Maori seek treaty hearing to oppose end of GM ban

By ANNE BESTON

Maori are trying to block the lifting of the GM moratorium through the Waitangi Tribunal

However, a lawyer involved in previous legal action over GM believes the move will fail.

"My view would be that it would be difficult in the extreme," said Wellington lawyer Jamie Ferguson.

"It would be nice to think the Government would pause if the tribunal made a recommendation that there had been inadequate consultation for Maori under the treaty, but it would appear the Government is very firm in the direction it is heading."

Maanu Paul, spokesman for Te Waka Kai Ora, a group of Maori organic growers, said an urgent hearing was being sought from the tribunal and he believed it would be this month.

"We can't rely on the Green Party, they're outvoted, and we can't rely on the political process - we have to do something ourselves."

The Gisborne orchardist said Te Waka Kai Ora had 600 members and two lawyers were working on seeking urgency for the claim.

Under the treaty, the Government had a duty to protect Maori, but the lifting of the moratorium on genetic modification, due on October 29, was a failure to carry out that duty.

"The impacts of GM affect everyone, we must all oppose the lifting of the moratorium at the hearing of this claim."

But Mr Ferguson, involved in an unsuccessful High Court challenge to AgResearch's GM experiments with human genes in cows in Hamilton, said a legal challenge to the legislation providing for an end to the moratorium would almost certainly fail.

The tribunal could only make recommendations, and while Maori could argue they had not been consulted adequately, the Government could argue it had consulted through the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification and changes to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.

Essentially the end of the moratorium, which Prime Minister Helen Clark has made clear will happen at the end of October, was a political decision.

"We are really in a default position, the moratorium automatically lapses on a specified date."

That meant there was no room to challenge on the grounds of ministerial judgment or sound decision-making, which might be possible with other controversial political decisions.