Genetically Modified Crops Management Regulations (Postponement of Expiry) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Colton, you are continuing your remarks.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (16:46): I am, and I almost forget where I was at, but I do remember.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall we call for Hansard?

The Hon. P. CAICA: No. They will correct the record if I am wrong because they are magnificent, but I think where I was at was suggesting that, if there was any reason to support this particular bill, it was a contribution made by the member for Hammond. I will explain that in more detail as we go along. I would also note that you were very lucky today, member for Hammond, because this was a private member's bill and, of course, you should have been restricted entirely to private members' business. There is no extended period. I think that the officers at the front there were very generous to you, and I guess we were as well because we should have shut you down.

Mr Pederick: Go for it.

The Hon. P. CAICA: He is an angry man. Getting back to this bill, the national regulatory scheme for gene technology allows states to regulate genetically-modified (GM) crops where there are risks to markets and trade, as the national scheme deals only with risks to human health and environment. Deputy Speaker, you would be aware that in South Australia the cultivation of GM food crops is prohibited by regulations made under the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004. These very good regulations are due to expire, under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1978, on 1 September 2019.

The bill, introduced by my colleague in the other place, brings forward consideration of whether the current prohibition on growing GM food crops in South Australia should be retained, extended or removed before this time. What this bill effectively does is extend the state's non-GM status until 2025, something that I certainly support. I know that the minister and the government side support this because this makes South Australia the only mainland state in Australia to prohibit the commercial cultivation of GM crops. It is certainly my view, and that of people on this side of the house, that this non-GM status provides our state with a market advantage and is one of the elements that underpin our global reputation as a supplier of premium food and wine from our clean environment.

We heard the member for Hammond, in his very long contribution, talk about why we should be doing it. Essentially, what he was saying, if I got the thrust of it right, was that we should become the same as everyone else, that just because the rest of the world and the rest of the states are doing it we should do exactly the same as they are doing in other states and across Australia. I am bad at analogies, and you know that, but I am going to try one anyway. I often hear people say, 'They do this in Sydney. Why don't we do this?' 'They do this in Melbourne. Why don't we do this?' Well, we are Adelaide and we distinguish ourselves from Melbourne and Sydney—and that is what makes Adelaide and South Australia such a fantastic place to live.

The point I am making, I hope in a not too long-winded way, is: why should we follow the suit of other states and the rest of the world when it comes to genetically-modified food? We should distinguish ourselves from those states and those nations because we know that around the world there are more discerning marketplaces, those that are more interested in where the food they are going to eat comes from—paddock to plate, all those types of things—and also the nature of the product itself.

I believe that it is a great advantage to South Australia. It is probably arguable as to whether we are able to effectively measure it now as much as we would like, but certainly I do not believe it is worth the risk of lifting this moratorium because I believe that, in the medium to long term, and I hope the shorter term, the discerning markets around the world, of which I speak, will come to realise that South Australia is a place where you can source clean, green, GM free, non-GM food from our clean and healthy environment. It distinguishes us. That is what we have to do.

Whilst the member for Hammond talked about various areas of primary production, the reality is that what will happen over a period of time is that all aspects of our primary production will be regarded as coming from South Australia, renowned and regarded as a place to source your foodstuff. Extending the food crops moratorium would provide assurance of our food export status to our trading partners and certainly to industry to facilitate planning and investment in non-GM market development beyond 2019. That is why this government supports the bill, as it aligns with government policy and demonstrates the government's commitment to the state market position in the long term. It would also ensure that South Australia is able to maximise current and future shifts in consumer sentiment and respond to the expected increase in global market demand for non-GM food products.

As the member for Hammond mouthed off all those things on the shelves in various shops that come from areas that are genetically-modified produce, just is the case around the world in those discerning markets—people are going to see South Australian products that come from a non-genetically modified primary industry environment. It would allow South Australia to protect and promote its market position as a producer of premium non-GM food and beverages.

I look forward, Deputy Speaker, as I know you do—you will probably be much closer to looking forward to it because you will be here after the next election and I will not—to seeing the state government continue working with our food and beverage industry to capitalise on our non-GM position. I believe that it is a position that we can capitalise on for South Australia, for the benefit of our economy, and also by ensuring that those discerning marketplaces around the world are actively seeking out our products from South Australia.

