"Upholding Our Democratic Right To Be GE-Free"
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
NZ Herald
3 days ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Voting should be made easier, not more difficult
Vivien Fergusson, Mt Eden. Seymour's style David Seymour may not physically resemble Donald Trump, but his insulting, dismissive attitude towards those unlikely to support his party is strikingly Trumpian. Last month Seymour personally attacked eminent scholars who opposed his Regulatory Standards Bill, labelling them individually as 'victim of the day'. This week he calls New Zealanders who do not enrol to vote well before election day 'dropkicks'. The Act Party is the tail that wags this dog of a coalition and Seymour's divisive methods threaten our democracy in the same way as Trump's behaviour has brought the United States democracy into disrepute. Andrea Dawe, Sandringham. Food safety If Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard signs off on proposal P1055 by food authority FSANZ to redefine gene edited foods as 'Non-GMO', it will be a betrayal of consumers' basic right to know what we are eating. The minister says that removing tracing and labelling of GE food will make food cheaper, but the promise rings hollow. New Zealanders are paying record prices for butter because other countries are willing to pay more for quality products. How does taking away labelling of GE food and the right to choose change that? Jon Carapiet, Sandringham. Price of butter If 'Nicky no butter' sounds more annoying than 'Nicky no boats', Nicola Willis enigmatically reminded us she wasn't an expert on pricing at Fonterra but ... the price of butter is expected to fall. Really, how would she know? Funnily enough I thought her only expertise was in English literature not financial stuff. If 80% of the price is global pricing and 15% is GST then how can the 5% be even significant from retailers like supermarkets? More like a dropkick's chance of landing in a cow pat in 'footy' terms. Willis is an 'expert' at disguising the truth. Let's be honest it's her forte - not playing footy. The Nats are proud of how fast they've satiated the farming lobby shopping list of requests. Nine of 12 ticked off in half a term. Hasn't she done well. They're not going to put downward pressure on the local butter price any time soon. How idiotic you think they are claiming they would actually bring down the cost of living? Buttering up farmers is in a Nat's nature. Butter literally lubricates the electoral process. All you 'dropkicks' that don't vote know that. Steve Russell, Hillcrest. The real cost of food The angst over the increased food prices exposes the social expectation – something akin to a divine right – that food must be cheap. In New Zealand there is an unreasonable argument that because we have a strong agricultural sector then, somehow, we deserve cheap – even subsidised – food. In one of his last papers, renowned geographer, the late Professor Tony Allan (of King's College, London) persuasively argued that the price of food does not cover the true cost of food production. All political ideologies, Allan says, 'have imposed a system in which farmers deliver food at well below its real cost'. As a result, the price of food fails to cover costs incurred by the environment and public health. These costs, in economic speak, are 'externalised' outside the food price and are ultimately paid by the taxpayer. When we demand 'cheap food', we are selfishly saying that it's okay for the real cost of food to be borne elsewhere. Whether that is borne by farmers not being able to cover their input costs or tolerating environmental degradation or having poorer public health due to an inadequate diet. Don't be fooled; cheap food is a misnomer. We all pay the real cost of food – one way or another. Dr Murray Boardman, Dunedin. Passport changes I read with interest the decision to list English first on New Zealand passports, ahead of te reo Māori. This seems like a return to common sense. Wasn't it established some time ago that English should take precedence on official documents and government department signage to reduce confusion and ensure clarity for the majority? While te reo Māori is an important part of our heritage and deserves recognition, it is simply not widely understood — either within New Zealand or overseas. There is certainly room for Māori language to be included, but not as the primary language on key documents like passports, which are used internationally. English has long served as the clear, functional language for nearly all New Zealanders and for global communication. Unfortunately, some of the recent language and policy changes seem to complicate matters rather than make everyday life easier. It's worth asking: what is actually being achieved by introducing such confusion into areas where clarity is essential? Alan Walker, St Heliers. Vape regulations I cannot believe that a Government with the power to pass laws without due process has thrown themselves prostrate before the might of the vape industry and dropped the 2023 vaping regulations. This retraction as the 'best way to resolve the legal case' taken by Mason Corporation against them smells rotten. Casey Costello used the argument that the regulations were based on limited evidence to justify their withdrawal. I would have thought regularly sucking something into your lungs that is not meant to be there is sufficient, until evidence can be supplied to confirm or not the safety of these devices. Alan Johnson, Papatoetoe. Climate reparations The historic statement by the International Court of Justice that countries are obliged by international law to tackle climate change, and warning that failing to do so could open the door for reparations, will result in joy for all those who have been spending their lives protesting unsuccessfully for action. It will also see fear for governments and corporations who have been deliberately misleading us about the biggest issue of our time. Does this mean that protesters will not have to wave their placards to get action on climate issues, probably not, but they will be able to threaten court action as well and climate criminals will be well advised to listen. However, it's unlikely that they will be held accountable as countries have not ceded sovereignty to any UN agency's which means we are relying on moral pressure, and that may not work. The invasion of Ukraine