Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:9635] 
12.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does she stand by her comments about the Environmental Risk Management Authority that “We have established a system that allows people to have their say on those applications and I encourage those wishing to do so to use the system”; if so what is she doing to encourage people to have their say? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes and we have increased the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s funding giving it the resources to run robust public hearings but not exhaustive ones and to build its relationships with the public. 
Sue Kedgley 
: In its consideration of the GE-onion application currently before it why did the Environmental Risk Management Authority refuse to hold hearings anywhere but in Christchurch and refuse to allow teleconference facilities to be available so that the many submitters who could not travel to Christchurch could make submissions; and how do those policies encourage those wishing to do so to have their say on the authority’s applications as the Minister promised would happen? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The submissions were heard in Christchurch because the application involves a 15 square metre plot of onions located only in Canterbury and because it is a field trial rather than a release meaning that most if not all genetic material or heritable material will be destroyed at the end of the trial. I would also like to point out that it is for the panel to regulate its own hearing practices. However I understand that a New Zealand resident overseas is being heard by videoconferencing even though for a very small and concentrated trial. 
Larry Baldock 
: How many submissions have been received by the Environmental Risk Management Authority regarding the application by Crop and Food Research to begin field trials on genetically modified onions and does that number suggest to her that people are still confused about the difference between commercial release which was covered by the moratorium and field trials which have been taking place for years and were not covered by the moratorium? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I am advised that around 1900 written submissions were received. Although about half of those are form submissions the number still indicates to me that people want to have a say in these matters. I believe that the system we have set up gives them that opportunity. 
David Parker 
: Is the application concerning onions to the Environmental Risk Management Authority from Crop and Food Research the first of its kind in New Zealand? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No it is not. We have had 13 other field tests of genetically modified organisms in New Zealand already. Those have been for a variety of organisms including potatoes cattle and petunias. In other words the authority has had plenty of experience with these kinds of applications. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why did the Environmental Risk Management Authority offer teleconference facilities to an overseas submitter but not to any submitters in New Zealand and when parliamentary select committees are able to advise submitters when they should turn up to make a submission why is the authority unable even to advise some submitters which day they can be expected to be heard by the authority; and is not all this just part of an ongoing authority strategy to make it as difficult as possible for ordinary New Zealanders to make submissions? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I understand that one of the other submitters who applied for a videoconference was Jon Carapiet of GE-Free New Zealand knowing also that four other members of GE Food New Zealand are appearing and being heard by the authority. Jon Carapiet I think was on the Green Party list at the last election. Mr Carapiet asked to appear on the videoconference link only at 5 p.m. last Friday. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: When she decided recently that our taxes would fund 87 percent of the cost of the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s regulatory hearings in order to shield applicants from paying the full costs of their business activities did she ensure that the authority received enough funds to conduct hearings in main centres and provide teleconference facilities as is routine for select committees; if not will she provide this funding? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I remind the questioner that when the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act was passed in 1996 it was decided by the then Government that there would be a 100 percent cost recovery by 1999. Because of a delay in the hazardous substances part of the Act that did not come into place until 2001. It was decided at that time that the 100 percent cost recovery was too large a barrier for people working in hazardous substances such as plastics manufacturers as well as for people involved in research on new organisms. I would remind the questioner again that the Environmental Risk Management Authority is a statutory authority; it is not under ministerial direction. Certainly it gets funding from the Minister and as a statutory authority it determines the details of how it conducts its hearings. 
Sue Kedgley 
: In light of her claim that “ERMA makes its decisions in an open and transparent manner” why did the authority go into a secret session yesterday so that details of Crop and Food Research’s collaborator in the onion field trial could remain secret; and what exactly is commercially sensitive about the name of a company that a Crown research entity is collaborating with? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: As I was not at the authority hearing yesterday I am not totally sure which information is being referred to. When information is defined as commercially sensitive it is not publicly available for all the applicant’s competitors to see. This is in keeping with New Zealand’s international obligations. It is of course made available to the authority which scrutinises the application in light of all the information it has.