Ardern Shane: Third Readings 
Ardern Shane: Third Readings 
[Volume:612;Page:9136] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I was nearly caught off guard there after that brilliant contribution by the member from Hamilton East—particularly the length and breadth of it just about caught me out! Tonight we will talk about the legislation at some stage but I start by drawing the analogy I did when I spoke in the Committee stage about what happens when new technology is developed and people do not understand it and they are motivated more by fear than an understanding of the science. I draw the analogy of Henry Ford when he introduced his first mass-production assembly line back in his home country and started producing the model T car. The people of the area rose up and belted on the side of his factory with sticks went to the media and protested up and down the country—I am not sure whether they were clothed or unclothed but they protested. 
Their argument was that the contraption that he was going to mass-produce would rattle frighten the horses and it would kill thousands of people. Do members know what? The protesters were absolutely right. His rattling contraption did frighten the horses and it did kill thousands of people. Guess what? Not one member of the Green Party arrives in Parliament today on a horse or with a horse and cart. On a skateboard yes but not a horse and cart. The analogy was totally confirmed for me when I went to visit my old mum in hospital and came out too late to get a meal and decided to go through the drive-through of KFC which is multinational. [ 
Interruption 
] Potentially it is genetically engineered food; I am not sure. 
Simon Power 
: It’s horrible. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It is a dreadful place. My colleague says it is a horrible place and he is right. It is dreadful food it is likely to kill someone it is unhealthy. I had better be careful—I do not want to denigrate them too much. Of course we will go in and enjoy it in great quantities. But the thing that really struck me was as I pulled into there in a great rush as one does and joined the queue that the Japanese import in front of me that was belching clouds of smoke had on the bumper sticker “Vote Green and save New Zealand from GE”. It was belching out smoke—I had to turn the fan off because we were blasting it all into our car—and it had: “Vote Green and save New Zealand from GE”. 
Here we go. We have a multinational here in New Zealand a car that is so environmentally hazardous that it should not be on the road—it probably will not be when the new regulations come in—and there is no guarantee at all that the food that we would consume from that outlet is in any way healthy. Potentially it is genetically modified as well. I would not know about that. We enjoyed a great feed of KFC chicken and went home happy to have KFC in New Plymouth. 
But the analogy is absolute when we look at that. Clearly we have to take note of the findings of the royal commission which were: to proceed with caution. Clearly there are some concerns and there will be some hazards. [ 
Interruption 
] My colleagues here are trying to draw me into the issue of old “Fergies”—I will get there in the finish. The reality is clearly there are some risks. But if we do not base on good science good research the analysis of whether to proceed then what do we base it on? On what basis can we proceed with anything? If we do not allow properly controlled research to take place both in the field and in the laboratory then how will we ever know? Will we wait until somebody else finds what we probably already are halfway down the road to discovering with regard to some of the major breakthroughs that I predict will take place in medicine? Will we wait for somebody else to discover that and lose all the benefits of that? Will we or will we proceed with caution? The National Party is of the view that after a long period of investigation after a long period of consultation after the work has been done by the royal commission and after the work has been done in making sure that the Environmental Risk Management Authority requirements are robust and the research is robust then we must proceed with caution. 
My colleagues keep tempting me to raise the issue of the old “Fergie”. Well the Ferguson tractor is a major piece of technological advancement. The Ferguson system designed a machine that allowed the plough the tractor and the cultivator and all the other implements that fit on to it to be one device. When we moved from the horse-drawn implement to a mechanical device that was all one—and much more manoeuvrable—that was the Ferguson tractor. It is an offensive piece of machinery of course; it is a very disorderly piece of machinery and one gets charged with an offence if one drives it! But if one is protesting against GE and strips naked and lies down on the front lawn of Parliament that is not disorderly—no charges are laid! 
So I understand from this that the Ferguson tractor itself is disorderly. It is that old Ferguson tractor that is disorderly. That has to be clear to most people. It is a horrible thing to have a Ferguson tractor an iconic piece of agricultural equipment with a New Zealand flag flying from it on the steps of Parliament. That is a heinous crime and a morally reprehensible thing to do. There is no question about that. But backing up to the front gates of Premier House with a truckload of dirt and tipping that in front of the gates of Premier House so that the whole of the Labour caucus and Cabinet cannot get out is fine. There is nothing wrong with that. 
Simon Power 
: That’s insightful! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That is leadership! But they should have dropped off 10 truckloads of dirt and blocked it for a couple of months. That would have been useful as well as insightful and showing leadership. That is not a crime. Of course they would not have a “Fergie” tractor to climb over it so they would be trapped there for a long time. That would have been useful and a great thing. 
Clearly we have a double standard in terms of what is important and what is not. Clearly we have a double standard in terms of the way this Government responds to different protests. Clearly we have a double standard where farmers are not welcome in Parliament and their protest is described as “foolish and stupid” but anything goes when it comes to putting up an argument against GE even when the Government is supporting the issue because those who are opposed just happen to be the group that supports the Government with its vote on most things—like changing major constitutional issues to do with this country’s access to the Privy Council. That is the difference; that is the double standard and I am absolutely opposed to that. 
We must proceed with this legislation but with caution: with science-based and carefully analysed research about where to go. Let us look at some of the opportunities that may arise from this. Certainly there will be opportunities in increased production. We are not sure how great they will be. We are not sure whether they will be commercially viable but we will never know unless the research is done. We will never know unless we are leaders instead of followers in some of this. We will never know unless we allow some of that carefully considered research to take place. 
We do not know what may come out in a medical sense. New Zealand has been a leader in this area. We do not know what may come out of that. An example was drawn earlier about using pig insulin versus some of the more synthetic or more modified approaches that we have now. What we do know is that forms of genetic engineering and genetic modification have been going on for thousands of years. Today we are just moving to the next wave of that technology—carefully. We will be doing it carefully and cautiously and with tight regulations and careful consideration. 
Let me explain how one can get caught out politically. The Prime Minister said we would have “zero tolerance” for genetic engineering in this country. Then we found out that some corn that had been imported may or may not have been contaminated. So we went through this extensive testing process and of course all the scientists would have been able to tell her straight out and probably did that we can never guarantee zero tolerance; that there will always be a tolerance level. The only way we can guarantee zero tolerance is to test every single corn seed and thereby destroy every single corn seed. So there is no way of guaranteeing zero tolerance. There was an example of the Prime Minister being caught out by not studying science and listening to scientists. We need some consistency in this whole debate.