Power Simon: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8923] 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 As many who have spoken on clause 2 have commented the commencement date outlines 30 October 2003 as the D-Day date. On that date the provisions contained in this bill will come into effect. As has been discussed three existing pieces of legislation will be amended. 
Since the Committee last met to discuss the issues further some interesting developments have taken place in various parts of Parliament grounds. No doubt those types of concerns will continue to be expressed in a way that has a visual impact on the nature of the bill and we will continue to have argument. 
The commencement date is important because it signals the end to the moratorium that the Government placed some time ago on the development of new organisms. We have seen an interesting flow of events since that time. I have outlined to the House on a number of occasions the issues relating to the Minister’s call-in powers which will come into effect on 30 October 2003. I look forward to going into some more detail on those during the debate on Part 2 and also on those matters relating to reverse burdens of proof which have been covered in earlier stages and will be covered in more detail in later parts of the debate. 
Concerns have been expressed by members on both sides of the Chamber relating to the role of local government in the enacting or otherwise of parts of this legislation and the confusion that exists around those issues as signalled at the Education and Science Committee by a number of members. I see that the chairman of that committee Brian Donnelly is nodding on that point. Those issues will be covered in detail by members on this side of the Chamber once we get into the debate on Part 2. But of course the important matter to focus on at this point—for the sake of keeping the debate relevant to the part under consideration—is that those clauses will be triggered by the date we are currently debating. 
Members on this side of the Chamber have indicated on more than one occasion that they are supportive of the bill in most phases. But the Committee has heard me express a number of reservations in respect of the two or three issues just raised. We on this side of the Chamber still reserve the right to continue to question the clarity of the law more than its spirit. Members will know that the National Party has supported the Government on the passage of this bill in general but we retain the right to express our concerns about the nature of its drafting and in particular the uncertainty that it will present for users of the mechanisms it creates. In the case of this legislation we should consider what that means for applicants and in particular what burdens they will have to incur by way of reversals of proof and connections of the causal links between harm and the release—if that occurs conditional or otherwise—of organisms going back to the original legislation. That is one of the issues in relation to which I do not believe that this legislation has been sufficiently well crafted. 
On a number of occasions I have raised the issues relating to the role of local government in this matter. I think the bill is appallingly crafted around those particular clauses and I had great concern when members of the Government who were on the select committee simply said that these things get sorted out in the fullness of time. Actually no they do not. What happens is that a whole lot of unelected people called judges get to make law in respect of very important issues like this. It is an abdication of the democratic responsibility of members of Parliament to allow that level of judicial activism. It is something I have seen occurring during my 4 years in Parliament and I am concerned about that level of activism.