a select committee room in parliament with piles of paper in green and red superimposed with the stereotypical DNA double helix

Who’s saying what about the gene technology bill? (Image: The Spinoff)

PoliticsFebruary 21, 2025

The main arguments for and against the Gene Technology Bill

Contributing writer

Who’s saying what about the gene technology bill? (Image: The Spinoff)

The Health Committee is now considering more than 1,700 submissions on the Gene Technology Bill, which proposes to liberalise the regulations around genetic modification. What did they say?

A proposed law that would relax the current gene technology restrictions, making it easier to research genetic modification and propagate genetically modified organisms in New Zealand, passed its first reading in parliament at the end of last year, with support from the governing parties. Public submissions on the bill closed earlier this week, with more than 1,700 received, which the Health Committee will now consider before presenting a report to parliament in June.

Introducing the bill in December, then science minister Judith Collins said the proposed law “will enable the sorts of innovation that will benefit New Zealand while effectively managing risks to the health and safety of people and the environment”. But since long before “Corngate”, the subject of gene technology has been divisive in New Zealand. While tensions may not be as heightened as they were 20 years ago, the submissions on the bill show the strength of feeling that persists on either side. Here’s a summary of some of the arguments for and against.

a grid paper background and picture of molecules with a photo of corn on top — (Image: Archi Banal/The Spinoff)

In support

Gene technology can help the agriculture sector lower its carbon emissions

“If genetic variations associated with low methane can be identified, gene editing would shorten the pathway to lowering methane emissions from the national herd,” said the Livestock Improvement Corporation (LIC) in its submission in support of the bill. AgResearch’s submission, meanwhile, mentioned two current projects, developing genetically edited ryegrass and clover, which could increase reduce dairy emissions by giving cows more energy-dense food.

The risks are manageable

DairyNZ’s submission mentioned the risk of edited genes spreading between farms, including to farms that have chosen not to use genetically modified species, as well as through the supply chain or into wild populations. With specific contamination thresholds and a clear definition of the primary production environment, it said that these risks can be mitigated.

The LIC mentioned that CRISPR, a new technique which means very specific areas of a species’ DNA can be targeted, was much lower risk than previous versions of gene editing, and could “accelerate the traditional breeding process”.

The law will bring us in line with others

The proposed legislation is based on Australia’s Gene Technology Act 2000, and some supporters of the bill say this will make it easier for New Zealand researchers to work with overseas partners, and increase the New Zealand primary sector’s competitive edge. “Under the current system, field testing has virtually ceased and research is often conducted overseas rather than in New Zealand,” said the submission from right-leaning think tank The New Zealand Initiative, written by Nick Clark. “Approval processes are more cumbersome than the experiments themselves. New Zealand is falling behind its international competitors.”

DairyNZ supported the clause in the legislation that would allow the gene technology regulator to recognise risk assessments from other countries, rather than having to conduct all risk assessments themselves. There was a caveat: “Given the critical role of the pastoral sector and trade in New Zealand’s economy, these overseas assessments may need to be supplemented with additional assessments to ensure they are fit for purpose here.”

Say yes to the bill and yes to growth

Clark’s New Zealand Initiative submission linked the lack of gene research in New Zealand to other productivity deficits in the country. “New Zealand needs to remove barriers to growth and development and move from a culture of ‘no’ to one of ‘yes’,” the submission read. It referenced “GM regulation [as] a notable example of the ‘no’ culture [that] the prime minister made it clear he wants to change”. The changed regulations would be a useful development, Clark wrote. “Farmers must also have tools, such as low-emission pasture and feed, necessary to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions without reducing production and income. New Zealand scientists have been working on such tools, but overly restrictive GM regulations have prevented them from being trialled in the field, let alone used, in this country.”