Opposition from some primary producers seeking access to GM canola as part of their crop rotation needs to be considered in the context of the benefits to the broader food and beverage industry, which generated a record $19.97 billion in revenue in 2016-17. In considering the statewide impact of the GM moratorium, we need to consider the direct and indirect implications that introducing GM food crops would have on the state's entire food production.

The member for Hammond talked about the fact that those trucks travelling to Western Australia with GM seed have to go through Alice Springs. I say that it is good that that happens. It is good for them and good that it happens, because I know that we would only need one major disaster and those plastic bags, or whatever they are wrapped in, would split and all of a sudden our reputation would be diminished. I say that our reputation is being enhanced by making sure that those seeds travel the route that they do.

We need to consider all aspects, as I have said, the direct and indirect implications of introducing GM food crops on the state's entire food production system. I say: let's not be the same as every other state in Australia. Let's not be the same as the majority of states or nations around the world. Let's be different. Let's distinguish ourselves and let's ensure that this state continues to be a state that can be proud of—and the rest of the world can source—our fantastic produce that is grown in a clean and green environment and is GM free. It is important that we keep this in mind when we consider South Australia's premium clean brand and marketing position as a whole. I congratulate my colleague from another place on the introduction of this bill. I am proud to stand here and say that I support this bill.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (16:54): I rise to speak to this bill, the genetically-modified crops extension of moratorium bill, which was introduced by Mark Parnell in the other place. Certainly it seems that, given the support of the government, this bill will actually go through. I think it is unfortunate that that is happening. I am going to declare an interest here. For more than 30 years, I was a grain grower and I still have an interest in a property on Eyre Peninsula. As most people know, I do not have an active role in the day-to-day running of the operation, but certainly I am still registered as a grain grower.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And you worry about the rain—

Mr TRELOAR: I do worry about the rain and the rain that is coming—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: —this week.

Mr TRELOAR: —at the end of this week. We have already had one big splash, so fingers crossed that it does not come as forecast because, if it does, it will do some damage to this year's crop. Deputy Speaker, you are quite right.

The effect of this bill would be to extend the current GM moratorium from September 2019 to September 2025. I need to make it clear here and now that the Liberal opposition did actually support and do support the moratorium to be in place until September 2019, but we believe that it needs to be reviewed appropriately and comprehensively at that time before a decision is made as to what is done with the moratorium.

In 2004, South Australia, along with other states, introduced a moratorium on genetically-modified crops. Since then, other states have gradually lifted their restrictions. In Victoria, for example, commercial cultivation of GM canola has been permitted since 2008. The member for Hammond talked about other crops, particularly GM cotton (or Bt cotton), which is grown in New South Wales and Queensland where the advantage really is a much reduced amount of pesticide and herbicide that is used on those crops—a great benefit to the environment.

South Australia is the only mainland state to maintain a GM-free zone throughout the country. The government claims this is necessary to maintain South Australia's clean, green marketing advantage; however, in our opinion, it has failed to produce evidence to support this position. In fact, I sourced some research that had been done by Mercado and they have come up with some figures that show the exact opposite. They show that the South Australian grain trade and other goods trade at a discount to other states. This is done over a period of time and indicates a long-term average.

For example, in wheat, Port Adelaide trades at a 3 per cent discount to Geelong. Port Adelaide trades at a 6 per cent discount to Kwinana in Western Australia. For feed barley, Adelaide trades at a 5 per cent discount to Geelong and Port Adelaide trades at a 7 per cent discount to Kwinana. For non-GM canola, Adelaide trades at a 2 per cent discount to Geelong. Adelaide trades at a 3 per cent discount to Kwinana.

For cattle, trade steers traded at a 8.3 per cent discount in South Australia versus Victoria, and mutton and lamb are the same. Regarding wine grapes, the discount in 2017 for South Australian grapes was $240 a tonne against Western Australia. Both states have GM crops growing in close proximity, so the evidence is contrary to what the government is claiming. We certainly stick by our position that we would look to review the policy in 2019.

I am going to quote a good friend of mine who farms in Essex in East Anglia. I stayed with this gentleman back in 2002 and have remained in contact with him. His name is Guy Smith. He officially farms the driest farm in the UK. In 19-inch rainfall, he grows wheat, barley, canola and—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: He probably has three times your rainfall, has he?

