Baldock Larry: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Baldock Larry: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19293] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill introduced by the honourable member Ian Ewen-Street. I agree that the member has good intentions perhaps in introducing this bill and I respect his deep feelings about this issue but as another member said earlier he is simply wrong about GE and about the value of reintroducing a moratorium in this country. United Future will be opposing this bill on its first reading. 
The Greens have some mantras and slogans that sound quite nice. They sound as if they could go somewhere but in actual fact when they are analysed a bit further they turn out to be meaningless statements. What is behind this reintroduction of the moratorium is this mantra of the Greens: to keep it in the laboratory. I want to examine that a little bit tonight because if we think about it we realise it is absolutely useless. What is the point of keeping in the laboratory all the research all the scientific knowledge that is gained if we can never use it for the benefit of society? If we cannot get it out of the laboratory why bother having it in there in the first place? Why would we ask people to invest their money into the research necessary in order to discover things that will be safe for the country safe for the economy and safe for human consumption if they can never ever test the results outside the laboratory? So there is an inconsistency there. There is actually a dishonesty really about that slogan that says to keep it in the laboratory and it will be OK. I think we need to expose that for what it is. 
Secondly there is an inconsistency and a dishonesty about the Greens’ position on some of these genetic modification issues. The Greens have been very passionate about the genetic modification of plants but when it came last year to supporting the human assisted reproduction legislation the Green Party supported the genetic modification of human gametes and embryos. I want to read it to the House so that we are all very clear. They supported a bill that allows for an advisory committee that must within time frames agreed by the Minister provide the Minister with information advice and if it thinks fit without ever referring back to this House recommendations upon the following matters in relation to gametes and embryos in human reproductive research cloned embryos donations of human embryos genetic modification of human gametes and human embryos. 
So I believe there are many people around the country who are asking themselves whether the Green Party is more concerned about genetically modified corn than it is about genetically modified human embryos and human gametes. We need to be consistent if we are to have strongly held beliefs and I do not believe that the Green Party is being consistent in its philosophy. Its voting record does not show it. 
Tonight I want to take the House back to some instances and press releases in 2002 that turbulent period before the last election when the issue of the lifting of the moratorium was paramount on the minds of all Green Party members. Some very very strong statements were made as in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
on 26 May 2002: “Green co-leader Rod Donald says: ‘For us it’s a matter of principle. We just couldn’t keep a Government in power that wants to end forever New Zealand being nuclear-free er GE-free.’ … The GE policy was a bottom line for the Greens because ‘unlike virtually anything else this one is irreversible.’ When the moratorium on commercial application of GE ended in October 2003 the country would lose its GE-free status forever. Donald admits the strategy is high-risk”—and boy was it ever high-risk—“The voters might revolt against a small party prepared to destroy a Government but ‘I’d rather risk being wiped out than stand by and watch the environment being wiped out.’ ” 
What has happened to that Green Party principle since that time? They just could not keep a Government in power. They would rather have seen a Government destroyed than see GE introduced into our environment yet we know recently that at their last conference the Greens decided they would abandon that principle in order to be able to pursue power with hopefully the future Government of this country—the thought of which we all dread. In the pursuit of power the Greens would be willing to abandon the principle that Rod Donald referred to and abandon their policy of having a moratorium on this issue.