Former PM Helen Clark was a co-author of a major new report into how Covid-19 became a pandemic (Eduardo Munoz Alvarez, Getty Images) — In the early 2000s, former PM Helen Clark became embroiled in the ‘Corngate’ GM scandal (Eduardo Munoz Alvarez, Getty Images)

Against

Danger to New Zealand’s ‘clean, green’ reputation

“What remains of the country’s ‘clean, green’ and GE free image has been estimated to be worth billions of dollars each year, in premium selling of things like food products and tourist visits,” wrote the Sustainable Business Network in its submission. “The release of GMOs into the nation, which has so far been almost entirely prevented, could place all or some of that in jeopardy.”

The Pāua Industry Council had a similar argument, saying, “It is apparent that New Zealand’s seafood exporters currently receive general, but difficult to quantify, economic benefits from our ‘GM free’ status.”

Greenpeace, meanwhile, wrote, “Our strict regulations have prevented the contamination of nature and food [since the early 2000s] and our GE Free producer status is of great economic value to our food producers.”

What about the long-term effects?

“The impact of GT decisions made now will affect generations of New Zealanders and the NZ environment into the future, so there is a heavy responsibility as well as opportunity that comes with this legislation,” wrote the InterChurch Bioethics Council.

Retailer Commonsense Organics, meanwhile, said, “We do not know the long term effects of genetically modified plants on the soils we rely on for our existence,” and that the newness of genetic editing increased the potential risks if the technology was developed in New Zealand.

Greenpeace said that gene technology was a “false promise” and that the “dairy industry is New Zealand’s worst climate polluter, and as-yet unproven genetically engineered methane inhibitors will not solve that problem”.

a sunny day with a bright blue sky and cows grazing on green grass in the foreground — The impact of genetic modification on New Zealand’s dairy sector (and its high emissions) was a focus of some submissions

Producers, especially organic producers, will be at risk

“New Zealand has only recently made significant progress in formalising organic certification processes, with the passage of the Organic Products and Production Act 2023,” read the Sustainable Business Network’s submission. “One direct risk from the proposed bill is that within a few years of finally having a working system of organic certification, products in the country may not be certifiable due to GMO contamination.”

The Pāua Industry Council was worried about genetically modified shellfish escaping and contaminating wild stocks. “For example, genetically modified abalone may compete for food or habitat space with wild pāua populations. Modified abalone may exhibit different characteristics to wild pāua, enabling them to occupy different habitat ranges or behave differently in the ecosystem,” it wrote in its submission.

“The tiered system that exempts or deems non-notifiable certain activities or products of genome technologies can still cause harm to Aotearoa’s economic standing and opens the door to trade disruptions and disputes,” read part of the Greenpeace submission.

The law isn’t needed

The University of Canterbury’s Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety said that “the scientific case is not made” to change regulations, and that “the proposed reforms are based on idealised and superficial descriptions of gene technology”. The submission pointed out that the results achievable by gene editing for crop plants are similar to what can be done by conventional breeding, and and most other species have never been bred conventionally, “providing no baseline for comparison [of risk]”.

“Hāpai Te Hauora supports scientific advancements towards health and the environment but opposes this bill’s deregulation. Our primary concern is that the bill provides a framework for gene technology that goes beyond best practice, driven by deregulation which introduces significant and widespread risks,” wrote the largest Māori public health organisation in the country.

The bill doesn’t take te Tiriti and Māori rights fully into account

“Given the feedback from our Māori levy payers, DairyNZ urges the Health Committee to take the time to consider a wider range of options for protecting Māori rights and interests and more meaningfully enabling Māori involvement,” wrote Dairy NZ. “A commonly raised concern in our discussions with Māori [dairy] levy payers was whether the new framework would provide for Māori relationships with both indigenous and non-indigenous species and receiving environments.”

Hāpai Te Hauora said the bill did not prioritise Māori participation in decisions about gene technology. “It is imperative that any future gene technology legislation undergoes a robust, Māori-led consultation process. This ensures that the voices, knowledge, and rights of Māori are genuinely considered, and that the law aligns with our principles of kaitiakitanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Without this, the bill risks imposing harmful practices on our communities and environment without our consent or participation.”

“The bill is inconsistent with the Crown’s responsibility to protect Māori interests in relation to indigenous flora and fauna, cultural knowledge, and practices. It would further undermine Te Tiriti o Waitangi by limiting Māori input and decision-making power regarding resources and taonga over which they hold rangatiratanga,” read the Greenpeace submission.

Genetic engineering could damage New Zealand’s food security

The Sustainable Business Network submission said that the advent of gene technology could be damaging to New Zealand’s food security, giving bigger corporations more control over food. New organisms could become the property of “an offshore company or international corporation based in nations friendly or unfriendly to our own”. It cited the example of the pesticide glyphosate, and its development in tandem with genetically modified crops. Using more GMOs could “create a further reliance on imports into our remote island nation at a time when global supply chains are increasingly unstable. We may find ourselves relying on [GMOs] but being unable to obtain them.”

Keep going!

Eru Kapa-Kingi and Jenny Shipley made their submissions against the Treaty principles bill on Thursday.

PoliticsFebruary 20, 2025

Treaty principles bill hearings, day seven: Another ex-PM submits, and tears are shed

Lyric Waiwiri-Smith

Politics reporter

Eru Kapa-Kingi and Jenny Shipley made their submissions against the Treaty principles bill on Thursday.

Everything you missed from day seven of the Treaty principles bill hearings, when the Justice Committee heard two hours of submissions.

Read our recaps of the previous hearings here.

Lee Short, chair of Democracy Action, was the first speaker of the day and supported the bill, saying it was “not to the benefit of other New Zealanders to lose our democracy and equality to a specific group”. He referenced Sir Apirana Ngata, who may well be the most quoted Māori throughout these hearings, in his belief that Māori did not cede sovereignty.

The Human Rights Commission’s Dayle Takitimu (Te Whānau-ā-Apanui, Ngāti Porou), speaking against the bill, labelled it an “unhelpful and erroneous approach to human rights” and the “most comprehensive breach of the Treaty in recent time”, which promoted a “vastly different” interpretation of the Treaty to that which has been understood by the courts and Māori.

“We assert that te Tiriti is a core agreement that affirms the place to belong and a place to stand for everyone in Aotearoa,” Takitimu said. “It is the promise of two peoples to take the best possible care of each other. This bill is not in that spirit.”

Tuku Morgan, Donna Flavell and Jamie Ferguson of Te Whakakitenga o Waikato, the governing body of Waikato-Tainui, said they “vehemently oppose” the bill. Morgan, a former New Zealand First MP and then independent MP, drew on the iwi’s Raupatu Settlement 1995 – about to mark its 30th anniversary, and the only settlement to be signed by Queen Elizabeth II – and the “intergenerational hurt and mamae” the iwi has suffered since the Crown’s invasion of the Waikato between 1863-1864, which saw 1.2 million acres of land confiscated by 1865 and many Māori displaced.

“We not only had our lands taken, but we had the most important taonga of all [taken], our tīpuna awa,” Morgan said.

Introducing himself as “that fella” who led a nationwide hikoi against the bill, Toitū Te Tiriti’s Eru Kapa-Kingi (Te Aupōuri, Ngāpuhi) was the next to submit. “I could give the most articulate and moving kōrero, and it would not change a thing,” he said. “That is the reality of advocating for rights of an albeit beautiful, oppressed and minoritised people, even on their own whenua.”

He said the bill has made it “dangerous” to be Māori, who had been “whitemailed” into a discussion that has only given legitimacy to racism. “Do not get it twisted that our participation in this process gives it any legitimacy,” Kapa-Kingi said. “If you’re locked in a burning house, of course you’re going to try to put out the fire.” He made his mother, Te Pāti Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, sitting on the committee, shed some tears: “Well done my son,” she said.

