Power Simon: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8938] 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 When I left off—[ 
Interruption 
] The member for Tukituki yells out. He has a big workload signing all those JP nominations. He should get back to his huge workload which will consume him for months. Before we were interrupted I was talking about the issues of liabilities and penalties and changing burdens of proof in respect of issues in this clause. I want to say—[ 
Interruption 
] The member has shifted his seat to gain an advantage Mr Chairman. Members on this side of the Chamber just want a fair go. 
I refer members to the comments in the minority report of National and ACT in which we noted the advice from officials that there was nothing sufficiently different about genetic engineering from a liability perspective to justify a liability regime that is different in principle from those applied in other scenarios. That is an extremely important point and it is a point that the officials ran us through many times. The GE situation is no different in principle when designing a liability paradigm from any other legal scenario. Yet what do we see in the bill? We see new section 124B(3) inserted by clause 48—a small but significant change which I have to say has not only worn me down but has I am sure worn the officials down with my going on about it. I tell members that this is what the section did say. It stated: “The Court must not make the order”—that is a pecuniary penalty order—“if it is satisfied that the person did not know and could not reasonably have known of the breach.” That is the original standard that was applied which is a fair reasonable standard with a burden that lies more or less on the court actually to satisfy itself that a liability or a breach had not occurred. 
Now what has gone in by way of amendment is this: “The Court must not make the order if the person satisfies the Court ...”. So the burden shifts from the court being satisfied in its own mind—those sitting on the bench—that the applicant did not know or could not reasonably have known of the breach to the person—the applicant him or herself—having to satisfy the court that that test had been met. That is a significant change in the application of the burden. That is a substantial lifting of the hurdle of the burden on the applicant. There is no explanation as to why that amendment occurred when the officials told us in the Education and Science Committee that GE of itself does not demand a different liability regime from that which would otherwise apply in any other legal scenario. Government members have not satisfied members on this side of the Committee as to why that change has occurred. 
I say this to the Minister. I have been in this House now for 4½ years and on each occasion I have spoken on a bill when that Minister has been responsible she has taken a genuine interest in the course of the legislation that was proceeding through the House. I have watched that Minister listen carefully to submissions and contributions that have been made in the range of the portfolios that she has held and I cannot believe that on an issue as important as this—an issue that will lift this moratorium and in the minds of some create a very difficult situation—the Minister of the Crown responsible for this legislation has not once got to her feet to explain to this Parliament and to the people of New Zealand why those clauses relating to cultural ethical and spiritual values which we are all so worried about on this side of the Committee are in there and why the liability regimes imposed in this particular piece of legislation are different from others despite the advice of the officials. I say to the Minister that previously she has been prepared to stand up and make a contribution on pieces of legislation like this. I know the member is an honourable member and I ask her to take the next call make a contribution on those two points—which have been covered so many times by members speaking in this Committee—and enlighten us as to why the Government has made those changes.