Power Simon: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8856] 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Madam Chair I thank you for catching my eye. I appreciate your giving me the call. I point out to my colleague Bernie Ogilvy who spent some time on the relevancy of the title of the bill that that title is likely to disappear as the bill is subsumed into four other pieces of legislation pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 144 put forward by the Hon Marian Hobbs. That will see the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill being separated into four separate bills: the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill; the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill; the Medicines Amendment Bill; and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. On that basis spending a whole lot of time on discussing the relevancy of the title of this bill is probably not the most productive way for the Committee to spend its time. But in the spirit of this debate I will suggest some alternative titles for this bill. 
Dr Paul Hutchison and Brian Donnelly in particular have raised a couple of serious issues. The National Party has indicated it has reservations about one or two crucial things in respect of this bill and I am extremely concerned as I have mentioned on numerous occasions during the select committee process about the provisions relating to liability and penalties. On that basis it would probably be quite proper as an alternative title for the bill to call it the “Reversal of 120 Years of Criminal Law Burden Bill” because as this bill progresses through Parliament we will see a distinct change in the way in which that burden of proof is to lie on applicants. There is a distinct change in the way in which that cause of action must be met. Specifically the harm that is caused is not in any way linked to a breach of the legislation’s concerns. That is a unique position the seriousness of which should not be underestimated. 
The officials and others who came before the Education and Science Committee and the members of that committee know that I have raised that issue a number of times. As we proceed through the various clauses of the bill I will certainly—if I am lucky enough to catch the Chair’s eye—go into those matters in some detail. I do worry when the burden of proof is flipped in that way and I do worry that there needs to be far more linkage in terms of causation between a breach of the legislation and the harm that is caused. To separate those two things out really does fly in the face of a considerable period of common law history in New Zealand. 
It is also worth picking up on Brian Donnelly’s points about local government’s role in all of this because this is the “Local Government (Caught Down the Creek Without a Paddle) Bill” when it comes to the issue of GE. I am a bit worried now because I have the Greens nodding including “Mr Development” over here “Ian Ewen – Cul-de-sac” a man who wants to see everything go backwards. What worries me most about the introduction of this bill with regard to the issue of GE is that the various units of local government have now been put in a position where they are unsure—as the Government members of the select committee stated in the committee’s report—how this legislation will apply to their rights if for instance they wish to declare a GE-free area. 
Sue Kedgley 
: They’ve got no rights. 
SIMON POWER 
: Sue Kedgley says they have no rights. That is certainly what the Government members say. I believe what will happen is that that will end up in the courts. Nothing is more sure than the fact that that particular issue will end up in the courts and we all know who wins when issues end up in the courts: the lawyers. 
Jill Pettis 
: Yes the lawyers. 
SIMON POWER 
: Mrs Pettis is right. Some good will come of that. Let us be clear about one thing: the GE issue was signalled very strongly by the officials at the select committee. I know that although Jeanette Fitzsimons and I perhaps disagree on the outcome we do agree on the fact that that area is very unclear and uncertain. I stated unequivocally at the select committee that the responsibility of Parliament is not to encourage a whole lot of judicial activism in areas like that but rather to seek clear and certain rules that local government and others will be able to follow.