Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3423] 
2.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: When are the various research programmes recommended by the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification investigating the risks of horizontal gene transfer impacts on soil and social and economic impact of releasing genetically modified organisms due to be reported to the Government? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The Government is spending over $6 million on research into the impacts of genetic modification. Much of this research is due to be reported back to the Government over the coming months beginning with some research into economic impacts due by the end of March. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What exactly will the Government do if the research into horizontal gene transfer and its risks due to report in 2005 suggests that it was a bad idea to release genetically modified organisms over the preceding 2 years and has the Minister discovered a miraculous way to close the door after the horse has bolted or is she admitting now that research recommended by the royal commission is irrelevant to Government policy on genetic engineering? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Two of those three questions can be answered. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The royal commission recommended a wide range of research to be done. It did not say at any stage that we would hold up proceedings until the research was completed. On the concept of horizontal gene transfer we are well aware that this is a debate that will rage for some time. The findings of this research are to inform the case by case decisions made by the Environmental Risk Management Authority. The decisions that we released yesterday were to do with the framework of how such decisions might be made. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister cite any research on genetic modification that shows any difference in the effects of GM technology on the health and safety of Maori New Zealanders as compared with other New Zealanders; if not why did she announce yesterday that the Act would be amended to include treaty principle amendments that would give Maori rights to participate in the process not accorded to other New Zealanders? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: What I announced yesterday was that a Maori reference group has been established to advise the Government on amendments to the Act that would ensure it reflects the treaty relationship in a meaningful constructive and practical way. 
Mita Ririnui 
: Why has the Government proposed this set of changes to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and why at this time? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The proposed changes to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act that I announced yesterday implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. The royal commission recommended these changes as part of an overall strategy to proceed with caution while preserving opportunities. The proposed changes give the Environmental Risk Management Authority another tool to make accurate assessments. The changes are designed to be in place by the time the moratorium on the release of genetically modified organisms lifts in October this year. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will this so-called treaty relationship that she asserts on the issue of genetic modification allow for intermarriage between Maori and European or stop it? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I have no comment to make on that question. 
Larry Baldock 
: How important does the Minister consider it is to the New Zealand economy and the advancement of scientific knowledge to amend the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to complete the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification to ensure that scientific progress is able to proceed cautiously in New Zealand? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Having resourced a royal commission and having taken on board the extensive work that it does I can tell the House that this Government considered it to be extremely important that the recommendations of that royal commission were implemented. They are about proceeding with caution while preserving the immense opportunities that exist. We saw some of those opportunities displayed on television last night when we were talking about the work at Ruakura. There are significant opportunities and I welcome United Future’s support for moving forward to implement those recommendations. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: If the Minister considers it so important to implement the recommendations of the royal commission why is she not acting on its recommendation that food animals such as cattle and sheep should not be used to produce pharmaceuticals; and how is that described as proceeding with caution? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: From memory I understand that the recommendation was about the use of bioreactors; it was not about the production of pharmaceuticals.  
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What is the difference between using an animal as a bioreactor and using an animal to produce pharmaceuticals—is that not the same thing? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: As I understand it it is not. A bioreactor is when one may use that animal then eat the food from it. We are not suggesting that that happens in any case whatsoever.