Te Rūnanga-Ā-Iwi-O-Ngāpuhi’s Moana Tuwhare (second left with young daughter, far left), Mane Tahere (CEO, second right) and Alva Pomare (far right).

Ngāti Kahungunu iwi leader Bayden Barber said there was “no way” the iwi could support the bill as it “totally undermines our taonga”. He challenged parliament to embody the spirit of the Ngāti Kahungunu haka ‘Tika Tonu’ – to hold fast to what is true and right, come together, and work as one. “If we can do that, nothing is impossible for us to achieve as Māori and as New Zealanders,” he said.

Otago University professor of law Andrew Geddis also spoke against the bill, which he called “a solution in search of a problem” and “essentially a fiction” which bears no relation to the Treaty. Rather than giving clarity, he said the bill would lead to “greater conflict” within Aotearoa’s society. “It’s been enacted in bad faith – it’s got one partner defining the effective terms of te Tiriti without meaningful dialogue with the other,” Geddis said. If the bill went ahead, “You’d basically be setting up a much, much bigger constitutional clash.”

Kapa-Kingi and the Greens’ Hūhana Lyndon wiped tears from their eyes after Te Rūnanga-Ā-Iwi-O-Ngāpuhi’s Moana Tuwhare, Mane Tahere (CEO) and Alva Pomare opened their submission with a karakia, led by Tuwhare’s young daughter. Tuwhare warned the bill had “distinct implications” on Ngāpuhi’s status as an unsettled iwi, and argued that as the first iwi to make contact with the British monarchy, Ngāpuhi had an established relationship with the Crown long before the Treaty was signed.

“Our dedication to advocate for the rights of our mokopuna, of our tamariki, whānau and kāhui hapū will always outlast any government and any attempts to dismantle Ngāpuhi,” Pomare said. “No government, no law and no colonial agenda will ever erase the tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake of Ngāpuhi.”

Lawyer and political pundit Liam Hehir spoke against the bill, with a “good faith … centre-right argument” to complement the mostly left-leaning opposition to the bill. He said issues with the Treaty were an ongoing diplomatic and political matter that required discussions between the Crown and Māori, rather than judicial rulings or a public referendum. “The idea that the Treaty is a pervasive legal principle that permeates the whole legal system is something that we shouldn’t just accept as a given,” Hehir said.

Lawyer and former Act Party MP Stephen Franks opened his submission in support of the bill by recalling his time on the select committee, saying “the magic of democracy is that MPs are always looking forward”. It was his position that the “Supreme Court is utterly unwise”, judges are not equipped, nor are courts “set up to take nuance into account” in order to properly define the Treaty. “We are allowing the court to jerk around everyone else,” he said.

Former prime minister Dame Jenny Shipley opened her submission against the bill using the same word she had used in the Crown’s apology to Ngāi Tahu in 1998: the bill was “unconscionable”, and may have future governments finding themselves in the position she was in, “apologising for generations past”.

Former prime minister Jenny Shipley outside parliament’s Room 3. (Photo: Lyric Waiwiri-Smith)

She said she “admired the audacity” of a minor party like Act to be able to bring a bill such as this to parliament, but took “deep offence” for what she saw to be 50 years of relationship building between the Crown and Māori coming undone. She said that codification of the principles of the Treaty had been avoided for 185 years until now, and trying to do it now would take power away from “the next generation of Māori leaders who are going to balance guardianship with stewardship”.

The morning hearing ended with a submission against the bill from the National Iwi Chairs Forum’s Aperahama Edwards (Ngāti Wai) and Te Huia Bill Hamilton (Ngāti Kahungungu, Ngā Rauru, Ngāti Raukawa)’. “Our whānau have experienced racism, colonisation, discrimination and breaches by our parliament,” Hamilton said. “This Treaty principles bill is no exception … It is as bad as the legislation of the 1860s and 1880s that sought to smash the rangatira.”