Fitzsimons Jeanette: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8928] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I was not planning to speak again on Part 1 but as it happens statements have been made by a couple of speakers that cry out to be rebutted. 
I start with Mr Heatley who needs to read the bill. It is perhaps not surprising that he has not picked up on clause 39A which repeals the moratorium because it was not in the bill as introduced. It snuck in at the select committee without the select committee even being aware of it or discussing it. It just went through as part of what the officials brought to us in that last hasty meeting. Clause 39A does repeal Part 5A of the principal Act—quite unnecessarily so as Part 5A expires naturally anyway as a result of last year’s Act but they decided to have a belt and braces approach and expire it again in this bill. That is what that clause does. 
I turn to Mr Donnelly’s very elegant attempt to criticise the Green amendment in the name of my colleague Mr Ewen-Street. Mr Donnelly said that if the commencement of the bill is delayed for 5 years a number of terrible things will happen. First of all he says delaying the commencement by 5 years does not extend the moratorium. Legally of course that is true but as I pointed out in my speech in practice it does extend the moratorium because without conditional release there will be no releases. That is all the Green Party has ever tried to achieve. The moratorium is a means to an end. It is not an end in itself. Preventing release of these organisms into the environment is what we have always been on about. 
He then went on to say that it would prevent the legal establishment of Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao and that is true too. But nga kaihautu exists now. I do not think the Environmental Risk Management Authority is on the point of abolishing it if the bill does not go through. So I do not see that there is any great practical effect from that one. 
He then said that the very severe penalties would not be available and that is also true. However those very severe penalties are needed only if releases into the environment are approved and they do harm or break their consents. So there is much less need for severe penalties if this bill does not go through and there are no releases. 
He also pointed out that the streamlining of low-risk approvals would not take place either. That would be a shame because the Green Party— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Would the member please come to the commencement? 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: This is all about the commencement Mr Chairperson. I am speaking to the amendment in Mr Ewen-Street’s name. If the streamlining of low-risk matters has to wait 5 years that is unfortunate because the Green Party does not oppose streamlining of provisions for low-risk work in contained laboratories—we never have. But if that matter is put in the same bill as provisions that lift the moratorium then that is unfortunate and it just has to suffer. 
Finally Mr Donnelly said the call-in powers would not be extended. Well the call-in powers will not be needed either if there are no releases. 
So in fact Mr Donnelly’s objections to our amendment do not stand. I commend the amendment in the name of my colleague Mr Ewen-Street and I hope the Committee will vote for it.