Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Genetically Modified Crops Management (Right to Damages) Amendment Bill GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS MANAGEMENT (RIGHT TO DAMAGES) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 21 November 2007. Page 1491.) The Hon. I.K. HUNTER Legislative Council The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (16:41): I rise to express the government's opposition to this bill. The Hon. Mr Parnell's bill seeks to protect food and other producers from accidental contamination of non-genetically modified crops with genetically modified organisms and to provide them with the right to be properly compensated. Like the Hon. Ms Kanck's bill, the government's decision not to lift the moratorium has rendered this bill redundant. To reiterate, in accordance with the commonwealth/state/territory regulatory framework, states and territories have the power to regulate genetically modified crops where there are risks to markets and trade, as these are not addressed as part of the national regulatory process. South Australia's Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004 gives effect to the government's commitment to regulate the cultivation of GM food crops in South Australia. To help maintain South Australia's clean and green image, which has been especially important in marketing our food and wine products, the government proposes to designate the whole of South Australia as an area in which the cultivation of GM food crops is prohibited pursuant to section 5(1)(a)(ii) of the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004. The proposed regulations will take effect no later than 29 April 2008, which is when the current regulations that prohibit the cultivation of GM food crops in South Australia expire. By definition, under the act such a regulation will include a prohibition on anyone transporting a GM food crop into South Australia. A breach of the regulations to be made under this section would be an offence carrying a maximum penalty of $200,000. In addition, pursuant to section 24(1) of the act, if a person is convicted of an offence, the court in which the conviction was recorded may, in addition to any penalty that it may impose, do one or more of the following: (a)	order the person to take specified action to make good any contravention or default on which the conviction is based in a manner, and within a period, specified by the court (including an order that the person destroy any crop that has been found to have been cultivated in contravention of this act, or that the person deal with or destroy any GM related material); (b)	order the person to pay to the Crown an amount determined by the court to be equal to a fair assessment of any financial benefit that the person, or an associate of the person, has gained, or can reasonably be expected to gain, as a result of the commission of the offence; (c)	order the person to pay to any other person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of any contravention or default on which the conviction is based, or who has incurred costs or expenses as a result of any such contravention or default, compensation for the loss or damage or an amount for or towards those costs or expenses. The government considers that these provisions give growers of non-GM crops who have suffered a loss as a result of GM contamination the means by which to obtain compensation without altering the well-established legal principles associated with such matters (and I assume that means common law, negligence and consumer protection legislation). Any question of how liability should be apportioned is a matter for the courts, according to the specific circumstances of each particular case. The independent panel that reviewed the commonwealth legislation in 2005-06 also examined the compensation issue and concluded that the operation of common law and consumer protection legislation in Australia provided sufficient coverage of these issues. Separate compensation arrangements were simply not considered necessary. It is intended that a review of South Australia's position will occur when there is a compelling reason to do so having regard to the Victorian and New South Wales experiences for the commercial cultivation of the two Office of Gene Technology regulated-approved GM canola varieties. The benefits of the moratoriums in Western Australia and Tasmania will also be monitored. As I said earlier, a six-week public consultation period has been announced, and interested parties have the opportunity for further comment on the changes to the regulation in the act which continue the current moratorium in South Australia. For these reasons, the government will not be supporting the bill. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J. Gazzola.