Extracts from Gene Technology Technical Advisory Group Meeting 5 June 2024.
A
GENDA: GENE TECHNOLOGY TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP
Date and time:
9am – 11am Thursday 5 June 2024
Location:
Microsoft Teams
Chair:
Emily Parker (Ferrier Institute, Department Science Advisor MBIE)
Invitees:
Tim Hore (Otago), David Ackerley (Victoria), Billy Sheppard (Auckland), Alec Foster (Scion),
Jasna Rakonjac (Massey), Andy Allan (Plant and Food Research, Auckland), Nikki Freed
(Auckland, Daisy Lab), Rachel Perret (Malaghan), Neil Gemmell (Otago), Richard Scott
(AgResearch), William Rolleston (South Pacific Sera Limited), Maui Hudson (Waikato),
Ariana Estoras (AgResearch)
MBIE attendees: Simon Rae, 9(2)(a)
(MBIE)
Apologies
Time Item
Lead
9.55am
The Regulator: decision making
Emily GeneTech Team
Assessment of potential benefits
Precautionary approach
Independent decision-maker
Public consultation
MEETING PAPERS: 5 JUNE 2024 GENE TECHNOLOGY TECHNICAL
ADVISORY GROUP
5. Paper title
The Regulator: decision making.
Meeting date
9am – 11am Thursday 5 June 2024
Approved by
Simon Rae
Item purpose and summary Precautionary approach
The current HSNO Act includes a provision requiring all actions undertaken under the Act to
be undertaken with caution in the face of scientific uncertainty. This wording is significantly
more conservative than the internationally agreed definition of the precautionary approach
that appears in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of 1992. Our
understanding is that this provision, and its interpretation by the courts, has encouraged a
conservative approach on the part of the current regulator. The Australian Gene Technology
Act restates the Rio Declaration wording which refers to “serious or irreversible damage”
and the “cost effectiveness” of preventative measures.
Good regulatory practice is to focus attention on how the operative mechanisms guide a risk
management approach (for instance through setting out a risk management framework or
decision methodology in secondary legislation), rather than seeking to guide the regulator
through high level values statements.
Discussion questions
What are your thoughts on the proposed decision making outlined?
MINUTES GENE TECHNOLOGY TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP:
5 JUNE 2024
Item
Discussion
The Regulator: decision making TAG was asked to consider various aspects of the regulator,
including:
•
Assessment of potential benefits
•
Precautionary approach
•
Independent decision-maker
•
Public consultation
Action: TAG to provide more comment on this agenda item to
Chair via email.
Points raised by members of the TAG at the meeting:
Inclusion of precautionary principle unnecessary given
the process of risk assessment.
Could be merit in a statement outlining benefits but
with no requirement for an assessment.
Out of scope
From: 9(2)(ba)(i)
Date: Tuesday, 2 July 2024 at 4:10 'a0PM
To: Emily Parker <[email address]>
Subject: RE: [IN-CONFIDENCE - RELEASE EXTERNAL] Draft minutes of the TAG meeting 5 June
Hi Emily
Out of scope
You asked the TAG to provide you with comments on the fol owing:
TAG was asked to consider various aspects of the regulator, including:
• Assessment of potential benefits
• Precautionary approach
• Independent decision-maker
• Public consultation
Benefits should not be considered. It risks lowering the bar by creating a trade-off. The regulator should be charged
with managing the risk as in the Biosecurity Act (re Import Health Standards) and FSANZ.
The precautionary approach is not useful as it can be interpreted in both directions – do something because of
scientific uncertainty or don’t let scientific uncertainty stop you doing something.
Caution is built into risk management and does not need to be repeated.
An independent decision maker is preferable to a committee when making evidence-based decisions. This is strongly
advocated by the OTGR.
The consultation outlined by the Australian legislation is appropriate with the addition of tangata whenua where
consultation is chosen or required.
I do not support a statement of benefit being required. It might be good PR in some situations but is not necessary for
the management of risks.
9(2)(ba)(i)
9(2)(ba)(i)
From: Emily Parker (LSE) <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, 24 June 2024 3:13 pm
To: Emily Parker <[email address]>; Alec Foster <[email address]>; Wil iam Rol eston
<wil iam.rol [email address]>; Hilary Sheppard <[email address]>; [email address]; Nikki
Freed <[email address]>; Andrew Al an <a.al [email address]>; neil.gemmel @otago.ac.nz; maui.hudson
<[email address]>; Richard Scott <[email address]>; [email address]; David Ackerley
<[email address]>; Tim Hore <[email address]>; [email address]
Cc: *LSE GeneTechTeam <*[email address]>
Subject: [IN-CONFIDENCE - RELEASE EXTERNAL] Draft minutes of the TAG meeting 5 June
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Unless you recognise the sender and know the content,
Do not click links or open attachments.
Kia ora koutou
Please find at ached the draft minutes for our June meeting. It is important that these minutes reflect our discussions
and advice, so please take the opportunity to look through them and raise any issues either with me directly, or at our
meeting.
Our next meeting is next week - so I wil be in touch with agenda and papers when they come available.
As always, I am very happy to catch up on any issues that arise. Please don't hesitate to be in touch
Many thanks
Emily
Departmental Science Advisor
Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment | Hīkina Whakatutuki
[email address] |
Telephone: +64-27-2781819
15 Stout Street, Wellington 6011
Aotearoa New Zealand
Professor of Chemical Biology
Ferrier Research Institute I Te Kauru
Victoria University of Wel ington I Te Herenga Waka
[email address] Telephone +64-27-2781819
Kelburn Parade, Wellington
New Zealand
