In her Beehive media release, she said, “The changes we’re announcing today will allow researchers and companies to further develop and commercialise their innovative products. Importantly, it will help New Zealanders to better access treatments such as CAR T-cell therapy, which has been clinically proven to effectively treat some cancers. It can also help our farmers and growers mitigate emissions and increase productivity, all of which benefits our economy.”
It sounded encouragingly far-sighted, but the Gene Technology Bill she introduced to Parliament last December — declaring it to be “a great day for science” that would bring New Zealand’s “regulations for gene technology into the 21st century” — included major elements that are decidedly unscientific and distinctly backward looking.
Alongside a Technical Advisory Committee staffed by scientists, the legislation sets up a Māori Advisory Committee whose members are required to have “knowledge of mātauranga Māori (Māori traditional knowledge), tikanga Māori (Māori protocol and culture), te ao Māori (the Māori world), and taonga species.”
Anyone who wants approval for work involving native species (or affecting relationships Māori claim to have with those species) must engage with the Māori Advisory Committee, which will advise on cultural, spiritual, historical, customary, and ecological values.
Somehow, the National-led government — in charge of a country that, by its own admission, is struggling to keep up with scientific advances in gene technology in the 21st century — is willing to appoint a bevy of spiritual and cultural advisers whose advice is to be officially assessed in a similar manner to that presented by scientists.
The bill states that the Regulator — tasked with overseeing the safe use of gene technology — “must have regard to the advice” presented by both the Māori and technical committees.
ACT is the only party that has opposed the role of a Māori Advisory Committee, which has been instituted to “recognise and respect the Crown’s obligations under the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.”
Surprisingly — given that Winston Peters won agreement from National in 2023 to review all Treaty clauses in legislation, apart from in settlements — NZ First’s objections in the Select Committee report don’t even mention the bill’s kowtow to the principles of the Treaty.
ACT’s “differing view” in the select committee report states:
“For gene technology to succeed and be trusted, it should be based on modern science, not cultural concepts that will make it difficult for the Regulator or applicants to navigate. The [Māori Advisory] committee is entirely reliant on the concept of ‘tikanga’… ACT does not believe it has a place in scientific legislation. Tikanga is not a fixed or universal concept; it varies between iwi and hapū and lacks consistent content or application, making it unsuitable as a legal standard… The inclusion of a Technical Advisory Committee ensures that the Regulator receives robust scientific and technical input… Adding a parallel cultural advisory process risks diluting this focus and undermining confidence in the regulatory regime’s neutrality and predictability.”
As ACT MP Cameron Luxton, who sits on the Health select committee, said: “It’s incredibly difficult to get your head around what basically spiritual concepts [are doing] inside a regulatory scientific regime.”
It should be noted that while ACT has strongly criticised this aspect of the bill, it has said such concerns would not prevent it supporting it.
The bill grants the right to any iwi, hapū, Māori entity or Māori individual to assert they have “a kaitiaki [guardianship] relationship with an indigenous species that would be, or has been, used as a host organism.”
A kaitiaki relationship is defined as “the relationship that any kaitiaki has, or Māori in general have, as guardian, trustee, or caretaker of an indigenous species, in accordance with tikanga.”
The Health select committee report further recommends the bill should be expanded to include relationships with “non-indigenous species of significance” to Māori that are “believed to have been brought to New Zealand before 1769 [when Cook arrived] on waka migrating from other parts of the Pacific region.”
What “relationship” might mean exactly in these contexts — given it is based on the notoriously flexible notion of tikanga — is impossible to divine.
An indication of just how wide that net may be set was offered by Dr Jessica Hutchings, co-founder of the Papawhakaritorito Trust, who told Waatea News that the bill threatens Māori control over their food systems:
“The bill could open the door for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to be released in Aotearoa, risking contamination of traditional seeds and undermining Māori food sovereignty… Seeds are encoded with the gifts of nature, the gifts of our atua. And when we manipulate them, we impact on the whakapapa, the mauri, the mana of the potential of that seed and what it offers.”
The Māori Advisory Committee will have the right to determine if a kaitiaki relationship exists and, if so, it will be obliged to advise the Regulator to halt any application deemed to affect that relationship.
