NZ First has revealed it will not allow the Government’s flagship Gene Technology Bill to pass in its current form.

Speaking to Newsroom at the party’s annual conference in Palmerston North, Associate Agriculture Minister Mark Patterson said the current bill wasn’t what his party had signed up for.

The difference of positions over the bill, which has been lauded by the Government as a way to harness further economic growth in the agritech sector, reveals another potential fracture point for the three-party coalition.

The coalition agreement between NZ First and the National Party included a commitment to “liberalise genetic engineering laws while ensuring strong protections for human health and the environment”. But the legislation National was now spearheading had gone too far, according to its coalition partner.

Then-minister for science, innovation and technology Judith Collins presented a draft of the Gene Technology Bill in December last year. The draft law aims to stimulate economic growth in the agriculture and medical fields by shifting New Zealand’s restrictions on gene technology from one of the most stringent global models to one of the most liberal. 

It is currently being considered by Parliament’s health select committee, which is due to report back next month.

Patterson told Newsroom the genetically modified organisms (GMO) space was “hellishly complex”, but as his party analysed what Collins presented, “there’s been increasing levels of concern that it was going too far”.

Patterson said the original wording of the coalition agreement was “carefully worded to include environmental and health safety in terms of any liberalisation that went forward”. What Collins produced “clearly” went beyond that.

NZ First drew the line at the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment.

“The stuff that happens in containment in a lab: we don’t really have a problem with that. That’s fine. It’s in terms of general release into the environment,” Patterson said.

He referred to AgResearch’s oral submission on the bill, during which this point was pressed by Green MP Steve Abel. Abel brought up self-replicating organisms like rye grass, and asked if New Zealand had ever been able to restrict the spread of such an organism after it had been introduced to the wild. The answer: “Practically not.”

AgResearch insisted that any organism allowed to be released into the wild would be safe, but admitted it could not control its spread once it was in the environment. 

Patterson said his party had no problem with liberalising GMO laws insofar as they applied to organisms in a containment facility, but didn’t want to risk destabilising the organics or wider agricultural sector. 

That view has been echoed by scientists like Jack Heinemann, professor of genetics at the University of Canterbury. Speaking to Newsroom after the bill was introduced, Heinemann said it would copy Australia’s model, the least-restrictive in the world – “and then we’re proposing to be even more radical than them”.

Patterson said his party’s viewpoint was shared by scientists, agriculture bodies and what he had heard during the select committee. “We feel we’re on pretty solid ground, and we’re having constructive discussions with the coalition partners,” he said.

But as he told the crowd of 200-something party faithful at the Palmerston North conference: “It will not pass unless it’s more faithful to our agreement.”

This bill is the latest source of friction between coalition partners. Differences in positions over the Regulatory Standards Bill, the Treaty Principles Bill, and New Zealand’s role in recognising the state of Palestine have caused tension between party leaders.

Resources Minister and senior MP Shane Jones said the final form of the Regulatory Standards Bill, like the Gene Technology Bill, was different to what had been expected, and he described it as a bad thing even though the party had voted for it.

But, in an effort to demonstrate his party was willing to compromise in the interest of stability, Jones said: “To do a great right, sometimes you have to do a little wrong.”

He also said NZ First had “struggled to get the balance over the last 18 months between managerialism and leadership”.

“We don’t want a system where every quarter, you measure something that may or may not have an effect on the lives of you as members and our communities,” said Jones, who avoided a direct critique of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s predilection for quarterly plans and corporate speak.

A year out from campaign season, the coalition parties – particularly the smaller two – are now looking to differentiate themselves; NZ First must show voters what set it apart from their competitors or risk being engulfed by the big legacy parties.

For a party that had been round the block before, and been voted out of Parliament following stints in coalition governments, recent polling data suggests a change in the stars.

Recent public polls have shown Winston Peters’ party not only sitting above the 5 percent threshold, but increasing its vote share, offering NZ First a chance to make party history by remaining in government for consecutive terms. 

Even Peters, typically reluctant to give much credence to polls, told supporters on Saturday: “If you think the current trend in the so-called ‘polls’ is where it’s going to stop, you’ve got it entirely wrong.” 

His optimism was shared by attendees, about a quarter of whom were there for the first time.

Many in the crowd were older – MP Jenny Marcroft made a PSA (public service announcement) that telcos were going to be dropping 3G from service at the end of the year, and had to explain how to check if your phone was using it. But the youth wing of the party was in attendance as well, and many of the proposed remits focussed on youth issues.

Former Labour Cabinet minister Stuart Nash spoke at the conference, and leaned into youth disenfranchisement as a major risk facing New Zealand society. He said the party had to galvanise the youth vote by appealing to the real issues facing them, as opposed to the approach he credited to Finance Minister Nicola Willis of telling them to “stop whinging”.

But, as he outlined in his speech, Nash has had trouble convincing his own son to engage. One of his boys told him he hadn’t voted in the election, as with all of his mates, because politics didn’t affect them. 

“I started to explain how it did, and he respectfully cut me off and said ‘Dad, it’s nothing to do with you or what you do for a job, but what you say means nothing to me and my mates’,” Nash recalled.

Still, the youth vote was a clear target for the party. The demographic swung considerably towards the right in the most recent US election, influenced by conservative social media outlets discussing hot-button culture war issues.

These issues were on full display during the first day of the NZ First convention, even if party members did not see them as controversial. 

Remits were proposed to remove and repeal provisions of co-governance, permit parents to access the medical records of under-18s as part of a discussion on transgender youth (“gender-confused”, as Patterson called them) and ensure access to natural remedies. 

Patterson told Newsroom his party “was not anti-science”, but such sentiment was made clear during a vote on the natural remedies remit. A speech against it, given by a medical professional of 30 years, was met by laughter loud enough that party president Julian Paul had to call for order. 

The medical professional was laughed at when he reminded the room of the responsibility to “first, do no harm”, which he countered by saying “you can have your own opinion, but you can’t have your own facts”. An amendment to restrict the remit to “evidence-based natural remedies” was thoroughly rejected, in a chorus of nos Paul said was “emphatic”.