Bills

Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill

Final Stages

The Legislative Council agreed to the bill with the amendments indicated by the following schedule, to which amendments the Legislative Council desires the concurrence of the House of Assembly:

No. 1. Clause 5, page 3, lines 15 to 19 [clause 5, inserted subsection (1a)]—Delete inserted subsection (1a)

No. 2. Clause 6, page 4, lines 9 to 13 [clause 6, inserted section 5A(8)]—Delete subsection (8)

No. 3. Clause 7, page 4, line 33 [clause 7(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

Consideration in committee.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments be agreed to.

The amendments from the other place negate three technical amendments that were introduced into the bill by the opposition. Those amendments provided the ability for licensed GM research to be undertaken in non-GM crop cultivation areas. With the amendments in the other place, the bill now retains the existing status quo in the act that licensed research can only be undertaken in non-GM crop cultivation areas where a minister has approved an application for a research exemption.

I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the debate on the bill in both chambers and those who have supported the passage of this bill, but I would like to especially acknowledge the grains industry, who have championed this reform. Many of you would recall the social media trending hashtag, #backtheGMbill. By the 2020-21 growing season, we will see commercial GM opportunities to grow GM crops in South Australia for the first time in over 16 years. That is what the grain growers have chosen to do.

Grain growers are finally on a level playing field with our interstate counterparts. Allowing GM crops in South Australia is a game changer. This is truly an historic day for our farmers and our grain growers, and we will look back on this time in many years to come, when we are a leader in GM research and commercial cultivation.

I would also like to briefly touch on the Kangaroo Island issues in response to comments made during the debate in the other place. I can give assurance to those farmers on Kangaroo Island that we will continue to work with them and listen to their needs and their wishes with regard to GM crops. There are GM pasture varieties being scientifically tested that would benefit the livestock industry on the island and across all South Australia.

I think it is also important to note that there was a difference and the government did move a bill. Obviously, we understand that politics has a level of negotiation to be successful. In this case, we worked very constructively with the opposition spokesperson for primary industries, whom I thank for his constructive dialogue. I also thank the opposition for coming to the negotiating table to get this very important piece of legislation through.

Prior to agreeing to these amendments, the Premier was documented as saying things and I was documented as saying certain things. The original bill was an opt-out option. It was about councils having the final say. We now have an opt-in option, where the application will be made to the minister and I would use the GM advisory committee as a reference panel in assessing whether councils have an opportunity to be part of an ongoing moratorium.

As I said to all the industry representatives who have given not only the government but the opposition support, the grain growers by and large have been a part of this journey for an extended period of time, and I thank them for their support but also their guidance because we know that they will be the beneficiaries. It is about dealing with the vagaries of climate. It is about dealing with the vagaries of being a primary producer. I can tell you with firsthand experience that the climatic conditions we deal with on an annual basis are variable, and we need every tool in the toolbox to give those growers those tools, those opportunities, to have that choice.

I would also like to thank Kym Anderson AC. He undertook the independent expert review, and I think his work was the foundation for what we have before us today. He did comprehensive consultation. His expertise in this field and his background have really given this a serious launching pad for a successful lifting of that moratorium, so I thank him. The scientists—whom I can almost hear from here—are extremely excited at the opportunities. They know that for too long South Australia has been locked out of discussions and negotiations in regard to trials, research and commercialisation of those trials, and it is almost implausible not to acknowledge how ecstatic our grain growers are. They have now been given the opportunity to be on a level playing field so that they, too, can have the advantages that the other mainland states are enjoying.

Without further ado, I agree to these amendments. Again, I thank the opposition. I thank my colleagues on this side of the house for their support and guidance, particularly those who have a grain growing background. I know that the members for Flinders, Finniss and others have given me a level of confidence to continue to pursue the lifting of this moratorium. It is a great day for the primary sector, particularly for the grain growers, particularly for the scientists and particularly for the economy of South Australia.

Mr HUGHES: I also rise to support these amendments from the other place. To sum up the bill, I think it is a case of choice and voice. When we were meeting with our grain producers around the state it was clear that they, or at least the overwhelming majority, wanted that choice of whether to use GM crops or not; some of them said, 'We probably won't, but this tool should be available to us if we choose to use it.' Clearly, the process for approving a GM product on the market is a rigorous process. That is indicated by the number of GM crops that have been approved in Australia. They are very limited in number, and I think that is a reflection of the rigour that goes into that when it comes to environmental and health consequences.

