Ewen-Street Ian: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Ewen-Street Ian: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8866] 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I propose an amendment to this clause to change the date on which it comes into effect to 30 October 2008. That will give us another 5 years. The reason for my amendment is that as my colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons says this is the bill that enables the so-called protections to be put in place for the expiry of the moratorium. The moratorium itself initially was put in place so that the recommendations of the royal commission could be enacted. That was a good idea. However they have not been put in place. Many of the royal commission’s recommendations still have not been satisfied. 
I can see the Minister smiling but she knows that the recommended research such as into horizontal gene transfer has not been completed. Horizontal gene transfer is a reasonably technical subject that I do not want to delve into. However it does involve the asexual transfer of DNA between bacterial species at a plasmid level—that is plasmid DNA transfers not through sexual reproduction but just by proximity. We just do not know what the consequences of that will be. I have been informed that as we stand now the research on horizontal gene transfer is some years away from completion. 
The Minister Mark Peck and others say that nothing is in the pipeline in terms of open release of GE into the wider environment. If that is the case what is the hurry? Why do we have to do this right now? I know that Labour members have painted themselves into a political corner but a test of their character would be for them to say: “We accept that we have made a mistake. We accept that what we thought we could do we are not able to do. Let’s put it off for 5 years. Let’s take the pressure out of the situation and let’s get it all sorted out before we allow the moratorium to expire.” 
Another of the recommendations of the royal commission that has not come to any satisfactory conclusion is the question of coexistence between genetically engineered and non-genetically engineered crops. I have heard the Minister talk about case by case situations. I have heard about buffer zones and things like that. What interests me is the report commissioned by that other pro-GE person Tony Blair in the UK. He commissioned a report on coexistence. He wanted to prove to the public of Britain that coexistence was possible and they should therefore listen to him. The report he got back—the report he himself commissioned—was highly embarrassing because it proved beyond any doubt at all that coexistence could not happen; that it was a physical impossibility. 
I have heard the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry mutter about a 5-kilometre buffer zone. That sounds reasonable. It does overlook a few facts though. The first is that bees can fly more than 5 kilometres and regularly do when they are foraging for pollen. Who will stop the bees from flying from a non-GE place into a GE place and back again? Seriously will we put up signs saying “No bees past this point.”? The bees do not care. Can the Minister come up with any solution? She is nodding. I am looking forward to hearing what the solution is. Can she also come up with a solution as to why pollen will not be borne on the wind for many many kilometres? We get pollen from Australia arriving here on the wind. A 5-kilometre buffer zone will not stop that. One further question for Mr Peck who I am led to believe is a highly intelligent man— 
David Benson-Pope 
: That argument has gone right out of the window. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: Okay I have blown it—a 5-kilometre buffer zone is actually a 5-kilometre radius of a circle. A 5-kilometre radius circle—[ 
Interruption 
] I withdraw and apologise for calling Mark Peck intelligent! A 5-kilometre buffer zone implies there is a 5-kilometre radius circle. A 5-kilometre radius circle has an area of 78 square kilometres. I want to know who owns the land in that 78 square kilometres.