For the last thirty years, New Zealand has had strict regulations about the release of genetically modified organisms, including humans. This means that gene therapy is strictly regulated (more so than in the U.S.) and release of genetically modified organisms, which has occurred in other places (mosquitoes, crops, etc.), or has great potential (e.g., golden rice) is not on in New Zealand. And gene therapy for diseases like Parkinson’s and hemophilia has great promise in our own species.
That changed last year when three New Zealand parties agreed to make it more possible to release genetically modified native species, and to use gene therapy in humans,. Except for one thing, and you can guess what that might be. The bill also allows for an advisory council of the indigenous Māori people to nix gene therapy based on more-or-less spiritual relationship with native organisms. There is no scientific basis for this save for the superstition embodied in Mātauranga Māori: the melange of superstition, indigenous knowledge, ideology, and code of conduct (tikanga) that is said to constitute another “way of knowing”.
Only Ceiling Cat knows why the bill was approved by parties that aren’t keen on the concept of “co-governance”. Surely people should realize what is gong to happen: Māori, which supposedly have an advisory capacity only, but in reality can nix any release of GMOs in native species, can bargain with the supplicants, perhaps even getting money to give permission, as Graham Adams writes in this article on the N.Z. site Point of Order. I’ll give some excerpts from the article but do realize that I don’t know a great deal about the new bill save what the article says.
Click the headline to read the piece:
I’ll just give quotes, and perhaps a bit of commentary. I’ve bolded parts that I see as more significant. Note that the text is messed up, and I don’t know how to fix it.
In August 2024, the then-Minister of Science, Innovation, and Technology, Judith Collins, announced legislation to end New Zealand’s nearly 30-year ban on gene technology outside the lab. She described the move as “a major milestone in modernising gene technology laws.”
In her Beehive media release, she said, “The changes we’re announcing today will allow researchers and companies to further develop and commercialise their innovative products. Importantly, it will help New Zealanders to better access treatments such as CAR T-cell therapy, which has been clinically proven to effectively treat some cancers. It can also help our farmers and growers mitigate emissions and increase productivity, all of which benefits our economy.”
It sounded encouragingly far-sighted, but the Gene Technology Bill she introduced to Parliament last December — declaring it to be “a great day for science” that would bring New Zealand’s “regulations for gene technology into the 21st century” — included major elements that are decidedly unscientific and distinctly backward looking.
Alongside a Technical Advisory Committee staffed by scientists, the legislation sets up a Māori Advisory Committee whose members are required to have “knowledge of mātauranga Māori (Māori traditional knowledge), tikanga Māori (Māori protocol and culture), te ao Māori (the Māori world), and taonga species.”
Anyone who wants approval for work involving native species (or affecting relationships Māori claim to have with those species) must engage with the Māori Advisory Committee, which will advise on cultural, spiritual, historical, customary, and ecological values.
Somehow, the National-led government — in charge of a country that, by its own admission, is struggling to keep up with scientific advances in gene technology in the 21st century — is willing to appoint a bevy of spiritual and cultural advisers whose advice is to be officially assessed in a similar manner to that presented by scientists.
Opposition from the conservative (in the NZ sense) ACT party:
ACT’s “differing view” in the select committee report states this (ACT will not, however, oppose the bill):
“For gene technology to succeed and be trusted, it should be based on modern science, not cultural concepts that will make it difficult for the Regulator or applicants to navigate. The [Māori Advisory] committee is entirely reliant on the concept of ‘tikanga’… ACT does not believe it has a place in scientific legislation. Tikanga is not a fixed or universal concept; it varies between iwi and hapū and lacks consistent content or application, making it unsuitable as a legal standard… The inclusion of a Technical Advisory Committee ensures that the Regulator receives robust scientific and technical input… Adding a parallel cultural advisory process risks diluting this focus and undermining confidence in the regulatory regime’s neutrality and predictability.”
And the indigenous approval can apply not just to indigenous species, but to any species with which Māori have a special relationship that got to the island before 1769::
The bill grants the right to any iwi, hapū, Māori entity or Māori individual to assert they have “a kaitiaki [guardianship] relationship with an indigenous species that would be, or has been, used as a host organism.”
A kaitiaki relationship is defined as “the relationship that any kaitiaki has, or Māori in general have, as guardian, trustee, or caretaker of an indigenous species, in accordance with tikanga.”
The Health select committee report further recommends the bill should be expanded to include relationships with “non-indigenous species of significance” to Māori that are “believed to have been brought to New Zealand before 1769 [when Cook arrived] on waka migrating from other parts of the Pacific region.”
Now “native” species aren’t necessarily indigenous: they could have arrived in NZ a long time ago from elsewhere, and also be present in other places. And remember, too, that both Māori and European descendents are both colonists of the islands, separated by about 600 years. It’s not clear to me why the earlier immigrants have the right to nix genetic studies of native organisms, particularly when conservation of native species is a serious issue in New Zealand. It’s entirely possible that conservation of native species might some day involve genetic modification, and why should bogus claims of “spiritual connection” have any say in conservation decisions?
Creating a Maori Advisory Committee with that kind of veto power seems like a lousy way to manage new technologies. Why would any legislature agree to putting such a narrow bottleneck into the process? It this current law or is it a bill that has yet to become law? If the latter—and I think that this is the case—there may still be some hope that the bill will fail.
The bill has been through the Health select committee and is heading for a second reading. Its passing may be halted by the nationalist NZ First party but not apparently on the grounds of race-based policy having no place in scientific / technological legislation.
NZ First worries that genetic engineering will harm NZ’s “clean, green” image in overseas markets.
