Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8881] 
9.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Will she agree to visit Canada before the Government lifts the moratorium on the growing of GE crops so that she can see at first hand the problems Canada is experiencing as a result of growing GE crops as outlined in the recently released report by Canada’s Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food; if not why not? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 No. There are much more cost-effective ways to gather information in this age of telecommunication. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why on earth would she not want to visit a country that has been growing GE for 7 years to see for herself at first hand the consequences or does she not want to face up to the fact that growing GE in Canada has resulted in widespread contamination a loss of premium markets in Europe and Asia damage to the international perceptions of Canadian produce and loss of confidence amongst consumers in the integrity of the Canadian food supply? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I have no need. I can get information on most of that huge list in the question by ringing the Canadian High Commission going on the Internet and talking to a number of people. I do not have to visit a country and cost the taxpayer much-needed money. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: How can she be confident that the Environmental Risk Management Authority will be able to make adequate economic risk analysis on a GE food application when her own Government has demanded that the methodology be improved and this work does not have to be reported until October 2004? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The member has confused two different work streams. The methodology used by the Environmental Risk Management Authority will be completed by the time the moratorium lifts. The further work being done by Treasury on economic effects is certainly not due until the end of 2004. But we have much information including the wee gem that the Canadians have not suffered any loss in their overall export markets because of what they grow in genetically modified products. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has the Minister seen any information to support her view that a cautious case by case consideration of applications to release GM technology will not harm the economy following the expiry of the moratorium at the end of the month? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes I have. A recent Otago University study interviewed key people in the European food markets and found that negative sentiment about genetically modified food does not transfer to general perceptions of country image in relation to food quality and food safety. Nor does negative sentiment transfer to unrelated non-GM products. In other words the expiry of the moratorium on applications to release genetically modified organisms will not harm New Zealand’s clean green image as some in this House claim and the cautious application of GM technology is the appropriate way to proceed which the Canadians are about to adapt as they have stated in that same programme that the member quoted from. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the Minister is so confident of her position—unusual as it is—why will she not ask the Prime Minister to allow a conscience vote on this issue so that the Labour Party can express without the whip being applied its real view on this issue? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I am absolutely confident that even if there were a conscience vote Labour colleagues would vote sensibly on a case by case decision. 
Sue Kedgley 
: What is her response to the Canadian farmer who said in an interview published last week: “They told us GM food would help farming but it has brought nothing but trouble and now we are trapped in a giant experiment over which we have no control. Once you open the door to GM you may never be able to close it again. We were also assured cross-contamination would not happen but the fact is that GM is out there nobody can control it the stuff is spreading no one can stop it that is what is so scary.”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister may respond very briefly. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The difference between Canada and New Zealand is that Canada has no form of conditional release. The only way it could make an assessment was on some environmental contextual assessment. It cannot assess for economic benefits. One of the things that is different between Canada and New Zealand is that we are setting up a process under the legislation before the House for case by case for modifications for conditional release for the setting of conditions that will prevent us from going down the way that Canada experienced with GM canola. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: If the price farmers receive for non-GE canola is damaged by the nearby growing of GE canola—as that Canadian report shows—why does she support a field test of GE onions in preparation for a release of those onions in New Zealand that could damage our $100 million onion exports which are mainly to countries that are very resistant to GE food? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The only price loss was for a period of time when the Canadians were denied a market entry into the European Union. When they changed their market across to Japan Saudi Arabia and I have forgotten the two other countries their market price recovered.