The Health Select Committee has reported back to Parliament with its recommendations on the Gene Technology Bill. Their 25 page report begins with the following sentence:
“The Health Committee has examined the Gene Technology Bill and recommends by majority that it be passed.”
There are nine members of the Committee. Three National Party MPs and one ACT Party MP, one NZ First MP, two Labour MPs , one Green Party MP and one from Te Pati Maori. To achieve this majority, one other MP in addition to those from ACT and National must have voted in favour. As the Greens, Labour and NZ First have declared themselves opposed to the passage of the Bill in its current form, we can only speculate that either Te Pati Maori must have voted in favour OR at least one committee member from either Greens, Labour or NZ First voted against their Party’s published position (an unlikely scenario).
This means we can no longer rely on holding up the imminent passage of the Bill
The Committee received 14,458 submissions from the public, the overwhelming majority of these submissions opposed the passage of the Bill and raised specific concerns covering a broad range of issues including:
- Proven health risks of gene technology,
- Impossibility of GE crop containment, leading to decreased viability of organic farming, reputational and economic damage to our agricultural export sector, and high risk of invasive and persistent GM species
- Increased pesticide use linked to GE crop types
- Removal of individual choice due to the lack of a labelling provision,
- Mandatory approval and use of medical gene technology,
- Foreign interference in NZ regulatory systems,
- Impossibility of remediating inevitable mistakes once released
- Concern about exotic gene experiments, for example on disease types that could escape from laboratories
- Designation of specific gene technology methods as inherently safe despite known imprecision and mutagenic potential,
- Failure to take into account the results of the latest scientific publishing on the pandemic response and origins, pre-empting of the results of the Royal Commission on Covid-19,
- Lack of clear guidelines for the regulator, leading to the potential for regulatory bias and capture by industry.
None of these submissions were specifically discussed in the report of the Health Select Committee.
The report made recommendations for a number of amendments to the wording of the Bill in the following areas:
- Kaitiaki relationships with indigenous and non-indigenous species of significance
- The role of the Gene Technology Regulator
- Non-regulated organisms and technologies, and exemptions
- Information sharing and access
- Medical authorisations
- Enforcement provisions.
None of these recommendations appear to alter the substance and intent of the original Bill in any significant way
The Details
Kaitiaki. The original Bill contains provisions designed to recognise the special relationship between Maori and indigenous species. The Committee recommends extending this to include any non-indigenous species that are recognised by Maori. But the requirement only remains one of consultation. In other words, no species of plant or animal are specifically excluded from genetic modification whether Maori or otherwise. We note that recent applications of AI in genetic engineering enable species and genetic types to be edited en masse in an automated system.
Regulator. The appointment of a Gene Technology Bill Regulator will now include input from the EPA in consultation with the Minister. The proposed amendments to the Bill clarify that High Court appeals will be allowed by affected Maori and those others who make original submissions on draft applications to the Regulator. The Regulator will now be insured and indemnified against any mistake he might make in the course of his decision making. These amendments do not appear to answer the fundamental questions as to how and on what basis a regulator might make their decisions.
Unregulated Organisms and Technologies. The amendments allow for the removal of both organisms and gene technologies from the scope of the Bill if they are designated as such simply by regulation. In other words, it remains the case that any modified organism or gene technology can escape the regulatory process if the Minister, the regulator and/or the EPA decide to add it to a regulation-free Schedule 3A at any time. This is a blank cheque.
Information Sharing. It remains the case under proposed amendments that some technical information about gene modifications may be withheld from public scrutiny under certain conditions on the say soi of the regulator.
Medical Authorisations. The Bill currently contains the following provisions:
“Mandatory medical activity authorisations: for a human medicine that is or contains gene technology that has been approved by at least two recognised overseas gene technology regulators.”
and
“Emergency authorisations: when there is an actual or imminent threat to the health and safety of people or to the environment, for example, a threat from a disease outbreak, or an industrial spillage, the Minister responsible for the Gene Technology Act will have the power to grant an emergency authorisation.”
The proposed amendments will change one word of these clauses ‘mandatory’ becomes ‘equivalent’. However, the intent of the legislation will remain unchanged in this regard, it continues to grant automatic approval of gene medicines on the say so of any two foreign agencies designated by the regulator.
Enforcement. The provisions of the Bill will be inspected and enforced by biosecurity officers
These proposed amendments appear to be cosmetic only. They meet none of the concerns of the tens of thousands of opposed submitters. They meet none of the concerns outlined in our video The Gene Technology Bill —What Kiwis Need To Know
Separate Party Responses
The Green Party and the Labour Party announced themselves opposed to the Bill and Schedule 3A exemptions, but nevertheless voted for the proposed amendments.
The Labour Party suggested that the release of genetically modified organisms used in agriculture and released into the environment should not be covered by the same legislation as industrial scale gene fermentation, laboratory experiments and medical applications which presumably they support.
The Green Party acknowledged that there are serious and credible scientific criticisms of gene technology safety and efficacy. They emphasised the need for scientific assessment and protection of NZ trade.
New Zealand First said they are open to liberalising genetic engineering laws while ensuring strong protections for human health and the environment. They said the Bill as it stands is far too liberal, beyond our key trading partners, and lacks strong safeguards and protections. They committed themselves to continued discussions with their coalition partners, but they also voted to accept the proposed amendments.
The ACT Party strongly supports the Bill in its amended form but opposes any provision for special consultation with Maori.
Te Pāti Maori did not express any view separate to that of the whole committee.
The Health Select Committee members who unanimously approved the amendments contained in the official report were as follows:
Sam Uffindell (Chairperson) National Party
Sam.uffindell@parliament.govt.nz
Dr Hamish Campbell National Party
hamish.campbell@parliament.govt.nz
Dr Carlos Cheung National Party
carlos.cheung@parliament.govt.nz
Ingrid Leary Labour Party
ingrid.Leary@parliament.govt.nz
Cameron Luxton ACT Party
cameron.luxton@parliament.govt.nz
Hūhana Lyndon Green Party
huhana.lyndon@parliament.govt.nz
Jenny Marcroft NZ First
jenny.marcroft@nzfirst.nz
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer Te Pāti Maori
debbie.Ngarewa-Packer@parliament.govt.nz
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall Labour Party
ayesha.Verrall@parliament.govt.nz
The following MPs also participated in the consideration of this Bill.
Steve Abel (Green Party),
steve.abel@parliament.govt.nz
Reuben Davidson (Labour Party),
reuben.davidson@parliament.govt.nz
Hon Mark Patterson (NZ First),
mark.patterson@nzfirst.nz
Hon Dr Deborah Russell (Labour Party
deborah.Russell@parliament.govt.nz
