"Upholding Our Democratic Right To Be GE-Free"
Kaipara District Council (KDC) recently released its Proposed District Plan for public consultation, with an odd omission at a time when other councils are banding together to oppose extreme and undemocratic proposals in the controversial Gene Technology Bill.
The KDC plan as notified is currently silent on the important GE/GMO issue. This is despite Northland's and Auckland's valuable status as a GM Free Food Producer Region and the inclusion of strong precautionary and prohibitive GE/GMO provisions, policies, and rules in the KDC draft District Plan 2022.
During the previous round of public consultation, KDC received an overwhelming amount of supportive submissions on this important issue.
Northland Regional Council (NRC) and other submittors are urging KDC to rectify the omission in the Proposed District Plan, with NRC noting that "the Northland Regional Policy Statement via Policy 6.1.2 directs a Precautionary approach to GE/GMO use where the effects are scientifically uncertain, unknown, or little understood but potentially significant."
"Given the direction in the Northland Regional Policy Statement, the concerns of farmers and tangata whenua, and the need for consistency with adjoining District plans it is considered appropriate to reference and control these matters in the Kaipara District plan," said Martin Robinson, spokesman for GE Free Northland.
'It is critically important that KDC continue to work in a collaborative and fiscally responsible manner with all the other councils of Northland and Auckland. GE contamination does not respect boundaries, and known vectors including seeds, pollen, vegetative material, soils, waterways, animals, insects, machinery, and extreme weather events would not only cause problems in Kaipara itself but the wider Northland rohe," said Robinson.
GE Free Northland is particularly concerned about the lack of strict liability to protect farmers and urges Northlanders concerned about outdoor GE/GMO experiments and field trials to make a submission to KDC's Proposed District Plan urging KDC to reinstate the GE/GMO provisions (by next Monday's 5pm deadline, 30 June 2025).
"We also thank NRC and Far North District Council (FNDC) for their excellent submissions opposing the Gene Technology Bill, despite the complete absence of consultation with key stakeholders like councils and the tight time frame."
"It was gratifying to read NRC's and FNDC's strong objections to the appalling and undemocratic provisions in the current Bill which would void existing District and Regional regulations and significantly reduce the local participation in decision making relating to gene technology experimentation," said Zelka Grammer, chair of GE Free Northland. (*1)
"The extreme, impractical, and undemocratic provisions in the Bill must be removed as they would undermine many years of collaboration across Northland and Auckland's local authorities to bring about a cohesive planning regime that represents the values of Northland and Auckland communities(*2) and protects our biosecurity," said Grammer.
As stated in its submission, NRC is of the view that regional and district plans should continue to play a part in the management of GMOs in Northland, and in doing so, continue to provide for the input of farmers and local communities into decisions that affect the region.
GE Free Northland thanks NRC for pro-actively writing to all councils from south Auckland to Cape Reinga in the Far North (*3), proposing that the Northland/ Auckland "Inter Council Working Party on GMO Risk Evaluation & Management Options" be reactivated, given the threat posed by extreme proposals in the controversial Gene Technology Bill. (*4)
Notes:
*(1) The explanatory notes in the Gene Technology Bill state:
"Subpart 9—Amendments to Resource Management Act 1991 Clauses 246 to 254 amend the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). In particular, these clauses— • define genetically modified and Regulator (clause 247): • prohibit a regional council or territorial authority from performing its functions under sections 30 and 31 of the RMA in a manner that treats genetically modified organisms differently from other organisms, including in regional plans, district plans and regional rules (clauses 248 to 253)."
All councils from south Auckland to Cape Reinga in Far North/ Te Tai Tokerau have precautionary and prohibitive GE/GMO provisions, policies, and rules- set up in keeping with the wishes of local farmers and other ratepayers, in order to protect our regions biosecurity, wider environment, economy, and existing GM free farmers/ primary producers, including conventional, IPM, regenerative,and organic.
Hastings District Council has achieved outright prohibition of all outdoor GE/GMO experiments, field trials, and releases for the duration of the District Plan.
*(2) Whangarei District Council "Genetic Engineering Review" webpage, detailing the good work of the Northland/ Auckland INTER COUNCIL WORKING PARTY ON GMO RISK EVALUATION & MANAGEMENT OPTIONS (formed in 2003 by Kaipara District Council and Whangarei District Council)
https://www.wdc.govt.nz/Council/Council-documents/Reports/Genetic-Engineering-Review
"Three major reports commissioned by the working party have identified a range of risks involved with the trialling and release of GMOs. They also include approaches to managing those risks.
GMO Reports [link to documents]
Environmental risks
· GMOs becoming invasive and affecting other species including native flora and fauna
· the development of herbicide or pesticide resistance creating 'super-weeds' or 'super-pests'
· long term effects on ecosystem functioning.
Socio-cultural risks
· effects on Maori cultural beliefs of whakapapa, mauri, tikanga
· ethical concerns about mixing genes from different species including human genes
· concerns about the long term safety of genetically engineered food.
Economic risks
· loss of income through contamination (or perceived contamination) of non-GMO food products
· negative effects on marketing and branding opportunities such as 'clean and green' or 'naturally Northland'
· costs associated with environmental damage such as clean-up costs for invasive weeds or pests.
Associated with these risks are limited liability provisions under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996. " ENDS
*(3) 15 April 2025 NRC letter to all Northland and Auckland councils
*(4) The operative Auckland Unitary Plan contains precautionary and prohibitive GE/GMO provisions, policies, and rules on both land and in the Coastal Marine Area (CMA).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
"Upholding Our Democratic Right To Be GE-Free"
Kaipara District Council (KDC) recently released its Proposed District Plan for public consultation, with an odd omission at a time when other councils are banding together to oppose extreme and undemocratic proposals in the controversial Gene Technology Bill. The KDC plan as notified is currently silent on the important GE/GMO issue. This is despite Northland's and Auckland's valuable status as a GM Free Food Producer Region and the inclusion of strong precautionary and prohibitive GE/GMO provisions, policies, and rules in the KDC draft District Plan 2022. During the previous round of public consultation, KDC received an overwhelming amount of supportive submissions on this important issue. Northland Regional Council (NRC) and other submittors are urging KDC to rectify the omission in the Proposed District Plan, with NRC noting that "the Northland Regional Policy Statement via Policy 6.1.2 directs a Precautionary approach to GE/GMO use where the effects are scientifically uncertain, unknown, or little understood but potentially significant." "Given the direction in the Northland Regional Policy Statement, the concerns of farmers and tangata whenua, and the need for consistency with adjoining District plans it is considered appropriate to reference and control these matters in the Kaipara District plan," said Martin Robinson, spokesman for GE Free Northland. 'It is critically important that KDC continue to work in a collaborative and fiscally responsible manner with all the other councils of Northland and Auckland. GE contamination does not respect boundaries, and known vectors including seeds, pollen, vegetative material, soils, waterways, animals, insects, machinery, and extreme weather events would not only cause problems in Kaipara itself but the wider Northland rohe," said Robinson. GE Free Northland is particularly concerned about the lack of strict liability to protect farmers and urges Northlanders concerned about outdoor GE/GMO experiments and field trials to make a submission to KDC's Proposed District Plan urging KDC to reinstate the GE/GMO provisions (by next Monday's 5pm deadline, 30 June 2025). "We also thank NRC and Far North District Council (FNDC) for their excellent submissions opposing the Gene Technology Bill, despite the complete absence of consultation with key stakeholders like councils and the tight time frame." "It was gratifying to read NRC's and FNDC's strong objections to the appalling and undemocratic provisions in the current Bill which would void existing District and Regional regulations and significantly reduce the local participation in decision making relating to gene technology experimentation," said Zelka Grammer, chair of GE Free Northland. (*1) "The extreme, impractical, and undemocratic provisions in the Bill must be removed as they would undermine many years of collaboration across Northland and Auckland's local authorities to bring about a cohesive planning regime that represents the values of Northland and Auckland communities(*2) and protects our biosecurity," said Grammer. As stated in its submission, NRC is of the view that regional and district plans should continue to play a part in the management of GMOs in Northland, and in doing so, continue to provide for the input of farmers and local communities into decisions that affect the region. GE