New Zealand’s rewrite of its genetic modification rules didn’t make it into law this term. The Gene Technology Bill was still waiting for its second reading when Parliament dissolved on 1 October, ahead of the 7 November election.
Section 20 of the Constitution Act 1986 says business before the House lapses at dissolution “but may be reinstated” if the next House votes to bring it back. Parliament’s record shows the last completed stage was the Health Committee’s report in October 2025. Science Minister Penny Simmonds is the MP in charge.
What the Bill would change
Gene technology is regulated today under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. The Health Committee’s report says the HSNO Act “focuses on the risks of the processes”, and that since 1998 only three GMOs have been released into the environment without conditions.
The Bill copies much of Australia’s Gene Technology Act 2000 and sorts activities into risk tiers. A Gene Technology Regulator, an independent statutory decision-maker inside the Environmental Protection Authority, would rule on applications with advice from a Technical Advisory Committee and a Māori Advisory Committee. The Ministry for Primary Industries would enforce it.
It would also bar regional and district councils from treating an organism differently under the Resource Management Act because it’s genetically modified. Existing plan rules that do so would become void.
Food labelling sits with a different body. Under Food Standards Australia New Zealand’s code, food with novel DNA, novel protein or altered characteristics must carry the words “genetically modified”. Restaurants and takeaways are exempt, and so is up to 1% unintentional GM content per ingredient. Since 2 September 2025, the code has counted a gene-edited food as GM only if the edit introduces novel DNA.
The case for
Judith Collins, Science Minister when the Bill passed its first reading in December 2024, said “Restrictive rules and time-consuming processes have made research outside the lab almost impossible”. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told his 2025 state of the nation audience that “Enabling gene technology is about backing farmers”.
Some of that farm science happens in Canterbury. AgResearch, whose corporate office is at its Lincoln Research Centre, told the committee in February 2025 that its high metabolisable energy ryegrass carries more plant oil for grazing stock. “Researchers have also demonstrated that HME Ryegrass reduces methane emissions from livestock,” its submission said.
Dr John Caradus, chief technology officer at AgResearch-owned Grasslanz, told the Science Media Centre in October 2025 that the committee’s version still regulates gene-edited knockouts that Australia exempts.
Federated Farmers backed reform as “an opportunity for New Zealand to cautiously and sensibly explore these tools”, provided farmers keep the right not to use them. DairyNZ’s February 2025 submission said “Quantifiable evidence of the economic benefit to New Zealand from a GM-free status is challenging to find.”
Royal Society Te Apārangi’s gene editing panel called for an overhaul in 2019. Co-chair Professor Barry Scott said the panel wanted a system that was “more future-proofed and ‘fit-for-purpose'”.
The case against
NZ First’s differing view in the committee report said New Zealand “has a pre-eminent position in markets as a ‘GE Free Nation'” and called the Bill “far too liberal”. In June 2026, leader Winston Peters told RNZ it “will become an election issue”.
Labour’s differing view said the Bill “does not consider trade implications”. The Greens wrote that questioning AgResearch at the hearings confirmed released GM ryegrass “will spread through pasture country”.
Organics Aotearoa New Zealand said the committee’s report “fails to include necessary protections for the environment and the health of our people”. GE Free NZ president Claire Bleakley called for the Bill’s withdrawal in February 2025, and the group claimed it could cost $20 billion a year in export reputation.
Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu opposed the Bill’s Treaty provisions at the March 2025 hearings. Kaiwhakahaere Justin Tipa said the Māori Advisory Committee “doesn’t exercise any decision-making power”. Professor Jack Heinemann, a University of Canterbury geneticist, told the committee in his submission, “We would be outliers in the international scene.”
The committee flagged a design issue of its own. Having the Minister appoint the regulator, who would then answer to the Minister while employed by the EPA, “would be an unusual arrangement”, it said. It recommended the EPA run the recruitment.
Canterbury grows most of New Zealand’s seed. The region has more than 80% of New Zealand’s seed production and over 40,000 hectares of certified crops centred on Ashburton, according to Business Canterbury. The councils with GMO rules in their plans are in Northland, Auckland and Hastings, according to GE Free Northland, and no Canterbury council is on that list.
Until a new Parliament acts, HSNO stays in force. The first decision after 7 November is whether the new House votes to reinstate the Bill.
SPONSORED