Mr TRELOAR: No, 19 inches, so very similar actually, Tom, to where we farm. Incredibly, funnily enough, he grows exactly the same crops: wheat, barley, canola and beans. He grows to the acre about what we do to the hectare, as a rough rule of thumb, so it is highly productive. Guy is currently a vice president of the National Farmers Union (NFU) in the UK. At the moment, they are debating the reauthorisation of glyphosate. To Australian farmers, that seems an extraordinary discussion to even be contemplating. In my humble opinion, glyphosate has had the single biggest impact on Australian and world agriculture since the introduction of the traction engine, the tractor. There is no doubt in my mind that that is true. Guy Smith says:

When politicians and administrators stop listening to the authorities charged with scientific evaluation, you get bad regulation.

And that is exactly what is going to happen. I am also going to give another quote, and I have been thinking about this for some time. Charles Darwin said: 'In the long history of humankind…those who learned to…improvise most effectively have prevailed.' And agriculture throughout its history has improvised.

Turnip Townshend and Jethro Tull oversaw the agricultural revolution in the UK in the early 18^th century. Turnip Townshend, of course, introduced crop rotation and Jethro Tull developed a seed drill in 1700. He developed a horse-drawn hoe. He developed a mechanical winnower and was roundly ostracised by going against the will of God, and there is a sense of this in this debate, I believe. In South Australia, the Ridley stripper was invented in 1842. Superphosphate was applied to soils. The Correll brothers on Yorke Peninsula developed a seed drill that can sow grain and superphosphate, phosphorous, at the same time.

There has been motorised mechanisation and the introduction of the tractor. In South Australia we were the world leaders in the development of ley farming. In fact, much of that technology was exported. I remember our own department of agriculture sending scientists overseas in the 1970s, particularly to the Middle East to places like Libya and Iraq, to take the technology that had been developed here in South Australia to the rest of the world. It was very successful.

In my time, we saw the introduction of agricultural chemicals, including glyphosate, which I have already mentioned, which allowed farmers to establish their crop with much less work and effort with incredible benefits to soil health. We have seen high analysis fertilisers. Of late, we have seen GPS technology and variable rate technology impact on our machines and the way we farm. They are extraordinary developments. My own father talks about hydraulics, cabs on tractors, the bulk handling of grain. My maternal grandfather said, 'There is no way I am going to go to bulk handling of grain.' Well, of course, he did because it was easier.

My point is that the rate of the uptake of new technology by South Australian and Australian farmers generally has been extraordinary because they see the advantage—until now. Now what we are seeing in this state is the adoption of groundbreaking technology grind to a halt. I believe that the government has overstepped the mark on this one. It is not for government to dictate to farmers what they can and cannot grow. They are dictating to private businesses economic decisions. It smacks of the Eastern Bloc and old Soviet Russia, governments dictating to farmers what they can and cannot grow.

The government says the premiums are real but, as I pointed out, they are not. It is about being competitive and growers producing commodities that are traded on the world market. Our products are commodities—10 million tonnes last year. That is a lot of grain. If we are not competitive, the risk is that we will become irrelevant and may even disappear. Ain't that the truth? It seems to be habit forming in the state. Engineering is not a silver bullet. It would only ever be another tool in the toolbox. It is not as though all would embrace it. No farming system is perfect, but it would give our growers an opportunity they currently do not have. Shame on the government for not allowing it.

Mark Parnell in the other place talks about letting the genie out of the bottle. There is nothing magical about this. This is not magic; this is actually science. It is based on science. Do not be fearful of the future or the science itself: embrace it. The member for Hammond talked a lot about the rest of the world embracing it, and the member for Colton also talked about the rest of the world embracing gene technology, asking why we should follow suit. My real fear is that if we do not, we will become uncompetitive.

Gene editing is just around the corner. Work has been done and much has been said about it. Gene editing is where DNA is inserted, deleted or replaced in the genome. It is incredibly exciting technology. Are we going to be precluded from that technology? Is the government going to allow access to that, or are we simply going to continue cycling about with a stick of bread and a bottle of pinot in a basket? There has been a lack of consultation, a lack of formal data and, unfortunately, it removes choice from growers and caps our potential.

