Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (17:10): I resume my speech on the Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill 2020. In my speech prior to lunch, I finished off on the opportunities for better weed management. One of the things I have found with the little bit of research I have done regarding GM opportunities is that everyone talks about canola and everyone talks about canola being a Roundup Ready GM modified crop.

One of the things that you really need to understand, and it goes back in history to the nineties—and I am sure the Deputy Speaker in his electorate of Flinders would have a great appreciation of this, not only because there is a large cropping area in Flinders but also due to his age and experience—is that my recollection for croppers was that the ryegrass—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: At least the nineties.

Mr McBRIDE: At least the nineties, Mr Deputy Speaker. Through that period, I remember that ryegrass was the curse of all croppers, particularly in the seat of Narungga where some of the best barley crops, particularly mulching barley, were pursued and ryegrass was another curse there, so much so that the export oat hay enterprise started through the nineties due to the lack of control of ryegrass in amongst barley and wheat crops. It is quite interesting that when we talk about cropping and the opportunities that GM canola may bring this state—and it is only 'may', it is not an absolute certainty but it certainly is a tool amongst the farmers of this modern generation of croppers—we always talk about a rotation of crops and we also talk about a rotation for many different issues that they have to rotate through on a yearly basis.

It is interesting to note that although we talk about canola and Roundup and the GM-type issue that it raises and obviously opportunities that may arise, on the flip side of that, the old canola crops use a lot of chemicals like simazine and triazine. A little bit of research has gone into those couple of chemicals from data to try to manage the weed control in other crops that the rotations are trying to manage for, and these chemicals are probably a whole lot more toxic.

Particularly, some of the researchers found that these chemicals are perhaps staying in the soil longer than people had anticipated, maybe finding their way into waterways, and even maybe water aquifers. The point here I am trying to raise is that some people may say, 'This Roundup Ready canola is the curse of the industry and we are going to lose our clean, green image.' Let me tell you that not every chemical is as good as Roundup, and the opportunity to use Roundup Ready canola is not the curse that some people may think it is.

The other thing that is really quite interesting is that when we talk about GM crops, there is also the opportunity to apply a whole lot less chemical. One thing that really comes to mind and one of the most genetically modified crops around Australia—not in South Australia—is the cotton crop. I remember during my little experience in New South Wales going through many a Riverina cotton-type area, there used to be talk of cotton requiring 12 sprays through the late nineties, early 2000s.

My understanding is that with the cotton crop grown now, they are back to five sprays. So the twofold benefit with the genetically modified cotton out there today is, firstly, it requires seven less sprays, it is less costly, there is less money being poured into these crops by the operators and farmers growing this crop, but not only that, there is less chemical going into our environment. That is the positiveness that GM may bring to our state across a wide sphere of crops, pastures and opportunities.

I want to talk about other opportunities that may arise from canola, such as access to varieties that are better able to withstand and work with climate variability. Our famers are a resourceful lot. They work hard to extract the best from the land, the environment and the climatic conditions that are thrown at them. If we have crop varieties that are able to better cope with a narrower growing season and withstand frost and variable rainfall, it supports productivity, viability and the growth of the cropping sectors.

In this chamber everyone talks about a warmer and drier climate coming our way, and it is probably even more imperative that we look for varieties that can first of all be directly sown early to utilise any moisture that may be around, and then obviously return a crop at the end of the season or its growing period. I suppose what I am saying is that even though they talk about Goyder's line coming further south and the drier conditions that are creeping down into our cropping region, this has not meant that our croppers have given up on farming this marginal country.

I think it is understood that at least two out of five years may be failures or they may not make a profit; however, the other three years might make up for it. Again, this all comes back to technology, planting equipment, better varieties, timeliness and chemicals that work. I guess this is where another opportunity may come for perhaps all types of crops, including canola, in the fact that these crops will require less and less water.

Agricultural sectors are striving to advance their plant breeding and genetic selection for higher productivity and our farmers want to take advantage of these advancements. We have to ask ourselves: as we are surrounded by other states that allow the growth of GM crops, why would we continue a moratorium that takes the option of GM crops off the table for farmers in our state? This discrepancy is no clearer than in my electorate where a great length of its eastern boundary is shared with Victoria. On one side farmers have a choice to grow the cops they want, including GM crops, and on our side farmers sit constrained with many, quite frankly, shaking their heads over this discrepancy.

Several farmers have come to me, waiting in anticipation for this moratorium to be overturned. They are looking for opportunities to expand their cropping options. Obviously there are a number of crops out there that they are growing such as barley, wheat, canola, beans and lupins, but there will be other crops coming along, too, that there may be an opportunity to grow. We may not even know about them, but with GM modifications they may prove to be completely safe for human consumption, maybe even stock feed. We may not be growing those crops today but they might have a role in the rotation, they might have a role with soil types, they might have a role with the changing climate that we are trying to deal with today.

There were a range of key messages from the independent review which involved a community consultation process. A key message from this consultation documented in the independent report was that the majority of submissions supported the removal of the moratorium. As I have identified previously, our government is seeking to manage and govern for all producers and all the people in the state to make sure we are maximising our returns. The review identified that there is no evidence that we are asking for better returns for the majority of the cultivated area in South Australia.

The review has sought advice and, obviously, my electorate office has received some concerns from constituents. They have concerns that opening the moratorium will take away our marketing power and our clean, green image for the state. For some producers and perhaps for some businesses there may be a little bit of angst and concern out there, and it may be quite valid. One concern that has come to me, and I want to pick up on it, is the talk about GM canola in Victoria sitting in bunkers at $30 a tonne less than the non-GM canola.

First of all, it describes an old way of thinking about productivity and profitability in farming. I liken it to the way that we used to go to the sale stockyards and sell our sheep, our prime lambs and our beef cattle, and top the market and get bragging rights to gloat about who topped the market for that day. If we had had the data back then, which we certainly do today, those farmers were usually the least profitable. Those were the farmers who had the least lamb, the least beef and probably the most feed in their paddock. Most of the feed was probably going rotten. Most of it probably did not even get eaten from one season to the next. It never came back to the profitability per hectare.

One of the drivers of profitability per hectare in livestock is the number of stock you have on it per hectare. There is no doubt that when we talk about canola being used—and if they do choose to use GM canola they may receive a discount for that canola—it is not the one-off year that is the hit, it is actually the four-year rotation. That GM canola crop rotation might be the way of cleaning up any resistant weeds that affect the maximum return of that wheat crop that was coming next, maybe the barley crop that will be coming after that or maybe the bean crop that would come after that.

It is no good just looking and saying, 'Canola is $30 a tonne less over in Victoria. Why would you plant it here in South Australia?' These are tools that we probably do not fully understand about the mechanisms in the business, where the pitfalls are, what they are suffering in the business and where their answers lay. Just because you receive $30 a tonne less for canola because it is GM does not even tell you what the yield of that canola was. They may have received a tonne per hectare more on that canola or perhaps there were two or three sprays less on that canola, which actually made that canola crop more profitable than the old varieties. No-one can know that, but to stand out there and say, 'Canola is worth a whole lot less if it is GM,' does not give you the right and the answer to say, 'Well, we shouldn't be growing it.'

Segregation is happening in other states, and identified preserved protocols and codes of practice are robust. These can and do ensure the successful coexistence of GM and non-GM crops. The Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill is what the state needs to ensure South Australia is not continuing to suffer the opportunity cost to farmers, research facilities and agricultural productivity that is playing out under our current GMO status.

Again, I will say that I am really pleased that our minister has had the foresight to persist with this GM bill, to work with the opposition and try to work with the crossbenchers. He has been at it for many, many months now and obviously he has been under a great deal of pressure. I congratulate him on that. Another pitfall we have seen is that Kangaroo Island will be allowed to remain in the moratorium. If it is the wish of the island then so be it.

As I heard from other speakers, I think Kangaroo Island can still pick up on GM modified grasses and other products that are not for human consumption. They may also look at other options, but obviously the island thinks that it will have a better opportunity to be GM free, and good luck to them. Good luck to the member for Mawson, who is obviously managing his constituent base there. I hope he keeps them all on board.

Another point is that the bill establishes a long time period of six months where the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development may, upon application from a council, designate that council area as being an area where it is prohibited to cultivate GM food crops. He is basically giving local government the opportunity to question the GM moratorium and pick it up, but it has to go through a consultation process and get the approval of the minister.

I have heard from my constituents down in the region, and particularly from the seed companies moving seed around Australia, as they do, that due to the fact that South Australia has been GM free any seed from Western Australia would have to go right around the South Australian border to reach New South Wales, Victoria and perhaps even Tasmania, and vice versa. Any seed coming from Victoria and going to Western Australia had to go right around South Australia. This will now not be a cost to all businesses to navigate this impediment. I am really pleased that this has been changed and everyone is on board to change those rules.