As the Taxpayers’ Union has noted, “There are no appeal rights for what the Māori Advisory Committee determine. If they accept an iwi, hapū or individual has a special relationship, the law will require it to recommend that the activity not proceed…”
However, it can also recommend “conditions” that will allow the activity to go ahead. In other words, an applicant hoping to gain approval for a project may agree to “resolve” the problem of Māori asserting a special relationship by making a deal with them about how to mitigate the effect of the genetic engineering.
The executive director of the Taxpayers’ Union, Jordan Williams, has concluded that this is a “recipe for rent-seeking” that will “deliberately encourage money to change hands for (in effect) the issues to go away.”
Political analyst Peter Williams described “rent-seeking” in blunter terms, stating the bill “opens the door to bribery and corruption.”
“Basically, if you want something to go ahead, you pay the Māori entity or the Māori individual and the problem’s going to go away.”
Jordan Williams has made it clear that while “GE is not in the traditional wheelhouse of the Taxpayers’ Union,” the opportunity for the bill’s provisions to be gamed is a major reason why he is bringing it to the public’s attention — just as his organisation mobilised opposition to Three Waters before the last election because it believed the policy would have led to inflated costs to taxpayers and reduced accountability.
That the bill was approved by a Cabinet made up of National, ACT and NZ First will baffle many government supporters. After all, in 2023 the three Coalition parties each campaigned strongly against co-governance (including abolishing Three Waters and the Māori Health Authority), and their success in that year’s election was due in no small measure to their common stance.
While it can be argued that the Gene Technology Bill is not strictly an example of co-governance because the Māori committee only has an advisory role, it nevertheless gives Māori significant powers to influence the progress of proposals submitted for approval. It has been described as co-governance via the back door.
In Judith Collins’s media release about gene technology legislation last year, there was no mention of it including race-based elements or any form of co-governance. However, she did note, “It will be based on Australia’s Gene Technology Act 2000 and modified to work here in New Zealand.”
The US Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), which bills itself as the “lead US agency tasked with promoting exports of US agricultural products,” agreed that “the bill mirrors elements of Australia’s Gene Technology Act 2000” but noted it “specifically includes provisions to manage risks to Māori kaitiaki relationships with indigenous species, reflecting the country’s commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi.”
It added: “This cultural consideration is unique to New Zealand and not explicitly present in the Australian legislation.”
It seems that modifying an overseas template to suit New Zealand conditions in 2025 means being held hostage by spiritual ideas — including the “mauri” or “life-force” allegedly inherent in all people, objects, and natural elements — that were rejected long ago by scientists.
Graham Adams is an Auckland-based freelance editor, journalist and columnist. This article was sourced HERE
Alongside a Technical Advisory Committee staffed by scientists, the legislation sets up a Māori Advisory Committee whose members are required to have “knowledge of mātauranga Māori (Māori traditional knowledge), tikanga Māori (Māori protocol and culture), te ao Māori (the Māori world), and taonga species.”
Anyone who wants approval for work involving native species (or affecting relationships Māori claim to have with those species) must engage with the Māori Advisory Committee, which will advise on cultural, spiritual, historical, customary, and ecological values.
Somehow, the National-led government — in charge of a country that, by its own admission, is struggling to keep up with scientific advances in gene technology in the 21st century — is willing to appoint a bevy of spiritual and cultural advisers whose advice is to be officially assessed in a similar manner to that presented by scientists.
The bill states that the Regulator — tasked with overseeing the safe use of gene technology — “must have regard to the advice” presented by both the Māori and technical committees.
ACT is the only party that has opposed the role of a Māori Advisory Committee, which has been instituted to “recognise and respect the Crown’s obligations under the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.”
Surprisingly — given that Winston Peters won agreement from National in 2023 to review all Treaty clauses in legislation, apart from in settlements — NZ First’s objections in the Select Committee report don’t even mention the bill’s kowtow to the principles of the Treaty.
ACT’s “differing view” in the select committee report states:
“For gene technology to succeed and be trusted, it should be based on modern science, not cultural concepts that will make it difficult for the Regulator or applicants to navigate. The [Māori Advisory] committee is entirely reliant on the concept of ‘tikanga’… ACT does not believe it has a place in scientific legislation. Tikanga is not a fixed or universal concept; it varies between iwi and hapū and lacks consistent content or application, making it unsuitable as a legal standard… The inclusion of a Technical Advisory Committee ensures that the Regulator receives robust scientific and technical input… Adding a parallel cultural advisory process risks diluting this focus and undermining confidence in the regulatory regime’s neutrality and predictability.”
