Dean Jacqui; Court Simon; Parker DavidPart 2 Consequential and other amendmentsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 12 to 30 and the Schedule: consequential and other amendments. The question is that Part 2 stand part.SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to come to new section 62 Grounds for reassessment of a substance or organism" in clause 21. While we were told that classification of new organisms was out of scope of the bill could the Minister please clarify if the grounds for reassessment of a substance or organism will be liberalised as a result of replaced section 62? In particular what grounds will the authority use to reassess conditionally released new organisms and any qualifying organisms released with controls?The reason I ask that Minister is because "New Zealand Inc." has made a number of commitments to reduce our carbon emissions our emissions of greenhouse gases and yet we don't have the benefit of biotechnology that would allow New Zealand to meet its commitments more quickly at less cost and with less disruption. So I'm interested Minister: will this replaced section 62 provide a more liberal pathway to reassess biotechnology for release? Minister we'd just appreciate some clarification on that.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): No it won't. It's not dealing with what rules should be applied to approvals for the release of new organisms including genetically modified organisms. I think this relates to where the organism has been previously assessed—can there be a reassessment. So it's not liberalising the release for example of a genetically modified organism.That said we do have work under way to look at the liberalisation of laboratory research and the medical uses of genetically modified organisms because there is a general view held by the Chief Science Advisor and the Royal Society that some of those rules are too restrictive and that the rest of the world has moved on to a certain extent in respect of those. We're not going so far as to liberalise the release into the environment of a genetically modified organism that can replicate for example or approving the use of genetically modified seeds or animals. That is a debate for another day. The release of those organisms is not prohibited under New Zealand but those people that wanted to release GMOs of that nature would have to go through the existing provisions in the legislation.SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. So Minister just to clarify this legislation actually provides grounds to reassess new organisms assuming that they've been used in some way—most likely in containment or in a laboratory—for some time. I'm assuming the reassessment would be because new hazards and risks have been discovered. So could you just please clarify that this legislation provides to put things that are in the lab or being assessed into the incinerator—destroy them remove them reassess them so that they can't go any further—but it doesn't allow for any pathway for say genetically modified grasses that do self-replicate because they're a grass species to be used which could actually reduce carbon emissions. Could you just clarify that please Minister?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Yes I can. This amendment doesn't change the existing law in that regard. People that wanted to produce a GM ryegrass for example and release it into the environment in New Zealand can apply under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act for an approval to release that organism—no one has. The member's quite correct to say that it is hard. It's not impossible; no one's tried. It would be controversial in New Zealand because there are people in society who think that would be the wrong thing to do for reasons of—Simon Court: Debate for another day perhaps yeah.Hon DAVID PARKER: That's debatable and I'm not expressing a viewpoint in favour of or against that. But there are also other people who would say that irrespective of whether it is wise environmentally or from an environmental point of view there would be important economic consequences for the country to consider on both sides of that equation. I know that for example our most successful apple growers in New Zealand in the Hawke's Bay very large and successful exporters think that they would suffer a diminution in the price that they obtain for their apples if we were to do that. They might be wrong but they do argue that and all of those issues would have to be taken into account by the Environmental Protection Authority if an application was to be made under the existing statutory framework."