The Gene Tech Bill – What’s the rush?

From caring comes courage. — Laozi

The Gene Tech Bill had its first Reading on 17 December 2024, the last day that Parliament sat before closing for the Christmas and summer holidays. School was out, the children were at home and everyone was looking forward to a well-earned summer break.

Christmas Day was just over a week away. Submissions to this long, very complex, detailed Bill had to be in by 17 February, 2025.

To introduce a Bill — on the last day of parliament sitting for the year — that cedes sovereignty and could cause irreversible harm to all living things, including human beings, appeared calculated, as did the extremely short response time given to make a submission — over the summer holiday break. It amounted to barely two weeks from the time that most Kiwis would return to work.

Some of us spent our summer hard at work, grappling with the shocking ramifications of this proposed legislation, along with a dawning realisation that the legislation we were studying was set to be irreversibly catastrophic for our people and our country.

Usually, when politicians make stupid mistakes and go off on tangents there is always the possibility that it can be reversed, with order restored again. Not so, with the Gene Tech Bill. Once that genie is out of the bottle there is no going back and New Zealand will have brought a one-way ticket of doom — straight to the bottom of the heap in terms of the loss of our sovereignty, violation of our Human Rights, poorer health, along with the crashing of our precious competitive advantage in export markets and no meaningful protection of nature and our flora and fauna. Our lives would also potentially be put at risk through genetic meddling with animals, food, and our bodies.

My latest two articles (Part 1 and Part 2) on what it will mean for us and our country can be found at www.nzdsos.com and the Daily Telegraph. Links to many other New Zealanders who are courageously sounding the alarm are also found within those articles.

There were around 15,000 submissions in regard to this Bill. Given that most Kiwis had to prepare these submissions throughout those precious summer weeks, that is impressive. A record 900 New Zealanders asked to be heard. Also impressive. But this week it was announced that only around 400 of the 900 would be heard.

Why?

Surely it is a democratic right to be heard — particularly on such a vital Bill. A Bill that proposes to sweep aside Human Rights, allow all of nature (and humans) to be potentially irreversibly, artificially altered with no meaningful responsibility for ‘accidents’, no traceability, no labelling, no compensation for anyone’s land that is contaminated by others — instead the person who owns the land that has been contaminated has to pay for any clean-up. And, of course, no Precautionary Principle. Instead, there is full protection for the architects of the Bill and their staff.

The Hearings are beginning at a rapid pace, starting on 5 March, 2025. Submissions only closed on 17 February. I am not sure how they work, but it has to be asked how a Select Committee could wade through 15,000 submissions in just over two weeks?

What is true of the individual will be tomorrow true of the whole nation if individuals will but refuse to lose heart and hope. — Mahatma Gandhi

It is apparently intended that submissions will be published periodically on the parliamentary website after they have been reviewed by the committee. Key groups, such as GE Free Northland have asked to be heard. And they should be. That is part of the democratic process. Many have voiced a desire to read the submissions of others, but apparently this isn’t part of the parliamentary process as a select committee doesn’t release a submission until it has been heard. What of the ones not heard? Are they just binned? Is this a charade?

As mentioned in one of my earlier articles — this legislation would set New Zealand on a course to become the play-thing of mad scientists, and multi-billion dollar biotech and pharma corporations who could experiment on everyone and everything in nature with apparent impunity. It gives free rein to messing with the sacred DNA of life in all living things. Including us. It is like watching a government step aside to let madmen recklessly tamper with the God-gene — all that is sacrosanct in Nature and in Life in our beloved country.

On whose authority? Nobody has the authority to tamper with the God-gene of Life.
In my view, the ramifications of this Bill are as deadly as hitting the country with a nuclear bomb.

So, when 900 New Zealanders have devoted their time to prepare objections to this Bill and asked to be heard, this must surely — at the least — be respected. Everyone has a RIGHT to be heard. EVERYONE. Or is the process of “being heard” little more than theatre? If hearing everyone interferes with the timetable of those trying to ram this legislation through that is irrelevant. They are out of order.

I asked A.I. about this. Although it is apparently, to some extent, up to the Select Committee on numbers being heard, some of the feedback received is summarised below:

• It is typically expected that those making submissions will have an opportunity to present their views, especially if they have indicated a desire to be heard.
• If a situation arises where a large number of people (like 900) wish to be heard, but the committee states that it is only prepared to listen to 400, it raises several important considerations about procedural fairness, public participation, and the committee’s obligations.
• In New Zealand, there are generally rules in place to ensure that the submission process is fair and transparent . . . Here are a few key points to consider in such a situation:
• Public Participation Rights: The right to be heard is a fundamental part of many democratic processes, especially in public hearings related to significant matters like legislation, planning, or environmental issues.
• Importance of the Issue: If the issue is indeed as important as you suggest, there could be pressure for the committee to ensure that as many people as possible have a chance to be heard. In some cases, committees may extend the hearing process or hold additional sessions to accommodate more speakers. If 900 people want to be heard, limiting it to 400 could potentially result in public dissatisfaction or legal challenges.
• Legal Challenges: If the issue is critical enough, and the committee’s decision to limit the number of speakers is seen as unjust, it could be subject to legal challenge. Stakeholders might argue that limiting the opportunity to be heard undermines the democratic process, especially if the issue is of national significance.

Extending the hearing period or holding additional sessions was also suggested. (That makes sense.) It added: It’s always advisable for those wishing to be heard to understand the specific procedures in place for the hearing and, if necessary, advocate for additional sessions or a more inclusive approach. Transparency and fairness are key principles in these processes, and if people feel their voices are being unfairly excluded, they can often appeal the decision or seek other forms of redress.

I asked if it was fair for members of the public to have to battle in court for the right to be heard on a Bill that would have irreversible consequences for NZ and New Zealanders? The answer:

It certainly raises an important ethical and democratic question. In a democratic system like New Zealand’s, it is generally considered a fundamental principle that the public should have access to meaningful participation in decisions that could have far-reaching consequences. If members of the public have to resort to the courts to fight for their right to be heard on a Bill with potentially irreversible consequences, it suggests that the process may not be functioning as it should. Ideally, the legislative and consultation processes are designed to allow for broad public input, especially on matters that have significant and long-lasting impacts.

A few key considerations about fairness and public participation in such a scenario were given and are summarised below. (These are not my words):

1. The right to participate in a democratic process should ideally be accessible to everyone, and barriers to participation—whether financial, logistical, or otherwise—can undermine the fairness of the process. If the process is set up in such a way that members of the public have to ‘battle’ for their right to be heard (for example, by going to court), this can be seen as a failure to provide adequate opportunities for participation in the first place.
2. In democratic societies, courts can play a vital role in ensuring that the legislative process is conducted in a way that respects people’s rights. However, relying on the courts to resolve issues of public participation in the legislative process isn’t ideal. It places an additional burden on citizens who may already feel disenfranchised, and it can be costly and time-consuming. Courts generally step in when there is a clear legal issue or breach of rights, but they should not be the primary mechanism for ensuring public participation in a Bill’s passage.
3. For significant Bills with the potential for irreversible consequences, it’s crucial that the consultation process is comprehensive, inclusive, and genuinely allows for public input. If the government or committee restricts opportunities to participate or limits the number of people who can be heard, it may undermine the legitimacy of the decision-making process. A fair and just system would work to ensure that all relevant voices are heard, especially when the stakes are high.
4. It’s the responsibility of the legislature (or relevant decision-making bodies) to create a process that ensures fair and accessible participation. If members of the public feel they have to resort to the courts to ensure their views are considered, this reflects a failure in the public consultation and legislative process itself. The process should be transparent, accessible, and responsive to the concerns of citizens—especially when the issue at hand could affect the future of the country.
5. A fair and inclusive process is not just about legal rights; it’s also about maintaining public trust in the system. When people feel they have no other recourse but to fight for their right to be heard, it can lead to a sense of disenfranchisement and erode confidence in the democratic process. Ensuring that the public has a meaningful opportunity to participate is key to maintaining trust in the government and the legislative process.

Conclusion

In an ideal democratic system, it should not be necessary for members of the public to battle in court to ensure their voices are heard on critical issues. The process should be designed in such a way that people can participate meaningfully without needing to resort to legal action. If citizens are being excluded or shut out of the process, it raises serious concerns about the fairness, transparency, and legitimacy of the decision-making process. Efforts should be made to ensure broad public consultation and to allow everyone an opportunity to be heard, especially on matters of such significant and irreversible impact.

In my personal view, this Bill in its current form is an act of treason on our people and our country. At the very least, even if the Select Committee process is little more than theatre, every soul who has made the effort to make a submission and asked to be heard, should be heard.

If the Select Committee has been brow-beaten to limit the numbers so this Bill can be rushed through to fit the schedule of those trying to ramrod it through, then that is unacceptable. The Select Committee should not be pressured. They should have all the time needed to listen to everyone.

All who asked to be heard but who have not been invited to talk to the Select Committee should write to their MP and the Select Committee and insist on being heard. Speak out now, before it is too late. Peacefully, and loudly, let them know the crude speed with which this legislation is being pushed through parliament is unacceptable and the people must be given enough time to be heard.

Let the people speak.

What’s the rush?

Love New Zealand? The Sacred Blueprint of Nature? The God-gene, the spiritual essence of all nature, including Human Beings? Then it’s time. Time to stand up and speak out — before it is too late.  — MH

All photos Photo © Mary Hobbs.