Heatley Phil: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8940] 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I raise again a matter that has been referred to on a number of occasions. It relates to concerns about the provisions allowing Maori to object to and have influence on the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s decisions on genetic modification and releases. The Minister did take a call and we thank her for that. She did that without needing to be invited by Simon Power although she addressed every one of his questions and looked at him the whole time. We appreciate that. However she did not address the key question raised in this debate by my colleague Paul Hutchison who represents a whole lot of people in Port Waikato whom we have heard about tonight. 
The key question was put to the Minister and I shall rephrase it: “Why are Maori getting three bites at the cherry in this bill?”. Members will notice that clause 8 contains a change in the eligibility criteria for appointment as a member of the Environmental Risk Management Authority. I shall read out the clause to the Minister to remind her: “Section 16 of the principal Act is amended by adding as subsection (2) the following subsection: ‘(2) In subsection (1) matters’—and we can go back and look at what ‘matters’ means—‘includes matters relating to the Treaty of Waitangi and tikanga Maori.’ ” 
That is the first bite at the cherry whereby the values spiritual beliefs and cultural heritage of Maori are taken into account in this legislation. But they get a second bite at the cherry and we see that in clause 10. The National Party and others have raised these concerns before about special provisions for Maori. Clause 10 provides for the establishment of Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao a committee with the express purpose of giving the authority advice and assistance from the Maori perspective on matters relating to policy and process. I am not arguing about that but it is a second bite at the cherry. However as if two bites are not enough Maori are allowed to have a further go. The third bite at the cherry is provided by clause 36. I believe that Paul Hutchison raised this matter with the Minister. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Must be a big cherry! 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Do not be surprised. This Government gives Maori plenty of big cherries but Minister Samuels keeps rolling up for more. Clause 36 is titled “Minister’s power to call in applications with significant effects” and we heard about the call-in powers for cultural and spiritual effects. Subclause (1) states: “The Minister may direct that he or she will decide an application under this Act if the Minister considers that the decision on the application will have—(a) significant cultural economic environmental ethical health international or spiritual effects;”. Basically that gives the Minister carte blanche but of course Maori again get the opportunity by means of a complaint about the cultural or ethical approach of the Environmental Risk Management Authority or the ethical effects of any decisions made by the authority. 
Can the Minister tell us why Maori get the opportunity to have effect through membership of the authority and their qualifications; why they have an opportunity to have influence through Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao; and why they can have influence by going cap in hand to the Minister to see whether he or she will intervene under the provisions of clause 36 in terms of cultural ethical or spiritual effects. We want to know why Maori do not get just one chance like everybody else but get three chances. Can the Minister answer that question? I do not see anywhere in the bill where the Chinese community—and I know that the Prime Minister has apologised to the Chinese community so it is very close to her heart—gets an opportunity to have three bites at the cherry.