WHEN POWERFUL AGENCIES HIJACK DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS PART I: The case of gene technology regulatory reform (2025)

Suggested citation: PSGR (2025) When powerful agencies hijack democratic systems. Part I: The case of gene technology regulatory reform. Bruning, J.R., Dommisse, E.. Physicians & Scientists for Global Responsibility New Zealand. ISBN 978-1-0670678-0-9

SUMMARY

This 2-part 2025 review by the Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility New Zealand Charitable Trust (PSGR), documents policy process and official conduct regarding gene technology reform (part I) and science system reform (part II)[1]. The papers consider information provided in official documents that suggest that officials may be setting aside or undermining important issues and conventions that are essential to sustaining a robust, healthy, accountable democratic nation-state.

The papers highlight an apparent corruption of governance processes and conventions. In light of the information detailed in this report on gene technology reform (Part I), PSGR ask that readers contemplate whether the situation is sufficiently grave that the passing of the Gene Technology Bill would jeopardize the national interest, impacting human and environmental health, as well as productivity and trade. PSGR also ask that readers apply the ‘reasonable person’. Have Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) officials and the Minister in charge, Judith Collins, acted with honesty and integrity in their carrying out of work related to gene technology regulatory reform?[2]

PSGR calls for two separate public enquiries to evaluate the actions of that Minister and officials in driving outcomes which appear to severely restrict the capacity of the new gene technology regulator, and the New Zealand science system, to conduct activities that would serve the public purpose and support constitutional and democratic government.

The papers arrive at two recommendations:

Part I: Gene Technology Reform Recommendation: That the Gene Technology Bill be placed on hold. That the Ombudsman convene an Inquiry into conduct of the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) and the Hon. Judith Collins, Kings Counsel and Attorney-General, in regard to their work on gene technology regulatory reform over the period 2023-2025. That the Ombudsman considers evidence that this body of persons acted improperly in their duties, directly undermining public law conventions, in order to expedite policies and laws in favour of the deregulation of gene editing technology. That the terms of reference pay particular attention to the benefits of observing the principle of open justice, and require that the inquiry follows independent, impartial and fair processes. (See PSGR recommendations pages 50-51).

Part II: Science System Reform Recommendation: That a transparent and public inquiry is undertaken to evaluate the past, present and future role of New Zealand's RSI&T system. This inquiry must be independent, impartial and fair. It may be in the form of a public inquiry or a Royal Commission (Inquiries Act 2013, s.6). [1]

This inquiry is necessary because there is evidence that the current science system is inadequately resourced to meet the objectives of society at large; and that the science system reforms that are currently underway (2023-2024) have excluded any evaluation or discussion on this issue. These current reforms will further direct the RSI&T system away from optimising science and research intended to identify and address domestic problems and challenges. PSGR recommend that the RSI&T system Inquiry problem definition address:

‘the capacity of the publicly funded RSI&T system to demonstrably contribute to public-good knowledge, and in doing so serve the public purpose and support the wellbeing of New Zealand, her people, resources and environment’.

This report, Part I of two papers, focuses on the case of regulatory reform of gene technology in New Zealand. Throughout the policy-process, media and government messaging has assured New Zealanders that the new regulations will result in the safe ‘risk-proportionate’ use of gene technologies and regulated organisms; by managing the risks they present to the health and safety of people and the environment.

Members of Parliament cannot know how many gene-edited organisms would become invisible and undeclared if the current risk tiering proposal succeeds. Policymakers did not assess how many gene edited techniques and organisms would fall outside regulation and be undeclared. The legislation is optimised to reduce regulatory scrutiny, making many activities of developers invisible to the public.

There has been no scientific or economic evaluation undertaken to confirm that the new legislation, the Gene Technology Bill, will be ‘risk-proportionate’. While promising that risks will be managed, no risk assessment of the technologies, organisms, and pathways of harm has been undertaken. Officials have then risk-tiered gene editing techniques and organisms by de-classifying them as a genetically modified organism, outside of regulatory oversight and monitoring. Neither the Minister nor officials concerned themselves with evaluating and receiving advice on good regulatory practice to ensure the safe regulation of genetically modified technologies and organisms. There has been no scientifically rigorous evaluation to justify this risk-tiering of techniques and organisms outside of regulation.

Return-on-investment analyses are not regularly undertaken to assess the commercial impact and financial return from biotechnology research. To date, officials have not evaluated the financial outcomes from over twenty years of publicly funded New Zealand-based biotech investment.

Awkward ‘truths’ have been downplayed in media and in official documents. These include that (a) genetically modified technologies and organisms released into the environment can be heritable and persist into the future; and (b) that gene editing technology processes can also be used to kill or sterilise.

