Donnelly Brian: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Donnelly Brian: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8852] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (New Zealand First) 
: 
 After the performance in the House of the Mothers Against Genetic Engineering I noted in the report-back speech that some people obviously thought that “NOOM” stood for New Orgasms and Other Matters Bill rather than New Organisms and Other Matters Bill. 
The exercise in this part of the debate this afternoon is to look at the name—the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill—and ask ourselves whether it clearly relates to what this bill is all about and whether it fairly reflects what the bill is doing. There has been some difficulty because the name does not clarify that. Many people believe that this legislation lifts the moratorium imposed 2 years ago to give the Government time to put in place certain things. This bill does not do that. Possibly the title of the bill could have been “Lifting the Moratorium (Not) Bill” which would have clarified the bill for everybody. It would have saved a lot of people a lot of trouble and a lot of problems trying to gum up the works—thinking that if they did not get this bill through then the moratorium would stay indefinitely. That is not the case—the moratorium disappears on 29 October regardless of whether this bill goes through. It is very important that the public understands that. It could have been done if we had changed the name of the bill to clarify that particular point. 
There is a reason for calling it New Organisms and Other Matters Bill rather than the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Act—I notice from a Supplementary Order Paper that when the Minister changes the bill into four parts she will go back to that—and it is to demonstrate that this legislation is about putting in place the recommendations of the royal commission around gene technology rather than the “hazardous substances” of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. It focuses very much upon that. 
We have to ask ourselves whether the bill has done what it set out to do—in other words what the moratorium was put in place for and why it allowed a space of 2 years for this work to be done. Some of the things in it certainly have so the bill justifies the name it is being called. Certainly it has in terms of conditional release which we in New Zealand First believe is one of the most important aspects of this bill. The royal commission identified a real gap in the regulatory framework which was that if an application came in for commercial release it had to be all or nothing and not anywhere in between. If that is to be controlled in any sensible fashion conditional release is a quite essential category particularly for therapeutics and medicinal developments. 
This legislation most certainly puts in place a conditional-release regime. One could argue that therefore that justifies the name New Organisms and Other Matters Bill defining quite clearly that the legislation is to put in place what the royal commission was talking about. It does a few other things—for example it clarifies the liability regime. Once again that was something the royal commission said needed to be put in place so this bill attempts to do it—which justifies once again the name it was given. It has also streamlined decisions around low-risk GE organisms. Dr Paul Hutchison pointed out in the minority report that that could have been done in the hazardous substances and new organisms amendment legislation that was done a couple of years ago. I think the Government was saying at that time that there still needed to be a bit of tidy-up work around it and so it would prefer to leave it—as it has done. 
However the Government has left out a whole lot of things that the royal commission said should be put in place. For example mandatory conditions around buffer zones etc. and codes of practice are not there. The bill contains no clarification at all. It has left the poor old local governments right in the lurch and so could be called the “Partial Response to the Royal Commission on GE Bill”. I note the word “partial” because of the things the bill has missed out. 
I want to talk also about the local government issue and why this particular bill could very well be called the “Leaving Local Government in the Lurch Bill”. This bill purely and simply ignores local government.