Release the Data

Legislation of Concern

LATEST UPDATE, 15 DECEMBER 2025

In 1992, New Zealand was one of 178 countries to sign on to the United Nations Agenda for the 21st Century (now called UN Agenda 2030) and a lot of the policies and laws written today appear to be in alignment with the goals and objectives of this agreement back in June 1992. Please click on the image beside this message to find out more.
 
We would like to propose that many of the other pieces of legislation that have been created since in New Zealand have some kind of connection to the UN Agenda 2030 plan. Please see further below for some of the current bills of parliament that have drawn our concern.
Gene Technology Bill
The Gene Technology Bill
The Gene Technology Bill Delving deeper into the proposed legislation BRIEF OVERVIEW: The Gene Technology...
Read More
The Gene Technology Bill

CLICK HERE FOR UPDATED NEWS ON THE GENE TECHNOLOGY BILL.

The New Zealand Gene Technology Bill is a piece of legislation that is sold as an instrument to modernise and streamline the regulatory framework for gene technology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in New Zealand. The bill says it aims to enable safer and more efficient use of gene technology, aligning with global best practices and facilitating innovation in areas like agriculture and healthcare.

 

Benefits being sold to the public:

The promoters of the bill are selling it will benefit New Zealand by:

  • Improving access to new technologies, including medical treatments and agricultural innovations.
     
  • Reducing regulatory burdens on researchers and businesses, allowing for more efficient development and deployment of gene technology.
     
  • Strengthening New Zealand’s ability to compete in the global economy.
     
OTHER SOLD BENEFITS OF THE BILL:
 
Health:
  • New medical therapies:

    The bill could facilitate the development and availability of new medical treatments, such as CAR T-cell therapy for cancer. 

     
  • Accelerated research:

    Streamlined regulations could speed up research into RNA therapies and potentially improve the efficacy and safety of vaccines and other treatments. 

     
  • Increased clinical trial participation:

    Simplified regulations could make it easier for clinical trials to open in New Zealand. 

     
Agriculture:
  • Enhanced productivity:

    Genetically modified crops could be more resistant to pests and diseases, leading to higher yields and reduced reliance on chemical pesticides. 

     
  • Climate change adaptation:

    Scientists could develop crops that are more resilient to climate change, requiring less water and potentially having higher yields. 

     
  • Animal welfare:

    Gene editing could lead to polled animals (born without horns), improving animal welfare and reducing costs for farmers. 

     
Environment:
  • Climate change mitigation: Genetically modified plants could be developed that help with climate change mitigation, such as reducing methane emissions from livestock. 
     
  • Conservation: The bill could enable the development of pine trees that are better suited to forestry needs but don’t spread, protecting native environments. 
     
  • Invasive species control: Gene technology could be used to control invasive species, like wasps. 
     
Other benefits:
  • Economic growth:

    The bill could lead to greater economic gains for New Zealand through increased productivity and the development of new industries. 

     
  • Catching up with global best practices:

    The new legislation would bring New Zealand’s regulations in line with those of other countries that have already embraced gene technologies, like Australia and the EU. 

     
  • Public benefit:

    The bill aims to ensure that gene technology is used for the benefit of the public, including through the development of a regulator that will assess and manage the risks of gene technologies. 

     
 

CONCERNS AND RISKS:

The New Zealand Gene Technology Bill raises several risks, particularly concerning the environment, economic impacts, and potential harm to New Zealand’s global reputation. Key concerns include the potential for irreversible impacts on native ecosystems and biodiversity, the loss of New Zealand’s GE-free status, and the possibility of contamination of non-GE food producers.
 
Environmental Risks:
  • Irreversible Impacts on Ecosystems:

    The bill allows for the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment, which could disrupt ecosystems and biodiversity, potentially harming native species and leading to unintended consequences. 

     
  • Contamination of GE-Free Products:

    The release of GMOs raises the risk of contamination for non-GE food producers, potentially leading to the loss of premiums for their products and financial burdens for those who wish to remain GE-free. 

     
  • Superweeds and Other Unintended Consequences:

    The bill’s lack of strict regulations could lead to the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds and other unforeseen ecological disruptions. 

     
Economic and Trade Risks:
  • Loss of GE-Free Status:

    New Zealand’s reputation as a GE-free producer could be undermined, leading to trade disruptions and potential loss of access to premium markets that require GE-free products. 

     
  • Increased Costs for Consumers: New Zealand’s GMO-free status is an asset, allowing access to premium markets. The bill undermines this by increasing the risks of contamination and trade disruptions.[6] Deregulation risks contamination, increased costs for organic certification, and higher prices for GMO-free products.
 
  • Increased Costs for Certification and Traceability:

The bill could lead to increased costs for organic and conventional farmers to ensure their products remain GE-free and to comply with new traceability requirements. 

 
  • Disruptions to Existing Trade Agreements:

    The deregulation of GMOs could create challenges for exporters to meet import requirements in other countries. 

     
Other Risks:
  • Loss of Consumer Choice and Transparency:

    The bill’s tiered system of deregulation could lead to the removal of mandatory labeling, leaving consumers unaware of whether their food contains GMOs. 

     
  • Impact on Māori and Indigenous Knowledge:

    The bill has been criticized for not adequately addressing the concerns of Māori and for failing to incorporate traditional knowledge and practices. 

     
  • Potential for Sabotage:

    The bill’s lack of strong enforcement mechanisms could leave New Zealand vulnerable to sabotage and misuse of GMOs. 

     
  • Lack of Public Consultation:

    The government’s rushed process has been criticized for failing to adequately consult with the public, including farmers, consumers, and Māori. 

     
 
 
Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill

The Digital Identity Services Trust Framework is a New Zealand government initiative that says it will provide a legal framework for secure and trusted digital identity services. It aims to create a safe environment where individuals and organizations can share and verify personal and organizational information online, ensuring privacy and security. The framework includes rules, regulations, and an accreditation process for digital identity service providers. 

 
Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
  • Stated Purpose:

    To establish a secure and trusted environment for digital identity, ensuring that information is shared safely and securely while protecting privacy. 

     
  • Framework Components:
    • Legal Framework: The Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Act 2023 provides the legal basis for the framework. 
       
    • Trust Framework Authority: A regulatory body within the Department of Internal Affairs responsible for accrediting digital identity service providers. 
       
    • Accreditation: Digital identity service providers can become accredited, demonstrating compliance with the framework’s standards for data handling and security. 
       
    • Accreditation Process: Accreditation involves independent evaluations of privacy, security, and compliance with the NZ Identification Standards, as well as demonstrating services and answering questions. 
       
    • Rules and Regulations: The Trust Framework Rules set operational requirements for accredited services. 
       
  • Benefits:
    • Streamlines online processes for sharing and verifying information. 
       
    • Provides individuals with greater control and confidence in their digital interactions. 
       
    • Enhances security and privacy in digital interactions. 
       
Examples of Use:
  • Sharing tax and bank details with a new employer.
     
  • Proving identity to open a bank account.
     
  • Accessing government services
 
CONCERNS AND RISKS OF THE BILL
 

The primary risks associated with the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework (DITF) include privacy violations, compromised security, and potential harm to participants. The DITF aims to ensure safe and secure digital identity services, but its implementation could inadvertently lead to these risks if not managed properly. 

 
Elaboration of Risks:
  • Privacy Violations:

    The DITF, while intended to protect privacy, could still be vulnerable to misuse if not implemented carefully. For example, if service providers are not adequately vetted, they could potentially collect or share more personal information than necessary, violating privacy expectations. 

     
  • Security Breaches:

    Digital identity services rely heavily on secure technology and protocols. If these measures are not robust or if there are vulnerabilities in the system, sensitive data could be compromised, leading to potential security breaches and data leaks. 

     
  • Harm to Participants:

    Improper implementation of the DITF could result in harm to individuals or organizations using the system. This could include financial loss due to fraud, reputational damage, or other negative consequences resulting from compromised digital identities or data breaches. 

     
  • Lack of Transparency:

    If the DITF rules and regulations are not clearly articulated or easily accessible, it could be difficult for users and service providers to understand their rights and responsibilities, potentially leading to confusion or misunderstandings. 

     
  • Interoperability Issues:

    If different service providers use incompatible technologies or standards, it could be difficult for users to share their digital identities across different platforms or services, hindering the broader adoption and usefulness of the DITF. 

     
  • Inadequate Regulation and Enforcement:

    If the DITF is not adequately regulated or if there are weaknesses in enforcement mechanisms, it could be difficult to hold service providers accountable for breaches or violations of the framework’s rules. 

     
 
Pandemic Treaty

What is the “Pandemic Treaty”?

Also known as the WHO Pandemic Agreement (sometimes “Pandemic Accord” or “Pandemic Treaty”), it is a legally-binding international accord negotiated under the auspices of the World Health Organization. Its aim is to:

  • Strengthen global cooperation on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response

  • Ensure equitable access to vaccines, tests, therapeutics, and diagnostics

  • Establish mechanisms for pathogen data and benefit sharing (the “PABS” system)

  • Reinforce resilient healthcare systems, One‑Health monitoring, and technology transfer

Importantly, it says it respects national sovereignty—the WHO cannot impose measures like lockdowns or mandates through this agreement

Has it been adopted? When does it become law?

