Coddington Deborah: Third Readings 
Coddington Deborah: Third Readings 
[Volume:612;Page:9130] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I speak on behalf of the ACT party. We support these bills because we never supported the moratorium in the first place. The moratorium was just another example of political sitting on the fence. The Government shelved it—kicked it into touch as my colleague Ken Shirley said—while it dealt with the Greens and got their support on things like the Supreme Court Bill. Now that the Greens have supported the passing of the Supreme Court legislation we can go ahead and pass these bills. That is not the only thing. I go further than the Hon Brian Donnelly in criticising the Greens and say that the Greens like doing those dodgy sleazy deals with the Government. They traded with this Government on the transport legislation which will be to the detriment of the country too. 
While I congratulate Labour members on passing this legislation and pushing it through I ask them what the difference is between now and then when the moratorium was first put in place. There is no difference in the science. The Greens demanded that commission of inquiry into genetic modification and they got it. What happened? In July 2001 the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification handed its four-volume report to the Governor-General. I will look at the quality of the members of that commission. They included the Anglican bishop the Rt Rev. Richard Randerson the reproductive biologist and south Auckland general practitioner Dr Jean Fleming the Maori health expert Dr Jacqueline Allan and it was chaired by the Rt Hon Sir Thomas Eichelbaum. They held 15 public meetings 11 hui 29 workshops one youth forum and listened to 107 presentations over 13 weeks. They also received more than 10000 public submissions and conducted a public opinion survey of 1153 New Zealanders. 
I am one person who read that report when it came out. In essence its advice was to go forward with care because “continuation of research is critical to New Zealand’s future”. The report recommended that field trials should proceed on a case by case basis. It is ridiculous to say that the Greens have principles on this issue. They have no principles at all. They just cling to some irrational beliefs. Everywhere that this issue has been debated in the public forum—in Parliament in front of the Environmental Risk Management Authority out in public—the Greens’ case does not stack up. They and the anti-GM lobbyists cannot justify a ban on GM or GE. The anti-GM lobbyists rely on clever marketing which uses the very tools of capitalism that they claim to despise. One could argue that the Green argument on this issue is what is known around the world as a “watermelon”—pink on the inside and green on the outside because it is an argument against progress. No matter how many naked bodies are shown with four breasts being pumped for milk and no matter how many pink bras are displayed in Parliament that still does not add up to fact-based evidence. They have falsely claimed that the Canadian economy is struggling because of GE. That is disputed. It is absolute rubbish. They have scaremongered about foods such as baby formula. It is the same with organic food. Organic food in the supermarket is half as expensive again as non-organic food and if life is so sweet for people that all they have to worry about is whether their food is organic or genetically modified life must be pretty good. There are people in this country who worry about getting food on the table let alone whether it is genetically modified or organic. 
At the third reading stage I acknowledge the integrity of the chairperson of the New Zealand Life Sciences Network Dr William Rolleston who has consistently remained the calm voice of reason in the midst of hysterical and irrational debate which has sometimes been very personally abusive—he has had a pie thrown in his face. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Before the break I was talking about the stand of the anti-GM lobbyists—the Green Party included—who cannot justify their ban on GM and GE. They talk about zero tolerance for GM in this country but that is a nonsense for a start. There are already numerous GE ingredients in imported processed foods that are for sale in New Zealand. We have been eating and ingesting those for quite a while. There are soups sauces breads margarines confectionery peanut butter cordials and soft drinks biscuits and yoghurts. Some ingredients such as yeast in an enzyme used in cheesemaking have been used in this country for a decade. Most of us as I said have unknowingly ingested them and nobody has come to harm because of it. So GM is already here to stay. That is why it is obvious that people who oppose this legislation are opposed to progress. 
I recall that I also acknowledged the chairperson of the Life Sciences Network Dr William Rolleston. As I said he has been the calm voice of reason in the midst of all this debate. I think I got to the point of saying that he has suffered things like having pies thrown in his face and that is about the level of intelligence one would expect from people who oppose progress. We have seen the Wild Greens rip up crops destroy the life’s work of scientists and destroy the work of a PhD scientist. I was pleased to learn recently that that potato crop is back on track. I applaud the Minister for the Environment Marian Hobbs who said when talking about that crop that New Zealanders will not find GM crops out there growing everywhere this summer next summer or the summer after. She said that they might find a few paddocks somewhere with some conditions set around them and that we do not want GM because we are buddying up to Monsanto in the US but because we want it for us. She went on to talk about it paying for health and education and to say that it would make New Zealand a more prosperous country. On its own it will not get us back up into the top half of the OECD and we cannot rely on this Government to do that but the world is not going to end on 30 October. 
I would like to talk about the issue of cultural and spiritual values that have been taken into account by some people in this legislation. It is hypocritical for people to oppose GM in foods but support it in medicines. Both food and medicines go into us and for both GM in foods and GM in medicines at some stage the research has to leave the laboratory. I refer members to an excellent article in a magazine I have which is written by a very good journalist who unfortunately is no longer in journalism. This journalist did a story on a whanau in the Bay of Plenty whose members had almost been wiped out by stomach cancer. An excellent scientist in Dunedin discovered they had a stomach gene that made them prone to stomach cancer and that genetic modification could save those people’s lives. That is what we are looking at but for genetic modification to save people’s lives the experimental matter has to leave the laboratory and go into field trials. In medicine these are called clinical trials—[ 
Interruption 
] Well if members support that they have to support clinical trials or field trials with food too. They have to be consistent. We know why some members are not consistent. They would not get one vote if they opposed trials to help people suffering from multiple sclerosis diabetes or stomach cancer. If members opposed the access of those people to field trials and clinical trials of genetically modified organisms they would not get one iota of support. They should be consistent and support GE or GM in food research too.