Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8319] 
3.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: When she said in relation to the Environmental Risk Management Authority yesterday “if there are issues to do with genetically modified organisms coming directly into our food chain as a result of any release … I would consider that probably a serious enough matter to do it for them.” did she mean that she will use her call-in powers under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 to determine any applications to release food and feed crops or animals; if not what did she mean? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Any decision to call in an application would be done on a case by case basis. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: When she said in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on 28 August that if Monsanto “comes down to New Zealand and says we want to do a full release don’t think they have got a hope in hell of being able to get that” but that a conditional release of genetically modified pine trees “might go ahead” because “It ain’t food” what clause in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act does she think that the Environmental Risk Management Authority might use to treat food differently from other releases? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The context of those quotes was a seminar to journalists in which the question asked of me was: “When is call-in likely to be used?”. I gave examples of when call-in might be used and also of considerations that the authority might take when it took economic circumstances or health circumstances or environmental circumstances into its consideration as it is required to do under the Hazardous Substances and Other Organisms Act. 
David Parker 
: Are we likely to see applications for release of a GM crop or a GM herd bred for human consumption in the near future? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Not for many years and if such an application were made its first-time nature might well provoke a call-in response from the Minister. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Did the Minister receive a memo from Dr Basil Walker Chief Executive Officer of the Environmental Risk Management Authority on 27 February 2001 marked “Urgent—in confidence” on GM contaminated grain stating: “The interim protocol is based on a testing standard which although very strict will allow low levels of GM contamination. In essence inadvertent releases at very low levels will be tolerated.”; if so how can she possibly maintain the pretence that the Government had a zero tolerance approach? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: First of all I want to say that that is right outside the line of the original question but I will— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the Minister is objecting to the question the proper procedure is to take a point of order and ask you to rule. You have allowed the question. It is her job to answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will do this job Mr Hide not you. I listened to the question. The Minister can make the comment she made. It was perfectly in order to make it. However I do not want to be ruling out every single question that comes in. As far as this was concerned it was wide but the Minister can say that it is wide. I think she was going on to say that she might not have that information with her. That is up to her to say. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Mr Speaker you are exactly right as usual. I was going to add the word “but” at the end of that. Having said that it was wide of the original question asked if we are back to the argument of yesterday—and I am doing this completely from memory—I have not got that memorandum in front of me but I know exactly what is being referred to. It is the very old argument which we have gone over many times in this House of the confusion between tolerance of contamination and tolerance of the confidence of testing. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Can the Minister further explain to the House how she and her Government can maintain a zero tolerance claim when that same briefing paper from Basil Walker the head of the Environmental Risk Management Authority dated 27 February addressed to the Minister for the Environment and marked “Urgent—in confidence” went on to add after the words: “In essence inadvertent releases at very low levels will be tolerated.” the words: “There is no way that this can be construed as simply a continuation of existing policy. It represents a shift in policy which in my opinion will probably require legislative change to formalise.”; how does the Minister explain that? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Quite easily. I think the answer lies in the last part of that quote. This Government never made any legislative change to change any policy because there was no change in policy. That is ministerial servants talking to each other and not to us. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I seek leave to table the “Urgent—in confidence” memo. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Larry Baldock 
: Returning to the main question does the Minister believe that the ministerial call-in power provides a better precautionary backstop than the continuation of the moratorium and a Luddite response that would leave us scientifically behind the rest of the world? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes I do. To continue the moratorium as some members in this House would have us do does not allow New Zealand to access any of the possible benefits that new technology might offer. It is a blunt approach. Implementing a case-by-case framework allows benefits to be assessed against costs and risks and the inclusion of the ministerial call-in power allows closer scrutiny of applications with significant effects. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: If she really believes as she said in answer to a previous question that there will be no applications for release for years then what would be the problem in maintaining a moratorium until there is more known internationally about the economic environmental and health effects of these organisms? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Quite simply because a moratorium is a very blunt instrument. This Government is going ahead with what the royal commission advised which was to do things on a case-by-case basis and to proceed with caution. Case by case is cautious. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: If she intends to call in applications that are perhaps politically inconvenient does that not contradict the assertion that the Environmental Risk Management Authority is an independent quasi-judicial scientific authority and the decision should be left to it? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I know of no time when I have said that I would use a call-in power for a politically sensitive decision.