Mark Patterson
April 10, 2025
NZ First MP Mark Patterson says the party will be asking the tough questions around the The Gene Technology Bill.
Mark Patterson is an NZ First MP.
OPINION: Legislation that goes through Parliament sits on a spectrum: from minor amendments and tweaks, to status quo legislation, to those that shift paradigms.
The Gene Technology Bill currently going through the parliamentary select committee process is one such bill.
Genetic engineering has been a third rail issue in New Zealand politics for a quarter of a century, ever since the “Corngate” controversy leading into the 2002 election. It’s fair to say that the biotechnology has moved considerably over that period and New Zealand’s regulatory settings have not.
The coalition agreements entered into post-election pledged to update the regulatory framework to reflect a modern 21st century understanding of the technology and unshackle our scientists and allow commercial uptake.
NZ First has always been cautious around this issue.
With an economy heavily reliant on our food and fibre producers to bring in export dollars and support our standard of living we absolutely have to get this right. New Zealand’s GE-free status has been leveraged as a market advantage to those consumers who are conscious of their food choices. If we walk away from this advantage, we must be doing so for a compelling reason.
As lead for NZ First on this issue, I have been heavily involved in discussions with interested parties from across the spectrum of opinions. In my first reading speech, upon introduction of the bill, I outlined our support for addressing sensible liberalisation but stressing that we will be monitoring the submissions and select committee report with forensic interest and taking our judgement from there.
Even the term GE is complex, from gene editing techniques that are within a parent species or genetically modified organisms (GMOs) which are transgenic. Or does the market and consumer even differentiate? Where the line gets drawn is critical.
There is general agreement that anything contained in a lab for medicinal research or fermentation purposes should be liberalised. There is huge contention about whether we should have such liberal release into the food chain, the likes of GE ryegrass and clovers that would be difficult (or impossible) to contain in an outdoor setting.
We absolutely wanted to hear from submitters as to what the impact either way would be on their businesses – of particular note, the organics industry and those food exporters that bring in so much of our foreign earnings.
It’s easy to be cynical about politics and the parliamentary select committee process being merely a rubber stamp. This bill is a great example of the process working at its very best.
Submitters have provided a great depth of information from scientific analysis to health and market perception concerns.
Going into this process, my view was that neither proponents or opponents had clearly articulated the risk/reward. There are a host of questions to be considered.
What are we actually gaining and what are we actually trading away? The legislation is closely modelled on the Australian laws; what has been their experience alongside other jurisdictions that have liberalised GE?
How would traceability work and what are the implications for those businesses that are organic or wish to maintain GE free supply chains? How actually could they credibly coexist?
Where should liability lie if one business is impacted by another’s actions?
What factors should be incorporated in the decision-making process as to what to be allowed for release, when and where?
Submissions were heavily focused on these issues. The health select committee is now deliberating and its report will be forthcoming in a few weeks.
I can assure everyone that NZ First is highly engaged in this issue and will be seeking credible answers to the above questions before agreeing to the final legislation.
New Zealand has the world’s last mover advantage regarding our GE-free status and being able to assess outcomes elsewhere. This should not be traded away lightly, and it need not be rushed.