House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Genetically Modified Crops Genetically Modified Crops Dr HARVEY House of Assembly Newland Dr HARVEY (Newland) (15:30): I rise today to speak about my support for the Marshall Liberal government's recent announcement to allow South Australian farmers on the mainland the choice to plant genetically modified food crops. This decision recognises the disadvantage that our farmers have endured under a statewide moratorium that has persisted seemingly to satisfy blind ideology rather than any substance in either economics or science. It is important to note that in relation to GMOs (genetically modified organisms) federal legislation addresses the protection of the health and safety of people and the environment through the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator and, more specifically, as the agency responsible for the approval of field trials and commercial release of GMOs. Moreover, Food Standards Australia New Zealand is responsible for the regulation of GM food products, including safety standards and labelling. Both agencies are tasked with administering regulatory regimes that provide very strong protections and national consistency. On the other hand, the state government is responsible for the regulation of GM crops for trade and market purposes. Since the passage of the federal legislation, shortly followed by legislation in the states in the early 2000s, different states varied in terms of the implementation of a moratorium and also in the timing of the lifting of moratoria. South Australia is now the only mainland state to maintain a statewide ban on GM crops. Under the regime left to us by the former Labor government, the moratorium is set to continue until 2025, with little evidence of any benefit for our state. Shortly following the 2018 state election, the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development commissioned an independent expert review into the moratorium, the findings of which were released earlier this year. The review prepared by Emeritus Professor Kym Anderson AC found that there was no economic benefit from a statewide ban and in fact found that the state suffers an economic loss from the ban due to a lack of access. Mr BROWN House of Assembly Mr BROWN: Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house. A quorum having been formed: Dr HARVEY House of Assembly Dr HARVEY: The review prepared by Emeritus Professor Kym Anderson AC found that there was no economic benefit from a statewide ban and in fact found that our state suffers an economic loss from the ban due to a lack of access to technologies that could otherwise provide benefits to our farmers. Moreover, the moratorium has proven to discourage investment in research and development from both public and private sources due to a lack of a clear pathway to market. South Australia has a proud history in plant science, a legacy that the moratorium only serves to undermine, and there are certainly incredible opportunities that exist for us to export new technologies in plant science to the world for which there is very likely to be enormous demand in the future. The decision of the Marshall government to lift the moratorium for mainland South Australia is based on the best available evidence, which is exactly how good governments should operate. We have backed the experts, backed the economics and backed the science. We believe that South Australian farmers should be able to choose for themselves whether or not they want to use GM crops, and blocking that choice for ideological reasons with no basis in fact should be opposed. GM crops that are available now, and potentially those that will be available in the future, present many possible benefits to the economy, the environment and human health—such examples include increased crop yields, reduced fuel consumption (which is obviously a reduced cost for farmers but also means reduced greenhouse gas emissions), reduced land area required, reduced use of pesticides, reduced demand for water, greater tolerance to salinity, and many other possible benefits. All these benefits our farmers would be deprived of under a continuation of the moratorium. Whilst the state government's decision to lift the moratorium is based on the implication for the state in terms of trade and market access, there is no doubt that this debate often drags in other things that are not within the state's jurisdiction, often dealing with an ideological belief that GM plants are inherently bad. The fact of the matter is that humans have been genetically manipulating plants for centuries. The difference with biotechnological techniques is that the changes are targeted and defined. This technology is simply a tool and, like any tool, can be used for good and can potentially be used to do bad things and should quite rightly be tightly regulated, as it is at the federal level. However, the technology is not fundamentally bad, and the role of government is to back experts and respond to the evidence. We do not get to choose what science we like and what science we do not like. For example, what is quite stark is the hypocrisy of some on this issue who would champion the acceptance of the science of climate change (and I would certainly agree), but on the other hand diminish or dismiss science that could very well be an important part of dealing with and adapting to that very important issue. This is not to say that science is infallible. There should rightly be robust processes and caution exercised with any new invention, but we need to accept the best available evidence when it is presented, and that is exactly what this government is doing.