Free Northland thanks NRC for pro-actively writing to all councils from south Auckland to Cape Reinga in the Far North (*3), proposing that the Northland/ Auckland "Inter Council Working Party on GMO Risk Evaluation & Management Options" be reactivated, given the threat posed by extreme proposals in the controversial Gene Technology Bill. (*4) Notes: *(1) The explanatory notes in the Gene Technology Bill state: "Subpart 9—Amendments to Resource Management Act 1991 Clauses 246 to 254 amend the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). In particular, these clauses— • define genetically modified and Regulator (clause 247): • prohibit a regional council or territorial authority from performing its functions under sections 30 and 31 of the RMA in a manner that treats genetically modified organisms differently from other organisms, including in regional plans, district plans and regional rules (clauses 248 to 253)." All councils from south Auckland to Cape Reinga in Far North/ Te Tai Tokerau have precautionary and prohibitive GE/GMO provisions, policies, and rules- set up in keeping with the wishes of local farmers and other ratepayers, in order to protect our regions biosecurity, wider environment, economy, and existing GM free farmers/ primary producers, including conventional, IPM, regenerative,and organic. Hastings District Council has achieved outright prohibition of all outdoor GE/GMO experiments, field trials, and releases for the duration of the District Plan. *(2) Whangarei District Council "Genetic Engineering Review" webpage, detailing the good work of the Northland/ Auckland INTER COUNCIL WORKING PARTY ON GMO RISK EVALUATION & MANAGEMENT OPTIONS (formed in 2003 by Kaipara District Council and Whangarei District Council) "Three major reports commissioned by the working party have identified a range of risks involved with the trialling and release of GMOs. They also include approaches to managing those risks. GMO Reports [link to documents] Environmental risks · GMOs becoming invasive and affecting other species including native flora and fauna · the development of herbicide or pesticide resistance creating 'super-weeds' or 'super-pests' · long term effects on ecosystem functioning. Socio-cultural risks · effects on Maori cultural beliefs of whakapapa, mauri, tikanga · ethical concerns about mixing genes from different species including human genes · concerns about the long term safety of genetically engineered food. Economic risks · loss of income through contamination (or perceived contamination) of non-GMO food products · negative effects on marketing and branding opportunities such as 'clean and green' or 'naturally Northland' · costs associated with environmental damage such as clean-up costs for invasive weeds or pests. Associated with these risks are limited liability provisions under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996. " ENDS *(3) 15 April 2025 NRC letter to all Northland and Auckland councils *(4) The operative Auckland Unitary Plan contains precautionary and prohibitive GE/GMO provisions, policies, and rules on both land and in the Coastal Marine Area (CMA).
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Personal attacks by minister also attacks on democracy
Our select committee process is the most important democratic institution in our Parliament. It is the way the public has a say in making laws. Select committees enhance transparency, accountability and public participation in governance. Their work strengthens the legislative process, improves the law and reinforces our trust in our democratic institutions. It is the only time between elections where parliamentarians must listen to ordinary people talk to them about the impact of policy decisions on their lives and families. It is the only scrutiny you and I have over future law. We do not get to decide the law, but we do get to have our say about it. That is part of the representative government arrangements. We give our representatives the right to decide for us, as long as they have the obligation to listen to us and take our views into account. This is why there is such a strong push for submissions to select committees. Without the public submissions to select committees, legislation would be even more prone to political manipulation and poor drafting, leading to more uncertainty and increased costs. When select committees issue the invitation to submit, they are committing to an open democracy and inviting scrutiny and transparency. This process reinforces democratic legitimacy. If the government does not open itself to scrutiny, how can it argue it has consent to govern? New Zealand's parliamentary select committee process is fundamental to our view of democracy and good government. While there is always room for improvement, the select committee system remains one of the most robust mechanisms for safeguarding democratic values in Aotearoa New Zealand. This means that when ministers attack members of the public who are engaging with the select committee process, they are also attacking our democracy. This is not an exaggeration. Without unfettered access to the select committee process, you