Further submission form

Proposed Regional Policy Statement or Northland

Form 6, Clause 7 & 8 of First Schedule, Resource Management Act 1991

(Please refer to our online guide to making a further submission for help on how to fill out this form www.nrc.govt.nz/newRPS)

Submitter details (please print clearly)

Dr	Mr	Mrs	Ms	Miss	Other (please specify) Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility New Zealand Charitable Trust
First name: C/o Jean						Surname: Anderson
Organisation / group (if applicable): Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility
Postal address: PO Box 8188, TAURANGA
						Post code: 3145
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Business hours phone: 07 576 5721						After hours phone: N/a

Please write your submission in the space provided below and send to:

Kathryn Ross

General Manager - Planning and Policy

Northland Regional Council

Freepost 139690

Private Bag 9021, Whāngārei Mail Centre

Whāngārei 0148

Fax: 09 470 1202

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Further submissions must be received no later than 3pm, Friday 1 March 2013

Hearing

Please ü	Do you wish to appear in support of your submission?
/	I DO NOT wish to appear in support of my submission
	I DO wish to appear in support of my submission
Please ü	If others make a similar submission would you be prepared to consider presenting a joint case with them at any hearing?
/	I DO NOT wish to present a joint case
	I DO wish to present a joint case

Choose one (see Resource Management Act 1991, Schedule 1, Clause 8)

	I am a person representing a relevant aspect of the public interest.
/	I am a person who has an interest in the proposal that is greater than the interest the general public has.
	I am the local authority for the relevant area.

Please explain in the space below why you come within the category indicated above:

Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility is a Charitable Trust established to provide independent scientific assessment and advice on matters relating to genetic engineering, nanotechnology, synthetic biology and other scientific matters. We are in regular contact with the views of the public, and the work and opinions of scientists and medical professionals in New Zealand and overseas.

Signature:_____________________________________ Date: 27 February 2012________________

(A signature is not required if you make your submission by electronic means)

Your Further Submission(s)

Please use the table below to indicate the submissions (or parts of submissions) that you support or oppose. Two examples are provided. For handwritten submissions, please attach additional pages as necessary. For electronic submissions, the rows will automatically expand to fit. Additional rows can be added at the end by using the “Tab” on your keyboard.

