Hobbs Marian: Third Readings 
Hobbs Marian: Third Readings 
[Volume:612;Page:9122] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.  
I do this with pride—pride in a Government that has worked through these issues over many years. The legislation to allow the release of genetically modified organisms was passed in 1996. Let me repeat that: the law to release genetically modified organisms was passed in 1996. The legislation we hope to pass today adds a series of safeguards such as conditional release to the mix of controls that the Environmental Risk Management Authority can use. In 1996 when I was still a school principal I cannot recall any staff room arguments about genetic modification. I certainly cannot recall street marchers or naked protests and I would remember those. But for all the lack of mass public concern in our manifesto of 1999 the Labour Party promised a committee of inquiry a royal commission into genetic modification. We wanted to check whether the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act had enough safeguards. We wanted advice.  
Why choose the royal commission? A royal commission gives a Government independent advice having listened to arguments and tested assertions. In a rational society it is not enough to assert a risk or to assert a benefit without testing it. A royal commission is the highest body for hearing an investigation that we have available to us in New Zealand. Other mechanisms offer fewer opportunities for decision makers to obtain and to appreciate a full range of arguments in place of untested assertions or blatant misrepresentation such as toads and potatoes or four-breasted women. 
I am very much a rationalist which is a drawback in the world of 6-second sound bites aggressive interviews and media hype. Decisions around genetic modification need to be made with rational consideration. That brings me to the moratoriums for there have been two of them. The science and agricultural community agreed to a voluntary moratorium for the life of the royal commission. It did not apply for any field tests or general releases. That voluntary moratorium ended in 2001. The second moratorium on applications for general release was legislated for in 2002. The royal commission advised in 2001 that we could proceed with genetically modified releases straight away but that there were improvements to the law that could be made. The Government set in place a time-bound moratorium to lift in October 2003 in order to make those legislative changes. We passed that legislation in 2002 before the election. The ending of the moratorium was known to voters. 
I wish to thank the biotechnology industry. From 2000 to 2003 there has been a real brake on that industry for 3 years—a compulsory stop in fact on its genetically modified research. But this bill does not mean that there will be an instant acceleration to 100 kilometres per hour. This is a heavily regulated industry—far more so than in any other country in the world including the countries in the European Union. 
There were three ways New Zealand could have gone. One ban work on genetic modification in the field for ever which is the Greenpeace plan; two allow some work but make that decision on a case-by-case basis; three leave totally unregulated which is how the early genetically modified crop work has been done overseas. New Zealand has chosen the middle way the cautious way and this bill strengthens those precautions. 
Like chemistry like physics and like surgery there are risks in genetic modification but there may be benefits and some claim benefits already. Improved soil health through less ploughing to eliminate weeds less volume of and less toxic pesticides used new forms for the ingestion of medicines using food new pest controls to attack possums or flystrike and warning indicators for landmines or arsenic in water. 
Yes there are risks. But how can anyone be so sure of risk that he or she denies others the opportunity of exploring possible benefits? Galileo was hounded by the church because his observations told him that the planets including earth circled the sun. That upset the then current world views that the sun and planets circled the earth with man at the epicentre—and I note “man”. Are we so certain that we know everything about ecological change and adaptation? Could there be more that we do not know? Is it so terrible to ask questions and to test the hypotheses? It would be terrible if in so doing—in testing the hypotheses—we endangered people. But in New Zealand we do not. When it comes to food any food on sale in New Zealand has to undergo rigorous and robust safety testing. People have a choice whether they eat genetically modified food. Any genetically modified food is labelled. There may be research work progressing on potatoes but that does not mean that genetically modified potatoes or any other genetically modified fresh food will be on sale in New Zealand for maybe at least 5 years and then only after food safety approval. So New Zealanders will not be forced to eat genetically modified food. They will have choice when and if genetically modified fresh food is ever offered for sale in New Zealand. 
Organic growers want assurances that their crops will remain free of genetically modified organisms and in this legislation we provide for conditional release. The conditions set will take into consideration research findings on pollen drift and on foraging bees including the 8-kilometre distance for bees asserted by a GE-free group today in one press release that I saw. Like the royal commission this Government believes that we can allow organic crops conventional crops and genetically modified plants and animals to coexist. No one’s rights have to be curtailed. May I remind the House that an application cannot be granted if risks outweigh benefits or needed answers cannot be given. 
In life there are people who say “No” and there are people who say “Yes”. New Zealand needs to say “Yes”. New Zealand needs to do research. New Zealand needs to add value to its bioeconomy. Without such growth we will not be able to pay for environmental clean-ups for education for health improvements for restorative justice or for public transport. This is about growth and innovation about preserving choice about saying “Yes” to opportunity and about moving forward. This legislation is about doing so with caution.