Particularly, I would look to Grain Producers SA. They are the peak representational body in this industry and the government needs to look at the lobbying and the input they are having into this debate. I think it is a big mistake to extend this moratorium without any due diligence, and I think that is the key. We really need to investigate the benefits, or otherwise, that this is giving to marketing and also our farming and production systems. It appears to me to be anti-science, anti-competition and anti-choice.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL (Mawson—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Recreation and Sport, Minister for Racing) (17:05): I will pick up on the point that the member for Flinders made that you take away the right of people to have their choice. If you bring in GM crops, you take away the choice of all these wonderful producers and food manufacturers that we have. You take away the choice for those people, you take away the choice for those people to market—

Mr Treloar interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: —their food as GM free. Let's have a look at some of the globally recognised—

Mr Treloar interjecting:

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Excuse me. I sat here in silence.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order on my left! The member is entitled to be heard in silence.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Let's take a look at some of our globally recognised food producers and food manufacturers here, like San Remo, Tucker's and Coopers, and the list goes on, who use South Australia's GM-free status to help market their goods. I spoke to Sam Tucker two weeks ago. He is just back from the US and he said that when they talk there, it is hard enough to get on as 'organic' onto the shelves of the US at the moment.

The University of Adelaide study has shown that in the four or five years to 2019 the market for non-GM crops is going to double, and the growth is unbelievable over there. It is the same in China and Japan. We know from Kangaroo Island Pure Grain that they are getting a premium of $60 a tonne for their canola. A lot of facts and figures are thrown around by people on the other side. They are not necessarily correct. They are put up as facts.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I did sit here in silence. I did not say a word while either of you spoke.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: But they are put up by you as facts. The member for Hammond spent a lot of his address talking about cotton. We are never going to grow cotton in South Australia. Whether it is GM cotton or non-GM cotton, we are not going to grow it here, so there is absolutely no point in having that discussion in this place.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Hammond!

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: We do not grow GM crops in South Australia; that is what we are proud of. We do not have phylloxera in South Australia, and we should all give thanks to those legislators who went before us in the late 1800s who brought in the phylloxera act to keep out that bug that destroyed vineyards throughout Europe. It is prevalent across all mainland states of Australia where they grow grapes. That was kept out by an act of parliament. We have a duty here as politicians to make sure that we look after the reputation of the state.

When I go to the US or to Europe or to Asia, and I talk to people over there who are looking to buy premium food and wine, I tell them about our great heritage. I tell them that we are the only mainland state in Australia, and one of the few jurisdictions in the world, where it is illegal to grow GM crops, where we do not have phylloxera and where we do not have fruit fly. They are amazing selling points. The Liberal Party want to give all that away to allow canola growers—and not all canola growers either. Many of the people who grow crops here in South Australia want this GM moratorium to be left in place, but the Liberals are happy for it to be lifted so that canola growers can have some advantage, as the Liberals say they will have. They will not have an advantage. They will not have an advantage in terms of the money that they get.

When we look at the price of GM canola compared with non-GM canola in Victoria where they grow both, it is about a $40 difference per tonne, and the non-GM canola gets more than the GM canola. There is no silver bullet for the canola industry here by allowing the growing of GM canola. If we look back at 2007 at a report that was done in Victoria, there was a prediction that, by 2012, 80 per cent of the canola grain in Victoria would be GM canola. The reality is that it is 13 per cent, so farmers have not taken this up as some silver bullet in Victoria and other states where the moratorium has been lifted.

So the Liberal Party wants to trade away the ability for 10 to 15 per cent of canola growers in South Australia to have the right to grow GM at the expense of every other food producer and food manufacturer in this state. We are not going to accept that as the Labor Party. On 17 March, people have a choice: if they want GM crops grown in South Australia, vote Liberal; if they do not want GM crops grown in South Australia, vote Labor. It is a very, very clear message that we need to get out to the voters of South Australia— that the Liberal Party supports GM crops being grown in South Australia and the Labor Party opposes the growing of GM crops in South Australia.

Grain Producers South Australia did a petition, which they launched at the Paskeville Field Days two years ago. They presented it to me a year later. There are 5,800 registered growers of crops in South Australia and 221 people, including the Hon. Terry Stephens in another place, signed that petition. I have gone through the addresses and they are from right around the state, but that is only 221 people out of a state of 1.7 million people, which includes 5,800 registered growers of crops.

