|
There has been much talk and misinformation surrounding two bills that passed through Parliament last week - the New Organisms Bill and the Supreme Court Bill.
I would like to outline the Government's position on these two very important issues.
Firstly GM.
The Government feels strongly that the Royal Commission's recommendations were sensible and elected to implement them.
However the end of the moratorium does not mean the floodgates opening to GM production. By law the work can only go ahead if the benefits outweigh the risks. The primary consideration remains the health and safety of New Zealanders and their environment. Given the need for extensive testing before anyone would contemplate work that involves the release of GMOs, the Government does not expect there to be any rush of applications.
Their approach is based on the advice of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification.
That Commission was the most extensive of its kind ever undertaken in the world and the Government chose to follow its advice to adopt a precautionary approach, but also to preserve New Zealand's options.
Research is vital to New Zealand's future. We cannot forgo the economic opportunities and jobs that could come from GM research. A Treasury report predicted our GDP would increase with the cautious and contained use of GMO
technology.
Without it, our GDP could actually decline.
At the same time, we have put in place strict controls on GM in New Zealand. Contained research, for example, will only go ahead under a stringent regime. The controls include requiring researchers to contain or destroy plants with reproductive material, to contain or destroy contaminated material, and to strictly monitor any trial.
Applications will be heard and considered on a case by case basis by the independent Environmental Risk Management Agency.
But let's be clear: there is no flood of applications for GM release in the pipeline. There is very little interest in research into GM food crops in New Zealand. Most applications pending are for laboratory trials.
If we put a halt on research into GM, we would also be putting a halt on ground-breaking research into diseases which kill and debilitate many thousands of New Zealanders every year like multiple sclerosis, cystic fibrosis, and cancer.
The Government is confident that we can sustain a viable organics industry alongside a rigidly controlled and cautious approach to GM.
The first step in a new direction is always the hardest.
We are confident that we have balanced the needs of all New Zealanders and preserved New Zealand's options for the future.
To find out more about the rigorous public process applications must go through, and about New Zealand's strict food labelling regime, please visit relevant websites at
www.beehive.govt.nz, www.labour.org.nz, www.gm.govt.nz.
The Supreme Court will give all New Zealanders the opportunity to have their case heard at the highest level. This has been denied to many New Zealanders up to this point.
It is not right for a final court of appeal be available only to a privileged few.
New Zealanders recognised this 100 years ago. The then chief justice and former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Stout, called on our infant nation to rethink sending its appeals to the Law Lords of the Privy Council.
Shortly after, East Coast Māori petitioned Parliament to direct Māori land appeals to New Zealand courts with New Zealand judges who understood local conditions.
In 1978, the Royal Commission on the Courts examined the question of a New Zealand Final Court of Appeal and in 1983, then Prime Minister Robert Muldoon acknowledged the time was coming when our use of the Privy Council would cease.
In 1989, the Law Commission on the Structure of the Courts supported the end of appeals to the Privy Council.
Over the past 20 years, successive Attorneys-General have highlighted the need for change.
In 1996, the National government introduced legislation to effectively replace Privy Council appeals.
In 2000, Attorney-General Margaret Wilson published a discussion document canvassing different options.
An expert Ministerial Advisory Group then identified the key features a new court should have and that advice formed the basis of the Supreme Court Bill.
A Parliamentary select committee then held extensive hearings on the Bill, completing a four-year-long process of consultation on the role and structure of New Zealand's Supreme Court.
Throughout the debate on the Bill, little has been said about the real reasons why the time has not only come, but is overdue, to establish our own final appeal court.
When the Court of Appeal was established in 1957, it was intended to be the final court of appeal in most cases.
Limited appeals to the Privy Council were retained for rare cases. The Court of Appeal was intended to correct errors of the lower courts, but it was also to clarify and develop the law.
As the Court of Appeal's workload increased, the latter functions have been increasingly difficult for the court to perform.
As a result, not only have an increasing number of litigants been denied the opportunity to have their case heard at the highest level, but the development of New Zealand law has been stifled.
Finally my thanks to all the schools in the Wairarapa electorate for their hard work and patience during the recent reviews.
It was not an easy time.
I was pleased to have been able to lobby the Minister personally and make submissions to him when asked by individual schools and, to the best of my knowledge, was the only Wairarapa MP to have done so.
Generally the outcome has been positive and, although I recognise that a few schools were not happy with the final decisions, it is to everyone's credit that they are now looking towards the future of a good education for our region's children.
Thank you.
|
|
|
