Nearly 30 years after the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act was introduced to protect New Zealand’s environment from all sorts of nasty materials, the government has deemed it time to end the one-size-fits-all approach.
The Act has made it nigh-on impossible for scientists to carry out field tests because of the hugely cumbersome containment regulations largely designed to stop any pollen from GM plant flowers escaping on the wind or on the wings of insects.
Meanwhile, New Zealand, which prides itself on being at the cutting edge of new scientific technologies, has instead found itself decades behind researchers elsewhere around the world in the domain of agricultural science, in which we should obviously have a natural advantage.
While we understand there was a need for some caution to keep our environment safe all those years ago when genetic technologies were more in their infancy, we are now missing out, not only in the dollars sense but in our international agricultural-research standing.
Ms Collins said by doing so there would be many potential benefits for the country, including developing grasses which can reduce agricultural greenhouse-gas emissions and advancing technologies to help treat cardiovascular diseases, cancers, and blood disorders.
She emphasised the risks of being "left behind", now Australia and the European Union were using such technologies, and also that such technologies would be harnessed responsibly here.
A biotechnology regulator would make "safe and ethical" decisions once the public had had their say on applications. That regulatory office would be part of the Environmental Protection Authority.
Given New Zealand’s long-standing brand of being GMO-free, not everyone will be happy with the announcement. There have been several anti-GE, anti-GMO groups who have kept an eagle-eye on this work in recent decades and were quick to let the media and the public know when there were suspected dispersals of pollen from plants in GM field trials or if such a plant had escaped from containment in a laboratory.
At this stage, both the Labour Party and the Green Party have reacted cautiously. Labour technology spokeswoman Deborah Russell wants to see the legislation and ensure the public are informed of its possible implications. The Greens biotechnology spokesman, Steve Abel, says he would be concerned if the current strong regulatory restraints turned into a "laissez-faire regime".
Ms Collins is keen that anyone who wants to have a say on the plan will do so through the select committee process and is challenging the Opposition to provide bipartisan support.
We certainly support a careful approach to freeing up research in GE and GM, one which is overseen by a qualified and well-resources regulator. However, the latter is something of a concern, given the EPA is among government agencies being forced to make significant cuts.
Only last week, the EPA said it planned on getting rid of 16% of its workforce — 42 jobs, half of which are vacant. Environmental Defence Society chief executive Gary Taylor pointed out the EPA had "suffered systemic and chronic underfunding for many years".
Hopefully the government is preparing to boost funding to the authority to enable it to take on its proposed new duties.
It is hard to emphasise just how significant this plan might turn out to be, not just in terms of bringing us up to date with genetic technologies elsewhere but also in showing us we have a government that is interested in science and in boosting our scientific capability.
It’s been a big week all round across our research and development sector. On Monday, Ms Collins also presided over the opening of Niwa’s new $20 million supercomputer.
After years of little action on science by various governments, there’s a sense that, finally, someone in charge is excited about the possibilities of Kiwi science.