As ACT MP Cameron Luxton, who sits on the Health select committee, said: “It’s incredibly difficult to get your head around what basically spiritual concepts [are doing] inside a regulatory scientific regime.”
It should be noted that while ACT has strongly criticised this aspect of the bill, it has said such concerns would not prevent it supporting it.
The bill grants the right to any iwi, hapū, Māori entity or Māori individual to assert they have “a kaitiaki [guardianship] relationship with an indigenous species that would be, or has been, used as a host organism.”
A kaitiaki relationship is defined as “the relationship that any kaitiaki has, or Māori in general have, as guardian, trustee, or caretaker of an indigenous species, in accordance with tikanga.”
The Health select committee report further recommends the bill should be expanded to include relationships with “non-indigenous species of significance” to Māori that are “believed to have been brought to New Zealand before 1769 [when Cook arrived] on waka migrating from other parts of the Pacific region.”
What “relationship” might mean exactly in these contexts — given it is based on the notoriously flexible notion of tikanga — is impossible to divine.
An indication of just how wide that net may be set was offered by Dr Jessica Hutchings, co-founder of the Papawhakaritorito Trust, who told Waatea News that the bill threatens Māori control over their food systems:
“The bill could open the door for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to be released in Aotearoa, risking contamination of traditional seeds and undermining Māori food sovereignty… Seeds are encoded with the gifts of nature, the gifts of our atua. And when we manipulate them, we impact on the whakapapa, the mauri, the mana of the potential of that seed and what it offers.”
The Māori Advisory Committee will have the right to determine if a kaitiaki relationship exists and, if so, it will be obliged to advise the Regulator to halt any application deemed to affect that relationship.
As the Taxpayers’ Union has noted, “There are no appeal rights for what the Māori Advisory Committee determine. If they accept an iwi, hapū or individual has a special relationship, the law will require it to recommend that the activity not proceed…”
However, it can also recommend “conditions” that will allow the activity to go ahead. In other words, an applicant hoping to gain approval for a project may agree to “resolve” the problem of Māori asserting a special relationship by making a deal with them about how to mitigate the effect of the genetic engineering.
The executive director of the Taxpayers’ Union, Jordan Williams, has concluded that this is a “recipe for rent-seeking” that will “deliberately encourage money to change hands for (in effect) the issues to go away.”
Political analyst Peter Williams described “rent-seeking” in blunter terms, stating the bill “opens the door to bribery and corruption.”
“Basically, if you want something to go ahead, you pay the Māori entity or the Māori individual and the problem’s going to go away.”
Jordan Williams has made it clear that while “GE is not in the traditional wheelhouse of the Taxpayers’ Union,” the opportunity for the bill’s provisions to be gamed is a major reason why he is bringing it to the public’s attention — just as his organisation mobilised opposition to Three Waters before the last election because it believed the policy would have led to inflated costs to taxpayers and reduced accountability.
That the bill was approved by a Cabinet made up of National, ACT and NZ First will baffle many government supporters. After all, in 2023 the three Coalition parties each campaigned strongly against co-governance (including abolishing Three Waters and the Māori Health Authority), and their success in that year’s election was due in no small measure to their common stance.
While it can be argued that the Gene Technology Bill is not strictly an example of co-governance because the Māori committee only has an advisory role, it nevertheless gives Māori significant powers to influence the progress of proposals submitted for approval. It has been described as co-governance via the back door.
In Judith Collins’s media release about gene technology legislation last year, there was no mention of it including race-based elements or any form of co-governance. However, she did note, “It will be based on Australia’s Gene Technology Act 2000 and modified to work here in New Zealand.”
The US Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), which bills itself as the “lead US agency tasked with promoting exports of US agricultural products,” agreed that “the bill mirrors elements of Australia’s Gene Technology Act 2000” but noted it “specifically includes provisions to manage risks to Māori kaitiaki relationships with indigenous species, reflecting the country’s commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi.”
It added: “This cultural consideration is unique to New Zealand and not explicitly present in the Australian legislation.”
It seems that modifying an overseas template to suit New Zealand conditions in 2025 means being held hostage by spiritual ideas — including the “mauri” or “life-force” allegedly inherent in all people, objects, and natural elements — that were rejected long ago by scientists.
Graham Adams is an Auckland-based freelance editor, journalist and columnist. This article was sourced HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment