4. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Agriculture
What are the names of the members of the animal ethics committee that approved the experiment at AgResearch’s Ruakura facility in 2009, which resulted in genetically engineered calves carrying human genetic code whose ovaries grew so large that they ruptured and killed the animals?
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) Link to this
The Minister will not name the individuals on any animal ethics committee, as to do so could potentially put the individuals and their families and property at risk. Members of animal ethics committees must include senior members of the organisation, in this case AgResearch; an independent veterinarian; an SPCA representative; and a person nominated by the local territorial authority. The Minister does not want to deter individuals with an interest in expertise and animal ethics from putting their names forward in this important role.
Why should it be left to one committee, whose membership is secret and which meets in secret, to decide on the significant animal welfare and ethical issues involved in creating genetically engineered animals with human genetic material in them?
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP Link to this
I just want to restate the actual membership of this committee, to indicate its balance. First, it has a member of the organisation itself, a senior member. Second, it has an independent veterinarian. Third, it has a member of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; and, fourth, a person nominated by the local territorial authority. It is worth noting that the question is about animal ethics, and I would have thought that the membership of the committee accurately reflects the member’s concerns.
Does he agree the public has a right to be consulted about the ethical and animal welfare implications of inserting human genetic material into animals and fundamentally altering their nature and properties?
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP Link to this
In effect, this is all dealt with by the Environmental Risk Management Authority, which has a process involved in it, and it is very extensive, as the member knows. So it is not the ethics committee itself that deals with the original application; it is actually the Environmental Risk Management Authority that deals with the original application, which gets to the point that I think the member is raising.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very carefully phrased and very specific question—whether he agrees the public has a right to be consulted about these issues, yes or no.
Mr SPEAKERI invite the Minister to reply a little more. I am sure the Minister can answer that question; I invite him to do so.
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP Link to this
The specific reason I mentioned that the Environmental Risk Management Authority processed it is that that is an extensive process. In respect of the precise methodology as to how the authority conducts its inquiries, I am not entirely clear whether it has a public component but my recollection is that it does. I would need to verify that.
Given that the Environmental Risk Management Authority does not consider ethical and animal welfare issues, who is responsible for ensuring there is a public debate about the ethical and animal welfare implications of genetically engineered cross-species animals, now that the organisation previously responsible for this work—namely, the Bioethics Council—was axed by the Key Government, in March last year?
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP Link to this
Can I note at this point that the Minister of Agriculture, when he became aware that the calves had died, immediately sought advice from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on the animal welfare implications. He was satisfied that the advice from the ministry was that the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee had acted properly and in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act 1999. So it was considered that the advisory committee did properly deal with the issues raised by the member.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again it was a very simple, straightforward question: who is responsible for ensuring there is a public debate, now that the Bioethics Council has been disbanded. The Minister was obviously reading some answer to a question but I think it was the wrong question that he was seeking to answer, and I respectfully ask whether he could answer my question.
I ask the Minister, having heard the member’s question again, whether he could answer a little more precisely to what the member is asking him—I realise it is not easy for a member answering on behalf of a Minister—if he has the information. He may not have the information; one has to be reasonable on these matters.
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP Link to this
I in my capacity as Minister of Research, Science and Technology will be seeking a report on the results of this particular programme—
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is answering on behalf of another Minister. He is not the Acting Minister; I do not believe that the Minister is out of the country. He is not answering in his own stead as the Acting Minister of Agriculture; he is answering on behalf, so he cannot start giving an answer about what he is doing in another portfolio. Interesting though that might be, it is not in order.
The member’s point is perfectly sound. The Minister should be answering on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture. It may be that the Minister does not have the necessary information but he should try to answer the member’s reasonable question.
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP Link to this
The Minister of Agriculture has been advised by the Minister of Research, Science and Technology that a report will be sought from Sir Peter Gluckman, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser, who is an acknowledged expert on growth and development and these issues. I believe that that report will deal with some of the concerns being raised by the member.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Please, I seek your protection on this issue. I asked who—[ Interruption]
Members know that points of order should be heard in silence, even if they do not like them. However, I say to the honourable member that, in fairness, as Speaker I have asked the Minister on two occasions to give a more precise answer; I do not believe I can do more. I think the member needs to go on to her next supplementary question, because quite clearly the Minister does not have the information.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked who is responsible for ensuring a public debate, now the Bioethics Council has been disbanded. That is an incredibly simple question. Is the answer “nobody”?
The member must not get into debating the issue. I have asked the Minister, on two occasions now, to give a more precise answer to the member’s question; I do not believe we can take up more time of the House. Clearly the Minister does not have the information.
I—[ Interruption] I am on my feet. I ask the Hon Shane Jones for a little decorum, please. I am getting a little frustrated here. I have asked the Minister on two occasions, when the member has repeated what information she was seeking in a reasonable question, to provide the information. Is the Minister, after refusing on two occasions to do that, now telling us he has the information and wishes to answer the question? Is that what the Minister is trying to say? I invite him to do that if he has that information.
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP Link to this
I was going to add to my answer in a way that I believe would assist the member’s question. It is obviously possible for the member to make submissions to Sir Peter Gluckman. That is the way these kinds of issues can be debated.
Sandra GoudieHon Dr WAYNE MAPP Link to this
As I have indicated, the Minister of Agriculture has been informed by the Minister of Research, Science and Technology that Sir Peter Gluckman—the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser, who is an acknowledged expert on these issues—is to make a report. Indeed, I am sure the member will make submissions to Sir Peter on this issue.
Does he agree that the experiment went horribly wrong, and can he guarantee that no further trials of this nature will be carried out in New Zealand?
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP Link to this
The Minister certainly does understand that the experiment went wrong, which is precisely why he sought a report from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry when the issue came up, as did the Minister of Research, Science and Technology from the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser. On the second point the member raised, obviously the Minister of Research, Science and Technology will have raised those issues directly with the chair of AgResearch.
Does he agree that the deformities in the calves were quite horrific, and that most New Zealanders would be shocked at what has been going on behind closed doors at the Ruakura Research Centre?
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP Link to this
In relation to the second point, these activities do not go behind closed doors, as such; the fact that it was occurring was public. I agree that New Zealanders would have found this horrific and very perturbing.