  • May 19–20, 2025: The 78th World Health Assembly (WHA) adopted the text by consensus, supported by 124 countries, with no votes against and 11 abstentions 

  • It is now in the post-adoption phase, which means:

    1. Opening for signatures

    2. Ratification by individual member countries via their own domestic procedures

    3. The treaty enters into force (becomes legally binding) once 60 countries ratify it

Has it entered into force or become domestic law anywhere?

  • Not yet. Adoption by the WHA is not the same as entering into force.

  • The treaty is now awaiting:

    • Finalization of the PABS annex (planned by mid‑2026)

    • Signature & ratification by countries; activation requires at least 60 ratifications

  • Until those steps are completed, it has no legal force, either internationally or domesticall

NEW ZEALAND’S POSITION

New Zealand has not signed or ratified the WHO Pandemic Treaty yet. Here’s a breakdown of its current position:

🗺️ 1. Negotiations & Mandate

  • The country is actively involved in the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) since early 2022, participating in drafting a pandemic instrument to present at the WHA in May 2024en.wikipedia.org+15treaties.mfat.govt.nz+15newsroom.co.nz+15.

  • Officially, NZ has not signed the treaty, and is yet to commit to signing or ratifying it .

⚖️ 2. Government Stance & “Reservation”

  • Following the 2023 election, the current National–NZ First coalition adopted a cautious approach:

👥 3. Domestic Debate & Criticism

  • Health experts (e.g. Professor Michael Baker) argue this approach is redundant, as existing domestic treaty review processes already fulfil those safeguards newsroom.co.nz+4rnz.co.nz+4reddit.com+4.

  • Local government groups and former leaders (e.g. Helen Clark) express concern that NZ risks becoming an international outlier if it continues to resist amendments and the treaty nzherald.co.nz.

✅ Summary

  • Signing Status: Not signed.

  • Ratification: None.

  • Current Position: Monitoring treaty negotiations; enforcing a temporary “reservation” and requiring a domestic evaluation before considering any commitments.

  • Domestic View: A tense mix of caution from the current government, and concern from experts and local groups about potential isolation or reputation impact.

🧪 What is the National Interest Test?

The National Interest Test is a structured assessment the New Zealand government can apply before signing or ratifying an international agreement. It evaluates whether a treaty:

  • Aligns with NZ’s strategic, economic, legal, and social interests

  • Respects NZ’s sovereignty and constitutional settings

  • Is consistent with domestic law and policy goals

  • Could require law changes or public consultation

It’s not a new concept — New Zealand already applies national interest assessments as part of its treaty examination process, but the current government is placing special emphasis on it for WHO agreements.

⚖️ The Formal Process in NZ

All major treaties in New Zealand go through a Cabinet-mandated process before ratification:

1. Mandate to Negotiate

  • Ministers approve a mandate for NZ negotiators.

  • Confidential, but based on a cost–benefit analysis.

2. Signature

  • Signing does not make a treaty binding. It shows intent.

  • Sometimes conditional on later assessment (like the NIT).

3. National Interest Analysis (NIA)

  • Required under Standing Orders of Parliament.

  • Publicly tabled when a treaty goes to the House.

  • Explains implications for NZ laws, rights, obligations, and costs.

4. Treaty Examination

  • Sent to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee.

  • May call for public submissions, request reports, or raise objections.

5. Ratification

  • If no law changes are needed, the executive can ratify.

  • If legislation is needed (e.g., to give effect to treaty provisions), Parliament must pass it first.

🔍 What’s Unique About the Current Government’s NIT Approach?

The NZ Government under the National/NZ First coalition has:

  • Imposed a reservation on the WHO International Health Regulations (IHR) amendments and any Pandemic Treaty adoption.

  • Said it will not support the treaty unless it passes a dedicated National Interest Test, which includes:

    • Legal analysis of sovereignty and enforcement implications

    • Assessment of alignment with NZ law and constitutional independence

    • Possibly Cabinet-level oversight before any signature or ratification

In effect, they’ve added a layer above the normal process to reassert that New Zealand’s pandemic policies remain domestically controlled.

📣 Public Transparency

  • The government has committed to public disclosure of treaty assessments, which may include:

    • Opening the National Interest Analysis to submissions

    • Consulting the public and Māori stakeholders

  • Critics argue this is duplicative, as the existing process already includes transparency and public accountability.