The successful passage of this bill will mean that the parliament is no longer making decisions on what farmers can and cannot grow but will let farmers do what they do best and make the best choices for their businesses, as I described earlier. Also, there should not be an additional burden of red tape put on farmers growing GM in South Australia, as in the bill put forward by SA-Best in the other place. We need to support growers to use all the tools they can to get on with the job of producing food and contributing export earnings for the benefit of the state. Our farmers deserve regulatory certainty and the confidence to know that they can invest in GM seed and plant GM crops if they wish with the knowledge that our government has their back and will support them.

Coming to the end of my speech, I just want to touch on the fact that I also belong to a farming business, a business that is having its centenary year this year. I want to touch on a few of the hiccups that we have experienced in that business. We picked up a property that straddles the border of South Australia and Victoria. When we bought it, it had around 4,000 hectares, I think, of canola. Not last season but the season before it was totally frosted. Our wheat crop was also totally frosted. We did manage to cut it all down for hay. Obviously, in a drought year we were very fortunate.

What I would say is that obviously technology moves with the times. Frost has always been a problem. Canola is probably one of those crops that has the highest risk from frost. I am looking forward to the day when those sorts of vagaries and costs are taken away or alleviated or lessened for those who are trying to grow canola and other crops in what is probably marginal country, with below 400-millimetre rainfall, probably getting down closer to 300 millimetres and maybe even less. Obviously, where it is sandy it is hard to wet that country.

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

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:26): I acknowledge all the other speakers on this bill, the Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill 2020. As has already been indicated by other members, this Marshall Liberal government, which I am proud to be a part of, is committed to lifting the GM moratorium in South Australia and giving our farmers the same choice to grow genetically modified crops as other mainland states.

This has been a long and winding road since legislation way back in 2004, I believe, and moratoriums and, I will say from my perspective as a farmer, a lot of misinformation around genetically modified crops and genetically modified foods. Certainly, with respect to the food area, I hope everyone who sips on their soy lattes enjoys them, because that is genetically modified. It is absolutely genetically modified, and there would be hundreds of items on supermarket shelves that people unknowingly buy every day that are genetically modified foods.

I always think that it would have been better if from the start genetic modification was called accelerated breeding, because that is essentially what it is. It is accelerated breeding to take out all those lifetime crop cycles that people have to go through to get crossbreeding in. It is interesting when you go back and look at some of the historical breeds that go back to Egyptian days. I know some of the breeds in the grain part of the museum at Pinnaroo go right back to those times. Everyone was looking for yield improvement over hundreds and thousands of years, so that we could feed populations.

Essentially, what happens with genetic modification is the work is done to fast-track that process, so that we can get better results, not just for our farmers but for the population, so that we can feed an ever-growing population in the world. In some countries, years ago it would have been fine to grow, say, a three or four-bag crop per acre, and I am not going to do the hectare to tonne adjustment right now because it is too hard. Nowadays, depending on where you are, if you are not growing 12, 15 or 20 bags and you start talking about two or 2½ tonnes per hectare, or three, four or five tonnes—I am probably not getting close, but I might be getting into the realm of the member for Flinders' farm, which is in the beautiful grain growing area at Edillilie near Cummins—we have always had to try to find better production.

It has happened over time. My father saw it in the 67 crops he put in from the time he was 13 years old until the time he was 80—using technology instead of the plough and cultivators, and going over a paddock 15 times and potentially creating issues with drift. We have moved to a world of no till and direct drill, yet we get what I will call misguided evangelists who want to knock out the use of Roundup or glyphosate (which is the chemical name, and Roundup is the Monsanto brand name) because they think that it has a direct link to cancer.

I know there are people, and I have heard them at events, who go out of their way not to take a broad approach to whether there is a link to cancer. They have said that they want to prove that there is a link between the use of Roundup and cancer, and I think that is fraught. If that is their aim, it is absolutely fraught. We need to take a more rounded view of what is going on. Roundup is probably one of the safest chemicals in the world, especially when compared with things like Spray.Seed and a whole range of other chemicals.

Yes, you have to be mindful of it, but Roundup, as has been mentioned here in this place—I have mentioned it and the member for Flinders has mentioned it—is probably the best invention in the world for agriculture since the traction engine. If used appropriately, I certainly believe it is a great boon for agriculture. It cuts down on the environmental impacts in terms of paddocks blowing in the breeze, and it gets a far better outcome for not just the farmers but for the community as well.

In regard to genetic modification, we have seen it for decades in Bt cotton (genetically modified cotton), where they take out eight to 10 insect sprays that are not necessary anymore. I can tell you, if you are worried about chemicals hurting you, if you think you are going to die from something, that it will be insecticides that may help you on your way if they are not handled appropriately.

For barley grub, we used to mark for DDT spraying with the planes before they had GPS markers, and occasionally you would feel a couple of drops. Perhaps that is why I am the way I am now, but I am still alive. I can tell you that insecticides are very effective in killing other live organisms, but managed appropriately they are fine. I would think that it is a great thing to take all those chemical sprays out of growing cotton. Genetic modification brought about insulin for use in diabetes. There are many people not only in this state and in this country but across the world who benefit from using insulin.

In regard to this bill, we have reached agreement with the opposition. I will not do this every day, but I will commend the member for Giles, Eddie Hughes, for the work—

Mr Hughes: That's okay; I can do it every day.

Mr PEDERICK: No, it's not going to happen every day, mate. Eddie and I get on alright. It is great that we have come to an agreement. We have had to take a few hits on this and not get to exactly where we want to be, but we want to get an outcome for the farmers of South Australia and get away from this crazy ideological debate—and I will say that it is crazy—that GM canola is going to be harmful.

The stupidity, the absolute stupidity, that loads of canola seed cannot move across from the Eastern States through South Australia into Western Australia is just absolutely nuts. That will be fixed with this legislation so long as councils come to the minister with the appropriate business plan and other matters with their submission if they do not want to have genetically modified canola grown in their area.

That will be an interesting time. I am sure this bill will go through and become an act. It will be an interesting time for communities because councils will have to balance what they think is right for their community. I can tell you that even in communities like Kangaroo Island, where the moratorium will stay in place, and where I understand there will not be a review now or a lifting of this moratorium in 2025, there are people who want to grow genetically modified canola. It is a fact. We are the party of choice, so we have taken a few hits. I commend minister Whetstone for his work on this, and we are committed to getting an outcome for the farmers this state.

I note that Grain Producers SA have come out in support. It is validated support, but they recognise that we must do a deal with the opposition to provide legislative certainty to legalise the commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops. Their statement is correct. The statement comes direct from Grain Producers SA. Both the Greens and SA-Best refuse to consider commonsense reform to South Australia's genetically modified moratorium, clinging instead to a discredited anti-GM ideology or compensation regimes that have been found to be unnecessary. It is just crazy, crazy stuff.

We have to deal with the reality of feeding a burgeoning world market. As has been stated, there has been a lot of misinformation around, with the excitement of people stockpiling food and toilet paper during COVID-19. The toilet paper thing I am still coming to terms with. I want someone to write a paper on it later on—and it will not be me. We grow enough food for 75 million people, which is three times our population. I had a conversation with a friend of mine, and I said, 'We grow enough food to feed three times our population.' And they just said down the phone, 'No, we don't. No, it doesn't happen.' I said, 'Well, I'm about to send you a picture,' and I sent the full-page advertisement that the National Farmers' Federation put in The Advertiser recently, which states that, and it is fact: we grow enough food in this country to feed 75 million people.

The simple thing is that there are a few nutters out there—more than a few nutters—who get on the net and tell people they are going to have to stockpile food and this and that, so supermarkets are trying to stock food and toilet paper to look after 50 million people, twice our population. It is just crazy, crazy stuff. Some of these people are wheeling out supermarket trolleys full of meat and do not even have a freezer at home. It is just crazy, crazy stuff.

As I said, perhaps John Weste in the library can do a full report on the toilet paper deal one day because I really struggle. It is good to see it back on the shelves, even in the roadhouses. I did note Drakes got a bit of publicity in The Advertiser when you could buy eight industrial roles of toilet paper, 2.4 kilometres, for $50—and I saw it on the shelves in Murray Bridge—and people were purchasing it. They will not run out until about 2050.

Other claims have been made, and I know that we want to get on with the debate. I think it was around a decade ago in Western Australia that there was the Marsh v Baxter case about GM canola transfer. Michael Baxter was growing genetically modified canola and supposedly it blew onto his neighbour's farm, Mr Marsh's farm, between Katanning and Kojonup. I know this country very well. I have had friends there since the mid-eighties: the McFall family and Nick Chenoweth.

I went to Kojonup, where this was all supposed to have happened. What happened in this case was that this canola was windrowed. I know a little bit about windrowing canola. We used to do it not just for ourselves but as contractors in the local area of Coomandook. The reason you windrow is so it does not shatter. This was canola in windrows. Evidently, the aggrieved organic farmer thought that he had canola seed growing on his property, but it is interesting that these canola plants, which were windrowed plants—you could see that from the straight cut—had gone at least 1.2 kilometres without shattering a pod. Therein lies the question. It just does not happen, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know.

This was a case that was thrown out of three courts. It went all the way. It had heaps of funding poured in by green activist groups—hundreds of thousands of dollars—to fight this case and sadly it blew a community apart. I believe it blew at least one marriage apart. I believe it is a disgraceful, fraudulent act. It just goes to show that people pushing an ideology will push it far too hard.

I instigated the select committee into Viterra's operations here and in Canada. We went to Western Australia and I remember being in the then minister's office and I raised the question about what had happened down at Kojonup and Katanning way and good credit to the minister for not saying this, but one of his lead advisers said, 'In relation to that case, all is not as it seems.' People in the real world had a fair idea of what happened there.

Let's be realistic: if people are going to mount an argument, mount a real argument, stick to the facts and do not make it up, whether it is about canola or whatever it is. I can tell you, canola does not miraculously fly 1.2 kilometres. With ripe canola in the swath, it would shatter all over the place and in the end, even with how it was placed on the guy's so-called organic farm accredited by NASA, I believe they only had eight plants that came through.

Giving that little bit of background reflects on some of the things that the ideologues will do to try to prove a point and use what I believe is certainly fraudulent activity to get to that point. I think today we have come to a place where we have a level of agreement and I applaud the parliament for that. I say to some members who wanted it one way or the highway that sometimes it does not work like that. Sometimes you have to give a bit to get a lot. Whether you say it is give a bit to get a bit, what we are going to give is people the choice to grow it.

I want councils to look at this really seriously and consult with their local members of parliament, whether they be Labor, Liberal or Independent, to make sure that they get the right idea of where we are going here, because we need to move into the future so that we can move not just with GM canola but with drought tolerance and salinity tolerance, to help our producers long into the future grow food for this state and this country. With those few words, I commend the bill.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE (Chaffey—Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development) (17:43): I rise to thank all members in the chamber for their contributions. The member for Giles has acted appropriately. He has come to this chamber and debated this on it merits. I thank him for that.

For too long we have seen the ideology overrule the debate, the sensibility of what our grain growing industry has asked for. I commend the contributions of the Deputy Premier today, the member for Finniss, the member for Newland and the member for MacKillop. You, sir, the Deputy Speaker, a practising grain grower and a Nuffield scholar, have a very good understanding and I commend you for your contribution and your lifelong journey within the grains industry.

Of course the member for Hammond has just shared a few opinions with us, and fair enough, too; it is fair that we understand the myths and stories people like to pick up on. What I would like to say is that there are now opportunities for South Australia to work with the national agenda, work with grain growers, and make sure we can take advantage of the R&D funds that come our way, take advantage of the challenges with climate, take advantage of the uncertainty within prime production. The members for Heysen and Florey have also contributed.

I would also like to thank Grain Producers SA and Matthew Cossey, from another jurisdiction, for their leadership and tenacity with this issue. They are representing a very large cohort of economic drivers: they are farmers, grain producers, seed producers, who are a staple in small business but also, importantly, one of our largest exporters, one of our largest value-added commodities. Not only do they produce grain products but they also produce feed for our red meat sector, an ongoing need for the grain sector.

It has all been said: the issues around contamination and segregation have been proven and we have talked about certainty and choice for our grain growers. The lifting of the moratorium will address all of that, and I ask all the naysayers to please watch carefully. I say to local government that we will now be given an opportunity to potentially put in a submission and to listen carefully to their constituency.

The naysayers are one kettle of fish, but we have to understand that they are there on behalf of the grain growers, they are there on behalf of the state's economy, they are there on behalf of what matters most, and that is the prosperity of primary industries in the grain sector, making sure of that value add, making sure we can deal with the vagaries of being a grain grower in the primary sector, making sure everyone behaves appropriately with the huge responsibility they have of being a grain grower, a primary producer.

