Sample Further Submission (Tabular Form)
To:
Further Submission on:
The Chief Executive
Bay of Plenty Regional Council
PO Box 364
WHAKATANE 3158
Proposed Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement
Name: Anna Murphy, Secretary,
GE FREE NZ (Northland) Inc.
Address: Secretary, GE FREE NZ Northland Inc.
PO Box l439 Whangarei 0140
0riginal submittor (GE free NZ Northland) # 133
Thank you for the opportunity to make a further submission, so that together we may achieve sound environmental, economic and public health
outcomes.
The criteria that we meet to qualify as a further submittor and the grounds for making our further submission statement is as follows:
Our community group is an original submittor to the BOPRC draft RPS, in that original submission we strongly supported BOPRC's
precautionary GE provision in the BOPRC draft RPS.
We oppose the original submission by the NZ Forest Research Institute (Scion).
We wish to support other submittors who have made a similar case (like GE FREE NZ, the Soil & Health Association of NZ, Karen
Summerhays of Tauranga etc) but we want to document in writing our opposition to NZ Forest Research Institute (Scion) original submission
to the BOPRC which contains some misleading and inaccurate information especially regarding the options for local authorities to act on their
duty of care to both their constituent and the environment.
The NZ Forest Research Institute ( Scion) submission suggests amending the BOPRC draft RPS, removing the precautionary GE provision in
the ENV BOP draft RPS and final RPS. This is not in the interest of Bay of Plenty Regions biosecurity, unique biodiversity, primary producers
and economy (or the public health). In our view, the strong precautionary GE provision should remain- BOPRC is required to act (under the
RMA) on its duty of care to the environment and its obligation to manage natural and physical resources in a sustainable manner and protect
existing nonGM primary producers. The HSNO Act is deeply flawed and cannot be relied upon (national, minimal regulation of GMOs and
Hazardous Substances).
Submission Number
[Submission number of
original submission as
shown in "Summary of
Decisions Requested"]
Submitter Name
Section Number & Title
[Clearly
indicate which parts of
[State name and address of the
person making original submission the original submission you
as shown in " Summary of support or oppose, together with
any relevant provisions of the
Decisions Requested"]
proposed plan]
Support/Oppose
121-1
NZ Forest Research Institute 1.7 Precautionary Approach
Limited
Oppose
Reasons
[State in Summary the nature of your
submission giving clear reasons ]
We oppose Scion’s proposal to amend
the BOPRC draft RPS to remove the
precautionary GE provision.
A number of points that NZ Forest
Research Institute makes in their
original submission are inaccurate and
misleading (regarding GMOs).
There is actually a great deal of
evidence to support the correct (Bay of
Plenty Regional council and other
councils in NZ) assertion that the
current HSNO legislation is inadequate,
especially as regards Genetically
Modified Organisms.
.Flaws in the Hazardous Substances
and New Organisms (HSNO) Act have
not been rectified by central
government (despite concerted efforts
by Local Government NZ and various
local authorities in NZ, as well as the
ICWP on GMOs) before and since the
2003 “New Organisms and Other
Matters” (NOOM) Bill.
The gaps and flaws in the HSNO Act
include the lack of strict liability and
therefore place councils and their
communities at financial risk if
unforeseen adverse effects occur.
For many years and at present, the
user (those who wish to experiment
with or release GMOs) is not liable for
damage resulting from an activity
carried out in accordance with an
ERMA approval under the Hazardous
Substances and New Organisms Act
(HSNO).
There is also no requirement for
applicants to prove financial fitness in
case of damage and no requirement to
post bonds to cover costs should
damage occur. Therefore, costs from
unexpected events or ineffective
national regulation will tend to lie with
affected parties – neighbouring land
users and local authorities.
Another flaw in the HSNO Act: the
Environmental Risk Management
Authority (ERMA) is not required under
HSNO to take a precautionary
approach to GMOs - ERMA has wide
discretion within which it has
consistently chosen not to exercise the
precautionary approach)
The precautionary approach is built into
the RMA and should be mandatory in
the HSNO Act but it isn’t.
(Please note that although Scion refers
to the “HASNO” Act, there is no such
Act (legislation).
