Power Simon: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8930] 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Now we are into the meat of this bill the biggest chunk— 
Shane Ardern 
: What GE meat? 
SIMON POWER 
: —no not GE meat—of the legislation and I look forward to this being one of four calls I will take on this part. This is the complex and detailed part of the bill and it needs the close attention of the Committee. I want to raise two very important points in my short contribution—but the first of many contributions—to this part. 
The first relates to the Minister’s power to call in applications. We see in the bill that the Minister may direct that he or she will decide an application if the Minister considers that the decision on the application will have “significant cultural economic environmental ethical health international”—I am not sure about the grammar there actually I say to the Hon Brian Donnelly from the select committee; I am not quite sure that that flows properly—but most important “or spiritual effects;”. This clause 36 is in effect the GE-voodoo clause because it is just nuts to be putting into legislation phrases like “cultural” or “spiritual” impacts. 
We spoke at length about this issue in the second reading debate and it is going to become a focal point of this part of the debate. I ask the Minister in the chair to take a call on it. She has been very quiet during the course of the Committee stage. An important and critical point to make is this: how are we as a country to measure objectively those types of criteria? I say to the Minister that the amendments offered by the National Party to omit the words “cultural” “ethical” and “spiritual” from that clause should be voted for across the parties in this Committee to ensure—[ 
Interruption 
] There goes Jill Pettis again scaring all the wildlife. The simple fact of the matter is that these clauses are unworkable. As a lawyer I say to this Committee that they are exactly the type of thing that only one group in our society will benefit from—the lawyers. Lawyers will make a fortune out of this stuff—so some good will come of it! 
I say to members opposite in the Labour Party that they should vote for Paul Hutchison’s amendment and get rid of this nonsense. They should show that they are credible and that the line they are taking is one of scientific reason and they should get rid of this nonsense. New Zealand First is offering an amendment similar to that offered by us on this side of the Chamber in the form of Dr Paul Hutchison’s amendment—the removal of the word “spiritual”—but it wants to keep the word “cultural” in the bill. I say to that party that it should get some backbone and should take out “spiritual” “cultural” and “ethical”. Let us start dealing in science. Let us start dealing with rational thought. 
With the greatest of respect to the Minister I say that what she believes is spiritual and what the rest of us believe is spiritual could be worlds apart. I suspect that that is probably right— 
Jill Pettis 
: You have been corrupted by the National Party. You used to be such a nice young man. 
SIMON POWER 
: Lord knows there has got to be a better place on this earth than having to listen to that! Maybe we do have something common on the spiritual front. But the simple fact of the matter is that those of us who are wound up about this coming Rugby World Cup may consider it to be spiritual. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I do. 
SIMON POWER 
: Of course the member does—and rightly so. Others of course have quite a different view of what is spiritual. This clause is nonsense—absolute nonsense. If we are to have legislation proceed on the basis of reason science and logic then clauses like this must be removed. They will be nothing but trouble and are worse than those currently contained in the Resource Management Act. These clauses will create nothing but trouble and nothing but uncertainty. 
I turn briefly to the issue that I have to say has most concerned me personally which is the issue of the shifting of burdens of proof. In Part 7A the pecuniary penalties and civil liability clauses the shift that the select committee agreed to worries me greatly. New section 124B(3) inserted by clause 48 previously stated: “The Court must not make the order if it is satisfied that the person did not know and could not—”.