Shirley Ken: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Shirley Ken: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8591] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 The ACT party gives a qualified approval to this bill. We acknowledge that the Education and Science Committee did a very good job on this bill but the House might recall that it was the ACT party that at the outset said there was no need for a moratorium in the first place. I appreciate and others have made the point that this bill is not actually about uplifting the moratorium. The moratorium was for a fixed period of time. It expires on 29 October and the Government saw fit to put in place a regulatory regime. But we already had a very very thorough regulatory regime through the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. In many respects New Zealand led the world through the 1990s under the National Government when that legislation was enacted. It needed some fine-tuning but it certainly did not require we believe the 2-year moratorium that was imposed. As we know the moratorium is not about science; it is about political lobbying. That is all it has been about—political lobbying—and that is very regrettable. 
Moratoriums are bad. They are bad in principle. They are political “kick it to touch” instruments. Similarly the aquacultural moratorium is bad. Moratoriums dry up investment. Innovation goes somewhere else. The world does not stop because a particular jurisdiction decides to stop the clock. That just does not happen. The work carries on. How many top scientists in our biological sciences have left this country? After all the New Zealand economy is based on our biological systems. Our comparative advantage is good science and good climate. Unfortunately we have lost some top scientists. They have quietly gone elsewhere. The work carries on but New Zealand pretends that somehow the clock stops. Be that as it may the moratorium is about to come off in October with the passage of this legislation. This bill will set the new regime for these matters as we move forward. 
We should bear in mind too that the royal commission which sat for a considerable period of time did a very thorough block of work. The top experts on it heard the evidence of all the people and the clear recommendation of the commission was that we should embrace GM technology but move ahead with caution. That is a very responsible position. ACT certainly would not argue against that. All science needs to be treated with respect and caution but we need to embrace science. The Green Party has hung its hat on the whole GM debate and I am sure that shortly this evening we will hear a very impassioned speech from the Greens on why we should have a moratorium for ever. That is the Green Party’s position. It wants a moratorium for ever and that would be nonsense. I believe there are other lobby groups who also want a moratorium for ever. That is not the ACT party’s position. 
This bill proposes a conditional release situation. I am of the view that in terms of pest control in this country and of some of the ”biopharming” opportunities—in other words reducing the dependency on pesticides by the application of GM technology—the risks of pesticides to human health and well-being and the imposition of trade barriers from other importing nations are greater than the responsible application of GM technology. Equally with regard to pests in this country as we know New Zealand naturally did not have any mammals— 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Other than the two bats. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The member is quite right—other than the two bats and marine mammals. The scientists tell us that animals such as stoats weasels possums— 
Ron Mark 
: You’re speaking about the Labour Party. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Indeed we would need another speech about that but not at the moment. The best means of control will be biological control and the application of GM technology which we desperately need in this country to control animals such as ferrets stoats and possums. So we must move forward. 
Comments have also been made in this debate that organisms closer to the food chain pose a greater risk than medicines. I think the chairman of the select committee made that comment. I disagree with that because a medicine is injected directly into the body. The food in the alimentary canal is technically outside the body. If we think of the body as a cylinder with a hollow tube through the middle of it which is the alimentary canal going from the mouth to that other orifice it is outside the body relative to injecting something directly into the bloodstream or directly into the body. So this arbitrary difference between medicines and food is a nonsense in my view. But it is very convenient for many groups to pretend somehow that: “Oh yes we must have GM for medicines” because how can we say that we would deny the application of technology to combat some of those dreadful diseases that can plague us? But it is convenient to say that we will accept GM for medicines but not for food. That is a totally scientifically illogical position but nevertheless many people seem to grasp that stance. Perhaps that is the Green position. I do not know. We will hear— 
Sue Kedgley 
: Where is the market for food? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The Greens are interrupting to ask where the market is for food. That is a different issue. A lot of people say that GM is fine but the real reason we should not open things up is that it is the marketing perception that we need rules and regulators in Government to control the public perception. 
I actually have more faith in the market than that. I believe that if it is that bad then it probably will not happen. Certainly some very restrictive regulatory regimes will be put in place by this bill. There is no question about that. My argument and the position of the ACT party—and I heard Dr Hutchison make some similar comments—is that there is far too much red tape with this bill as we would expect from this Government. It has used this issue as an excuse to put in far more red tape and regulatory prescriptive controls than are required. 
That red tape comes in all manner of forms. The big one of course is consultation. The Labour Party loves consultation. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes there is a place for consultation but there is a point at which consultation debases a democracy. People go round and round in endless consultation. We have seen it with the Local Government Act that this Government ran through Parliament under urgency. That Act is putting massive costs on every local body in this country. There is endless consultation and we call it participatory democracy. It is nothing of the sort. It is just endless mindless meetings and the giving of leverage to uninformed people who keep complaining and going round and round in circles. But it seems to be becoming the trademark of this Government as Mr Darren Hughes knows. Government members love consultation as an excuse to tie things up put on all the costs imaginable and all the prescriptive regulations and end up going nowhere. Unfortunately we have seen all too much of that. 
The other comment that has been made is about ministerial call-in. There are wide powers there for a ministerial call-in and now the Minister can call in an application on cultural grounds. The chairman of the select committee made the point that this is Druidism but we have seen again from this Government that it is abandoning science and the evidential scientific method and adopting spiritualism. For some reason the Minister will call in something. How will we deal with something scientific that is being analysed and we are trying to evaluate it on spiritual and cultural grounds? That is a nonsense. As the Environmental Risk Management Authority has said it can process an application in 6 weeks based on science. But if we are talking about something based on cultural ethical or spiritual grounds then it can be processed into infinity. It could go on for ever. Again that is the sort of regime that this Labour Government wants to impose on the country. That is absurd and certainly the ACT party will be opposing those measures as we move through the passage of this legislation.