Heatley Phil: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8925] 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I am enthusiastic to talk about Part 1 but I must say by way of your interest Mr Chairman and the interest of my colleagues—who are heckling me more than those on the other side of the Chamber—that the interest would have been greater if the purpose clause which is in Part 2 had remained in Part 1 as we would also be debating that now. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts as to why the purpose was shifted into Part 2. Perhaps she could make a comment on that after my speech because I know that some members sit here with bated breath wondering and worrying why the purpose was shifted to Part 2. However I will speak on the commencement date. 
This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent which is 30 October 2003. I would like to clarify some confusion in the Chamber and out amongst the public which was brought about not least by some recent speeches made in the Chamber and by press releases to the public. The bill does not deal at all with the expiry of the moratorium. It only sets in place regulations that come into effect when the moratorium ends. 
 The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Act 2002 specified that the Environmental Risk Management Authority was not to approve any applications for the release of GM until after 29 October 2003—and we are well aware of that. The fact that the legislation we are now debating will come into force the following day is simply a management issue. When that GM moratorium is ended there will be regulations and guidelines in place to deal with applications of GM experimentation and release. At the time of the passage of that legislation back in 2002 just over 12 months ago I recall that without the passage of this bill now the law would revert to the framework that was in place previously—namely the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act of 1996. 
There is no vote to lift the moratorium on GM and that is a given. My suggestion to the Greens is that if they really wanted a vote on the extension of the moratorium they might have tabled some legislation themselves. It could have been quite possible for them to table legislation. I remember their protesting and running out of Parliament. I recall their calling in protesters to show off their brassieres up in the public galleries. I know they paid their relatives today to stand and lie out on the grass in front of Parliament stark naked. Apart from all the nudity and exposure perhaps the Greens could have done something sensible like present legislation to the House extending the moratorium. That would have been the sensible way of doing it. That is the kind of action this Parliament has done for well over a hundred years. I would suggest that in the future rather than the Greens reverting to streaking and all sorts of other ways of tackling legislation they could do it the way everyone else does it because it does tend to be successful. 
Under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act the Environmental Risk Management Authority can approve commercial release of GMOs after notifying various authorities and it is that legislation that would come into play on 30 October if this bill is not passed and if it did not have a commencement date of 30 October 2003. That is why Part 1 dealing solely with the commencement date—that being the day the moratorium lifts—is so significant. Normally a commencement date is not so significant but this one certainly is.