Of course, at a state level we had power when it came to marketing opportunities for price premiums, and that is what the debate was about in this state. I know a lot of people tried to bring in a whole raft of peripheral issues, which were not within our capacity to decide upon. I know there were people who were strongly opposed to this bill in whatever form, and I acknowledge their passion, but it is my belief that their passion often went way beyond the evidence that was available in terms of health impacts, environmental impacts and price premiums and marketing.

As a latecomer to GM, this state had the benefit of looking at what happened in the other states. I would acknowledge that, early on in 2004, looking at whether, as a result of having a non-GM status, we could get a significant marketing advantage was a reasonable path to take. Time has shown that not to be the case.

We know that the other states have the lion's share of our non-GM exports when it comes to those places with GM sensitivities. We know that in the other states there are more certified organic farmers than in this state. We know that either lifting the moratoria in the other states or not having them in the first place did not cause the sky to fall in and no systemic issues were generated. The evidence was there and the evidence was clear.

People are given a voice. We have not been dismissive of those people who believe there might well be a price premium in having an area, albeit a council area, designated as a non-GM area. There is that opportunity to voice concerns. There is that opportunity for a council to marshal the arguments from their particular area and put that argument to the minister and to the advisory committee. I am sure the minister and the advisory committee will give that the due weight that is needed.

There is a voice there, but I think it is entirely reasonable that the power was not invested in 68 local councils around the state to determine whether they were going to be GM free or not. The state cannot abdicate responsibility in that area. It is entirely reasonable that at the end of the day the decision-making lies with the minister. The consequences of 68 councils having the power to make that decision, as the Greens would have wanted, I think would have been chaos, not to mention the potential for real litigation.

I guess this is an example of where a bipartisan approach, where there was open dialogue to work out a solution, has given us a good result. I acknowledge that the government accepted all the amendments that Labor put to them, and I have to say that on my part there might have been a degree of overreach that has been addressed in the upper house, and that was when it came to normalising research. That is fair enough. The minister is coming back at a state level into the picture on that particular issue. The government were willing to delete sections of their bill that we opposed.

The minister has flagged Kangaroo Island. I know there are mixed views on Kangaroo Island, given the correspondence that I have received from there. The sunset clause has been removed. Mark Parnell put a reasonable argument about that: changes should not necessarily be done on the basis of a sunset clause, they should be done on the basis of whether a need exists and whether the parliament needs to have a look at that.

Just as the outcome here was an evolving process over an extended period of time—and it would not bother me if I never heard the term GM again—I am sure as time goes on, as South Australia becomes experienced with GM and hopefully some of the promising GM attributes in relation to drought, frost and a range of other factors come into play, they will be powerful tools in South Australia. I am sure the situation on Kangaroo Island will evolve over time as well.

The minister has indicated the importance of tools to farmers. One of the things that I found quite insulting in an implicit way in this debate was there was almost an implicit assumption that our farmers are not up to it when it comes to decision-making. Anyone who has been out onto some of the farms in this state, especially in the country that is more challenging, will know the intelligence that has to go in, the risk-taking that has to go in, in order to get a crop.

I think we have landed in a good place. Like everything, it has been a collective effort amongst a whole range of people: people in my party, people in the government and stakeholders outside. I could not fault the professionalism of Grain Producers SA in this process. Their role was commendable and I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with us as an opposition, based on the evidence, backing what is our largest export industry in this state. So it is a good result. Congratulations to all concerned.

Mr TRELOAR: I rise to make a contribution today to this committee and, as I always do when discussing this, I declare my interest that for 30 years I was an active grain grower and still have an interest in a grain growing property on Eyre Peninsula. I have been following this debate very closely for 20 years, and I am particularly pleased that we have reached this point today.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: What took you so long, mate?

Mr TRELOAR: Thank you, member for West Torrens. We are finally here. It was not for lack of trying, member for West Torrens. In fact, I do not disagree with the member for Giles that way back in 2004 it was reasonable to be cautious about such new technology; however, I was involved with the farmers' federation grains council come 2008 when the recommendation to government at the time very much was to lift the moratorium. The Labor government at that time chose not to, and I would say to the disappointment of the vast majority of broadacre farmers in South Australia.

So here we are 12 years on and I, too, join others in congratulating those who have been involved in getting us to this point. It is not a perfect solution, it is not perfect legislation, but now at least we are able to give our broadacre grain growers the opportunity to grow genetically engineered crops. There is another term, member for Giles. If GM is not so palatable, GE is one that can be more so.