Where is this tidal wave of support to allow the growing of GM crops to come into South Australia? I do not see it. I do not hear it. I get around the state quite a lot. I talk to farmers who would like GM crops. I speak to farmers who are totally opposed to the introduction of GM crops. I talk to food manufacturers. I do not think I have ever spoken to a food manufacturer who wants GM crops introduced into South Australia.

Once you let the genie out of the bottle you cannot put it back in. I agree with Mark Parnell, the leader of the Australian Greens in the upper house, and I thank him for bringing this bill into parliament. I think it is a very important piece of legislation. I think it is great that Mark Parnell brought it in and I commend him for doing so. The bill has the total support of our cabinet, our caucus and the Labor Party.

For those canola growers and other crop growers out there who want to make more money, they should copy what Duncan MacGillivray did with his model on Kangaroo Island, and that is to take a marketing point of view instead of considering yourself as a grower a long way away from the market, which I know is a reality. There are a lot of steps, a lot of people and a lot of businesses between you and the person who eats your fantastic GM-free and wonderfully produced crops grown in a clean environment. We need to help the growers market their crops, and we are happy to do that as a government. We will work with Grain Producers SA and we will work with farmers to do that.

I have worked with Grain Producers SA and we agree to disagree on this, but I think many of their members agreed to disagree with the hierarchy of Grain Producers SA as well. I want to keep having a good relationship with them and I want to thank Darren Arney, who I know has just announced that he is moving on to another role. I want to pay tribute to Darren, even though we do have completely different views on the growing of GM crops. I want to thank Darren for the good humour, I suppose, with which he has gone about his job. We have always been able to have a beer and discuss things, and I think we are all as one in trying to help South Australian farmers any way we can.

I want to commend South Australia's grain farmers as well. If we look back at the past eight seasons, we have had eight seasons in a row above the 10-year average. That is incredible. Did we have great weather in all those eight years? No. We got bigger crops because the farmers did a great job in the way they managed their farms. They are resilient people. They are people who embrace technology. I also want to thank the people up at Waite who have worked on new strains through crossbreeding to make sure that the seeds that our farmers plant are the most suitable seeds for our environment here in South Australia.

This is not a war against farmers. This is people, even within the farming community, having different points of view. However, as a government, we have to stand on the side that protects the majority of people. We are talking not just about canola farmers here; we are talking about all farmers and all food manufacturers. We are talking about everyone who wants to go to market to be proud of what it is that they produce and to tell the world that it comes from a place where it is illegal to grow GM crops. We stand proud and tall when we go into overseas markets and talk about our credentials here: GM free, phylloxera free and fruit fly free. I think every South Australian should be very proud of that. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr PEDERICK: I wonder if the minister agrees with the Premier on his thoughts about genetically-modified crops when the Premier said that there are not many votes in regional areas, so it does not matter?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I think the Liberal Party is guilty of taking the Premier's quotes out of context.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: No, we have heard this time and time again when someone takes a full quote and they come in here and try to purport that that is the full quote. This has happened not just in this place but elsewhere. The Premier said:

The truth is, you know, there are not a lot of votes out there in country South Australia for us. We don't, so we're—in some ways we're sort of free of the electoral—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: That's where you cut it off. I will start again so that we get the full quote:

The truth is, you know, there are not a lot of votes out there in country South Australia for us. We don't—in some ways we're sort of free of the electoral imperatives about this. We're trying to do what's right rather than what's popular.

What the Premier was saying was that we are going to put South Australia first so that we do not have to have the pressure of some farmers in lobby groups coming to us all the time and saying, 'We need to bring in GM crops because my farm is down the road from your farm, as the local member, and we need this to happen.' That is what he was saying.

The Premier is out there all the time in regional South Australia. He introduced the country cabinets, where we go out and spend time in country communities right around this state, and he is a big backer of regional South Australia and, indeed, the agricultural sector.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: No, it does not contradict what I just said. What the Premier said is that we can do the right thing by South Australia. We will not be listening to a small group of farmers who live around where you might live, member for Hammond. We can take a holistic point of view.

We talk to farmers right across the whole state, we talk to food manufacturers right around the whole state, and we take a very strong view. It was the Premier and this cabinet who came up with South Australia's key economic priorities. One of those top key economic priorities was premium food and wine produced in our clean environment and exported to the world, so we are going to stick the distance on that.

