Hutchison Paul: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8943] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 It is welcoming to hear Jeanette Fitzsimons say that the amendments to the taxonomic classification are an area where the Education and Science Committee members did work together and achieve a small constructive improvement that everybody agreed on. But when the Minister got up and spoke on the call-in powers I was concerned that she skated over the reality of what they are. I think she has said pretty well in this Chamber that if there were an application for commercial release of a GE crop in the next few years then she would almost certainly use her call-in powers—and she sees that as almost impossible. I would like her to get up and explain to the Committee the real extent of those call-in powers if used in the fullest sense. As I say when she spoke on them she was very very peripheral and superficial. She skated over just how extensive they might be suggesting that they were of minimal importance. I think it is important that the Minister explains to the Committee just how potentially enormous those call-in powers can be even on some of the most well-researched applications that come through. 
The other thing I was interested in was that New Zealand First seems to have difficulty distinguishing between principle populism and the Greens—and I must say that that is an awfully difficult thing to have difficulty with. 
I refer now to the Supplementary Order Paper I have submitted on which I suggest that paragraph (c) be added to clause 4A in order to provide a practical framework for proceeding with caution in the management of new organisms while preserving opportunities. I think it is important for this provision to be placed in the bill. Certainly it is the rhetoric of the Minister but unfortunately she has omitted to ensure that this practical framework which was recommended by the royal commission has been placed in the bill itself. 
I go on to clause 18 because this provision indeed deals with one of the hugely complicated and almost impossible requirements of this bill in terms of compliance. It inserts new section 38A “Application for approval to import or release new organism with controls”. It states: “(2) An application for a conditional release approval must be in the approved form and must include— … (e) all the possible adverse effects of the organism on the environment;”. 
We discussed this at length in the select committee and clearly a case went to court and was ruled on. However to ask anyone to describe all the possible effects is nigh on impossible and I suggest to the Minister that my amendment to replace the word “possible” with the words “reasonable and practicable” is eminently sensible. I urge her to take note of that because as I have said in the explanatory note to my Supplementary Order Paper: “To include ‘all the possible side effects’ imposes an unrealistic requirement on an applicant. The High Court ruling in the case between ‘Mothers Against Genetic Engineering Incorporated’ the Minister for the Environment ERMA and AgResearch noted ‘to apply a literal meaning to the words creates an absurdity it would include effects known and unknown’.” The judge also went on to say: “The interpretation is to be approached with two principles of statutory interpretation clearly in mind: (a) the meaning of a statutory provision is to be ascertained from the text in the light of the Act’s purpose; and (b) Parliament is presumed to legislate in a manner that produces a practical workable and sensible approach.”