GE Parliamentary Questions 10-09-03

Go to GE Parliamentary Question Index Aug - Sep 2003

A. Primary Questions

Parliamentary Question 12 - Biosecurity - Cartagena Protocol On Biosafety

Jeanette Fitzsimons (Co-Leader, Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Will the Government ratify the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety before it comes into force tomorrow following ratification by the 50th signatory; if not, why not?

Marian Hobbs: (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): No. There is insufficient time to undertake the ratification process domestically.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Why does the Government not support the right embodied in the Cartagena Protocol of countries to decide for themselves whether they allow the introduction of living genetically modified organisms and the right to use the precautionary principle when making decisions?

Marian Hobbs: The Government does support countries’ rights.

Tim Barnett: Since the Government is at the forefront of GM regulation, why does it not ratify the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety now?

Marian Hobbs: New Zealand’s domestic regulation for managing genetic modification is already consistent with, and in some ways stricter than, the protocol, but we are not prepared to shortcut the proper ratification processes, including community consultation and parliamentary debate.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is one of the countries’ rights that this Government supports the right of the United States to send genetically engineered grain capable of being eaten or planted to developing countries as food aid, without informing them that it is genetically engineered, and hence without those countries’ prior consent?

Marian Hobbs: I am unaware of the particular case that the member is referring to.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Given that the Cartagena Protocol may be a possible defence against World Trade Organization cases like the one that the United States has taken against the European Union over genetically modified organisms, and that New Zealand has registered third-party status in tacit support of the US position, is that the reason the Government will not proceed with ratification of a protocol it helped negotiate in January 2000?

Marian Hobbs: No, it is not the reason that we are not proceeding. The European Union moratorium does allow certain genetically modified lines to be imported into the European Union and grown in European Union countries such as Spain. Those are the lines that were permitted before the moratorium; therefore the reason for banning some GM lines and not others may not be the reasons of biosafety covered by the protocol.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: When the Government said: “In all trade and economic agreements we will ensure that the Government’s ability to regulate as it sees fit for the protection of the environment is not compromised.”, did she realise that current World Trade Organization rules take away that ability, and why will she not support a protocol that strengthens that ability for developing countries that do not have strong biosecurity arrangements?

Marian Hobbs: It is argued that there is some conflict at the moment between the biosafety protocol and World Trade Organization sanitary and phytosanitary agreements. That debate is speculative and will be worked out at the first meeting in February.