We are absolutely going to stick the distance on premium food and wine produced in our clean environment and exported to the world because it is a very important economic priority. If we look at the carpet in this place, it has wheat and grapes. There is no other industry represented there. It is all about the agriculture, and we need to do what the politicians did here in the late 1800s with the phylloxera act, and we need to stick up for all South Australians.

Mr PEDERICK: In regard to the GM canola trials and seed bulking out that have been conducted in South Australia of genetically-modified canola, how many ministerial exemptions has the minister, and other Labor ministers, presided over for this since 2002, and how many hectares of genetically-modified canola have been sown in South Australia under these exemptions?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: As far as we can tell, there have been 14 exemptions allowed and eight of those are still current.

Mr PEDERICK: The rest of the question was: how many hectares have been sown to genetically-modified canola in that time in South Australia?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: We do not have that information on us, but the information about where these exemptions are made is available on the PIRSA website. We are not trying to hide anything here. You talk about the science; we allow the researchers up at Waite to do research into genetically-modified crops.

Mr PEDERICK: Can you confirm, minister, that companies have bulked out genetically-modified canola like grown seed crops in South Australia?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes, there have been some on small allotments. The seed can be grown here but the crop has to be destroyed. That is all under the auspices of the Gene Technology Regulator, so it is controlled.

Mr TRELOAR: I have a question on clause 1 as well. It relates to something I touched on in my second reading contribution around gene editing. Gene editing is when DNA is inserted, deleted or replaced in the genome. It is the next tranche of technology, if you like. Will plants that have been developed under a gene-editing regime be allowed to be grown under the extended moratorium?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The definition will be picked up from the commonwealth legislation, so that is where that will be decided.

Mr PEDERICK: I have a few more questions regarding the genetic modification of canola. Has the minister ever visited the Waite campus?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes, I have, several times.

Mr PEDERICK: In regard to that, minister, have you visited the Plant Accelerator and the genetically modified side of the Plant Accelerator program?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes, I have.

Mr PEDERICK: Regarding the final summary report from the University of Adelaide, entitled 'Identification and assessment of added-value export market opportunities for non-GMO labelled food products from South Australia' and the recommended next steps in the process, the first one is to:

Invite SA businesses interviewed as part of the study to a presentation and discussion of the findings.

Has that next step been taken?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Most of the businesses interviewed by the University of Adelaide did so on a confidential basis, so trying to get them all together has proved a bit more difficult than we would have liked. We did have an attempt at that in September but they are sort of spread out across the state and they travel quite frequently. We are still working on bringing them together, but PIRSA is working with a number of different businesses individually. We just have not had the opportunity to get them all together as a group.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer you to recommended next steps No. 2:

Liaise with Food SA to include the findings in industry workshops it will be conducting as part of developing their ‘Growth through Innovation Strategy’.

Has that liaising been done with Food SA?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes, it has. PIRSA works very closely with Food SA. I know you were at the food awards the other night and when I mentioned that I would be bringing this bill into the lower house there was a round of applause, too.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to recommended next steps No. 3, which is:

Depending on sufficient industry support, provide a briefing to relevant Government Ministers on the findings and implications for Government policies and programs.

Has recommendation No. 3 been taken forward?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes, absolutely. All ministers were briefed on the findings of this report in September last year.

The CHAIR: Nearly finished, member for Hammond?

Mr PEDERICK: We are getting there.

The CHAIR: It is just that we are very broadly ranging around—

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, it is all very important.

The CHAIR: I am not doubting its importance.

Mr PEDERICK: This is all part of the report. Can you explain to the house where in the report it states that there is a benefit to all our crops and produce in South Australia being genetically-modified free?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The report looked at the global market and global trends, and it backed up what I had heard during trips to the Netherlands and the US, which was that the growth in the non-GM market at the retail end is growing much quicker than any other food sector. That is what the report was all about. I must admit that PIRSA went to the University of Adelaide and asked them to do this research. I think when they were asked to do it, the researchers involved were a little sceptical that there was going to be a big advantage in South Australia remaining non-GM. But, as the report bears out, there are great opportunities for South Australia to continue its GM-free status on behalf of all food producers in the state.

Clause passed.

Remaining clause (2) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL (Mawson—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Recreation and Sport, Minister for Racing) (17:27): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.