and I are locked out of our only mechanism to scrutinise future law. It does not matter who you vote for. It does not matter what political ''side'' you consider yourself on. Your access to select committees should never be threatened. But this is where we now find ourselves. A senior minister has launched public, and very personal, attacks on some people, myself included, who make submissions to a select committee. This raises many questions. One is why would the person who has ultimate authority over the content of the Bill feel the need to personally attack those who disagree with it? This is not the action of someone confident in their rationale. A confident minister would allow the select committee process to proceed without trying to hinder or constrain it. A confident minister would welcome, rather than complain about, the public's engagement with their proposed legislation. Only a minister who fears the critique would personally attack the critics. Which suggests a second question: why such a minister would fear for the passage of the proposed legislation? In the case of the Regulatory Standards Bill, it is unclear why the minister is so anxious. The Bill is the subject of the coalition agreement between Act New Zealand and National, so National's support is guaranteed. The New Zealand First agreement requires it to support the policy proposals in the Act agreement, so NZ First will also have to vote for the Bill. Because of these political deals, the Bill will pass. So the only concern must be about the content of the Bill. The Bill might pass but the content of the Bill is open to change based on the submissions. And the anxiety of the minister over the submissions strongly suggests that these criticisms have legitimacy. The critiques have been well-traversed. One is that the Bill leaves open the opportunity for corporate entities to sue the government for regulation and legislation that does not meet the Bill's narrow principles. This is not as unlikely as some assume. Corporate entities have similar rights to those of natural persons and the fear of litigation by companies has led to a chilling effect on some good public policy protections. The Bill does not protect the government from such litigation. Another critique is that the Bill will constrain government and local government regulation and bylaw-making powers. This concern has been expressed by our own Dunedin City Council this week as it defends local decision-making and local democracy. And, of course, that the Bill is itself contrary to the rule of law it proposes to promote, because it excludes the Crown's constitutional obligations under te Tiriti o Waitangi. The rule of law is not confined to concerns of private property. The rule of law includes constitutional protections, like those found in te Tiriti, and in democratic processes, like our select committees. You will judge yourself as to the legitimacy of the deputy prime minister making ad hominem attacks against policy critics. But make no mistake, his attacks against individuals just disguise his attacks against democracy. ■Metiria Stanton Turei is a senior law lecturer at the University of Otago and a former Green Party MP and co-leader.
Scoop
3 days ago
- Scoop
Rights Aotearoa Applauds Human Rights Commission's Powerful Stand Against Regulatory Standards Bill
Rights Aotearoa warmly welcomes the impressive and authoritative submission from Te Kāhui Tika Tangata | Human Rights Commission on the Regulatory Standards Bill. The Commission's return to formidable analytical strength is a significant and encouraging development for the entire human rights sector in Aotearoa. Its submission masterfully deconstructs the Bill's profound threats to our constitutional framework, perfectly articulating the core concern that the Bill attempts to create a false and dangerous hierarchy of human rights. This aligns precisely with Rights Aotearoa's analysis that the Bill selectively elevates narrow economic and property-based principles over fundamental social, cultural, and environmental rights that protect the well-being of all New Zealanders. We commend the Commission for reinforcing the fundamental truth that there is no hierarchy of human rights, and that all human rights are indivisible. The Commission's detailed critique—covering the Bill's constitutional overreach, its complete disregard for Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and its flawed, undemocratic process—provides an unassailable case for its complete rejection. This submission is a testament that even though the Chief Human Rights Commissioner does not meet the statutory requirements for the job, the Commission's legal team, led by their extremely capable Chief Legal Officer, are highly talented. The commission's work provides a powerful, unifying voice for all who are dedicated to defending a fair, just, and democratic Aotearoa, and we are proud to stand alongside them in calling for this dangerous Bill to be withdrawn. The Human Rights Commission must be protected at all costs against voices—like those of ACT MP Todd Stephenson—who call for its dissolution. Rights Aotearoa's submission can be found here:
