Shirley Ken: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Shirley Ken: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8933] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I would like to rebut some of the comments made by the New Zealand First member who has just resumed his seat. He started his speech if members can remind themselves saying he opposed everything that was not based on science and the evidential method and opposed all the cultural references. He then went on to observe that there is no evidence whatsoever of anyone becoming ill anywhere in the world caused by GM food. So he accepts the science and the evidence of that but he then says that because of some sort of mystical marketing perception New Zealand First did not support that position. That is a very strange stand to take I must say. 
There is also the contradiction that people are happy to have medicine with GM and we all want to see that in order to fight some of those terrible diseases. For example we know that the cholera GM organism is a living organism and it is in the environment and has saved millions of lives and that is great. But there is a difference between medicine and food. Medicine is actually in the body. One absorbs it internally into the bloodstream into the systems of the body. Food is just in the alimentary canal which technically is outside the body; it is in the tube that sort of runs right through the cylinder of the body. So there is no logic in saying on the one hand we will embrace GM for medicine because that is good but on the other hand we will not accept it in terms of food. There is no logic in that position at all. I would urge New Zealand First to rethink that part of its position. 
I support the National Party’s Supplementary Order Papers put forward by Dr Hutchison dropping this humbug about these new “cultural and spiritual dimensions”. Members will recall the Resource Management Bill where we had the huge debate because this Government had introduced the term “cultural landscapes” and “spiritual landscapes”. Under the heat of the Parliament it backed down. Thank goodness it did. But in this bill these sorts of terms creep in again. The Government is trying to put in something that is not scientific. I am not debunking people’s right to hold spiritual beliefs and cultural expression but in passing law that is essentially science it should be based on evidential science. If people want to believe in tooth fairies or leprechauns or hobgoblins or taniwha or whatever it is their right to do that. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: What do you believe in? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I could sit down with the member and tell him what I believe. I actually believe in evidential science above all. That is what this bill must be based on. Because once the Government starts getting into the secular and the metaphysical how on earth can one objectively make determinations and decisions based on those broad sorts of concepts? It is really a licence for all manner of delays and frustrations. 
I think the point was made by Mr Power that the lawyers are the ones who will make the money. We know that the law firms in Wellington already have whole floors specialising in this sort of “clipping the ticket” as do all the consultants. That is where the money goes. All that means is delays and upfront costs which reduce New Zealand’s competitiveness because it is non-productive nonsense. But that is what this measure will be introducing into this legislation. 
I am not sure whether the officials recommended it. I would hope not. I think this stuff is actually of the Government’s own doing. It does not belong in this bill and please we would like the Minister in the chair to take a call to explain why it is there. I am just trying to catch the attention of the Minister who seems to be engaged. I ask her to take a call and explain. Perhaps there is reasoning behind it. I cannot understand why there is reference to cultural and spiritual matters in this legislation. I do not believe that it belongs there. The ACT party says it does not belong there. There is no rhyme or reason for it. 
Overall we are supporting the bill. We are concerned about some of these measures and I have just outlined a few of them. I would like to think that as we pass through the Committee stage even at this late stage we can make amendments as we did with the Resource Management Bill. We did improve that by dropping those references that did not belong there.