I have been of the view that we have been at a disadvantage in this state, despite the fact that the loudest voices were talking about a price premium available to grain producers in South Australia. That was not necessarily proven to me to a point where I felt it necessary to protect the entire state for that reason because, as I said during this debate when it was first introduced into this place, profitability for a grain grower who is in business comes as a combination of yield times, price achieved, less the cost of production.

The member for Giles again talked about the capacity needed by our broadacre farmers to run a business, sometimes in challenging conditions, with very fine margins and at great risk. They do their sums. That is the formula that has to work for them, so this gives them those opportunities. Obviously here in South Australia we are talking very much about GM canola right at this point in time, but opportunities will open up for other crops as we go forward, depending on consumer sentiment, of course. As producers, we need to listen to that as well but, just at the moment, I think there is further opportunity for canola.

At the moment there is an opportunity to sow glyphosate-resistant canola, which lowers the use of chemicals in a canola paddock, reduces the cost of chemical inputs for a farmer and has a real advantage in timeliness for sowing. We are also very close to having the ability to insert omega-3 into our canola, which we all know has multiple health benefits for us as humans if we ingest that. One of the prime sources of omega-3 in the human diet at the moment is through seafood. That is not always an option for people. It is sometimes expensive and sometimes not available, so to have omega-3 available in our diets through a simple additive to such things as margarine or canola oil will be a real benefit—and there will be other functional foods that come along as this technology develops. I am pleased that we are here today and are finally able to talk about lifting the GM moratorium. There will be environmental benefits, there will be health benefits, there will be benefits to our whole of landscape and, ultimately, there will be functional foods available to us as consumers.

We do need to remember that, as broadacre grain producers, we actually compete against the rest of the world. We export a commodity. It is all very well to talk about niche markets, but those things are very hard to achieve when you are talking about wheat, barley or canola. Kangaroo Island Pure Grain have identified themselves into a niche market, but for the vast majority we are competing head-to-head with the Canadians, with the Americans, with the Europeans and with the Argentinians, so we have to once again use that formula and ensure that our grain growers are profitable so we can compete on the world market, in a commodity market.

Kangaroo Island has retained its moratorium; that is their choice at the moment. We have agreed to continue with that. It will be interesting to hear the discussion on Kangaroo Island and throughout the rest of the state in years to come as this technology progresses, not just genetic modification but also gene editing, which is an exciting new technology that is not quite GM but involves the tweaking of individual genes. It is really exciting and I think absolutely we need to be a part of this.

For 150 years, South Australia has led the way in many areas in dryland agriculture; we have exported our technology, and I feel that in recent years that advantage has slipped. I am pleased that we have been able to agree to the amendments that have come back from the Legislative Council, and I look forward to giving our growers the opportunity that they deserve.

Mr DULUK: I would also like to make a small contribution on the bill. I welcome what will be passing finally through this parliament. My electorate is proudly home to the Waite campus, named in honour of Peter Waite, who I believe celebrates his birthday this week, member for Flinders, which today stands as the largest concentration of agricultural research and teaching expertise in the Southern Hemisphere. As South Australians, I think this is something we should be so proud of: the unique expertise, knowledge and creativity coming out of the Waite campus.

Established in 1924 and located at Urrbrae, the Waite is home to world-class research and development in plant, agriculture, food, wine and many other areas in the natural sciences, which many researchers over many years have been working on, looking forward to the passing of this type of legislation. It is important that we support the innovation and research endeavours in grain, soil and plant breeding by our scientists in South Australia, and that includes providing the commercialisation of new technology. A GM crop is no different.

If this state is to realise its economic potential and continue to lead the world in agricultural research, this parliament must do what it can to help those researchers. Although at times controversial, GM technology is highly regulated by the commonwealth and it is time to let the market decide whether or not GM-free crops find their place on our supermarket shelves. We have an abundance of food in Australia, but we also play an important role in feeding the world.

As an economic powerhouse to the South Australian economy, it is time to back our farmers in applying the science developed locally at the Waite campus. Like many in this place, I have been following this debate. Thank you to all those people who have contacted my office and my constituents, who are both pro and against GM and the passage of the bill. I thank Grain Producers SA for their work as an industry advocate and for their strong commitment to ensuring an evidence-based approach to this policy change. I commend the bill to the house.

Motion carried.