When people talk about the Gene Technology Bill, most of the focus is on GE crops, food safety, or glyphosate.
But tucked inside the Bill is a change that could reshape the way this entire issue is managed in New Zealand: the creation of a new national regulator.
Sounds harmless enough, right? After all, regulation is supposed to mean safety, rules, and checks. But the more you look at what this new regulator would be, the more questions bubble up.
Who appoints them? Who do they answer to? What happens if they make the wrong call? And why is so much power being concentrated in the hands of one office — maybe even one person?
So, what exactly is this new regulator?
The Gene Technology Bill sets up a single regulator to oversee every aspect of GE in New Zealand. That includes:
- deciding which organisms can be developed, trialled, or released,
- setting rules for “low-risk” vs “licensed” activities,
- enforcing compliance, and
- acting as the public face of gene technology approvals.
They’ll be supported by a technical committee and a Māori advisory committee — but these bodies can only advise, not decide. The regulator still gets the final say.
According to a legal briefing by Buddle Findlay (December 2024), the Bill borrows heavily from Australia’s Gene Technology Act 2000, which uses risk categories such as exempt, notifiable, and licensed activities. Some gene-edited organisms could even fall into the “exempt” category — meaning no approval needed at all. That’s a big call for one office to make.
One person, one office, one very big responsibility
And that’s where alarm bells start ringing. Do we really want one regulator to carry that much weight?
- If they decide something is “low-risk,” it may not even face scrutiny.
- If they fast-track an application, community voices could be sidelined.
- If they dismiss objections, there may be no right of appeal.
This creates a single point of failure. If that person makes the wrong call, or comes under political pressure, the consequences ripple across our food system, exports, and environment.
Independent — but independent from who?
We’re told the regulator will be “independent.” But independence only means something if it’s backed by structure.
The Buddle Findlay briefing noted that under the Bill, the regulator would be subject to general policy directions from the Minister. In other words, political influence is baked into the framework. The Select Committee’s report didn’t resolve those concerns — it simply recorded them.
So is this regulator truly independent? Or only until the Minister picks up the phone?
Where’s the accountability?
If the regulator makes the wrong call, what then?
The Bill doesn’t clearly lay out an appeals process. The Select Committee report acknowledged this gap, but stopped short of demanding robust appeal rights. Without that, New Zealanders could be left with an all-powerful regulator whose word is final.
That’s not accountability. That’s authority.
Liability: who pays if it goes wrong?
Imagine a gene-edited crop spreads beyond its intended field. It cross-pollinates with non-Genetically Engineered plants, contaminates honey, or triggers export bans.
Who pays?
The Bill is silent. The Select Committee heard repeated concerns about liability, but offered no significant fixes. And Buddle Findlay’s legal note makes the same point: the Bill doesn’t set out liability arrangements if harm occurs.
So if things go wrong, farmers and communities — not developers — could be left to clean up the mess.
Oversight or overreach?
The government pitches the regulator as a way to modernise. But modernisation is often code for centralisation.
Local councils would lose the ability to declare GE-free zones. Communities would lose power to stop releases in their own regions. Decisions would shift from local democracy to a Wellington-appointed office.
Yes, there will be consultation. Yes, advisory committees will exist. But advice isn’t power. And consultation isn’t consent.
Too much on one person’s shoulders?
Even if you assume the regulator is honest and capable, the role is simply too big. One office would have to:
- keep up with global science,
- assess ecological and trade risks,
- enforce compliance,
- honour Treaty obligations, and
- communicate all of this to the public.
That’s more than any one regulator — or one person — can realistically manage without mistakes. And when mistakes happen, we’ll be told: “It was within the regulator’s discretion.”
What safeguards should be in place?
If this regulator is to exist, the Bill needs much stronger guardrails:
- Liability and insurance: Developers should be required to carry indemnity insurance, so the costs of mistakes don’t fall on others.
- Appeals mechanism: Decisions must be open to review by an independent tribunal.
- Transparency: A public register of approvals, monitoring, and adverse events should be mandatory.
- True independence: Appointment, tenure, and funding must protect the regulator from ministerial influence.
- Genuine Māori oversight: Treaty obligations must be more than advisory — they should have binding influence.
Without these safeguards, the regulator risks becoming less of a watchdog and more of a rubber stamp.
Why this matters more than you think
This isn’t just about paperwork. It’s about who controls the future of New Zealand’s food, exports, and environment.
If we hand that control to a single regulator without clear safeguards, we’re effectively saying: “We trust you — and if you get it wrong, too bad.”
That’s not regulation. That’s abdication.
Bottom Line
The Gene Technology Bill is being sold as “modernisation.” But modernisation without accountability is a shortcut we can’t afford.
When one regulator has the final say on decisions that affect every New Zealander, the stakes are too high to leave questions unanswered.
So before this Bill becomes law, we must demand answers:
- Who’s watching the watchdog?
- Who pays when things go wrong?
- And why should one person hold the keys to decisions that could reshape New Zealand forever?
Until those questions are answered, this isn’t a regulator we can trust.
Further Reading
The Gene Technology Bill — Full Text (Legislation.govt.nz)
The official Bill, setting out the role of the new national regulator, advisory committees, and approval pathways.
Read the Bill →
Health Select Committee Report on the Gene Technology Bill (2025)
Summarises the Committee’s recommendations and acknowledges the concerns raised in submissions, including those about the regulator’s independence and liability gaps.
Read the Report →
The Gene Technology–Glyphosate Connection (NoMoreGlyphosate.nz)
Our earlier article exploring how loosening GE regulation fits hand-in-hand with raising glyphosate residue limits. Together, they pave the way for more chemical farming.
Read here →
Are Glyphosate Limits Paving the Way for GMOs? (NoMoreGlyphosate.nz)
Explores the connection between proposed glyphosate residue increases and the push to loosen GE regulation, and what this means for New Zealand’s food supply.
Read here →
The Gene Technology Bill: 9 Reasons New Zealanders Are Saying NO (NoMoreGlyphosate.nz)
A plain-English checklist of the biggest public objections to the Bill — from no labelling to biodiversity threats — based on nearly 15,000 submissions.
Read here →
Buddle Findlay — Legal Briefing on the Gene Technology Bill
A legal perspective on the Bill’s new regulatory framework, noting the shift to a single regulator and issues around risk classifications.
Read here →
Greenpeace Aotearoa — Why Oppose the Gene Technology Bill?
Greenpeace highlights environmental and public accountability risks, including the dangers of fast-tracking GE approvals.
Read overview →
GE Free NZ — Media Statements
Updates and commentary from GE Free NZ on the regulator, liability, and why the Bill undermines community protections.
Read statements →
Image Source & Attribution
We’re grateful to the talented photographers and designers whose work enhances our content. The feature image on this page is by PeopleImages.com.