You posted your comment while I was still cogitating on mine. For my education, would you mind explaining to me how a party with eight seats can halt legislation the Government is determined to pass? As I understand it, the National Party has formed a governing coalition with ACT and NZ First. If NZ First refuses to support the legislation (despite being in the coalition), the Government won’t have enough votes from its coalition to pass it, and will need to solicit four votes from the Opposition parties, or, as you say, halt the bill to avoid a floor fight making the defection obvious and embarrassing.
Is this a stumble for the National Party not to have nailed down support from NZ First before it tabled the bill? Or does it provide the Government with an excuse not to go ahead with the Maori superstition portion that it had initially endorsed? Would there not be bi-partisan support for a bill like this from Labour, or from the Maori Party, if the Prime Minister wanted to request it? Or would Labour not want to rescue a Government bill even if they agreed with it? And would National feel indebted to the Maori party for future concessions? My head hurts.
Canada with first-past-the-post has never had a three-party coalition in peacetime but Minority Governments are frequent. Usually the socialists just support the Liberals ad hoc in exchange for leftist policy crumbs when the latter doesn’t win a Majority. (Our last government was a confidence-and-supply arrangement but only two parties had to coordinate. One dyad instead of three!)
Generally speaking, any bill the governing party (“the Government”) introduces in a Parliamentary legislature — the House of Representatives in NZ — must pass, because it represents the output of considered Government policy. In minority Governments, the usual situation in legislatures like NZ’s elected with proportional representation, the Government tests the waters with its strange-bedfellow partner parties to solicit their support before it introduces a bill, so as not to appear feckless by having to withdraw or amend the bill after it is put out there in public. Given this process, the Maori features were likely put in there at the behest of one of the minor parties during private political discussions as the price of their support in the House. The governing National Party with only 48 of 122 seats relies on these small parties to maintain a working majority against its main Labour Opposition. Eliminating the woo provision in committee before the final passage vote in the House would elicit a cry of betrayal from the party or parties who thought they had the provision in the bag. It could bring down the Government if they brought a no-confidence motion against it….if the Labour Party has the stomach for an election.
I would think it very unlikely that the Maori veto council would be removed from this bill — the Maori themselves would be furious — given the way Government bills are crafted and horse-traded in perpetual minority Parliaments. It is certain to pass in close to its current form if the Government is persistent at stick-handling it through committee. The Government won’t move it out of Committee and back to the floor of the House if it doesn’t think it has the votes to pass it, but ACT’s support of it despite its reservations about woo and co-governance means the Government probably knows it has them. (The leaders of all the parties tell their members how to vote. No renegades tolerated.)
Science may come to the rescue for one of Maoridom’s iconic species the kauri
(Agathis australis) from kauri dieback.
It may force a few to reconsider with a tangible demonstration of science working in the field, practicle with no woo… let’s hope so. IIRC I think scientist are working on it, just checked and they are according to
Google AI
Yes, scientists are actively working on kauri dieback through various research initiatives, including developing treatments, sequencing the pathogen’s genome, and using a combination of scientific and Māori knowledge to find solutions. This work involves studying the disease’s spread, finding ways to protect vulnerable trees, and developing surveillance tools.
Maori knowledge may have to be of a ceremonial application and thank science instead of mythology.
The indigenous people suggested playing whale songs to the kauri trees and rubbing them with whale oil. I do not think that this indigenous way of knowing is of any help.
ISTM the thing about “advisory committees” in general is that they advise, they do not need to consent — unlike the US Senate for judicial appointments. If in some case the actual decision maker (probably a Minister of Something) ignores a committee’s advice then there may be political repercussions, but that’s it.
Good to know.
“Know” overstates it. I presume this advisory committee is not unlike the few others that I am somewhat familiar with.
The wording in the bill is that “the [Health?] Regulator must have regard to the advice” of both committees, technical and Maori. The relevant advice from the Maori side would be when they advise prohibiting the innovation. They are required to give this prohibitory advice based on their own interpretation of the supernatural. (Don’t laugh. There was a recent resource project in Canada where the energy regulator denied approval because the project would disturb mythical “dens” of supernatural beings (which, being mythical, couldn’t be mapped and flagged for the bulldozers to stay clear of.)
Cynical me says most of the applications will attract advice to proceed from the scientists, with crickets from the Maori because their committee will have been bought off by savvy promoters. So if an application attracts advice to prohibit, the Regulator will know that the Maori are very very upset and aggrieved about this one. They will ignore that advice to prohibit at their peril. Those dens aren’t for trifling.
Thx again, boss. You know, despite a “right wing” gvt being elected there – in part to protest against Jacinta Adern’s woke nonsense, they’re not doing an excellent job at slowing this stuff down.
In fact… and consider the stream of articles (mainly here) about this topic, I feel the situation is getting worse all the time!
D.A.
NYC
Yep, they did not behave as I expected. The indigenous lobby is powerful.
“why should bogus claims of “spiritual connection” have any say in conservation decisions?”
Here’s my first draft: Because the West is largely led by cowards and fools. The folly accelerated when colleges ceded authority to their youngest and most ignorant members to pick and choose the courses that defined a quality education. This is just one of the fruits today.
But I would need to fully wake up and finish my coffee before I could convincingly connect those dots!
So the Moa that is being brought back from extinction by Colossal Bioscience might never be released into NZ?
That is for damn sure; it is heavily genetically engineered. It is not even a moa; it would be a genetically tweaked pigeon, but I do not think we will ever see it.
Let’s put this as possibly as possible. This is White Guilt at a nearly industrial, legislative level. Full stop. I’m fact, I give the Maori kudos for being able to cultivate and exploit this deep-seated and deranged psychological flaw to the degree that they have.
Well, at least Gene Therapy can get better use down here.
I agree it is something to be careful of but I’m not against it any more than euthanasia or medicinal marijuana extracts.