Hobbs Marian: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Hobbs Marian: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8583] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill consists of five parts and a new second schedule to be substituted in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Parts 1 and 2 amend the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act; Parts 3 to 5 amend respectively the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act the Medicines Act and the Biosecurity Act. All of the changes relate to one of two themes: to implement Government decisions in response to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification by providing a practical framework for proceeding with caution in the management of new and genetically modified organisms while preserving opportunities; and secondly to improve the overall effectiveness of the operation of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act as it relates to the management of new organisms. 
It is essential that these changes are put in place before the restricted period ends at the close of 29 October 2003 so that the Environmental Risk Management Authority has all the tools when it considers applications. The bill was referred to the Education and Science Committee on 6 May 2003. The committee received submissions and undertook a thorough consideration of the bill. The committee reported back to the House on 1 September and recommended that the bill be passed with the amendments shown. I want to thank the committee for its timely work on these complex matters. I also want to thank the chair Brian Donnelly for focusing on the legislation in front of the committee and not pretending to be a second royal commission on genetic modification. 
Before moving on to the detail of the recommendations I want to make the general observation that all the recommendations of the committee are technical amendments clarifications or drafting corrections. None of the provisions in the bill required substantive amendment. I think that that is a reflection of the extensive consultation and thought that went into developing the policy and the original drafting of the bill and I commend all those involved. I want to comment on key elements of the changes recommended by the select committee in relation to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act Biosecurity Act and Medicines Act. No changes were recommended to the proposed Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act amendments. 
There are four areas of recommended changes that I want to refer to. The first area concerns definitions to be inserted into the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The Government agrees with the committee’s recommendations relating to definitions in clauses 5 and 6 to clarify the meaning of “taxonomic classification” and the generation of a new organism from imported biological material. The Government also supports the amendment to the meaning of “new organism” in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to make it clear that organisms that are approved for conditional release or qualifying organisms—that is certain animal or human medicines that are approved for release with controls—remain new organisms and therefore remain subject to hazardous substances and new organism regulation. There were other important drafting amendments to ensure that qualifying organisms are referred to correctly in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Medicines Act. 
It is through clause 5 that activities that are currently unregulated are brought within the oversight of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Those activities are the importation or development of genetically modified human cells and the generation of new organisms from tissue imported into the country. The bill closes a regulatory gap. Although there is no known work going on in the area of regenerating new organisms from tissue particularly animal tissue if such activity commences it will be subject to rigorous scrutiny under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. However genetic modification research in relation to human cells is being undertaken in New Zealand primarily in universities. Broadly speaking the purpose of much of this biomedical research is to understand the role and function of genes and their effects on cellular processes particularly those involved in diseases. This research can involve patients with diseases such as cancer. Cells from diseased tissues are grown and some are genetically modified as part of the studies. The Government therefore supports the committee’s recommendations for transitional provisions for genetically modified human cells and human cell genetic modifications in New Zealand in Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry - approved containment facilities so that this research is not suddenly illegal once the bill is passed into law and is in force. 
The second area of recommended changes to the bill that I want to refer to concerns the streamlining processes for low-risk GM research. These changes will reduce compliance costs for researchers doing low-risk genetic modifications by introducing through clause 20 a rapid assessment process of project applications and through clause 19 clarifying that approvals of this kind can be delegated to institutional biological safety committees. The Government supports the committee’s change to the title of proposed section 42A to make it clear that the bill is introducing a new rapid assessment process for projects that meet the criteria for low-risk genetic modification. Some submitters expressed uncertainty about whether clause 20 would affect approval processes relating to genetic modification developments that were not low risk. There is no intention for clause 20 to do so. Proposed new section 42A does not limit existing activities carried out under section 40 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act including so-called generic applications. 
The third area of recommended changes to the bill that I want to refer to concerns the amendment to the Biosecurity Act relating to biosecurity clearance. Under the bill conditionally released organisms remain new organisms. The same goes for qualifying organisms that are released with controls. It is important for organisms subject to these two types of approval to remain new organisms so that they continue to be regulated under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. This is important as the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has a key role in enforcing the management of conditionally released new organisms. However the Biosecurity Act prohibits the granting of a biosecurity clearance for any imported new organism. Therefore the Government supports the amendment to the Biosecurity Act to allow biosecurity clearance for new organisms that are approved for conditional release and qualifying organisms that are approved for release with controls. 
The final area of recommended changes to the bill that I want to refer to concerns the role of local authorities in managing genetically modified organisms. The Government supports the committee’s recommendation to broaden the requirement of the Environmental Risk Management Authority to notify any local authority rather than just regional councils if it considers that the local authority is likely to have an interest in the application. The Government is firmly of the view however that the Environmental Risk Management Authority is the regulator of genetically modified organisms. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is special-purpose legislation designed to regulate genetic modification activities and genetically modified organisms. It does not give local councils powers to regulate genetically modified organisms and although some councils would like to do so I ask them to think very carefully before they attempt to duplicate the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s role and put their communities and ratepayers through the expense that this might involve. 
The Government does intend to move some minor technical amendments during the Committee stage but otherwise considers that the bill as reported is consistent with the underlying objectives of the original bill. There are a number of matters that those objectives include but in the interests of time I would like to comment finally on a new conspiracy that is circulating: that somehow I persuaded the Leader of the House to move the second reading of this bill to tonight—I have to say that this is not so—and that I did so to avoid demonstrations. The bill was reported back thanks to good chairmanship earlier than expected and with the Leader of the House absent last week overseas it was not in the House business notice last week. I am anxious to progress the bill but it was still news to me at 8.55 this morning that it was going to have its second reading. I suspect that a book about this conspiracy will follow—and there may be a select committee of inquiry and I know I will have to appear before it! The second conspiracy lies with the problem that at the moment there are emails circulating confusing the shifting of my ministerial office from the 17th to the 6th floor of Bowen House with the non-shifting of my electoral office. So those demonstrators who are heading in that direction can keep on heading.