Gene genie will rise again from ballot box

By VERNON SMALL

The GM debate is over and the decision made. Welcome to the GM debate.

By allowing GM field trials with tighter restrictions, the Government has closed the first chapter in the controversy.

But GM is now set to be one of the centrepieces of next year's election - and not only because key decisions have been deferred until 2003.

Why? Because the Greens have been delivered recruiting and campaigning manna from Helen.

Yesterday they lost their first battle - partly because they were not prepared to impose the ultimate sanction and withdraw support from the Coalition.

But co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons immediately trained her gaze on the election and beyond, making a continued ban on the commercial release of GM organisms a condition of Green support, either inside or outside future Governments.

From that perspective, the Greens' disappointment is tempered by an enthusiastic glint in the eye of the party's strategists, who must see fertile territory for votes in the public's ongoing suspicion of GM.

For the struggling Alliance, it is an all-too-familiar paradox. It fought hard in the backrooms for a regime which Jim Anderton has called "a great victory for us".

But - again in the Deputy Prime Minister's own words - "life is never fair nor politics easy".

In the voters' minds, the Greens, not the Alliance, are the anti-GM party - an impression soon to be reinforced as Alliance MPs back the new regime and the Greens bag it.

To counter that, the Alliance is painting yesterday's decision in a very different light from Labour.

Helen Clark says the decision takes "the sensible middle ground" inhabited by "reasonable people".

She argues that it leaves open the door for science and the knowledge economy, meets public concerns, and accommodates some of the reservations of her Maori members - even to the point of a new unwritten rule allowing Tariana Turia to express the different "world view" of Maori.

By contrast, the Alliance's Phillida Bunkle saw it as a victory for opponents of GM because few, if any, trials would go ahead.

If she is right, the new regime will become a more extreme scientific version of the Resource Management Act. Objections, delays, the huge cost of cleaning up after a trial and the possibility of liability would leave researchers loath to undertake risky field trials.

Whether you accept that the Government has achieved its pragmatic balancing act or not, it is clear Labour sees little political mileage in the issue. GM has become such a polarising issue that the centre ground is barren of votes.

And for now Labour faces few storms.

The Greens and the Alliance will try to amend the law, but have no option except to back the extended ban on commercial release.

The Maori caucus has stepped back from the brink.

But the water will stay calm only until the election.

Then the Greens will be able to adopt their high-risk strategy - either hope the voters deal them a strong hand or deal themselves out of the Government.

As a captive party to the left of Labour, with no other coalition options, it is a high-stakes game for the Greens.

Full text of the Prime Minister's statement on GE

nzherald.co.nz/ge

Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary