Bills

Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (15:37): I was speaking to this genetically modified crops bill and the area of niche markets. The member for Mawson would be interested that we are keeping Kangaroo Island exempt from lifting this moratorium. I want to touch on niche markets and the fact that I think Kangaroo Island, if it chooses to remain in a moratorium environment based on its grower sentiment, is welcome to do so. One of the reasons I am supportive of that idea is that it is an island surrounded by water and it can be managed well.

I think Kangaroo Island may also want to pick up Kangaroo Island-type marketing opportunities that may come their way, if they choose to go down this line and stay that way, but it has to be proven that it is a market and a benefit. If it is not and the impetus is turned away—in other words, they turn it down because the opportunity is lost by having no access to genetically modified crops—then that should also be addressed later on in the future.

One of the things that is really frustrating for the area of MacKillop is that we are a state electorate bordered by Victoria. We have farmers and operators in that region who farm both in Victoria and South Australia and run enterprises over a line in the sand. It was certainly difficult for them to operate their cropping regimes when on one side of the line they were allowed to put in whatever crop they so desired and on the other side of the line, the South Australian side, they were restricted by rules and regulations.

Another issue to touch on in relation to niche markets is that, yes, they can have a premium. They can be highly sought and economically viable for some, but one thing about niche markets is that they are all small and only really owned by a few. One of the things that we have to do in government is to manage for everyone, and I think lifting the moratorium for South Australia is an advantage for all rather than restricting the majority to look after the few who may participate outside that line or guidelines.

With respect to access to markets, evidence was presented that, for instance, the markets for canola exports from Australia to the EU did not support the view that South Australians enjoy better access to EU non-GM grain markets. It is interesting that, in regard to having a moratorium, the rationale from the previous government was that they thought that we would have better access to world markets because we would be GM free.

Something that really flies in the face of that, as the member for Flinders highlighted, is that one of the most genetically modified crops—and successful in that, too—is the cotton crop. I know this from data and from being in New South Wales for a period that cotton used to be sprayed 12 times to keep insects like heliothis out of the canola crop, and now they are back down to five sprays because of genetically modified new varieties that are more resistant to insects.

Cotton oil and cottonseed, but particularly the oil, is the most used oil in food processing in the world, particularly for frying, yet it is a highly genetically modified crop. Although we do not consume it directly as a food substance, it is certainly used in the cooking of food, and it has never been considered a problem nor does it cause any issues. The environmental benefits of such genetically modified varieties has been a huge win for that industry as well as general consumers because it means that buying a product that is produced more cheaply and is more accessible means that it feeds more people around the world at an affordable price.

Research funds have been lost to other states based on our GM-free status, which is restricting research to market pathways. This means that our state is attracting fewer research dollars, scientists and postgraduate students. This investment is going to other states that are not subject to GM crops with a moratorium over them. I know that we still have research going on here.

I know that scientists in South Australia are still looking at the opportunities that GM might be available to South Australia, but South Australia certainly had the doors closed to these opportunities, and I know now that, once this moratorium is lifted, the Waite Institute and perhaps other universities, like Roseworthy, will have more opportunity to pursue genetically modified crops that would benefit not just canola we have heard and talked about so far.

A couple of opportunities I have heard about include looking at wine grapes and grape varieties that are more frost resistant to those we have today. Certainly, as the climate has changed slightly in our regions, we have seen more damage in the early period of fruit set, particularly in my region in the Limestone Coast, where over the last few years we have been hit hard by patches of frost. You can see that by the number of wind fans that have been used to try to protect these crops and also sprinkler irrigation trying to mitigate against the frost as well.

Another opportunity I have been made aware of is that lucerne might be a good answer for a region on the northern end of my electorate, perhaps even reaching into the good, dry country of Hammond where we have a rising watertable region between Salt Creek Road going up and through to Tailem Bend. The watertable seems to be getting closer and closer. There used to be a huge amount of lucerne in that region 20, 30, 40 years ago, but obviously that is no longer the case.

Certainly, we are planting lucerne in those regions, but if the watertable continues to rise we are going to want lucerne varieties that can utilise a more saline watertable, and perhaps if the water comes closer to the surface we are going to need lucerne varieties that can accept a little bit of what they call 'wet feet'. These are all opportunities through science and research, and if we are a state that is open to that research, if we are a state that pursues these opportunities, then this can be pursued in the full breadth of what that might be, rather than thinking, 'Oh, but we've got a GM moratorium. We can't use those genetics. We won't look that hard anymore.' If this moratorium is lifted, we can go full steam ahead in this direction.

Segregation of GM and non-GM crops is working. Segregation and identity preservation protocols and codes of practice are robust and can ensure the successful coexistence of GM and non-GM crops. I know that it is always fraught with danger. I know that if you just have a blanket rule you could say that it is more assured, but apparently we can put processes in place that will meet the needs of those who wish to be GM free and keep those GM harvests free from those that are not GM.

Community sentiment is supportive of allowing GM-crop production. The community engagement process, undertaken as part of the review, resulted in the majority of submissions being in favour of the immediate removal of the moratorium. There has been extensive consultation in this area. We know that the farming community really are looking for a change through this moratorium, to have the opportunity to plant as they like, to make their life and their business model stack up as much as possible. I want to just touch on that.

This morning's contributions were very interesting, particularly the contribution from the member for West Torrens. He accused the government of not working through the right processes. Yes, we may be jumping the gun. Yes, he may think that this is a quick move at the end of the parliamentary process this year. But this is a new discussion—he knows that. It is something that has been running along for many years. He knows of the opposition that we as a party had while we were in opposition. It is ironic that they have not been as straight as they claim to be.

The Labor government did a few things in its last few weeks or months of government. When we were in opposition, we as a party felt that those matters were railroaded through. One of those was the extension of this moratorium. That was railroaded through in the last few months of their government. Another thing that was railroaded through in the last couple of months that the opposition were in government was the reduction of the speed limit down to 100 km/h on eight roads, and there was another one that does not come to mind right now.

The government of the day before the last election claimed that we might be scuttlebutting, saying that we were not doing all that we could to work through the processes of parliament. There is a time line. It is not news to the opposition that this government is opposed to the moratorium. The minister has done everything he can to engage with the opposition and the community, with looking at the select committee and all the pros and cons of this moratorium, and it has been found that we are well justified in putting this bill through so quickly.

It is anticipated that there will be many benefits to farmers. We are missing out on the benefits of new crop breeding technologies, the disease resistance of new crops and the ability to grow breeds of crops that can better handle climate variability. The Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill is a bill that our state needs to ensure that South Australia does not continue to suffer from the lack of opportunities and costs to farmers, research facilities and agricultural productivity that is playing out under our current GMO-free status.

I want to highlight opportunity costs. We can look back in the mirror and say, 'We missed it. It's gone.' I think it has been quoted that this moratorium has already cost us $33 million. There will be $5 million more lost in opportunity costs if we do not move this through between now and when the moratorium was to be reviewed in 2025. The previous government needs to understand that opportunity costs can never be caught back. They have gone. You do not go back and catch them again.

The amount of $38 million that this moratorium would forgo cannot be found on the next fruit tree or in the next canola crop in the next run of cropping rotations. That is all history. I liken it to benchmarking in the business world of livestock that I work in. In a life of benchmarking of 10 years, there are two optimum years in which you must get it right. That is when your stars are aligned and you have good seasons, good commodity prices and good management. You cannot miss them. If you do miss them, you cannot go back and pick them up again. If you lose one or those two years you are only going to have one good year in 10 years.

I call this opportunity costs. We want to see this state ticking all boxes financially for our croppers and farming families who work on the land. Although they are going through dry periods now—and the years have been harder and harder because of the lack of rainfall, and seasonal outcomes are out of our control—choosing the right crop is not beyond their management decisions. They should be allowed to choose the right crop, the right variety, and perhaps they need to do it more than ever because of our variable climate.

The Marshall Liberal government is seeking to grow our agricultural sector, enhance and expand the ability for our research facilities to attract funds and to build our knowledge base for the future of the agricultural sector in South Australia. To do this we need to remove the impediments to growth. This bill is about removing impediments and enabling opportunities and choice for our farmers. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (15:49): I rise to make a brief contribution on the bill. I strongly support the removal of the moratorium on genetically modified crops on the South Australian mainland and note my frustration with being compelled to undertake this additional parliamentary process, which was required due to the actions last week of the Labor Party, in conjunction with the Greens and SA-Best, to block and disallow the regulations that were to lift the moratorium and take effect on Sunday 1 December 2019.

The research, debate and discussion have been well and truly done on this issue. It has been an ongoing debate for some time, with extensive consultation over several years and a high-level independent expert review and a GM Crop Advisory Committee, ironically set up under the former Labor government, which recommended the lifting. Another parliamentary select committee also made clear recommendations that the lifting of the moratorium would finally free our farmers to have the same choices to use new and improved crop varieties that farmers in all other jurisdictions on mainland Australia have long had access to.

It is very disappointing that Labor, Greens and SA-Best chose to play politics and debate parliamentary processes and procedures while our farmers continue to face reduced yields and further hits to their bottom lines as a result of this continued ban on thier using modern, universally available crop varieties, scientifically proven to better cope with drought, weed management and disease. This is a serious setback for our agriculture sector, as publicly stated by the National Farmers' Federation, Grain Producers SA and the Australian Seed Federation.

The bill before us now will right the unnecessary disadvantage that South Australian farmers currently have and give an actual outcome for our primary producers rather than more political posturing and ignorance of all the research and consultation that have been done that have provided the evidence that it is in this state's best interest to lift the GM ban that has proven to be ineffective. It is removing choices for our farmers, it is penalising our farmers and it is costing our farmers money. It is time for politicians to get out of the way and trust in the ability of our farmers to grow this state in every way possible available to them.

Back in November 2017, when the bill by the Greens to extend the moratorium until 2025 was put forward, passed the upper house by a single vote and went on to be passed by the lower house, Grain Producers SA described that decision as an unmitigated disaster. Their chair, Wade Dabinett, stated that the moratorium to that point had 'put us a decade behind other states and I am flabbergasted that this topic is still being discussed'. Way back then, in November 2017, Grain Producers SA expressed anger that this issue was being 'kicked around like a political football at the expense of a significant industry—agriculture', and the National Farmers' Federation was equally disappointed.

One can only imagine how frustrated our farmers and stakeholders are now, two years on, culminating again last week in the disallowance of the regulation process that would have most efficiently corrected this issue for our farmers once and for all. Growers in all other grain producing states are successfully growing GM canola for better weed management, better prices, increased competition, better yields and with access to improved varieties developed to tackle drought and climate change better. They are making informed decisions about what to sow, based on their individual businesses and specific conditions.

We cannot afford to continue to disadvantage our South Australian farmers by this GM ban. The extensive reviews show the stance is economically damaging. The independent review found the GM moratorium had cost this state's canola farmers at least $33 million since 2004, which would extend to an additional $5 million if that moratorium were allowed to continue to 2025. It has discouraged investment in public and private research

What a wonderfully underutilised investment that might be and the chances that might provide for future crop development. Great minds, like the member for Newland, could be working on things like this for improved GM options, which would be fantastic. It is discouraged at the moment and it has failed to provide a premium compared with prices paid to growers in neighbouring states. If there were a massive marketing advantage for this state to remain GM free, this evidence would be clear, but there is not.

It is time to lift the moratorium. Those who wish to continue to grow GM-free canola can do so. Segregation has proven to be successful interstate. Let's not delay this reform any further with more political posturing. I put to this house that there is absolutely no excuse not to pass the bill through both houses this week. This has been a live issue for some weeks. The merits of it should have been debated, investigated and interrogated at length by everyone in this chamber in that time. To claim that it cannot be debated now because we need more time to consult and review is, in my view, a ridiculous proposition.

We need to get this done this week and not put at threat next season's sowing. We need to give growers the certainty to order and buy seed so they can get ready to plant it in time for next season. They have done without for long enough and we need to provide them with all the means necessary to have a profitable business going forward. I commend the bill to the house and urge those who are here to stop debating political procedure and give farmers certainty for next season.

Failure to pass this bill through both houses this week will mean that farmers are unduly laden with that uncertainty until next season and are potentially subjected to another year without access to the same technology that their interstate colleagues are using. They will not have that access, which is not fair to them.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (15:55): I rise to support the Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill 2019. Much has been said about science and much has been said about time, and I am going to add a little bit more to this debate. Quite frankly, it is ridiculous that our farmers have been denied this technology for the last 15 years simply based on ideology, and it is ideology.

What we are talking about here with genetically modified crops is basically accelerated breeding. We have seen our fantastic Waite campus—our great research centre here in South Australia—hampered in its ability to fully utilise its plant breeding services and the plant accelerator process, certainly in regard to the GM side of that research, because of this Stone Age approach to genetically modified crops.

If people did the research and had a look at which supermarket foods are genetically modified they would be absolutely stunned. As has been said here today, there are hundreds of products but the one I want to dwell on for the moment is soy, 99 per cent of which comes from a genetically modified source. Basically, you could say 100 per cent. Anyone who has anything to do with soy milk or soy lattes, you are consuming a genetically modified product.

Something else that has been discussed today is Bt cotton. What a boon it was to develop Bt cotton so that many insecticide sprays did not have to be used. In the old days, cotton crops were maybe sprayed 10 to 12 times and now it might be only two to five times because of the benefits of that genetically modified product. I know from being a farmer—and I have grown plenty of canola in the past, thousands of acres of it, obviously not GM canola—that you want to have the best seed you can get and the best access to technology. With whatever crops you grow, you want to use the least amount of insecticide possible.

Two products I have used in my farming career are spray seed and insecticide sprays. They are some of the most dangerous sprays you can handle. Obviously, insecticides kill living organisms. I guess any chemical will have a detrimental effect on you in the right amount, but insecticides—S7s and S8s—can really have a damaging effect. I have spoken before in this place about how DDT was previously used in large quantities in the agriculture sector. It was a great chemical but I think it was overused.

Before GPS technology, we used it with the spray planes to spray barley grub in crops. You would stand there with a red flag and then run 30 or 40 yards to the next spot for the next mark. Occasionally, the tap did not come off so you wore a bit of DDT. Certainly, knowing as a young bloke that you had to get in and get sheep that would not come out of those arsenic-based dips that used to be used, you had to be very careful how you managed these products.

I would like to commend what has happened in the cotton industry, not that there has been a lot of cotton grown, obviously, with the crisis in the Murray-Darling Basin, as generally cotton is only grown when there is rain. We know that Cubbie Station has been dry for two years, and that is just one place; there are plenty of others that grow cotton north of South Australia. When they are growing it, if there has to be less insecticide, that is only a bonus and a boon for people growing that crop and operating in the field.

When I look at drugs that have been manufactured with genetic modification, one is insulin for sugar diabetes. What a great boon that is for people suffering the health effects of sugar diabetes. We would not have insulin if it were not for genetic modification, and that is just a fact. As the member for Finniss said, some of the flu vaccines that most of us are injected with have some level of genetic modification.

So the time for debate is over. We need to get on with it and we need to pass this legislation. It is a real shame that when people get off their ideological bandwagon they then resort to process and say that process was not followed when we used regulation, or the minister used regulation from this side of the house, to get rid of the moratorium. I call on people in the parliament to have a good think about how they are voting on this . We are going to get there: we either do it this way or we do it the regulatory way. People can disallow and we can bring back the regulations.

Why are people standing in the way of our drought-stricken farmers? We have people in here preaching to us about climate change and their views of the world, but when it gets to this will they really stand up and vote to support this change? I notice that in his speech the member for Giles, the shadow minister for agriculture, talked about a lot of things, but what he could not bring himself to say—he is probably not allowed to because they speak as one over there, or so we are told—was that he actually supports this. He could not say that. He wanted to say it. It would be churning him up inside. It would be just chewing him out.

I would have loved to have been around the table for some of the conversations he would have had with the Labor members—the member for Mawson and others—because this might be causing quite a bit of internal division on the other side. It is absolute madness that at a time when farmers not just in this state but right across this country are really suffering with the effects of dry and drought we restrict the ability to use one of the absolute vital tools and to give them choice.

This does not mean that 10,000 farmers are going to go out there and sow canola. What it means is that the many thousands of farmers in this state can make a choice and say, 'Hang on. Yes, we'll have a go. We'll put in a paddock or two and see how it goes.' It is all about rotation. In discussing that, I note the fantastic contribution from the Deputy Speaker, the member for Flinders, on the use of Roundup.

I believe, as he does, that Roundup is the greatest invention since traction engines. It has been a boon for agriculture. We seem to have this senseless debate in other parts of the world, where they are trying to say that Roundup is this huge problem. I can tell you, and I have said it in this place before, that if you get rid of glyphosate, or Roundup, the trade name, you will have one of the biggest environmental problems known to man. If we ever go back to farming the way we used to, when we used to cultivate land many multiple times, we will have a real problem.

It irks me that we came into this place today and heard all the filibustering, votes and calls for division so that we would not reach a decision. Labor members—we do not yet know whether it is most of them or all of them—blocked the regulatory change and are putting the livelihoods of South Australian farmers at risk. This is putting another tool in the toolbox so that our farmers can catch up with their counterparts in the Eastern States and Western Australia.

It is ludicrous. This moratorium has been in place for far too long. Seed has to be transported around South Australia to reach Western Australia. It is absolutely farcical. I know that genetically modified seed has been grown in South Australia under licence. Trials have been conducted with genetically modified seed. Farmers who own land on both sides of the border can quite happily grow genetically modified canola or safflower on the Victorian side but not on the South Australian side. It is keeping us so far back on a production basis and on a research basis that it is absolutely ludicrous.

Some of those in this house or in the other place who use words like 'process' make out that they are the farmers' friend. Let's see who are the farmers' friends. Let's see who stands up in this debate this week, because this bill will sniff you out. This bill with identify the farmers' friends, because farmers just want the right to grow this. As I said, they do not have to grow it.

Some interesting things have happened over time. There was a significant court case in Western Australia that involved a crop between Kojonup and Katanning. Some friends of mine live very close to where that happened, and all was not as it seemed. There were allegations of manipulation to achieve a result. There has been some senseless carry-on in the background of this debate. We just need to get on with it. We need to move this legislation.

Yes, we have brought it in this week because the regulatory change could not happen. There is feigned outrage from the other side, especially from the member for West Torrens. He is trying to preach to our side about procedure, especially to our new team from 2018. I am not going to be lectured by the member for West Torrens, when I sat for three terms in opposition and saw what the previous government did with regard to bills that were introduced and debated without notice.

If you are going to make an argument, come in here with clean hands. The member for West Torrens does not have clean hands on this issue. I refer to a piece of legislation that was debated in this way. When the planning bill was debated in 2016, the then member for Enfield (Hon. John. Rau) introduced 300 amendments to his own legislation. You have to wonder why the previous government had 300 amendments to their own planning legislation. Yes, it was big legislation, but you would think they would have had it organised.

We were not at the introduction stage of the legislation, as we were today when we heard the feigned outrage. We were 50 clauses into the committee stage when the Hon. John Rau introduced environment and food protection areas as part of the legislation. It was outrageous. I have heard the feigned outrage from the other side in this place and how we are terrible people. If you are going to make those accusations, come in here with clean hands.

It is absolutely ridiculous. As to the Environment and Food Production Areas, I know some people may think that I, as a farmer, would think that it is a great idea, that we can slow down development so that farmers do not have the opportunity to build a second house on their property, maybe for a son or a daughter or a workman. But it actually hinders the development process, which is obviously going through the Planning and Design Code changes now under that legislation through our new minister, the member for Schubert. But it is actually a hindrance. We have enough regulatory process and enough red tape during the planning process.

I have the bizarre situation in my electorate where on one side of the river, in the Rural City of Murray Bridge, they are affected by the Environment and Food Production Area and, on the other side, with the Coorong District Council they are not. It is just absolutely bizarre. It hinders development and there is no sense in it. Yes, people can check Hansard, do their homework. At the 50^th clause in committee, that was introduced, so people should come in here with clean hands if they are going to wring their hands. It was not the only piece of legislation that has been pushed through.

For people to think this has snuck up on them out of the blue, where have they been for the last 15 years since the moratorium was put through with legislation in 2004? They must have been hiding under a rock. There have been reports, there have been committees and there has been a lot of research. Let's just get on with it and give our farmers the choice, and it is just the choice. They do not have to grow it. Get on board. Nothing has gone wrong in Victoria, nothing has gone wrong in New South Wales. We have not seen dramas in Western Australia. What the heck are we doing?

Let's get behind our farmers. For all those people in this place, or that other place somewhere else in this building, they want to have a good think about whether they are the farmer's friend. I support the legislation.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL (Mawson) (16:11): It probably will not surprise too many people that I rise to oppose the Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill 2019. It has been terrific to sit here and listen to everyone's contribution. I think we need to have a respectful discussion about this because this is not necessarily politicians versus farmers, city people versus farmers or however some people try to characterise it. There are farmers who have a particular point of view and other farmers out there who see it a different way. Some want the GM moratorium kept in place; others obviously want it lifted.

What we need to do in this place is look out for the good of all in some instances, and that is not always a very easy thing to do. But I do point out, as I have over the years, that when we look down at the carpet here and we see the wheat and the grapes it shows the important connection that this parliament has always had to the land and to farmers and food producers in South Australia.

If we look back to the late 1800s, when the phylloxera act came into being in South Australia, I think that is a great demonstration of how our parliament can work with the farming sector to ensure that we have the very best standards in Australia. I do not say that lightly because we are the only mainland state in Australia that is phylloxera free because of that legislation that was brought in in the late 1800s. Successive governments have maintained those strict controls on vines and rootstock coming into our state.

That is a pretty good claim when you are surrounded by Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia that all have phylloxera. When you look at how phylloxera devastated the European vineyards and North America back in the 1800s, it was very prudent and excellent work by the politicians of the day, working with the wine industry, to ensure that we had the right framework in place to keep phylloxera out.

We have also had outstanding success through a lot of hard work by both sides of parliament to keep fruit fly out of South Australia. We saw Victoria and New South Wales just throw their hands up basically and say, 'We cannot beat it,' yet South Australia, which sits there surrounded by these other states, has managed to remain fruit fly free.

When I was agriculture minister, we spent a lot of time building up our premium reputation around our food and wine. If we look at New Zealand and their Pure New Zealand market angle, there is no doubt that people, consumers right around the world, really go after the purest products they can get, and they are willing to pay a premium for that. When we went into department stores and food halls in Malaysia, and when we went to conferences with buyers in China, Europe and North America, we told the story.

I heard someone over here (it might have been the member for Narungga) use the phrase: 'Politicians should get out of the way and let the farmers get on with their business.' I agree with that, and that is traditionally what we have done, but when it comes to things like phylloxera and fruit fly we have worked with them to come up with the discipline and framework to keep us pure in South Australia. Being able to stand up in these places overseas and promote the fact that we are one of the few jurisdictions anywhere in the world that is fruit fly free, phylloxera free and where it is illegal to grow GM crops was a huge selling point.

I think we need to look at that when we talk about lifting the moratorium on the growing of GM crops. We have heard a lot of people talk about how it will save the planet in terms of providing more food and all these sorts of things. At the moment, the only thing that a farmer could grow in South Australia is the GM canola, which is able to be sprayed with weedkillers. We need to put it all in context. The seeds to plant what people want to lift the GM moratorium for are not out there yet, so we cannot solve all those problems and do all those things that many people in this place have argued that we can do today.

We need to keep that in the back of our minds to ensure that we do not get a bit carried away and tell the community that we can offer them something that we cannot actually offer them. As I said at the outset, this is not city people versus farmers. This is a discussion that has pitted farmers against farmers in many parts of our state and in the area that I represent, which is the western side of the Fleurieu and, of course, Kangaroo Island, which I am very grateful is being carved out and can remain a GM-free spot.

A lot of farmers on this side of Backstairs Passage want to remain in a zone or a state that is GM free. I think of people like Ben Ryan down at Deep Creek, who is doing an amazing job on his farm. I have been out to visit him, as well as Trevor Paech near Mount Compass. I have been out to talk with Tom Bradman, who is at Finniss. He is doing an amazing job with his poultry, which he only feeds GMO-free seed. They want us to keep the moratorium on the growing of GM crops in South Australia.

It is not just one side of politics versus a bunch of farmers. It is a lot more complex than that, and I think that all sides of the argument should be heard. When we look at what the agribusiness sector is worth to South Australia, first of all, it is worth a lot of jobs because one in six working South Australians is employed in the agribusiness sector. If we look at what food and wine is worth to South Australia, it is around $21 billion a year, which is an amazing boost to our economy in South Australia.

The significant input that crops provide to the $21 billion for food and wine is about $4 billion or $4.2 billion and the make-up of canola is about 5 per cent. If we look at Victoria, where they have been allowed to grow GM crops for many years now, the last rate that I saw was somewhere between an 11 to 13 per cent take-up of GM canola. So we are talking about 11 to 13 per cent of 5 per cent of $4 billion to $4.2 billion of $21 billion.

Canola farmers have put the case that, if the moratorium extends out to 2025, they estimate they will lose about $5 million over that six years. I wonder if there is a better way that we can repay those people who are missing out in a monetary sense. It might be more money for R&D or it might be more money to help bulk them up and start up the sort of cooperative we have seen on Kangaroo Island, which has undoubtedly been successful. They are getting a $60 per tonne premium on their canola.

I wonder whether something could be engineered along those lines, where we get to keep our premium high-level reputation of being the only mainland state in Australia that is fruit-fly free, phylloxera free and where it is illegal to grow GM crops, but they have a win as well in some sort of monetary sense. They could use that money to come up with some better way forward for them that does not include GM foods.

Food South Australia is an important group in South Australia. It is the independent, industry-led and membership-based organisation representing small, medium and large food manufacturing companies based in South Australia. Their submission on GM food last year stated:

South Australia currently has an excellent international reputation as a source of premium, clean, sustainably grown produce. This reputation is at significant risk if the moratorium is lifted. Therefore, specific measures need to be taken in close consultation with industry to reduce or negate any reputational risk that could occur if the moratorium is lifted.

I am not sure if any of that discussion has happened. They go on to say:

A rigorous and comprehensive cost benefit analysis is required to examine this issue. In addition, any plans to manage identified reputational or market access issues must be fully developed, in place, and shown to be effective before the moratorium is lifted.

Again, I am not sure whether any of that work has been done. They continue:

It is essential that the current state export growth focus should be considered in this process. There is a current trade focus on export growth for the food and beverage industry targeting China, Japan, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Food South Australia believes further and more detailed analysis of these priority market opportunities, and evaluation of the potential barrier to market entry (or otherwise) that lifting the moratorium may represent, is required.

People have said in here that it is proven there is no premium for non-GM canola. Kangaroo Island would dispute that. But we are not just talking about the premium on canola. We are talking about the premium that is available today and into the future if the moratorium remains in place for all our food producers and food manufacturers. We are talking about not just the people who grow a primary product and sell it but those in our community, whether it be a small business, a medium-sized business or a large business, who value add to that raw ingredient.

Those people are providing our state with lots of jobs, and many of them are getting a premium for what they are producing because, guess what, people around the world really want to get their hands on the cleanest and best food they possibly can. It is not just me saying that. A University of Adelaide study a few years ago pointed out that it was the fastest growing segment in North America, Japan, China and Europe, so why would we walk away from the biggest growth area in food consumers around the world at a time when that is the very area that is growing at the fastest rate?

As I said at the outset, I have travelled and spoken to people in the marketplace. I was with the Viterra people in Rotterdam a few years ago and they said that they were seeing a big increase in demand in Europe and North America for non-GM foods. I spoke with Ivan Glasenberg, who is the CEO of Glencore, which is one of the biggest companies in the world. It owns most of the logistics framework in South Australia for getting grain. We had an amazing hour sitting down in Zurich and chatting about what the possibilities were. He was not against them working with our grain growers here to come up with a marketing tool that could label South Australian grain from this wonderful part of the world as being GM-free. Just like New Zealand has done with its Pure New Zealand, we could, through marketing, add to the price that we could get.

I wonder whether that has been followed up enough. We tried to do it after that meeting. We understand that there are a lot of steps in the process between a farmer growing their crop and that crop meeting the market, including through the logistics sectors, and then you have to get it to export, get it shipped overseas and into market. I know it is not that easy, but I just wonder whether we could add a lot of value to our crops here in South Australia by working with the chain to see whether we can have our grain promoted and put into a marketplace that would get a premium for all those things.

It is not just about the premium we get for our canola: it is about the premium we get for everything that we offer up in South Australia. I spoke to Maurice Crotti last week, a great South Australian and the CEO and family owner of San Remo, and he is very keen for us to continue having the GM moratorium in South Australia. They have an amazing set-up at Windsor Gardens, as well as four factories in Italy and another one in Thailand. I would say that when Australians are selling more pasta to Italians than I think any Italian producers are you have to give this family a big tick for the way they go about their business.

Angelo Kotses has Bickfords and Beresford Wines. Again, I have spent a fair bit of time with Angelo, and he does great things. He is always about the premium. I know that the minister in his own electorate has the Twenty Third Street Distillery just outside Renmark. Angelo and his family could have bulldozed that whole building, but he wanted to redo it because he knows the importance of that building to the town.

He has also built a wonderful Beresford cellar door in McLaren Vale, and he has just bought some land on Kangaroo Island at Kingscote to do a premium upgrade over there, which is really important. Angelo is all about premium, and he is the sort of person who invests in a business not just for him but for his kids and his grandkids. He really is a long-game player, and he believes that we should keep this moratorium in place for our children, for their children and for their grandchildren. Sam Tucker from Tucker's Natural, another producer in South Australia, makes amazing crackers that are sold all around the world.

These are people I have stood side by side with in China at food fairs where we are telling the Chinese our wonderful story about South Australia and the great heritage we have here of the government working closely with industry to make sure that that reputation is absolutely at the top level. As fate would have it, I bumped into and had a bit of a chat last night at the cricket with some of the Grain Producers SA people.

I was there with Caroline, Wade and Adrian, and we had a good discussion. We had about three hours together. We did not agree, just as we have not agreed over the past three, five or 10 years but, as I said on radio yesterday, I think this needs to be a respectful discussion. There are many points of view. It is not about putting anyone else down: it is absolutely about making sure that we do the right thing by the people of South Australia. We have a really important job. There are only 47 of us in here and 22 in the other place, and we have a really important job to do when we come into this place.

We need to make sure that we do the very best we can for all South Australia and for all that is produced in South Australia and not just take out one slither of a sector to look after them. As I pointed out before, we have the grain and the grapes in the carpet—there is no other industry represented on the floor of this house—as well as in the stained glass windows at the back of the chamber. That tie is really important. We are going to have differences across the political divide and across the farming communities and everything else, and I think what we need to do is to make the very best decisions for the whole.

I also want to comment on the media coverage of this matter over the past couple of weeks. It has been pretty narrow. I do not think they have really gone out to look at all the different views. They have made it more about city politicians versus farmers, and farmers are all collected into one—farmers are all farmers, so they are all pro GM—which we know is not the case. It took me back to a time when I worked in the media in the early 1990s.

One of the big discussions then was about the introduction of poker machines. As a member of the media, as a journo, we were telling people that story, too: 'If we don't bring in poker machines here, South Australians are just going to go to Melbourne, the Gold Coast or Broken Hill to play the pokies.' I am not sure that would have happened, but I reckon we got sucked in by that argument a little bit without thinking things through what other repercussions that legislation might have had on the people of South Australia.

I urge everyone to think not just about the canola farmers—and we must care about them and help them—but about all farmers and all food producers in South Australia who are part of this $21 billion industry, which employs one in six working South Australians, because it is a really important sector and it is one that needs our support and protection. Reputation is everything. If we lift the lid on our GM moratorium just to be like New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia, Victoria and the other mainland states, then we are doing ourselves a disservice. We will join in a race to the bottom to be like everyone else.

I remember a time when we were proud of the differences we had in South Australia, such as 40 years of being the only state in Australia with a container deposit scheme, when people were refunded 5¢ or 10¢. I like the fact that we stand apart from the rest of Australia. If this bill gets through, the only person I know who will be more pleased than the Liberal Party in South Australia is my good mate Will Hodgman, the Liberal Premier in Tasmania—because he wants to get around and say that he is the Premier of the only state in Australia that is GM free, phylloxera free and fruit fly free. We still have that reputation. If this bill gets through, we take one of those amazing attributes out of our selling point.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (16:32): I am very glad to take the opportunity to rise briefly in support of the bill. I have listened carefully to the debate and the merits of it, and I will come in a moment to the relative urgency of the introduction of the bill and the lifting of the moratorium.

In a short contribution, I want to stress that the agenda of this government is very focused on the merits of the debate. In this case, that means taking on board the science, having gone through a rigorous process of assessment over a period of time to consider the outcome of that assessment and then to respond on the merits with a view to the productivity improvements that will come with responding to the science.

We have already heard from someone eminently more qualified than I am, that is, the member for Newland in his reflections on the importance of adopting an evidence-based, science-based approach in taking these steps towards improvement. I very much endorse the contribution of the member for Newland in reflecting on that important set of criteria that really should guide us as we look responsibly to legislate.

As the member for Mawson observed, indeed there are just 47 of us in this house and we have a responsibility to legislate on behalf of all South Australians. It is my firm view that we need to do so in the light of the evidence based on the science and then to make the right decision in the light of all the available knowledge. It is not and nor should it be in any way an occasion for some sort of populist or knee-jerk response—good this way, bad that way—or some opportunity to be in any way alarmist. On the contrary, this is about implementing incremental improvement based on the science and the evidence.

One aspect that I really want to emphasise, because I talk about this a lot in my community in the Adelaide Hills, is that we talk a lot about the urgency to act in relation to climate change. Much is said about the complexity of what we face in relation to climate challenges. I think it is relevant in this space to reflect on what we are actually doing that is outcome driven in response to climate challenges. Again, I wholeheartedly endorse what the member for Newland had to say in this regard.

We know that by the application of the latest technology we have the prospect of being able to produce food products with less inputs—less water used, less pesticides used, less diesel fuel used in terms of the application of those inputs—and at the same time the prospect of a greater level of productivity to come from those inputs. Where those improvements are available and the science backs it up, we should take steps to allow that to proceed.

What we must be about in legislating in this space is acting on science with a view to enabling a confident and curious environment for those who would innovate and one in which, where there is a problem, we have an appetite for solving it, for making a change and for moving on for the better. Yes, that may be incremental. As the member for Flinders has observed, there have been incremental improvements in both the way we manage agricultural land and the agricultural products that are grown on them. Those improvements have been taking place over decades, if not centuries.

It would be entirely perverse if we were to decide somehow that we are no longer interested in problem solving in this space, that we are no longer interested in science-based improvements in productivity, but rather that somehow we are motivated by some sort of fear of the future and, even worse, some sort of preoccupation with virtue signalling or with sending messages that are based on nothing more than a banner or a slogan, as opposed to the substance. We need to be practical and we need to be innovative and we should very much continue along that path.

Can I say even more explicitly than that that there has been reference in the debate to the clean, green reputation that the state enjoys and that we should do all we can to enhance that clean, green reputation. While I respect that there may be genuinely held views that differ across the board, in my view it is entirely consistent with a clean and green state and a clean and green outlook for us to embrace the science and the technology in improving in this way. I do not know what part of the pollution-filled environment that we see in lots of areas to our north has to offer that is somehow better than what we have here. Clearly, we have a clean and green environment. We should celebrate that and the lifting of the moratorium will be entirely consistent with it.

In the context in which this bill is brought before the parliament, there has been some noise, particularly on the other side, about the urgency with which this debate has been brought on today in this place. Because there has been some protest about the urgency of the debate, I want to note that this debate does not occur somehow in a hypothetical vacuum. We are late in the calendar year and we are heading towards a growing season in the early part of next year.

Farmers need to make decisions about what crops they will sow and, before they do that, they will need to make seed orders and get themselves organised ahead of the new year. It is for that reason that these changes were first introduced by regulation, and in my view properly so. Again, there has been some protest about a change of this nature being made by way of regulation rather than by substantive legislation.

The minister—in my view, entirely appropriately—has at the first available opportunity said, 'Alright, you want to have a substantive debate on a topic that is known not only because it has been researched for a long period of time and has been thoroughly aired in the community, whose views are very well known, but because it has been the subject of regulation until it was disallowed. At the first opportunity, we will come back and bring in substantive legislation and debate it as efficiently as we can with a view to getting on and ensuring that we legislate as quickly as we can to permit the growing season ahead to go ahead in circumstances where the moratorium is lifted.'

I say to those who might appeal to the usual process and who talk about how this has come on too quickly, and about the fact that the niceties have not been observed and so on, that there are people out in the community, real farmers, real members of our state, who have real business to get on with in the new year. Frankly, they do not care too much about the niceties of the parliamentary process where the substance is behind the change. If it is necessary to do something in order to achieve a better outcome, they expect us to get on and do it. This is now occurring in circumstances where there is no time to waste and we should get on with it. I commend the bill and its hasty passage through both houses of this parliament.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Frome) (16:44): Firstly, I would just like to talk on this matter. There has been a lot of discussion today from both sides. When the regulations were disallowed last week, I said to the minister that I thought this may not have been brought up in the parliament again until the new year; however, it is here today. I have been making some phone calls today to my community to ascertain whether there are any concerns with the lifting of the moratorium. I have had six phone calls today from people who thought the moratorium was still in place. Of course, a few of the regulations the minister was trying to put through last week were overturned.

These six people were very agitated at the thought they were not going to have the choice of whether to grow GM crops, etc. I assured them that the minister had today reintroduced a bill into the parliament for us to debate here in this chamber, and they were much more relaxed about having the opportunity for the discussion to go on. They indicated to me that they would like to see the moratorium lifted. During the discussions I have had with various people over the last 12 months, only three people have come forward asking for the moratorium to stay in place.

I know that members on both sides have their views, but I live in an area where there is mixed farming. There are grapes, barley, wheat and also canola. When I was talking to the minister this morning, my concerns were with the grapegrowers association, particularly in the Clare Valley, and whether there is any risk there. The minister has given me a very good commitment that he has had discussions with the grapegrowers association, the peak body, and they did not have any concerns regarding the moratorium being lifted and people in the Clare Valley, in particular, having the opportunity to be able to grow the crops that they are looking for.

Farmers out there are no fools. They look at every opportunity scientifically. We have to make a decision on whether or not we support this proposal from the minister. I think farmers have to have the opportunity to grow the crops that they choose and, at the same time, we have to be very mindful of the return that they will get for their produce across the whole of the region. I heard that farmers were achieving a premium for GM-free crops across the region. This has been disputed on many occasions by farmers saying to me that they do not achieve any premiums on them.

I am a little bit disappointed in the time frame. I have had a discussion with the minister and the Government Whip, because I was only told on the way to Adelaide at 3.30pm yesterday that this bill was going to be introduced and that there would be a suspension of standing orders. I would have thought that the protocol would be to allow for this bill to sit on the table for a period of time for members to consider and liaise on it. That is not the case and we have it before us today. I am happy to listen to all the debates, but I would certainly be looking for the speedy passage of this bill through the parliament. I will be listening very clearly and intently at the committee stage.

As I said, I had only three people in the last 12 months asking for the moratorium to stay in place and I had six people today asking for it to be lifted. That gives me an indication that my community in the electorate of Frome, particularly in the Georgetown and Clare Valley areas, are looking for an opportunity to choose the crops they would like to grow, whether they are GM free or whether they are GM crops. I certainly look forward to the speedy passage of the bill through the parliament.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (16:49): I rise on behalf of the people of Stuart to support the Minister for Primary Industries and, of course, our government team with regard to this bill. A little has been mentioned about the timing of this bill. I can certainly understand the discomfort of members with a bill being tabled and debated very quickly under normal circumstances, but these are not normal circumstances. Every member of parliament has had weeks within parliament, and in fact months and years outside of parliament, to determine a position on this issue.

It was put to us very clearly in the previous sitting week that some members who voted against the change in regulations might have chosen a different position if they had the opportunity to do so with regard to the consideration of a bill. With that in mind, the minister and our government have given them a bill to consider. Under the circumstances, I am quite confident that every member in here and every member in the Legislative Council has already considered this issue very thoroughly.

As such, it does not actually take any more time for any of them to consider the bill. The bill essentially does exactly what the regulations would have done. I do not accept any argument that this is being pushed through without due consultation or without due opportunity for people to consider their positions or to do their research, because they have actually already done all that.

I have not heard one person in this place express any equivocation about their position on the debate of this bill. This includes the member for Frome, who was good enough to share with us that, overwhelmingly, the people in his electorate who have contacted him have done so in favour of removing the moratorium. I also listened closely to the member for Mawson, and I appreciated the way he went about putting his thoughts together. The member's position on this area of work is well known. It is not my position, but I think he did a good job in trying to express his concerns.

An area where I differ with the member for Mawson is comparing the removal of a ban on GM—or allowing GM—to phylloxera, foot-and-mouth or a similar disease. Yes, of course, as he said, we need to do everything we possibly can to protect our state from incursions of those diseases and many other things from which South Australian agriculture is, thankfully, relatively free at the moment. However, genetically modified seed is not a disease. It is not as if, if you plant it, it suddenly takes over and destroys all the crops all over the place.

There is a situation, as we speak, on the border between South Australia and Victoria. The border, which we happily have in South Australia, is literally just a farmer's fence between two paddocks. On one side, the crops are GM free, and on the other side there are GM crops. That is as distinct a border as we have needed until now, so there is no reason why that exact type of border could not exist within a state. There could be a farmer on one side of the fence with a GM-free crop and a farmer on the other side of the fence with a GM crop.

Here is the crux of the debate for me: removing a moratorium is not the same as making everybody plant GM crops. We are going to remove a ban; we are not going to force anyone to do it. That is a very important distinction. I will put myself, as best I can, in the mindset of growers who believe that there is a price premium—or, if not a price premium, then a consumer preference for their product at a similar price—because it is GM free. That is fantastic; good luck to them.

It might actually be that those growers are significantly advantaged by the removal of the ban. It might mean that if they are right, as they believe they are—who better to judge their own business or the wants of their customers?—then they will become part of a smaller, more select and presumably more highly sought after group of growers.

They may or may not be able to attract higher prices but, as is put to us, even at the same price they might just be a preferred producer to a market that wants GM free. Fantastic! If there are fewer of them there, if they believe it is true that somebody on one side of the fence in South Australia can do better than a grower on the other side of the fence in Victoria, then let them continue to be the grower on one side of the fence with a GM free crop within South Australia and let them continue to do better than the other farmer on the other side of the fence within South Australia with a different crop.

I also believe in the basic premise that no-one as yet, after decades in fact, has come up with any evidence to say that there is a problem with GM crops. I accept that it is a step that needs to be taken cautiously. I accept that you do not jump from one side of the fence to another willy-nilly, but the research is that this is new, better, more modern technology. It is available to us in South Australia, if this bill passes the parliament, for canola only at this stage. I would expect, like everybody else, that if this passes and it is available for canola in the new year then in subsequent years it would become available for other seeds, other crops and other opportunities over time.

In my mind, let that be the case and over time let the grower who in five, 10, 15, 50 years' time may still prefer to grow a GM-free crop do so. Let that person do so, if they believe there is a market for them. They might have an ethical preference, they might be doing it because it is an input into another organic product, perhaps as a feed or something like that. Let them do it. Removing a ban does not force anyone to grow a GM crop. It just gives the opportunity for those who would like to grow a GM crop to do so. In these years of very low rainfall and other climatic challenges, in my mind we absolutely could not withhold any longer this opportunity from growers who want to take it up and we certainly will not be forcing it on growers who do not want to take it up ever.