Shirley Ken: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Shirley Ken: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19290] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 This has turned into a very spirited debate. I commend the Minister for the Environment; I think she gave a spirited speech. We have just heard my very good friend in the National Party Shane Ardern make a good contribution. One thing that did disturb me was his comment that he agreed with everything Marian Hobbs said. Although she said some things that were correct there was one glaring error in her speech. She said that our ban on things nuclear is a ban on weapons and energy and of course she was quite wrong. The 1987 legislation is specific to weapons and propulsion; nothing in the nuclear ban prevents nuclear energy. It is disturbing to realise that our Minister for the Environment does not actually understand that point. But she has come a long way. Once she upheld the mantra of banning everything nuclear and pretending that New Zealand was nuclear free. Of course it has not been. Our hospitals deploy nuclear technology as the Minister herself said. 
Then we had the Somers report in 1993. It was 176 pages long. The panel made up of a retired High Court judge Edward Somers and three top scientists—a medical scientist a physics scientist and a chemistry scientist—sat for about a year and heard public submissions. The panel’s conclusion was that there was no public safety or environmental reason for not having nuclear-propelled ships visit New Zealand waters. In fact the panel went on to point out that Auckland Hospital emitted more radiation—twice as much—into the environment every day than the entire US naval fleet and all its support services did in a year. That was in a formal report received by the Government of New Zealand. It just shows us how we have been captured by those mantras. 
The bill before us with the attempt by the Greens to extend the moratorium on genetic modification is just another one of those bumper stickers. It is a bumper sticker a mantra that science just blows out of the water. I am concerned that Mr Ian Ewen-Street put his name to this bill. I would have expected better of him. But he did join the Greens so that in itself may perhaps explain it. The moratorium was an interesting piece of policy work. A moratorium is really a political solution when something is too hard for a Government—it is a kick for touch. Members will recall that in this instance for political reasons the moratorium was extended. But we had a royal commission into genetic modification and I think that it gave a very good report. I do not agree with all of it but it was a very thorough report and there was some very good science in it. The bottom line was that we should proceed with caution. No one can argue against that; I think that with any new technology we should proceed with caution. 
Some of the rhetoric that has come from the Greens is nothing other than absolute bunkum. There has been an emphasis on New Zealand’s clean green nuclear-free GM-free label in Europe. Recently a survey was done on European consumers and it found they do not give a fig about that; it is a myth that we in New Zealand believe in. As far as the European buyers are concerned they buy on the basis of price and quality just as everyone else around the world does. That marketing research was quite clear and it exposed the Greens’ bunkum for what it is yet we have heard it here again tonight. The moratorium was extended once and the Greens now want to reinstate it. That is like putting one’s head in the sand; it is like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. It is just utter foolishness. 
Really there are some very good reasons why we should be embracing technology. We should be at the forefront of technology. That is where the comparative advantage for New Zealand is particularly given the scientific basis that underpins our economy in terms of our production from fishing forestry and farming. For sound environmental reasons we should be embracing technology. If we want to reduce our dependency on pesticides—and I think that there are very legitimate concerns about organochlorines and organophosphates—we should be phasing them out and GM is the technology that best enables us to do that.