Anderton Jim: Third Readings 
Anderton Jim: Third Readings 
[Volume:612;Page:9125] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I just point out that there is not a Labour Government; there is a Labour-Progressive coalition Government. 
This afternoon I wish to pay tribute to the leadership shown by Labour on this difficult and potentially divisive issue. The debate has often been coloured by misinformation and manipulation and it is not easy for a political party in Government to deal with those matters. I respect Labour for showing leadership on an issue that involves cutting-edge science and tremendous potential gains for medical treatment in particular and humankind in general. 
However it may come as a little surprise to the House that the Progressive party does not believe that this legislation has got it right for our nation at this time. We support many aspects of this legislation but we believe that the current moratorium on GM releases should be further extended for any genetically modified organisms that could possibly enter the human food chain. As many will know in 2001 my colleague Matt Robson and I supported the motion of our former colleague Phillida Bunkle to impose a temporary moratorium on the release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. It was an honour and source of some pride that two other parties—Labour and indeed New Zealand First—supported our party’s position at that time. We made it clear then that we did not believe in setting an arbitrary date on which the moratorium should be lifted in the future. 
Consistent with that earlier this year the Progressive party reserved its position on that issue within the Cabinet process. We wanted scientific and economic considerations to influence our planning and the moratorium to be lifted only if a majority of this Parliament was of the view that that should occur so we have this debate today. 
Back in 2001 of course ACT National United Future and even the Greens all voted against the moratorium for their own separate and in my view somewhat peculiar reasons. Labour and New Zealand First voted with us then. We voted in favour not because we accepted that 29 October 2003 was necessarily the best time to lift the moratorium fully but rather because we were voting for the moratorium to be imposed in the first place. 
In the Progressive party’s view as ratified by our recent inaugural conference consumer resistance to genetic modification or to genetically modified foods appears to be hardening around the world and more and more food suppliers overseas are seeking foods that can be guaranteed GM-free. What alarms us is that that is particularly true of the wealthier markets of Japan and Europe. Some New Zealand exporters tell us they are currently benefiting from promoting New Zealand’s GE-free status. They tell us that by changing the perception—and therefore potentially the reality—that New Zealand is no longer a GM-free food producer we risk losing the edge that our current status affords us and it could cost us jobs and export sales. The Progressives are not convinced therefore at this time that the potential gains from releasing genetically modified crops into the environment have been conclusively demonstrated in order to sufficiently outweigh the known benefits of sticking with our GM-free marketing advantage. 
I personally am disappointed not to be voting with my Labour colleagues today. It is not common as everyone knows for Labour and the Progressives to take different positions in Parliament. Since the last election only a small number of issues out of the hundreds that we consider every month have resulted in our adoption of different positions. Tertiary fee increases and poker-machine numbers come to mind but we totally reject the bumper-sticker politics that say “Keep New Zealand GE-free”. There is a high degree of simplistic sloganeering about such proclamations and I stand 100 percent with the coalition Government as a whole in favour of science in favour of rationality and in favour of an evidence-based future for New Zealand’s economy. 
The Progressives are pro-science so we support the provisions in this legislation that streamline laboratory research. We agree with the rational evidence-based approach to this issue. Like our partner in Government the Labour Party we are also pro - economic development and pro - high-quality jobs. It is just that at this time we are very concerned that some of New Zealand’s exporters who rely so heavily upon our clean green image are given protection from any negative perceptions by overseas consumers in rich economies. We fear that such perceptions will arise the moment overseas news reports start stating that New Zealand is a GM food producer. We are dealing with overseas consumers’ fears. Perhaps some of them are irrational; nevertheless in business the consumer is pretty important. 
The Progressives have carefully evaluated the experience of GM food - producing countries around the world and considered the views of New Zealand’s food producers. While some exporters are benefiting in real terms from promoting GE-free food we have not been convinced that significant numbers of New Zealand primary producers are losing market share because they cannot use GM technology in the paddock. We respect Fonterra and Wrightson but we also respect Zespri the Sanitarium Health Food Co. ENZA and Heinz-Wattie among many others. 
Todd Muller of Zespri New Zealand’s largest horticultural exporter has said that Zespri’s preference is for New Zealand to remain a GM-free food producer—at least until the uncertainties of GM technology are resolved and consumer safety concerns are answered. Kim Stirling of Sanitarium has written: “We propose that the bill be amended to delay the release of any GMO food crop for at least 5 years to allow for the demand in productivity impacts of any release to be more clearly determined. New Zealand as an island is in a unique position to benefit from the demand shift toward GM-free produce as we do not have the cross-pollination difficulties of other countries. Yet it seems we would throw away and tarnish our clean green environmental image on a highly speculative gamble that only the passage of time will serve to clarify.” ENZA’s chief executive Michael Konig wrote: “In summary it is ENZA Food’s view formed from regular ongoing market contact that New Zealand does not have to be and should not be in any hurry to implement release of GM organisms into the environment.” 
The Progressive party finds that the line of reasoning being advanced by these significant New Zealand companies is rational reasonable and pragmatic. They are not saying that things will not change in the future; I have no doubt indeed that they almost certainly will. The point is that for now we have concluded that the likely costs to New Zealand’s food export markets—as a result of the perception that we can no longer be guaranteed GM-free—are greater than the benefits of current GM food technology. 
We will not be voting for this legislation in its final form because a vote for conditional release is still a vote for release. As we oppose release conditional or otherwise of GM organisms that could possibly enter the food chain we cannot support the core purpose of this legislation. In the Committee stage we sought amendments to the legislation that would have made it acceptable to us but as these amendments have not gained sufficient support it remains in a state that is unacceptable to us. 
We believe that there is a need to go back and look more closely at the trade-offs involved in this issue. The equation is simple. In our view while gains from GM remain marginal and uncertain our GM-free status is much more valuable to the New Zealand community.