John Hartnell: Councils' GM phone poll farcical money-waster

Opinion

Seven upper North Island councils will be wasting thousands of ratepayers' dollars in a planned telephone poll on genetic modification. The poll will ask if genetically modified organism (GMO) trials should be allowed to take place in their areas.

Federated Farmers believe it is an all too revealing trip into the free-spending mindset of local government today.

Less than 10 years ago the Government spent millions on a high-profile royal commission report into genetic modification. So what makes these local councils think anything new will come from another survey?

But of greater concern to Federated Farmers is the misinformation disseminated by the seven councils ahead of the survey.

The report recommended preserving the opportunity to take advantage of what this new technology might offer. It also said genetic modification must be approached with caution to minimise and manage risks.

The Government at the time backed this strategy, believing a precautionary approach would protect the country's health and environment. It also allowed time for further research and the setting up of robust programmes to assess and manage the risks associated with the release of GMOs.

It delegated the responsibility for administering these programmes to the Environmental Risk Management Authority (Erma) in the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation. Erma has a monopoly on matters to do with genetic modification.

If Erma approves an organism for release, it would be impossible for any local authority to prove there is a risk of adverse effects.

Because the Government has made it clear that, under the law, Erma has complete control over all aspects of genetically modified organisms, there is no basis on which any other agency could become directly involved.

It follows that local government has no role to play in any such release.

In the face of this, what are the Auckland and Northland councils up to?

They grizzle every time an issue involving GMOs pops up, claiming it demonstrates how essential their involvement is.

They spent thousands of dollars on legal opinions which found they "may" have grounds under the Resource Management Act to impose controls on land use involving such organisms.

Buoyed by this advice, they commissioned expensive reports from anti-genetic engineering lobbyists to demonstrate that community management of GMOs may be necessary due to what were perceived as deficiencies in the legislation.

They then took that material to central government, which spent thousands of taxpayer dollars obtaining its own opinions.

The Government concluded, unsurprisingly, that local authorities could not legally justify their involvement in the release of such organisms.

The next logical step would have been for the councils to take the matter to the Environment Court. But no, they feared the court's answer wouldn't suit a group of councils with an agenda.

With no more than a careless eye on ratepayers' pockets, they opted to beat the issue up. They mischievously misinterpreted their legal advice that they "may" have the jurisdiction to regulate the release of genetically modified organisms as a "responsibility" to regulate their release.

They then got an acknowledgment from the Government that local authorities are independent and must exercise care in the performance of their statutory responsibilities, which they interpreted to mean taking a role in the release of such organisms. They then extended this interpretation so councils and their ratepayers would have to foot the bill if some sort of a clean up was needed after an unsuccessful release.

So that was the background against which the councils announced well over a year ago that the telephone poll was necessary. But first they had to set about preparing the public to give the answers they wanted.

A Whangarei District Council press release, sent out this year on behalf of all seven councils, is typical of this manipulative approach. It highlighted what the seven councils consider to be the risks associated with the release of GMOs. But it did not state how these risks would be evaluated. Neither did it make any attempt to include the opportunities such organisms might bring.

These council statements amount to nothing other than scaremongering, particularly given that no such releases are being contemplated.

Simply put, the councils are not entitled to spend a preposterous amount of ratepayers' money persuading their own residents to adopt a different view.

This proposed telephone consultation is not only farcical, it's also well outside the role of local government.

* John Hartnell is the Federated Farmers genetic modification spokesman.