The correct spelling is HSNO-
Hazardous Substances and New
Organisms Act).
HSNO Act- flaws and gaps
The recent government review of the
HSNO Act has not fixed the flaws and
gaps in HSNO, if anything , the new
legislation (that proposes replacing
ERMA with an EPA) is even worse.
“Inter Council Working Party
on GMO Risk Evaluation &
Options” Correspondence
with Central Government
The recent 5 August 2010
response from central
Government Minister Nick
Smith (to the 12 June 2010
letter from all 9 member
councils of the ICWP on
GMOs) clearly states that
central government will not
amend the HSNO Act (as
asked by Local Government
NZ and many local authorities
since 2003, as well as the 9
member councils of the ICWP
on GMOs in their 12 June 2010
letter) but also indicates that
local authorities can regulate
GMO land use under the RMA.
Specifically, Minister Nick
Smith states:
"However, this does not
preclude a council from
restricting or preventing the
use of GMOs in their region,
provided that this action meets
the relevant requirements of
the Resource Management Act
(RMA) 1991".
This important work of the
ICWP on GMOs, resulting in
this recent clarification, has
been necessitated by central
governments ongoing failure
(after 7 years of lobbying by
local authorities, Local
Government NZ, and groups
like Rural Women NZ) to
amend the flawed Hazardous
Substances and New
Organisms (HSNO) Act
properly.
We would like to draw to
councils’ attention the fact that
a precedent has already been
set - Auckland City Council has
included prohibitive rules in
their District Plan (Hauraki Gulf
& Islands) since l996. The
GMO rule prohibit use of any
GMOs and the rule remain to
this day. The rules were put in
place at low cost, and were not
subject to legal challenge.
To sum up, if a GE field trial or
conditional release or full release is
authorised by ERMA, there are glaring
gaps in the liability regime for those
who wish to experiment with GMOs to
pay for any damage to our biosecurity,
unique biodiversity, primary producers,
seeds and other finite resources like
soils (as well as the public health). The
lack of a truly strict liability regime
under HSNO (and under ERMA and the
new EPA) leaves an administrative
policy gap which BOP RC can bridge
in the interests of the wellbeing of the
environment, our economic well being
and the public health.
181-2
146-2
GE FREE NZ (Jon Muller)
2.5 Integrated management
Soil & Health NZ
Genetically
Modified
Organisms
2.5 Integrated management
Support in entirety
Genetically
Organisms
Modified
Support in entirety
We fully support GE FREE NZ’s submission
which is in support of BOPRC’s
precautionary provision in the draft RPS
We fully support Soil & Health NZ’s
submission which is in support of BOPRC’s
precautionary GE provision in the draft RPS
105-4
Karen Summerhays
2.5 Integrated management
Genetically
Organisms
183 - 1
177- 2
Support
Modified
Yannick Wakelan
2.5 Integrated management
John Sanderson
Genetically
Modified
Organisms
2.5 Integrated management
Support in entirety
Genetically
Organisms
Support in entirety
Modified
We fully support Ms. Summerhays points
about sustainable management of natural
and physical resources and in particular
support of BOPRC’s precautionary GE
provision in the draft RPS
We fully support Ms. Wakelan’s submission
in support of BOPRC’s precautionary GE
provision in the draft RPS
We fully support Mr. Sanderson’s
submission in support of BOPRC’s
precautionary GE provision in the draft RPS
4. We do wish to be heard in support of my further submission.
5. If others make a similar submission we would be prepared to consider presenting a joint case with them at any hearing.
[Delete as required]
__________________________Anna Murphy_____Linda Grammer________
[Signature of person making further submission
[Date]
or person authorised to sign on behalf
of person making further submission]
____1 June 2011_____________________
Address for service of person making further submission:
Anna Murphy/Linda Grammer
GE Free Northland
PO Box l439
Whangarei 0140
We are uncertain but we assume we must serve a copy of our further submission on the following address:
NZ Forest Research Institute Limited
(Scion_____) c/o 29 Sala Street, Rotorua
Mark Dyer___
Canmap Hawley Limited
PO
Box
396
Rotorua____________3040______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Telephone Number: ___0-7 343 3899______________
Fax Number:____________________
Email Address: __________________________________________________