Submitter Name	Submitter number	Reference number(s)	Support/ Oppose	Reason for support/opposition (State the reason for your views)
Smith, W	987	3	Support	I agree with the submitter that there should be no changes to landscape designations on the property at {address}. The current designations under the District Plan are entirely appropriate and the council’s proposed changes serve no useful purpose.
Jones, Y	999	Complete submission	Oppose	I disagree with the submitter that there shouldn’t be any controls on rural land. We need to make sure that water quality and associated ecosystems are kept healthy.
Whangarei District Council Far North District Council GE Free Northland Ngatiwai Trust Board Te Runanga A Iwi O Ngapuhi and other Tai Tokerau Iwi authorities	291/11 362/11 606/4 632/43 697/43		Support	These submitters support the interests of New Zealand and New Zealanders without the influence of monetary gain. A precautionary approach to genetic engineering is commonsense and a responsible action. Long term, there is no justification for introducing into New Zealand’s environment transgenic DNA that is irretrievable, merely for short term gain by the few with vested interests. It has been clearly shown that once released genetically engineered organisms remain viable, and replicate and outcross to related plant species. We advise Council to undertake independent research and we refer Council to the scientific evidence in our submission and our letter of 10 February. We believe our views reflect the majority opinion of your electorate. We ask that Northland Regional Council respect the submitters listed and take the precautionary step recommended. Doing so, will not preclude genetic engineering research in containment, but will aid in protecting the local human and physical environment, and the interests of conventional and organic farmers and growers. Until such time as genetically engineered plants have been proven safe and acceptable by studies conducted by independent scientists, they should be excluded from release into the environment. A less desirable alternative is for Council to issue regulations that hold liable the grower of any transgenic crop that contaminates neighbouring farms, orchards, etc. A grower whose crops contaminate other properties should be held fully accountable for the cost of that contamination: for removal and safe disposal of the contaminated flora and for compensation to the farmers and growers affected by the transgenic contamination. We ask that Northland Regional Council’s Regional Policy Statement contain a prohibitive policy on genetically engineered organisms in the open environment, similar to the wording in the 2004/14 and 2006/16 Northland Regional Council Long Term Council Community Plan. After weakening the strong precautionary policy on genetic engineering in the 10 Year Community Plan 2006/16, against the wishes of ratepayers and territorial authorities, we understand Northland Regional Council promised to include a provision in the Proposed RPS. We further understand that the initial proposal for a precautionary provision in the proposed Regional Policy Statement received the largest number of submissions from Northlanders on any issue raised in the Northland Regional Council Review to date supporting the Northland Regional Council proposal. To remove a precautionary provision from the Proposed Regional Policy Statement following this is undemocratic, inappropriate and irresponsible.
Farmers of NZ (Northland) Federated Farmers of NZ	363/3 746/88		Oppose	Council Chair, Ian Walker, is also Chair of Farmers of NZ. This is a clear conflict of interest. We suggest that he step down from participation in the Council debate on this issue except as Chair of Farmers of NZ. Federated Farmers of NZ have a vested interest in promoting the approval and growing of genetically engineered organisms. An officer holder in Federated Farmers, William Rolleston, led the Life Science Network opposition to genetic engineering activities in the early 2000s. This corporate funded pro-genetic engineering lobby group spearheaded the campaign to lift a moratorium on genetic engineering in New Zealand.(1) Commentators have raised concerns that the PR campaign of this organization may have had a significant antidemocratic effect upon the 2002 election outcome.(2) In relation to Federated Farmers of NZ submission 746/88 and in the light of recent legal directions sought by the Inter-Council Working Party, Council has every right to “become involved in matters to do with GMOs”. See www.wdc.govt.nz. Taking a precautionary approach does not preclude research in containment, but will aid in protecting the human and physical environment in Council’s area of jurisdiction, and the interests of conventional and organic farmers and growers. In the interests of its ratepayers and the general public in its region, Council must be cognisant of its responsibilities in making an unbiased, balanced decision on this issue, uninfluenced by those with potential monetary gains from applications of this technology. In the interests of its ratepayers and the general public in its region, Council must also be cognisant of its responsibilities in protecting biodiversity and sustainability in that region. To maintain and improve economic, social, environmental and human wellbeing Council needs to take a holistic approach which clearly places these areas of wellbeing above short term monetary gains by bodies with vested interest. Long term, there is no justification for endangering New Zealand’s human or physical environments with transgenic DNA that has brought irreversible adverse environmental effects and elevated costs to farmers overseas. Once released, genetically engineered organisms will remain in the environment and replicate and outcross to related plant species, including invasive weed species. Nor is there any justification for potentially endangering the human environment by growing food crops that have been shown to have significant negative effects in animal studies. We advise Council to undertake independent research and we refer Council to the scientific evidence in our submission and our letter of 10 February. We believe our views reflect the majority opinion of your electorate. We ask that Northland Regional Council make this precautionary step. A less desirable alternative is for Council to issue regulations that hold liable the grower of any transgenic crop that contaminates neighbouring farms, orchards, etc. A grower whose crops contaminate other properties should be held fully accountable for the cost of that contamination: for removal and safe disposal of the contaminated flora and for compensation to the farmers and growers affected by the transgenic contamination. We ask that Northland Regional Council’s Regional Policy Statement contains a prohibitive policy on genetically engineered organisms in the open environment, similar to the wording in the 2004/14 and 2006/16 Northland Regional Council Long Term Council Community Plan. After weakening the strong precautionary policy on genetic engineering in the 10 Year Community Plan 2006/16, against the wishes of ratepayers and territorial authorities, we understand Northland Regional Council promised to include a provision in the Proposed RPS. We further understand that the initial proposal for a precautionary provision in the proposed Regional Policy Statement received the largest number of submissions from Northlanders on any issue raised in the Northland Regional Council Review to date supporting the Northland Regional Council proposal. This indicates the level of support for a precautionary statement. To remove a precautionary provision from the Proposed Regional Policy Statement following this is undemocratic, irresponsible, inappropriate and in contradiction of the request of these submitters. 1.NZH 7/9/12, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10832191 2. Motion, J., & Weaver, C.K. (2005). A discourse perspective for critical public relations research: Life Sciences Network and the battle for truth. Journal of Public Relations Research. 17(1), 49-67.

2013 Further submission Northland Regional Council February 2013

Further submission form

Other (please specify)

Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility New Zealand Charitable Trust

Information