Editorial: Greens must rethink

Was Jeanette Fitzsimons trying to clone a silk purse out of the sow's ear of her party's foolishness? The Greens co-leader said some people would be concerned if the general election installed a majority Labour government because the country would again be subject to the absolute power of first-past-the-post politics. Perhaps so. But not nearly as many as might now help Labour to a majority at the election so that her party cannot dictate decisions as important as those on genetic modification.

It is hard to exaggerate the importance of those decisions to a country that lives largely on exports of food and fibre. That is a reason to be both wary of possible risks in genetic modification and alert to its immense commercial potential. The country cannot afford to alienate foreign consumers, but nor can it afford to miss a wave of innovation in agriculture and food production. It is a subject to be regarded with common sense and an open mind. It is not a decision to be surrendered to any party that wants to grandstand on the issue.

The Greens have indicated they are unlikely to support a government that does not extend the moratorium on field trials of GM organisms when it expires in October next year. We might wonder how the Greens can predict the state of genetic science nearly 18 months ahead?

Their ultimatum suggests they are not really interested in the science. Rather, they do not like tampering with nature on principle. They are entitled to promote that principle in the debate, but unless they can win a majority to their view they are not entitled to impose it upon the country's future.

Their ultimatum would mean a party that will be lucky to win 10 per cent of the vote this year will force the likely winner, Labour, either to extend the moratorium indefinitely or go back to the country for a stronger mandate. A second election would cause a sense of crisis and either Labour or National would probably get the mandate it needs. New Zealanders have not really seen a tail try to wag the dog yet, and they will not like it.

But they should not need a second election to say so. If the Green Party persists with this threat to overplay its hand, the voters should reject it at the first opportunity.

The Greens are not only damaging their own prospects at this election, they are confronting the country with the unacceptable face of MMP. It behoves small parties in a system of proportional representation to respect the limits of their mandate. They are awarded a voice in Parliament and, if they are lucky, in a government, proportionate to their support in the country at large. It is a voice they can use to promote their policies and try to persuade more people of their merits. It is not a voice for ultimatums.

On genetic modification the Greens have had, and will continue to have, a fair hearing. A royal commission established at their behest came to sensible conclusions after making an earnest effort to analyse the risks and benefits of genetic modification. And, case by case, they have the opportunity to restate their view to the Environmental Risk Management Authority, the body charged with approving GM trials. No system could be more precautionary while, quite correctly, declining to turn its back on science.

New Zealand cannot afford to be held to ransom on this issue. That should not be lost on voters, especially in Coromandel, a seat pivotal for a party that may, again, struggle to hurdle the 5 per cent threshold. Now it may be no less pivotal to the country's future.