Legislative Council Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1) 53 1 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 Genetically Modified Crops Management (Right to Damages) Amendment Bill Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. M.C. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (16:30): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2014. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. M.C. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (16:31): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am reintroducing this bill today as a measure to protect South Australian farmers from being placed in the invidious position of having to sue their neighbours if they are in the unfortunate position of suffering economic loss as a result of having their land contaminated against their will by genetically modified crops that escape from other farms. This is exactly the circumstance that arose a couple of years ago in Western Australia where a farmer, Stephen Marsh, lost his organic certification over 70 per cent of his farm following contamination by wind-blown genetically modified canola from a neighbouring property. That court case was decided last week and Mr Marsh lost. The case was decided in favour of his GM canola farming neighbour. It is important to understand, however, that this case was not about whether growing GM crops is a good idea, but it was confined very closely to its particular facts. The judge (Justice Kenneth Martin of the Western Australian Supreme Court) ultimately agreed that, yes, GM material had escaped and entered Mr Marsh's land; that, yes, he had lost his organic certification as a result; and that, yes, losing his organic certification had cost him money—from memory, around $80,000. However, what the court was not prepared to do was say that it was his neighbour's fault. Ultimately, the court sheeted home the blame for Mr Marsh's loss to the National Association of Sustainable Agriculture Australia (NASAA), which was the certifying authority. The court effectively accused NASAA of being too fussy about its requirements for what is an organic farm. His Honour said that it had behaved unreasonably in withdrawing Mr Marsh's organic accreditation as a result of what the court believed was a fairly minor contamination. It was, in effect, a case of shooting the messenger. I think that decision is a very disappointing one, but we would be fooling ourselves if we think that this is the final word in the inevitable conflict that will arise between GM farmers and organic farmers or even traditional non-GM farmers. As other states succumb to the power of the multinationals and allow GM crops, other farmers such as those here in South Australia, where a moratorium prevails, will still face a very high chance of contamination, particularly from across the border in Victoria, as well as escapes from so-called trial crops already being grown in the South-East. Getting back to Mr Marsh in Western Australia, his situation was very different from the one that South Australian farmers find themselves in. For starters, he was not a canola grower so, according to the court, he should not have been affected by the escaping GM material from his canola-growing neighbour. Mr Marsh grew wheat and rye and grazed sheep. In the South-East of our state, however, you do find farmers growing canola right up to the Victorian border. Over the border, GM crops are allowed to be grown and there will not be a buffer of any substance. The Greens strongly support the continuation of the moratorium on GM crops in South Australia, but contamination from over the border is a certainty and escapes from so-called trial crops in South Australia are also likely. So when escapes happen, and if economic loss occurs, what is to be done? We know what we do not want and that is what happened in Western Australia. It is a terrible situation to find farmer suing farmer. That is why South Australian farmers need legal protection and a clearer pathway to redress if they do suffer economic loss. This bill tries to avoid the situation that Mr Marsh faced where his only avenue for justice was to go to the courts and sue his neighbour. The bill before us—the Genetically Modified Crops Management (Right to Damages) Amendment Bill—will enable a person who suffers damages as a result of genetically-modified plant material contaminating their land to sue companies who own and sell the technology, and that includes multinational companies such as Monsanto and Bayer CropScience. In short, the buck should stop with these big multinationals that profit most from GM crops. Our farmers have a right to some level of security and protection and I believe they do have a right to compensation if they are invaded by GM crops escaping from elsewhere. This bill places the responsibility on these big multinational companies that push the technology to make sure that they are responsible for ensuring there is no contamination of neighbouring farms, and it does this by hitting them hard in the pocket when things go wrong. This bill effectively creates a right of action in the name of a South Australian farmer against the technology owner of these GM crops. I do not need to go through all the detail of the bill because, as I have said, I am reintroducing this bill. For those members who want more information and those reading the Hansard, I refer them to the debate on 2 May 2012 and I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.