MBIE is the government agency for economic development and growth that also controls science policy and funding, and in the process directs millions to developers of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The political call for removing the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO Act) has been pursued primarily by MBIE, MBIE funded scientists and biotech industry lobbyists. Minister Judith Collins explicitly directed officials that policy consultations would not consider reform of the HSNO Act.

MBIE has effectively secured oversight and control of the development of policy and legislation to regulate the very technologies that it funds, which MBIE believes will promote economic growth. MBIE’s pursuit of deregulation has occurred regardless of the political party in power.

MBIE’s claims that the legislation will be risk-proportionate, are derived from Royal Society Te Apārangi 2016-2019 campaign papers which recommended legal reform[3] and through quasi-harmonisation with Australian legislation, which also exempts some gene editing techniques. No evaluation was undertaken to establish whether the Australian legislation has ‘stood the test of time’.

A cross-agency Ministerial group was established in 2017. Since that time, the scientific advice that has informed Ministers has primarily come from the MBIE-funded Royal Society. The Royal Society campaign was funded by MBIE, with the goal of raising awareness of the potential of gene editing technologies and encouraging social acceptance of new GM technologies via the provision of case studies. The Royal Society was not funded to scientifically evaluate risks from gene editing technologies and organisms to human or environmental health, including evaluation of unanticipated non-target and off-target risks.

Despite not conducting any risk assessment, the Royal Society made suggestions for legal reform.

The current form of the Gene Technology Bill will result in legislation that is even more deregulated than Australia’s. New Zealand people would be entirely unaware of the undeclared gene-edited foods, techniques and organisms that could be released.

MBIE strategically selected organisations with biotech investments, industry lobbyists and medical and biotech scientists working in institutions funded by MBIE to undertake biotech research as the ‘stakeholders’ and ‘technical experts’ to provide advice on the adequate regulation of the technologies that they hope to commercially release. Groups that MBIE would have been well-aware of, that had submitted for example, to a 2023 consultation, were excluded from key policy development processes.

Independent experts in the regulation of these technologies, without conflicts of interest, were not invited into consultations.

This case study shows considers the role of MBIE driving regulatory reform for the very technologies it funds. However, the case of gene technology reform is reflective of a broader, systemic problem.

As Part II outlines, the science system has been decoupled from its potential to support broader public interest goals and is not sufficiently adequately resourced to meet the objectives of society at large. The 2023-2025 science system reform promises more of the same. MBIE’s innovation and commercialisation focus effectively prohibits funding for science and research that might identify and research New Zealand’s biggest challenges, which involve overlapping socio-political, environmental and economic drivers.

Economic growth is but one subset of factors that contributes to a thriving nation. The gene technology and science system consultation processes suggest that the responsible Ministers and Ministries consider the ‘public interest’ to be a nebulous and superfluous construct, with no real purpose.

The democratic dilemma that PSGR present here, is that the control of scientific research is held by the agency for economic growth, that this is the same agency that funds biotechnology scientists, and who is now developing the laws to reduce regulatory controls over the very technologies that they fund.

PSGR urges officials schooled in democracy, governance and public law to take time to investigate the robustness of MBIEs claims that their policy is ‘risk-proportionate’. PSGR suggest that Judith Collins and MBIE’s activities have undermined administrative and constitutional conventions via corrupted policy and consultation processes. PSGR highlight the manifold ways that the Gene Technology Bill binds the regulators hands. The Bill cannot assure the protection of human and environmental health. This review suggests that democratic norms have been perverted.

To access the PDF: Part I paper, The Case of Gene Technology Regulatory Reform, click here.

REFERENCES:

[1] PSGR (2025) When powerful agencies hijack democratic systems. Part II: The case of science system reform. See recommendations pages 53-56. Bruning, J.R.. Physicians & Scientists for Global Responsibility New Zealand. April 2025. ISBN 978-1-0670678-1-6. https://psgr.org.nz/component/jdownloads/send/1-root/174-science-system-reforms-hijack-democracy

[2] Crown Entities Act 2004. s54 Duty to act with honesty and integrity. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0115/latest/DLM329984.html

[3] Royal Society Te Apārangi (August 2019) Gene Editing Legal and Regulatory Implications. Pages 140-150. https://www.royalsociety.org.nz/assets/Uploads/Gene-Editing-FINAL-COMPILATION-compressed.pdf

Download

WHEN POWERFUL AGENCIES HIJACK DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS PART I: The case of gene technology regulatory reform (2025)

SUMMARY

Information

Providing scientific & medical information & analysis in the service of the public's right to be independently informed on issues relating to human & environmental health.