Noom Bill

In June 2003, the Council presented a report to the Education and Science Select Committee on The New Organisms and Other Matters (NOOM) Bill.

The Council stated that the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification was the key body which, through an extensive democratic process, charted the overall course for genetic modification in New Zealand for the foreseeable future. In building upon the work of the Royal Commission, the Council has a particular responsibility for considering how ethical, cultural and spiritual concerns are accommodated within the Commission's key recommendation of 'preserving opportunities'.

The Royal Commission made it clear that many New Zealanders believe ethical, spiritual and cultural matters should be taken into consideration when deciding on applications under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act.

Bioethics is the study of the ethical, social, legal, philosophical and other related issues arising in the biological sciences and in health care.

While generally in support of the Bill and accepting that it must give weight to scientific, economic and environmental considerations, the Council expressed concern that ethical, cultural and spiritual matters are also an integral component of the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) processes.

ERMA had previously acknowledged, in its submission to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, difficulties in handling ethical, spiritual and cultural effects with the tools it had available. The Council suggested that providing a more effective means of handling ethical, spiritual and cultural effects within ERMA's decision-making processes may reduce barriers such as time and cost to applicants.

Processes should be established so that the overarching principles, guidelines or frameworks developed by the Bioethics Council can be integrated into ERMA's case-by-case decision-making. The Council has no role in dealing with submissions made to ERMA. Instead its concern is to provide the big picture context and develop guidelines, principles and fmmeworks, which need to be applied and interpreted in the context of particular situations.

The Council supported the provision for conditional release as better reflecting concerns of the New Zealand public and the recommendation of the Royal Commission to keep the opportunity open, but to proceed with caution.

The Council strongly supported the statement in the Biotechnology Strategy: "The regulatory framework is where innovation and opportunity meet society's safety and ethical concerns. The challenge is to ensure an appropriate balance."

The Council sought formal recognition of the need to consult with iwi and hapu over Māori representatives on Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao and the ERMA Board.

"It is essential that Māori representation on the Authority is at a level where it can be ensured that Māori have that 'proper place' in decision-making. We welcome and strongly support Clause 8 of the bill, which includes the eligibility factors for appointment to the Authority. However we submit that knowledge and expertise alone are not adequate, and that to represent Māori cultural values, Māori community processes should be used to produce nominees for the Authority," said Sir Paul Reeves, the then Chair of the Bioethics Council.

Issues in bioetechnology have the potential to challenge the deeply-held beliefs and traditions surrounding ethics, spirituality and culture. Beliefs and traditions also subject emerging biotechnologies to scrutiny.

[ Previous Page | Next Page ]