we had to have the moratorium because the controls were not good enough. Three years later what we have in this bill is very minor tinkering. I challenge members opposite to be a bit more honest about this issue.