Fitzsimons Jeanette: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8941] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I draw the Committee’s attention to a very important statement made a short time ago by Shane Ardern. He is a straightforward sort of bloke. He “calls a tractor a tractor” and when he says something straightforward we should listen to him. He said that the introduction of genetic engineering technology is like the introduction of the motorcar. People objected because it would kill thousands of people. So if we have a technology that has the potential to kill thousands of people surely it is incumbent on those proposing it to show that there is some corresponding benefit. Everybody tells us that it was completely unreasonable for people to oppose the introduction of the motorcar even though it would kill thousands of people—and it must be millions by now—because the motorcar provided considerable benefit to society. Maybe we should put—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but interjections are getting a bit out of hand. I remind members to look at Speaker’s ruling 51/5 which provides that interjections are to be rare reasonable and relevant; and I might add restrained. It is beginning to sound like a hen house. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: I think it is incumbent on those who wish to introduce this technology to show us where the enormous benefit will be from the release into the environment of living GMOs that would offset that very considerable risk. 
I want to return to the matter I was discussing in my previous contribution which was around the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 149. I was saying that when the moratorium expires the expiry clause applies not just to the moratorium but also to some very important protections that were put in place in last year’s amendment Act and that are also about to expire. Those are about the question of animal and human vaccines and medicines which are themselves living organisms. They were exempt from the moratorium on release but last year—as a result of our efforts I have to say—two important conditions were included. One was that the GMOs could not exist viably outside the body of the animal or person to be treated so that we do not get a population building up in the soil of living GMO bacteria or viruses that will then be ingested by every other animal that comes along whether or not we want to dose it and so on. 
The second condition was that in considering such a thing which clearly has greater risks than just a chemical its efficacy for treatment ought to be compared with the alternatives. If there is no greater efficacy of a living GMO as a treatment then it should not be approved if something else will do the job as well. Both of those very sensible provisions expire at the same time as the moratorium and that is why I recommend my amendment to clause 39A which actually prevents that expiry. 
My amendment to clause 48 provides for strict liability if the organism causes harm even if the law has not been broken. It has been said many times that GMOs pose a risk no greater than other risks. If that were the case then it would be possible to insure against them. At the moment it is not possible at the retail level to get any insurance against harm from GMOs. That is the reason they must be treated differently. In fact when the Law Commission examined this matter last year it also said that these organisms do actually present different and potentially greater risks than other technologies. 
Finally I want to welcome an important although small change made by the Education and Science Committee to clause 13 which responds to many of the submissions. As introduced the bill states that an organism is not a new organism if it is an organism of the same taxonomic classification with the same genetic modification. That would mean that if the Environmental Risk Management Authority had approved a potato with a Bt gene in it and somebody else came along with a potato with another Bt gene as part of quite a different construct inserted in a different transgenic event lodged at a different place in the genome and potentially with vastly different effects then under the original wording that could have been held to be not a new organism. The amendment that has been made which adds “as specified in the approval” closes that loophole and only transgenic organisms produced from that particular transgenic event and covered by that particular approval will be regarded as not new. That I think is a move forward. It is one of the very few small improvements that were made in the select committee and I welcome it.