Donnelly Brian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19292] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will support this legislation going to the Primary Production Committee. But I suggest to people that it will be very much qualified support. If the bill goes to the select committee then we will be seeking to amend and change it so that any moratorium would apply only to products that may enter the food chain—in other words food stuffs—and only for applications for commercial release under those circumstances. 
I sat on the select committee that put the moratorium in place and I chaired the select committee that put the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill through which made sure that we had things in place once the moratorium came off. So I certainly have listened to many many hours of submissions on the issues around GE. I make the point that there has been no evidence either at the royal commission stage at the stage when the moratorium was put on or at the stage of the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill that suggests there are any health risks in the use of GE foods. There is no evidence of that and I think that point needs to be clearly made. People will say that the research has not been done but in fact a lot of research has been done. There has been some shonky stuff but no research has demonstrated that there are health risks. 
The other thing we need to recognise is that as of September 2003 21 GE foods had been approved for use in Australia and therefore approved for use in New Zealand. We are eating the stuff anyhow. That is a point that needs to be made. 
Shane Ardern 
: You’re ruining your argument. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: That is not however the issue and perhaps if people would listen they might get the issue. At the select committee a number of submissions caused us to reflect. Those submissions related to research done in terms of economic modelling. The research was done by reputable researchers such as Dr Caroline Saunders and Business and Economic Research. That modelling suggested in terms of the behaviour of consumers overseas that there was a whole range of possible outcomes if New Zealand embraced GE foods. Depending upon the assumptions made in terms of the models those outcomes varied from a 10 percent premium for New Zealand to anything up to a 30 percent loss of gross national income or overseas trade. 
We have to remember that that is theoretical modelling so it is not actuality. That research demonstrated that we actually do not know what factors will affect consumer behaviour. We know for example that consumers in Japan are possibly more resistant than consumers in other parts of the world. Consumers in Europe are certainly more resistant than those in the United States. But we do not actually know what the factors are at this particular point in time. 
New Zealand First has taken the point that it is not actually the reality that is really important here; it is people’s perspectives of the reality. For example in the Middle Ages people may have thought that the world was flat but the fact that it was not flat did not make any difference to the fact that they did not take off to go sailing around the world. Because they thought it was flat it influenced their behaviours and the same goes in terms of the potential effect upon New Zealand’s trade. 
We have some evidence that non-food GE products or the use of them do not impact on trade in food. That evidence comes from the Australian situation where they have been growing Ingard cotton for some time but it seems to have had no negative impact upon their trade in relation to food products etc. 
But we also know that in Australia most states have put moratoriums on the commercial release of food products up to 2008. So we cannot know what the effects of the introduction of those in terms of their commercial release will actually be upon the trade of a fairly similar nation to ourselves. 
Therefore New Zealand First asks why we should risk the situation particularly when we are confronted by the sort of information the Minister gave in the House today—that since the moratorium was lifted there have been no applications for commercial release of any GE products let alone food products. Why should we signal to the world that we are ready to go when there have been no applications for GE field trials or any trials at all. That would suggest to some that possibly there have been some panic merchants out there. So New Zealand First asks why we should risk an impact upon New Zealand’s trade for something that is a long way away anyhow—probably not until 2008 at least. 
New Zealand First has a policy—and it has been a clear policy since we analysed the findings of the royal commission—that claims New Zealand needs to keep its opportunities open. We believe that the technology has potential particularly in therapeutics bioremediation and other aspects but that we should proceed with extreme caution.