Foreword

The Royal Commission was satisfied that the basic regulatory framework for genetic modification in New Zealand is appropriate and that the key institutions carry out their functions conscientiously and soundly. However, suggestions were made to enhance the regulation of genetic modification.

We agree with the Royal Commission’s view that New Zealand should preserve its opportunities with both GM and non-GM products and innovations, and proceed with caution.

Our detailed response to the Royal Commission outlined a package of changes that we intend to implement over the next two years. These changes include the establishment of a Bioethics Council, the formation of a comprehensive Biotechnology Strategy, and some immediate changes to the rules governing field tests of genetically modified organisms. We are also funding research to help us investigate the wider implications of this new technology, both on the environment and on society in general.

In Part A of this public discussion document, we seek your views on changes that might be made to the main piece of legislation controlling genetic modification – the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996. The proposals range from seeking to make the Act more efficient, thus reducing compliance costs (for example, by delegating the approval for importation of low-risk genetically modified organisms to Institutional Biological Safety Committees); through to changes to the grounds for the Minister for the Environment to call-in an application for a HSNO approval. In some cases we have identified what we think is the best way forward on an issue. In other cases we have not yet decided on exactly how we want to proceed.

Part A also sets out the issues around liability for possible adverse effects from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). At this stage, we have not formed a view about liability issues and are not proposing any changes in relation to liability in respect of GMOs. Rather we have set out the issues and options to be considered and seek your comments on these.

Part B of this document discusses other changes to improve the operation of the HSNO Act. These changes do not relate to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, but it is opportune to raise them at this time. Genetically modified organisms are only one type of new organism under the HSNO Act. In the Act, ‘new organisms’ also includes exotic species kept in zoos or used for biological control. Many of the suggested changes would affect how such organisms are controlled. Finally, we seek your comment on several proposals that arise out of operational experience of the Act since it commenced in July 1998. Some of these proposals affect the hazardous substances part of the Act.

In addition to the options and proposals to change the HSNO Act described in this document, we will also be reviewing certain aspects of the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s operations. This review will assess whether the Authority has the capacity to meet the demands placed on it by the HSNO Act. Some of the discussion in Part B of this document will be informative for this review.

The issues discussed in this document are of the utmost importance. I encourage you to tell us what you think of the ideas described and to suggest any alternative approaches you believe are better. I look forward to receiving your views.

Hon Marian Hobbs
MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT