Bills

Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (16:59): This is, of course, the bill the government should have introduced some time ago if they had wanted a proper debate about changes to the moratorium on genetically modified crops. Instead, a few months ago they proceeded with a regulation that was eventually disallowed in the other place last week. The government claim this was playing politics, but I disagree. Today's manoeuvres or tactics are the continuation of a worrying trend of dangerous disrespect for parliamentary processes and tradition.

Instead of proceeding with the parliamentary agenda before us, which includes important legislation on bushfires, our health system and the corruption watchdog, the government have chosen to use their parliamentary numbers to suspend standing orders today and push a debate through this chamber. In my view, this is an abuse of the democratic system and considerably less than I was expecting of the new government. They have to understand two wrongs really do not make a right. The brutal fact is that this government again choose to reinforce they have the numbers, and that the action is really all in the other place.

That said, we need to concentrate on the bill before us, which is about genetically modified crops. Twenty-two years ago, when I was first elected, very little was known or clear about the impacts of the genetic modification of crops. Given this, the proposal for a moratorium seemed to be a reasonable approach and was adopted widely across the nation. Since that time, much more scientific evidence has emerged, although it is fair to say the issue remains controversial among the public, among consumers and among some in the farming community.

Of course, with the pace at which this bill is now pursued and because it seemed destined for examination in the new year, I am unable to engage with my constituents, peak bodies, scientists or others in order to fully inform myself of the merits of the government's proposed changes to the moratorium. I have received two representations from electors in Florey, a Ms Harris of Pooraka and a Mr Barlow of Valley View. Both seem very well informed, and they object to any change to the moratorium. I thank them for taking the time to contact me on this issue.

I also received a representation from a group called SAGFIN, with which I have been associated for almost the entire 22 years of my parliamentary career. This group was formed at the very beginning of the GM debate, and they are the same scientifically minded people. I do not know whether they are necessarily farmers, but they are engaged with the farming community. They still maintain the same position; that is, they are very cautious about the relaxing of the moratorium.

They and other constituents in my electorate will look upon what is happening in this chamber today and wonder whether this government respects their voice or their votes. Does democracy happen every day or just once every four years? This has been a theme for me in the year of the quasquicentenary because, unfortunately, we feel disenfranchised. Even though we have a participatory democratic system, it does not seem we are encouraged to be part of it.

My electors and many people across the state who have made submissions to the select committee in the other place must wonder what the point was of engaging in the democratic process when the government can act to make such a significant change when and if it thinks fit. It will be up to me, not the Premier or the minister, to explain to Ms Harris and Mr Barlow why the concerns they and others have raised were dismissed without a proper, informed parliamentary debate. We rush through the debate on this matter at our peril. The precedent it sets is very worrying.

There are many arguments for and against the moratorium. Indeed, if I were allowed the time to acquaint myself with more of this information, you may well have persuaded me outright of the merits of the change. But now I feel I have little choice—despite the numbers and despite the body of evidence over time—but to oppose the bill, a bill that has been brought forward as a result of political miscalculation and a lack of respect for the parliament and its long-established processes.

It is known full well regulations are subject to disallowance, and just as well. This could have been an inherent risk in adopting the approach you adopted last week. I see no reason to rush this legislation through today. We do have an optional week at our disposal, and many have felt it would have been proper to have used it. The sitting calendar for next year is out, and it is clear you can schedule and likely complete a debate on this bill in February, notwithstanding the time constraints on seeding and the other issues that have been brought to our attention this morning. As we all know, you will remake your regulation next week once the parliament is not sitting.

What is the result of all this? It means a delay to debating and passing laws that will support our firefighters and emergency workers in the bushfire season that has already started. It means a delay to debating important governance legislation for a healthcare system that is seeing a continuing and ongoing ambulance ramping crisis. It means a delay to finalising the ICAC legislation, which this government once considered an urgent priority.

It also means the government can divert attention from the extraordinary report of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption into corruption, misconduct and maladministration in the health portfolio, a report that should keep people awake at night and deserves a thorough and timely debate in this house.

It has not been possible for me to attend a briefing today, not because I did not want to but because I cannot change everything I do with 10 minutes' warning. The government should, of course, be wary of ignoring the long-established practices and procedures of this parliament.

In past weeks, especially on the land tax debate, we saw filibustering and guillotining employed as tactics in this parliament—an unfortunate precedent that will have ripple effects for the remainder of this parliamentary term. Both are torturous, but one is actually fatal. If this government continues to treat this parliament with the contempt we have seen in recent weeks, it will sadly have very severe consequences.

Rushing this bill through may seem useful and not harmful in any way. You may believe that after the torturous debate on land tax, which ended in what would generously be described as a stalemate, this bill gives you another chance to end the year with a hasty 'win', but at what cost? Do not take voters for granted. They are watching, and if you think their memories are short you are making a big mistake—a very big mistake.

Democracy is degraded by this kind of behaviour. At a time when trust in politicians is at an all-time low, I can only express my profound disappointment about the deliberate choice you have taken with this bill. People care about democracy being seen to be in play and a tool they believe they have some control over. They do remember what is going on and they are very certainly watching.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE (Chaffey—Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development) (17:06): Thank you to those members who have made a contribution. I think that the majority of the contributions have been valuable and that everyone has sat and respectfully listened to each member's version of the story. Some of it is backed up by fact and some of it is really backed up by ideology. Sadly, some of that ideology has been the handbrake that has continued to see the moratorium restrict our grain sector. By and large, it is not just the grain sector.

We can look further afield at what this moratorium has meant for advancement, particularly in R&D and money coming into South Australia's research programs. We can look not far from here at the Waite Institute, which we know full well is probably one of the most respected research stations on the globe. By and large, it is definitely the best and most significant research station in the Southern Hemisphere.

The amount of lock-up of R&D programs that has affected not only Waite but Roseworthy and some of our other research stations around the state has again seen that we are overlooked, whether it is the grains industry through the GRDC or the AGT. These are class research businesses that are advancing grains research like no other area that I know of. It really is ironic that here in South Australia we can go into a supermarket and buy GM products.

We can look further afield. We can feed our livestock with GM products, yet we cannot grow GM product here in South Australia under the current legislation. I am concerned that we have that ideology that continues to begrudge our grain industry's advancement. It begrudges a grain grower's capacity to have choice. This morning, I listened to the member for Hughes, the shadow spokesperson. With respect, he has not stated his view. It is very well documented that the member for Mawson is opposed to the lifting of the moratorium.

Privately, the shadow spokesperson has said that he supports lifting the moratorium, yet he has party room machinations that he has to work against and he is not able to express his view. That is fair enough, but his contribution this morning was more about everything else bar GM. We talked about the reform within the fishing industry that was never funded. We talked about the stock assessment that was defunded, we talked about the snapper stocks that are decimated in South Australia, particularly in our gulfs, which we know are the nursery of the snapper stocks, and we talked about drought.

We have put in enabling pieces of infrastructure to help with those who are impacted by drought. We have worked with the Coalition to work our way through those who are impacted by the harsh climatic conditions, and whether you want to call it climate change, whether you want to call it climate variability, it is much of a muchness: it is all about dealing with today's climate, the changing climate, and that is what farmers do so well. They work with a variable climate every year, because no one year is the same as the previous year, or as we know as the following year. It really is important that we have this constructive debate.

I have already mentioned the research and development dollars that South Australia continues to miss out on because those organisations that have significant industry backing, commonwealth government backing, continue to point the finger at states that are prepared to adopt and prepared to advance their industries. Here in South Australia we look at those industries as our largest stable, our largest foundation, and the only way that we are going to produce more with less is to use the advancement of technology. Of course, there is the opportunity to use that technology to help grow more food, to use less chemical and at the same time to deal with the variable climate, to deal with climate change, and if we do not do that we continue to deny our grain growers, our farmers, that opportunity.

I will talk about choice a little later. Again, the ideology is probably one of the things that frustrates me the most. As I said, I have listened to the debate respectfully. We have had two contributions from the opposition, which is very, very disappointing. Those two contributions are, obviously, diametrically opposed. The opposition is in turmoil because its party room has not really come to a firm position. We know that, but what I can say is that if we continue to use the process as an excuse that really is just the weakest link in this debate.

We have seen the process through the introduction of regulation, and my statutory obligation was adhered to: the six-week consultation process; the public meetings; we have had the select committee; and we have had the independent review, and it is compelling that the moratorium has been a handbrake. We have had some talk about it being only just a mega two and a bit million dollars a year since this has been implemented, but the two and a bit million dollars is the economic bottom line. We do not see the opportunities that have been missed.

We do not see, as I said, the research programs which could be coming to South Australia and which are overlooked for the states that are looking to be more progressive. When I was speaking with the CEO of GRDC, he was dismayed when I asked him, 'What is the barrier for you to bring more research money into South Australia? He said, 'Well, the underlying factor is the moratorium,' because that moratorium is an indicator that we are not prepared to adopt advancement, and it is sad that we continue to use that ideology.

Respectfully, the member for Mawson did point to the carpet a couple of times, and he talked about the wheat and he talked about the vineyards, but he mostly talked about biosecurity. I accept that. Biosecurity is of paramount importance. He would understand, as I understand, that biosecurity should never have the bar lowered in any circumstance.

Under a previous Labor minister, we saw the very real threat of the reduction of our biosecurity border forces. They were going to reduce the hours worked. They were going to close the station after hours. That was absurd. The then minister's ability to continue that 24/7 border operation was critically important. Yes, biosecurity is a threat to South Australia's reputation, but GM is not about biosecurity. GM is about advancing plant genomics. It is about using the ability to use those R&D programs that take decades to get through. The regulation that they go through and the scrutiny they are presented with certainly know no bounds nor are they a threat to GM.

The wine industry is the other staple on the carpet. At the moment, we are looking at the modification in the wine industry, particularly with genetics, because we are looking to breed vines that are mildew resistant, whether it be powdery mildew or downy mildew. That would be a game changer in today's grapegrowing sector or more so in the wine industry. Of course, we cannot forget the table grape industry and we cannot forget a number of foods that are affected by powdery mildew or downy mildew. Again, that is an example of the advancement of gene altering.

The majority of today's vineyards are now seeing rootstocks planted, and those rootstocks are planted for very good reason—that is, dealing with climate variability and dealing with a hotter climate. It is also dealing with the staple varieties that have been built on a reputation that no other country on the planet has. The uniqueness of our climate gives us the characteristics of an industry that is continuing to grow and continuing to present to the globe as a producer of one of the most premium products in the marketplace.

To do that we have to have the ability for commercialisation within that sector, and that is happening as we speak. The advancement of the wine industry is profound. We see now that South Australia is a leader in that industry for not only quality and quantity but for looking further afield for advancement. In my previous travels to the US, I visited UC Davis and Gallo's research farm. Some of the work they are doing is instrumental for advancement in the grape sector.

What really caught my attention is that Australians are advancing that technology, Australians are heading up those programs over there and Australians are leading—leading professors, leading agronomists, leading experts in their field. It is as much advancing the reliability of our vineyards as it is dealing with climate change. We know that climate is varying and affecting our vineyards. We know that we are seeing earlier ripening, which does not allow for a lot of our vineyards to develop the flavours they once did. Those flavours give South Australia the reputation for being one of the premium grapegrowing sectors on the globe. So we need to debunk the fact that GM is not a biosecurity threat.

We can talk about some of the iconic food brands here in South Australia. San Remo—owned and operated by the Crotti family—is an outstanding success story. Their durum wheat, converted into products not only here in South Australia but globally, has been under siege this year. We know that durum wheat has copped a hit, particularly with the drought. It has also copped a hit with the bushfires. Morris Crotti said he is going to have to look further afield for his durum wheat. So what are we going to do to help him secure that supply of grain for advancement in his business?

We talked about Angelo Kotses, a great South Australian entrepreneur. I have met with Angelo many times. Over a glass of Twenty Third Street gin, we talked about the perception of risk that the GM technology would pose to his business. He has not actually given me a reason to suggest that the GM technology introduced here in South Australia would really affect his business. It is an unknown of the unknown. That is exactly what I put to him. I spoke to him yesterday because he again wanted to have a conversation about the introduction of this bill to amend the moratorium on GM.

If we look across to New Zealand, they probably have one of the better reputations on the planet for their 100 per cent pure. The silver fern is their marketing arm. What we are seeing now is a letter from 150 young professors and scientists in New Zealand calling for the lifting of the moratorium for countries that are now being constrained by that very moratorium, particularly on GM crops. It is about advancement, it is about having the ability to use the tools to grow more—whether it is grain—and the advancement will see other products that can use that GM technology.

In relation to our livestock industry, we cannot grow GM products here in South Australia, but we can feed our livestock GM products. We can feed them cottonseed meal, we can feed them soybean, but we cannot grow it in South Australia. It really does beggar belief that there is this ideology that we can feed our animals GM products but we cannot grow it. We allow someone else to grow the feed for our animals—go figure. Again, that is the ideology that I think is confounding.

The member for Mawson suggested, with R&D funding, that there should be a compensation-type package for those who are impacted. Why? Why would we put a compensation package together when all we are looking to do is give our farmers and grain growers a choice? For those who want to remain on Fleurieu Peninsula, for those who want to remain anywhere in South Australia, they still have the ability to do that. They still have the ability to grow a GM-free product.

For me, my family farm is cereal standing crop and livestock forever. As a 30-year irrigator in the Riverland, I was a conventional farmer. Unashamedly, I would say that I was a very highly productive conventional farmer, but I also respected my neighbours. My neighbours were organic farmers. One was organic and one was certified NASAA organic. We respected one another's farm practices and we also responded to needs. We had open dialogue, understanding that, if we felt there was any form of pressure or risk involved with administering management protocols, picking or that type of thing, there was never an issue. It is just as we see with the wine industry and the grain industry working with the Mesonet wet weather stations.

The myth that needs to be dumped is about contamination. The segregation has proven extremely successful in all other mainland states. It has proven successful right around the world. It is a furphy that, when the wind blows, there is cross-contamination and that it is going to impact a crop. That is nonsense. The science has debunked that over and over again. There is an ability for coexistence. There is an ability for this moratorium to be lifted so that it gives our farmers the choice.

As the member for Mawson rightfully said, this is not about them and us, this is about understanding what the moratorium means to South Australia. The independent review has made it very clear that, economically, we are missing out on opportunity. It showed that there is no financial gain here in South Australia to have the GM moratorium.

If we go back less than a week ago to last Friday, after the disallowance motion was supported, I went to the grain market to look around the country and compare what was going on in the marketplace. I am talking about a comparative—eggs with eggs, apples with apples. In Western Australia, they returned a $60 premium over South Australia; in New South Wales, a $30 premium; and in Victoria a $10 premium. Why is that? That is legitimate. Go on the website and have a look at it. It shows that South Australia has been constrained by this ideology that a GM moratorium is helping.

I met with the four Japanese businesses that buy grain from KI Pure Grain on Kangaroo Island. Out of respect, they wrote me a letter to thank me for hosting them and for being open and transparent. I said to them that, if I had my way, the moratorium on Kangaroo Island would remain and I would give the choice to mainland South Australia. The choice would mean that, if you went to a South Australian mainland grower and wanted to buy a product from him, he has the choice to not grow GM canola or he has the choice not to grow a GM product.

They respectfully thanked me and said that they would now continue with certainty to buy their product from Kangaroo Island and, should they seek further product from the mainland, they would do business in the way most importers and businesspeople do business: they negotiate. They go to the negotiating table and say what sort of product they want, and they will get that product.

Under the 15 years of moratorium, it is very clear that the primary sector has been the loser. For many years, we have heard the grain growers—the majority of grain growers, not every one of them—call for the moratorium to be lifted. That is exactly the point of this bill: it is not saying that everyone has to grow a GM product and it is not saying that every farmer has to be under that GM banner; it is about giving our farmers the opportunity to be diverse, it is giving them the tools they need and it is giving our farming sector the opportunity to grow in those conditions.

I will touch on climate change and on the inputs. Under the moratorium in South Australia we continue to put on more chemical than the average GM grain grower. We put on more insecticide because, as we know, the GM canola is more resistant to insect damage. If we look at what farmers are about to remain globally competitive, we have to reduce our inputs and we have to increase our productivity. To do that, we need those tools, and those tools are about giving farmers the capacity to plant the seed they deem necessary, particularly in a rotation.

The reason this bill has been brought to the house in a speedy way is to give some certainty to our grain growers. Our grain growers deserve that certainty. As I have said to a number of people, you do not just go and order a truckload of grain and expect it to turn up, plant it and get on with it; you need the equipment that is calibrated to suit. We also look at the conditions that we are dealing with. Currently, if we look around the state, parts of South Australia are in their third year of no rain or their third year of well below average rain. What would it be to give farmers that opportunity to have a dry start? What would it be to give them that opportunity to potentially have a make or break crop?

As the crop progresses, we get to that August or October period when we are frost prone, and this year we saw a lot of the standing crop decimated by frost. I am not saying that GM canola is frost resistant, but there are characteristics in some of those GM canola seed types that are more tolerant to frost. When I say tolerant to frost, I am talking about 1° or maybe 2°. That 1° or 2° can make or break a crop. We know that. If the stem of that plant freezes and it burns the emerging seed component in that plant, it is done and they have missed that crop and that opportunity. That opportunity could have been there if the moratorium had been lifted.

In closing, I have been overwhelmed by the support within my electorate of Chaffey. I live in marginal grain growing country and those farmers are doing a remarkable job in growing grain that once upon a time would have never even emerged. When we had a full till, once upon a time we saw the paddocks blowing across the highways. There would be graders grading bitumen roads. Right across the state, we have seen advancement in grain growing.

What we see now, in dealing with that more marginal country and dealing with low rainfall country, is that they need every tool in the toolbox to help them achieve a crop. They need every tool in the toolbox to deal with adversity, with weather—changing weather, variable weather, climate change, call it what you want. It is there for the advancement of the grains industry. The grains industry is the largest commodity sector here in South Australia. It is our largest export industry here in South Australia. Lifting the moratorium gives us the capacity to be part of a bigger industry, a growing industry, and give our farmers the choice.

I would like to think that the parliament will support the lifting of the moratorium. It is win-win for South Australia: it is a win for the farmers and it is a win for the grain growers. It should not be about politicians dictating what our farmers can and cannot do. It is giving them the responsibility and it is giving them the tools to advance our grain industry, to deal with climate change, to reduce inputs and to increase productivity. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE (Chaffey—Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development) (17:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (17:33): I seek to make a brief address at the third reading stage in regard to the Labor Party's position on this bill, which has already been indicated by previous members. I think it is important to get on the record my view as the leader of our party. I have been rather disappointed, and I suspect a lot of people around the state may have been disappointed, over the course of this exercise being undertaken today. To understand that in its entirety, it is worthwhile reflecting upon how we got to this point.

The government is well and truly within its rights to undertake an exercise that reviews a policy position that the state has or a legislative regime that the state has at any given time. That is clearly within the purview of government. They undertook an exercise to do that by conducting a review into the GM ban and the moratorium through a process that did hear public submissions. There are reservations around some of the way in which that review was undertaken but, nevertheless, it was a process that was undertaken by this government. That manifested into a proposed regulatory change on behalf of the government. Therein lies where some of the concerns start.

The idea that we would have a law that applies to the land but then, through a regulatory process, would exempt the entirety of mainland South Australia from the law of the land is unorthodox at best. It seems to the opposition—and, I think, to most reasonable observers—that it would be an extraordinary proposition to seek to use a mechanism within a piece of legislation to exempt the entirety of mainland South Australia and leave Kangaroo Island on its own, in terms of undermining the objects of the bill.

That is an unorthodox process at best; at worst, it is irresponsible. For those reasons, the opposition decided to vote in favour of the disallowance, as the minister referred to in his previous remarks. I appreciate and understand that some people in South Australia would be disappointed by that. Some people, quite reasonably in their own view, have made a determination that lifting a moratorium would be in their material interest, particularly broadacre farmers who would seek to obtain access to GM canola.

The problem, however, is that this is an incredibly blunt instrument that has been imposed upon the entirety of the state through a regulatory process, as distinct from a legislative one. It deprives them of their legitimate ability to pursue partaking in a growing exercise, or potentially a manufacturing exercise, and certainly a marketing exercise, that sees them and their businesses reap a benefit from the state's GM-free status.

Well-known businesses in our state—and indeed the minister referred to them in his earlier remarks—such as San Remo have made representations to the opposition, including to me directly, that they are in favour of the retention of the moratorium so that they can produce and market their product as GM free. They see that as providing a value to their business and that it will allow them to see a premium around their product on an ongoing basis and employ people as a consequence. That is a legitimate concern. They are legitimate businesses undertaking a legitimate activity and employing people in our state. I think we would collectively like to see more of this.

The opposition takes the view that to try to accommodate the concerns of one group at the expense of the concerns of many others is not necessarily the best way to go, particularly through a regulatory process that we would characterise—and I do not mean this in a belligerent way—as being rather ham-fisted. It lacks nuance and imposes upon one very significant group within our community—producers and manufacturers within our economy—the opportunity to be able to realise premium on their brand and on their product. This is something that they have exploited to the benefit of everybody in this state.

We do not think that denying them of this ability is a worthwhile exercise; hence, our position in regard to the disallowance. Yes, that is the citation of a process issue, but what has really disappointed me is the response the government has undertaken in relation to that. To address a bad process is never going to be realised through an even worse process, yet that is exactly what this government has decided to do and in a way that we cannot support.

In order to realise that, the minister, as legitimate as his views may be and as honest as his pursuit may seem, has trashed the most elementary of conventions that we have in this place. Worse still, in my opinion, is the Leader of Government Business seeing to it that a bill would be dealt with on the floor of this parliament that the opposition had not even seen until 11 o'clock this morning.

Under no reasonable objective analysis could anyone ever suggest that good laws are made in the space of five hours, yet that is exactly what this government is trying to do. In order to facilitate a ramshackle expedited legislative process, they are denying the opposition the ability to do something that was never denied to them.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr MALINAUSKAS: No. They are doing something that is inconsistent with the very commitments that the Leader of Government Business in this place provided to the opposition that all bills would lie in the parliament for at least two sitting weeks or 10 days before consideration.

Mr McBride: The fairness bill.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The member for MacKillop raised the fairness bill. He was not here when that occurred; I was. I was in the other place and I would like to advise the member for MacKillop, before he chimes in, that he might want to reflect upon the facts, because the fairness bill lay in this parliament for weeks before it was dealt with in the Legislative Council. Everybody had access to it, including members in this house and including every single member of the public of South Australia—fact. Everybody in the state had access to that bill, including the now member for Heysen.

That is not true in this instance. This bill was introduced into the parliament today at 11am—no briefing to the opposition, not so much as even an email to the opposition saying, 'Here is a bill that we want to ram through the parliament tomorrow.' That never happened. Our reservation is that is not how good laws are made. I have not had the opportunity, nor has anyone else on this side of this chamber, to engage with our constituencies, to engage with stakeholders, to be able to formulate a position on this bill. No-one would suggest that is how good laws are made.

It would be utterly irresponsible on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to vote in favour of a bill that we only saw a matter of hours ago and that we have only seen in the context of an overruling and trashing of the most elementary and basic conventions of this place, and that is also inconsistent with the word of the Leader of Government Business.

The people who I dare say would be entitled to be most frustrated by this are the very people the minister seeks to purport to represent the interests of here today. If the minister were sincere about having a dinky-di debate in the parliament on the merits of this issue, then he would be facilitating exactly that. Instead, he is doing the opposite. I fear that this represents nothing short of an entirely political exercise at the expense of the merits of the argument that he is seeking to pursue.

Here we are, six or seven-odd hours after we have received this bill, being asked to vote for something which is utterly impossible and would be extraordinarily irresponsible. It is regrettable. It is not through the actions of the opposition or any members of the crossbench. It is entirely a function of very conscious and deliberate decisions this government has made and renders the opposition in the insidious position of having to formulate a position on this, which is principally around a bad process, which could only lead to a bad piece of legislation. We should have it on the record that we think the actions of the government are unfortunate, including in regard to those people they seek to represent; thus, we cannot support the bill.

Bill read a third time and passed.