Political parties negotiate controversial Gene Technology Bill, as progress stalls

Source: Radio New Zealand

The government still intends to pass legislation to liberalise gene technology laws, but cross-party disagreement is slowing the controversial reform.

The Gene Technology Bill sought to end an effective 30-year ban on the use of genetic technologies outside the laboratory, currently regulated by the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO).

Transgenics and new breeding techniques like gene editing were currently legal in Aotearoa, but heavily regulated and kept within confined laboratory conditions.

The Bill, first proposed in late 2024, featured in the National party’s coalition agreements with both ACT and New Zealand First.

Last year, 15,000 people made public submissions on the bill, with most opposing it.

Following that, the Health Select Committee released its report in October, recommending that the bill proceeded, and it now rested with Cabinet ministers negotiating possible amendments.

It was originally intended that the legislation would be passed by the end of 2025.

But a date for its second reading was still unconfirmed, as the Bill stalled in the lead-up to the general election in November.

Such delays could be down to a lack of majority support to take the Bill to second reading, or the Parliamentary Counsel Office that drafted legislation might need extra time to develop complex changes being put forward.

Meanwhile, the new Leader of the House – National’s Louise Upston – said the government intended to progress all legislation on the Order Paper.

ACT supportive, but wants Māori committee scrapped

A spokesperson for the ACT Party said it saw real opportunity in liberalising gene technology.

“Modernising these laws would give our agricultural sector and scientists the tools they need to stay globally competitive,” they said.

But the party did not support the establishment of a Māori Technical Advisory Committee, as the bill proposed, around which discussions were ongoing.

“Our issue with the Bill as it stands is that it risks tying up that scientific and economic potential in co-governed bureaucracy.

“The Bill has not yet advanced to its second reading and it remains with Cabinet, where decisions on its progress or timeline will be made.”

Improvements to human, environmental protections needed – New Zealand First

As part of its coalition agreement with National, New Zealand First agreed to liberalise genetic engineering laws, while ensuring strong protections for human health and the environment.

The party said previously it would withhold support for the bill, unless major changes towards improving these protections were made.

Its office told RNZ the stance had not changed and it was still undertaking party consultation on it.

In November, party leader Winston Peters addressed hundreds of people on Parliament steps who gathered to oppose the Bill.

“What we’ve said is this Bill’s going nowhere unless we’re satisfied and we’re confident that it doesn’t represent any danger,” he told the crowd last year.

“Let me tell you, if the Bill can’t be fixed up, it won’t be going ahead.”

Bill proposes ‘rushed’ approach to risky outdoor uses – Labour

RNZ understands National had been in talks with Labour to try to come to some agreement.

Labour’s Reuben Davidson said while there was broad agreement that gene technology regulations were outdated, reform must carefully balance innovation with protection.

“This reform was an opportunity to modernise our framework in a way that strengthened New Zealand’s science system, honoured Māori perspectives, safeguarded our primary industries, and protected our international reputation.

“The Bill, in its current form, does not achieve that balance.”

Davidson said the Bill proposed a rushed approach, bundling together widely supported applications of gene science, like in medical research or industrial fermentation, with far riskier outdoor uses.

“If the government was functional, the Bill would have been passed already, but the coalition can’t agree on outcomes,” he said.

“Once again National have allowed internal bickering to get in the way of what they promised.”

The Green Party did not support what Steve Abel labelled as ‘radical de-regulation’ that risked the country’s GMO-free status marketed globally.

National says negotiations ongoing

Since the Bill was first introduced by then-Minister for Science Innovation and Technology, Judith Collins, the National-held portfolio had changed hands among ministers.

Minister Shane Reti took over the role, but with both he and Collins announcing their retirement from politics throughout 2026, incumbent minister Penny Simmonds now held the portfolio alongside Tertiary Education (and Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment).

When asked a parliamentary question by the Greens last month, if amendments or changes were intended for the Bill, Simmonds said it was still under active consideration.

Simmonds told RNZ in a statement that negotiations were ongoing.

“Negotiations and subsequent policy changes as a result of the public select committee process, are ongoing,” she said.

“We’ll have more to say soon.”

GMO environmental release concerns organic farmers

Biotechnological benefits from reformed gene technology laws could include for plant and seed production, emissions mitigations and improved productivity, as touted by Collins.

But the reform would also bid farewell to New Zealand’s GMO-free status

Allowing field releases of GMOs into the environment caused concern among organic producers, a sector worth $1.2 billion – half of which are exports.

Hawkes Bay farmer Scott Lawson of Lawson’s True Earth Organics told a webinar held by industry group Organics Aotearoa New Zealand last month that New Zealanders were largely unaware of how vulnerable to sector was to the reform.

“People are aware of the organic industry, but they’re not aware of just how big we are, how important we are… and how vulnerable we are to the impact of something like this Gene Tech Bill. Because once released there is no containment, no co-existence.”

As it stood, an independent regulator would be set up within the Environmental Protection Authority to assess applications for using these technologies in the environment.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand