While the media has been focusing on the David Benson-Pope circus, the Greens' Nandor Tanczos has quietly proved something that we all knew: that we have a blustering fool for a Foreign Minister. Yesterday in Question Time, Nandor asked Winston Peters whether the New Zealand government supported an international ban on the use of "terminator genes". Winston's response was to swear black and blue that there was no such ban (false), insult the questioner (typical), and direct the question to other Ministers. Today, Nandor went back for another go, asking whether he had confidence in MFAT officials and
When the Minister told the House yesterday, in answer to a question on the Convention on Biological Diversity, that: “there is no such international convention or treaty.” was that because his officials did not tell him or was it just because he forgot?
The response was yet more bluster and insults, seemingly designed to hide the fact that he really had no idea what he was being asked about, or why people would be asking him rather than the Minister for the Environment. The idea that it is his responsibility to know what his officials are saying in negotiations and what positions New Zealand is taking on the world stage seems never to have entered his head. But that is an essential part of his duties, and something Parliament and the public need to be able to hold him to account on. If he cannot accept that, then he shouldn't be Foreign Minister.
(As for the issue of terminator technology itself, FrogBlog has a post here)
I imagine there are some situations where it would be useful. Ie if you wanted to release a predator or plant that would wipe out a pest but you didnt realy want anything hanging around afterwards.
ReplyDeleteAs for the system itself I am inclined to go for the pirate system. The good thing is that it already exists and works well.
basically - If its a good technology then do a pirate version in china. then sell that to everyone who can't afford the other ones.
Any sort of copyright protection tends to hurt the poor and the poors revence is of course breaching copyright and getting it for almost free.
It is a bit surprising that a poor farmer would buy what is presumably a high maintinance high yeild crop. But then again I guess poor farmers are likely to just do what they are told.
I'm not a big fan of Winston but you have this all wrong. Here's the relevant exchange -
ReplyDelete"NANDOR TANCZOS to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does New Zealand support an international ban on the use of seed sterility technology, such as terminator; if not, why not?
"Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): No. There is no international ban on seed sterility technology."
Winston is right - there is no international ban, what there is is an informal agreement under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Frog calls this a "de-facto moratorium" Not an international ban.
Winston was not denyig the existance of the Convention on Biological Diversity which seems to be what Tandors follow up question implies.
Reading thru Winson's statementds they appear well informed. My impression is that this is yet again an instance where the Greens have a great deal of difficulty comming to terms that most other people have different views.
I think you're a bit confused about the difference between the indefinite article 'an' and the definite article 'the'.
ReplyDeleteThe first, the context of Tanczos' statement, implies the possibility of such a ban in the future.
Peters doesn't use either article in his statement, but he does seem to be responding to the definite, which implies the actual existence of the object being referred to (in this case, an international band).
The two statements are by no means mutually exclusive, and in fact they seem to fit hand in hand. Peters can support a ban in the future - and state that no such ban exists - without contradicting the possibilty of the ban.
If Tanczos had asked if Peters supported 'the ban', then Peters' statement would be quite correct. As it stands, it seems like both Winston Peters and Neil Morrison need to brush up on their grammar.
Tandor does not make it clear whether he is talking of a possible future ban or of the current Convention on Biological Diversity position. He does not bring such a ban up later on, but rather concentrates on the current Convention on Biological Diversity position - since he is trying to show that NZ is somehow out of step with international opinion. Which suggests to me his question was mis-worded and Peters took advantage.
ReplyDeleteSo, yes mabye, but maybe not. Maybe Tandor could glarify what the intent of his initial question was.
But my central point was that Peters was not denyng the existance of the Convention on Biological Diversity, as implied by Nandor's follow-up question and reading thru Peters replies, he sounds perfectly informed on this issue.
woops, "Nandor", not intentional.
ReplyDeleteI'm still to be convinced about the apparent dangers of "Terminator technology". The irony is that it was developed in part to ease fears about unwanted spread of GM crops. Monsanto et al don't need to pull any tricks to make farmers in developed countries buy new seed every year - almost all crop farmers do that anyway. Seed collected from the hybrids used for commercial farming generally can't be saved and used anyway.
ReplyDeleteSo farmers in developing countries are already *not* buying commercial hybrids, precisely because they want to save seed. I can't see why they'd start doing so now.
I guess the main fear is that Terminator genes could propogate by other means, or that there would be some cross-pollination. But look at that logically: the inability to reproduce isn't exactly an adaptive advantage. It's very hard to see how plants that can't reproduce could take ovre the world.
I'm happy to be corrected by a scientist, but I think there's a much bigger issue in, say, biotech companies being allowed to patent traditional plant varieties purely because they've spent the money to maps their genetic sequences.
Cheers,
RB
Oh, I think it can be useful, and I agree that the real problem is patents, not terminator technology. What I'm concerned about here is a Foreign Minister that is either a) badly briefed; b) completely clueless; or c) utterly unwilling to give an answer - and regardless, does not seem to believe it is his role to explain to Parliament our position on the international stage.
ReplyDeleteFortunately, we have an Official Information Act, and I'm expecting to find out which category the Minister falls into in about twenty working days.
Look on the bright side:
ReplyDelete- Winston basically makes no decisions beyond whether to have meat or fish on the plane. All foreign policy decisions are being made by Labour cabinet ministers or MFAT public servants.
- Without the ability to whinge about the government, NZF have totally lost their raison d'etre. They are highly likely to be wiped out next election.
- I read in the Listener that Winnie's expected to retire at the next election election and spend more time with his new girlfriend. NZF=Winston, so it's highly likely that they'll fade out anyway.
- It's mean attacking NZF online, because without the ability to read^H^H^H^H use a computer they can't answer back.
Interesting point Russell. My thoughts are:
ReplyDeletea - I don't know what the situation is with organic farmers in developed countires - do they purchase new seed each year? I'd have thought if they'd managed to produce a crop that was adapted to their region they'd want to try save an resow? And where do the seeds for the seedbank come from if not potentially in fields amongst GE crops?
b - if the terminator gene cross-pollinated (as GE crops have demonstrably done in the past) seeds from the cross-pollinated crop would contain a percentage of sterile seeds, reducing the overall crop yield of the next year. In a developing country with marginal farming yields, a (say) 5% or worse reduction in yield could be very significant. Presumably the ideal of a Monsanto would be a highly promiscuous terminator gene. If they could sufficiently 'pollute' the natural seed banks, then eventually the only 100% guaranteed seed is GE.
This is the hopeless standard of this government not to actaully answer the questions directed to them from the opposition.
ReplyDeleteThe prefer to give some lame cheap shot back at the opposition and sit down all smug.
This has been supported by the Speaker who is meant to be impartial but is oboviously not.
Why do you thin National is having such a field day with Labour and DBP at the moment.
Labour wouldn't know the truth if it kicked them in the 'balls'.
It's spin, more spin, obstruction and bluster from government MPs.
Why do you think Winston feels so at home with this government.