was a shock to Western nations and illustrated the need to reform the UN Security Council and the first step is to remove the power of veto. NZ could take a leadership role in this as we are vulnerable in all areas, perhaps we could offer to cede some sovereignty to the United Nations if they provide protection from all large countries, who will not be named. Dennis Worley, Birkenhead. Why Putin? Why would one want to make a film about Putin with a list of war crimes as long as your arm and the murder of his critics along the way? It is bound to bring every sadistic man and his dog out of the woodwork and would be better off - much as the case of Adolf Hitler - best forgotten, and for that reason is bound to be a flop. If the powers to be that make movies were serious about making money which they clearly aren't, why not a film about the life of Donald Trump which would be a guaranteed box office sell out. Gary Hollis, Mellons Bay. A quick word The court ruling found that nations have a legal responsibility to aggressively reduce their emissions, and that failing to do so would open the way for impacted nations to seek reparations. It specifically lists the production, use, exploration and subsidies of fossil fuels— both current and historic. Our continued, bipartisan failure to address our responsibility to our neighbours and our grandchildren now will have financial implications. We must act immediately to meet our Nationally Determined Commitment (NDC) to limit temperatures to less than 1.5C above preindustrial levels. Ian Swney, Morrinsville. Wellington councils are considering forming another Super City like Auckland. Can't they see from Auckland's experience it doesn't work and just turns into a huge unwieldy monster that chews up ratepayers' money for no results. Then it splits itself into subdivisions like Auckland Transport (AT), Watercare etc who run their own little fiefdoms and answer to no one and embark on their own pet projects. Don't say you weren't warned. Jock MacVicar, Hauraki. We are told that the proposed changes to voter registration will speed up the result of the election. Please remind me how long it took for the 2023 coalition agreement. Gregory Cave, NZ
Scoop
4 days ago
- Scoop
Overseas Investment Bill Could Undermine Public Access
Press Release – Federated Mountain Clubs The Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, introduced to encourage foreign investment by simplifying the current regime, adopts a narrow economic focus and overlooks wider social, environmental, and public access considerations. 'New Zealanders must retain their right to enjoy the places that define who we are,' says FMC Executive Board Member Raymond Ford, in response to the government's proposed changes to overseas investment rules. The Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, introduced to encourage foreign investment by simplifying the current regime, adopts a narrow economic focus and overlooks wider social, environmental, and public access considerations. While FMC supports overseas investment in principle, the organisation is concerned that the Bill's focus on economic opportunity and national security will sideline important factors — including public access, environmental protection, and community wellbeing. The Bill seeks to replace the existing multifaceted testing framework with a single 'National Interest' test. This change would remove longstanding requirements to assess impacts on heritage, the environment, and access to public lands. FMC recommends replacing the narrow test with a broader one that includes environmental, heritage, and public access considerations. It also calls for mandatory consultation between the Overseas Investment Office and Te Herenga ā Nuku / Outdoor Access Commission before land purchases are approved, ensuring existing public access arrangements are carried over when land changes ownership, and requiring ministers to consider the full range of national benefits, not just economic outcomes. The Bill should be withdrawn and the entire Act redrafted, setting out a clear process for foreign investment proposals with the relevant tests to assess whether they would generally benefit New Zealand. 'The future of public access depends on balanced, transparent decision-making that values more than just profit,' Ford said.
Scoop
4 days ago
- Scoop
Overseas Investment Bill Could Undermine Public Access
Press Release – Federated Mountain Clubs The Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, introduced to encourage foreign investment by simplifying the current regime, adopts a narrow economic focus and overlooks wider social, environmental, and public access considerations. 'New Zealanders must retain their right to enjoy the places that define who we are,' says FMC Executive Board Member Raymond Ford, in response to the government's proposed changes to overseas investment rules. The Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, introduced to encourage foreign investment by simplifying the current regime, adopts a narrow economic focus and overlooks wider social, environmental, and public access considerations. While FMC supports overseas investment in principle, the organisation is concerned that the Bill's focus on economic opportunity and national security will sideline important factors — including public access, environmental protection, and community wellbeing. The Bill seeks to replace the existing multifaceted testing framework with a single 'National Interest' test. This change would remove longstanding requirements to assess impacts on heritage, the environment, and access to public lands. FMC recommends replacing the narrow test with a broader one that includes environmental, heritage, and public access considerations. It also calls for mandatory consultation between the Overseas Investment Office and Te Herenga ā Nuku / Outdoor Access Commission before land purchases are approved, ensuring existing public access arrangements are carried over when land changes ownership, and requiring ministers to consider the full range of national benefits, not just economic outcomes. The Bill should be withdrawn and the entire Act redrafted, setting out a clear process for foreign investment proposals with the relevant tests to assess whether they would generally benefit New Zealand. 'The future of public access depends on balanced, transparent decision-making that values more than just profit,' Ford said.
