Ewen-Street Ian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Ewen-Street Ian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:623;Page:18870] 
3.  
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Did the New Zealand Government support or oppose the reported Canadian Government initiative to allow the commercial use of genetic seed sterilisation technology (so-called “terminator” technology) at the Convention on Biological Diversity meeting in Bangkok from 7 to 11 February 2005? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The member has misunderstood what happened at the Bangkok meeting. A report of the ad hoc technical experts group was submitted to the subsidiary body on scientific technical and technological advice which is one of the key advisory bodies to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The report of the experts group contained a recommendation for countries to not approve this technology for field testing and commercial use but the experts involved did not agree on that recommendation and the co-chairs of the group prepared the report without review by the group’s actual members. Given the lack of consensus around the report and its recommendations and given the subsidiary nature of the body considering the report Canada moved and New Zealand supported along with a number of other countries from all over the world a resolution that the issue not be considered at the Bangkok meeting but be deferred to a full conference of parties to be held in May 2006. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: I ask the Minister whether it is not true that under the Convention on Biological Diversity there has been a de facto international moratorium on the use of “terminator technology” since 2000; why then did the New Zealand Government instruct its officials to block the consensus on maintaining that moratorium? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: There are two points. First there was no moratorium. There was a recommendation of advice to Governments in 2000 in the end-of-conference statement that until there was enough scientific data countries should be encouraged not to approve this technology. That is not a moratorium and it is not a ban. Second there was no way that New Zealand gave any advice on the matter the member stated. 
David Parker 
: What reports has the Minister seen about the New Zealand position at the Bangkok meeting? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I saw a press release from Jeanette Fitzsimons of the Green Party which contains a raft of factual inaccuracies and wild assertions. I think that highlights the importance of political parties doing their own research rather than simply believing the lines they are fed from well-known anti-GM activists who operate around the edges of international conferences. 
Larry Baldock 
: Is it true that the Canadian initiative at the Convention on Biological Diversity meeting in Bangkok was really intended to allow additional scientific research to be conducted regarding genetic seed sterilisation technology; if so does the Minister see any advantage in gathering scientific data before reaching conclusions on the merits of scientific procedures or is it better to make policy decisions solely on the basis of knee-jerk reactions as appears to be advocated by the Greens? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I totally agree with the member’s advice that we should collect scientific data. In fact that is what was stated by the Convention on Biological Diversity in its recommendation in 2000. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: I appreciate it is normal practice that documents are tabled at the end of a question but I seek your indulgence to table a document that indicates there is a de facto moratorium on this issue even though the Minister denied it in her answer to my last question. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Can the Minister say in the specific case of “terminator” seed technology whether she supports its commercialisation given that the original patent application for “terminator technology” clearly reveals that it is intended first and foremost to prevent growers from saving their own seed and using it again therefore making them dependent on seed companies? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Any risks about farmers being able to use their seed again would form part of the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s decision and consideration if there were any application to use such technology in New Zealand. But farmers and home gardeners are used to dealing with sterile technologies. They routinely use hybrid seeds because of their increased yield vigour and quality yet seeds from those hybrid plants will not breed true in subsequent generations. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: In deciding to support the Canadian initiative at the Convention on Biological Diversity meeting how much consultation did the Government do with farmers and home gardeners to establish the level of public support for “terminator technology”; if no consultation was done why is the Government supporting this technology? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I repeat again New Zealand did not support any Canadian proposition to ban or discontinue the use of those seeds. Instead we supported the resolution to move the decision to May 2006. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Why is the Government taking such internationally extreme pro - genetic engineering positions instead of leading our country down the economically and environmentally better road of smart breeding especially given the huge consumer resistance to genetic engineering? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The Government has set up a policy under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act that neither supports nor bans genetic modification technology on a broad band. It takes everything case by case. There was no international support for a remit that did not exist except in the minds of certain non-governmental organisations on which you seem to rely so much. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Fortunately I do not think I have ever relied on a non-governmental organisation.