In this case it is about being given the choice of being a GM grain grower, of being given the choice to be part of a sector using the advancements of agriculture so dear to every primary producer's heart. It is about maximising returns while reducing the inputs of a farm practice. The management of our farms has never been more important or more scrutinised. We all want to grow clean, green, safe food not only for our families, not only for domestic markets but also for our international markets, and it is critically important that we do that responsibly and lead by example.

The government, working with the shadow spokesperson for primary industries, has come to a landing position that we will support the amendments in this bill, the Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill 2020. It is a great day for South Australia, and it has been almost 16 years in the making. The handbrake will be released on our grain growers, the handbrake will be released on our researchers, and it will be released on South Australia by and large to give us the opportunity to expand the technical aspect of growing GM grains, what it will mean for pastures in the future, what it will mean for a wide range of our primary producers.

I thank everyone for their valuable and important contributions. As I understand it we will go to the committee stage now, but the government has no concerns with the amendments. I look forward to a very swift passage through committee.

Bill read a second time.

Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. T.J. Whetstone.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

Clause 2.

Mr HUGHES: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Hughes–1]—

Page 2, lines 6 and 7—Delete the clause and substitute:

2—Commencement

(1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act comes into operation on the day on which it is assented to by the Governor.

(2) Sections 4, 5, 5B, 8 and Schedule 1 come into operation 6 months after the day on which this Act is assented to by the Governor.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr HUGHES: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Hughes–1]—

Page 3, before line 4—Insert:

(1) Section 3(1), definition of cultivate—after paragraph (d) insert:

(da) to transport a genetically modified food crop or any plant or plant material that has formed, or is to form, part of a genetically modified food crop; or

Amendment No 3 [Hughes–1]—

Page 3, line 6—Delete 'section 5' and substitute 'sections 5 and 5A'

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 5.

Mr HUGHES: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Hughes–1]—

Page 3, after line 10 [clause 5(1), after inserted subsection (1)]—Insert:

(1a) A person who cultivates a genetically modified food crop on a limited scale under, and in accordance with, a GMO licence authorising the release of the relevant GMO into the environment for the purposes of an experiment is exempt from the operation of subsection (1).

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clauses 5A and 5B.

Mr HUGHES: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Hughes–1]—

Page 3, after line 12—Insert:

5A—Insertion of section 5A

After section 5 insert:

5A—Designation of council areas

(1) The Minister may, on application by a council established under the Local Government Act 1999, by notice published in the Gazette, designate the area of the council as an area in which no genetically modified food crops may be cultivated.

(2) Before making an application under subsection (1), a council must consult with its community, including persons engaged in primary production activities and food processing or manufacturing activities in the area of the council.

(3) Before publishing a notice under subsection (1), the Minister must consult with the Advisory Committee and take into account any advice provided by the Advisory Committee in relation to the matter.

(4) A notice under subsection (1)—

(a) must be published before the commencement day (and a notice published on or after the commencement day is void and of no effect); and

(b) takes effect from the commencement day.

(5) The Minister may, by further notice in the Gazette, revoke a notice under subsection (1) on application by the council whose area the notice relates to.

(6) A notice under this section may include any provision of a saving or transitional nature.

(7) The Minster may vary a notice under this section in order to correct a minor error or remedy a defect.

(8) A person who cultivates a genetically modified food crop on a limited scale under, and in accordance with, a GMO licence authorising the release of the relevant GMO into the environment for the purposes of an experiment is exempt from the operation of subsection (1).

(9) A person is guilty of an offence if the person cultivates a crop in contravention of a notice under subsection (1).

Maximum penalty: $200,000.

(10) In relation to a part of the State that is not within the area of a council, a reference in this section to—

(a) a council established under the Local Government Act 1999 will be taken to be a reference to the Outback Communities Authority established under the Outback Communities (Administration and Management) Act 2009; and

(b) the area of a council will be taken to be a reference to the outback (within the meaning of the Outback Communities (Administration and Management) Act 2009).

(11) In this section—

commencement day means the day on which section 5 of the Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill 2020 comes into operation.

5B—Amendment of section 6—Exemptions

(1) Section 6(1)—after 'section 5' insert:

or 5A

(2) Section 6(2)(a)(i)—delete subparagraph (i)

Amendment No 6 [Hughes–1]—

Page 3, lines 13 to 16—This clause will be opposed

New clauses inserted.

Clauses 6 and 7 negatived.

Remaining clause (8), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE (Chaffey—Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development) (17:55): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.