Ogilvy Bernie: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Ogilvy Bernie: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8595] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I speak today to voice United Future’s support for the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill. I thank the chairperson Brian Donnelly my other colleagues on the Education and Science Committee and the submitters who came forth at their own cost and in sincerity presented whatever their issues were and listened to the wide range of submissions. This bill represents a victory of common sense and science over dogma and ideology. It presents an opportunity for New Zealand to move forward both scientifically and economically and to embrace the opportunities presented by rapid advances in the biological sciences. 
The  
Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification 
 stated: “GM has been used freely in New Zealand for more than a decade as a research tool for medical purposes and for food ingredients. It holds exciting promise not only for conquering diseases eliminating pests and contributing to the knowledge economy but for enhancing the international competitiveness of the primary industries so important to our country’s economic well-being.” That was stated before anything began. That would mean fewer pesticides fewer insecticides less use of antibiotics in farm animals such as pigs and poultry and more production per unit of land under cultivation. It all sounds like good environmental and economic sense to me. 
However as I am sure almost everyone would agree new technology such as this must be applied cautiously and safely. The bill puts a legislative and regulatory framework in place that enables United Future to feel comfortable with the expiration of the moratorium on application for commercial release of genetically modified organisms. I reiterate at this point that although United Future is comfortable with the lifting of the moratorium the moratorium itself is set to lift automatically on 29 October this year. That was set down by the amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act in 2002. That was the purpose by the way of giving the Government time to implement the recommendations of the royal commission. I believe that was a sensible step particularly in view of the fears among some sectors of the public about the possible consequences of using this new technology. 
But a further extension of the moratorium cannot in any convincing way be justified. If the Government decided to extend the moratorium it would need to introduce a whole new piece of legislation and to get that through Parliament before the end of October. That would be the Government’s prerogative and the Government’s prerogative only. It is our view that in the absence of proven danger to public health or the environment such a course of action would be a disaster for New Zealand’s scientific community for the agricultural sector and by implication for the whole economy. Of course no such evidence of danger exists. Therefore I believe 
there is only one party in Parliament that would support such a detrimental backwards step. 
Even in the absence of this bill the royal commission itself found that New Zealand’s basic regulatory framework and the key institutions were up to the job of safely addressing the application of GM technology in New Zealand. Members should remember that the royal commission study is probably one of the most extensive inquiries ever to be undertaken into the application of GM technology anywhere in the world. Even then it most certainly did not recommend the imposition of any sort of moratorium. However in the interests of caution public safety environmental protection and the importance of New Zealand’s “clean green” image for the marketing of our exports the royal commission did make a series of recommendations that focused on enhancing the existing regulatory framework and the institutions even further. It did not seek to throw everything out and start again or to take drastic steps to bring existing frameworks up to some new impossible standard. It simply made suggestions for improvements based on sound science to make an already robust regime even safer. That is what the bill is all about. The New Organisms and Other Matters Bill implements the sensible moderate recommendations of the royal commission so we can be absolutely sure that our regulatory framework and institutions are as good as we can make them before the genetic modification moratorium is lifted next month. 
Another advantage of this bill besides its focus on safety is that it takes other aspects of GM technology into account such as the workability of the regulations that businesses will have to comply with so that GM technology can be used in practice as well as in theory. This is important because the economic benefits for our country are potentially huge. Despite claims to the contrary there is no concrete evidence that lifting the moratorium in October will harm New Zealand’s exports. Certainly our exports showed no signs of suffering from the absence of a GM moratorium in the days before the start of the moratorium and the royal commission inquiry. 
United Future continues to hold with the idea that the economic effect of lifting the GM moratorium will be a positive one despite the huge amount of misinformation and the substandard analysis distributed by the anti-GE lobby in an effort to convince people that the opposite is true. One commonly cited example of this effort is a survey that reportedly demonstrates that a large proportion of consumers in New Zealand’s main export markets said they would cease buying New Zealand food products if GM products were released in this country. As my colleague Larry Baldock said in the first reading speech to this bill a recently released Treasury paper on economic impacts of GM makes the point that overseas consumers are unlikely to base their purchase decisions on whether a country’s products of origin are GE-free. It has nothing to do with it. In fact when it is applied to New Zealand the reality is that most people will make their decision on the basis of price not origin of any sort—whether it is GE or non-GE. 
It is also interesting to note some of the groups calling for an extension of the moratorium claim that such an extension would limit New Zealand’s economic opportunities because it may be 3 to 5 years before any genetically modified crop developed in New Zealand is commercialised anyway. If this does turn out to be the case then the lifting of the moratorium now will not have any practical effect for several years anyway. But if something does end up being ready for development before then—and these things can happen—it would be a shame to see such an opportunity go begging. Scientists are not lost overseas when the regulatory regime necessary for such developments to proceed safely is already in place. 
It is important symbolically for potential future investors that any legal roadblocks are removed as soon as is safely possible. This new bill satisfies United Future’s policy of having the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification in place before the lifting of the moratorium. Now it is time for New Zealand to continue moving forward safely and cautiously but forward nevertheless.