Genetically Modified Crops Management Regulations (Postponement of Expiry) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 October 2017.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (21:09): I rise with a degree of pleasure to speak on behalf of the opposition and indicate at the outset that we will be opposing the bill to extend the moratorium on GM crops until 2025, and also the intention of the bill for it to be made a decision of the parliament to overturn that moratorium. I am also aware that the government has filed some amendments to extend that moratorium for 10 years to 2028 and indicate that we will also be opposing that amendment. I indicate at the outset of this debate that, from the opposition's point of view, it is interesting to see that we now have a clear position from the government in relation to their policy on the GM moratorium.

The Hon. Tung Ngo, in the most recent debate in relation to planning, said that agriculture and primary production was an important and critical driver of the South Australian economy, yet his government, the government he represents in this chamber, is prepared to extend the moratorium for 20 years from when it was first introduced without any sensible or accurate or expert review.

The opposition's policy, if we are elected to government, is that one of the first jobs I would do as the minister for agriculture would be to commission a high-level expert review of our position, and we would do that within the first six months of the moratorium that we have had now for 10 years. The government often says and mostly through its spokesman, the Hon. Leon Bignell, that we get this wonderful premium for all of our production because we are GM free, yet he has not been able to produce any quantifiable evidence of the magnitude of that benefit.

I was on 891 radio with the Hon. Mark Parnell several Mondays ago, when I mentioned our position to David Bevan, the 891 presenter and he said, 'That's just a cop out. Why don't you make a decision?' In the next few minutes, I will outline why it is not possible. He suggested, 'Why don't you have a parliamentary select committee.' He then went on to say we all get paid heaps extra to be on parliamentary committees and indicated that we all had lots of spare time and we could investigate this on a parliamentary committee. I will indicate that it is not possible to look at all the aspects of a GM moratorium with a parliamentary committee.

We all know that we come into this place with a level of expertise that we bring to parliament. The Labor Party are a little bit narrow, mostly sort of union bovver boys and party apparatchiks; nonetheless, they would say they have a little bit of a diverse background. If you look at it from a scientific point of view, we have the Hon. Ian Hunter who has a science degree. The Hon. Mark Parnell has a law degree—

The Hon. M.C. Parnell interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: —and an economics degree and a planning degree. We always look to the Hon. Mark Parnell when it comes to listening to his debates on planning because he is an expert in that area. We have a couple of farmers: the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, myself and the Hon. John Dawkins was involved in agriculture many years ago—

The Hon. P. Malinauskas: You are a politician. You are not a farmer.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: —prior to coming into parliament. It is interesting, Mr President. I see you have twin heads. I am not sure. They do not look alike those two heads, that is for sure. I am not sure which one is the best looking. You two can decide that. I say that the parliament is not a place to make these very detailed scientific evaluations. Often political decisions and decisions are made here for reasons other than the actual facts. I do not believe that you can handle this in a parliamentary sense whether it is a select committee, a standing committee of the parliament or to have that decision here in the parliament.

I will go through some of the comments that were made by the Hon. Mark Parnell. Often we are a bit focused on the current situation where we have GM canola available in all states and not here, and that is why we need to get the experts to do the review. The Hon. Mark Parnell did indicate and show a bit of, shall I be so rude to say, ignorance about farming systems and farming practices. He looks at the price of canola in isolation. When you are farming, you may have a four, five or six-year rotation. You may actually choose to grow a crop, mow the paddock or spray it as a chemical fallow so that you grow a better crop the year after and you control weeds in subsequent crops. So it is actually a five or six year rotation.

Particularly with the GM canola, farmers grow it to control weeds. It is not to make it an extra profitable crop, but it is a rotation and a management tool that canola is used for.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Clean up weeds, that's right.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: And it cleans up some weeds. There are people who use it not to make money but as an important tool in their rotation program. Modern farming systems are not all about each crop making the most money; it is about making sure you get the best possible income over a range of seasons and the best possible way to control some weeds. Often what we find with Roundup Ready canola is it is a much easier and cheaper chemical and less environmentally damaging than some of the chemicals you might use in the lentil crop or a wheat crop or some other crop that you may grow. So you cannot just look at it in isolation.

One of the debates that is often used and also why we need the high-level review, because I am not a scientist—we all get bits of information—

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: No!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Justin Hanson jokes. That is the reason why this is a flawed plan. You are making a joke of an issue that is not a joke at all, the Hon. Mr Hanson. This is a serious part of modern agriculture.

When you look at farming operations, people say, 'They are going to be beholden to the big companies—Monsanto, Bayer and all the others.' Most farms—and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire would attest to it—are very complex businesses. Many often turn over at the very least hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not in some cases million of dollars. They actually make business decisions based on what is the best for their business to return a profit, pay the bank, pay all the costs and try to actually get ahead.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: And look after the environment.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: And look after the environment, too. To say that people would be beholden to the big chemical companies, I think is a little bit flawed. Again, it is why we need the independent review that we would set up if we are elected next year to actually have a look at all of the facts.

It is interesting; I note that the government and the Hon. Mr Parnell—I nearly called him a minister then—refers to the government inquiry. Well, it wasn't a government inquiry, but there was some sort of research commissioned by PIRSA, I think, and the University of Adelaide. I have the executive summary and recommendations here. It interests me a little because certainly they do talk about the world interest in clean and green food. I am sure that is why the government has premium food from a clean environment. The recommendations, which I think are important, state:

1. Invite SA businesses interviewed as part of the study to a presentation and discussion of the findings.

2. Liaise with Food SA to include the findings in industry workshops it will be conducting as part of developing their ‘Growth through Innovation Strategy’.

3. Depending on sufficient industry support, provide a briefing to relevant Government Ministers on the findings and implications for Government policies and programs.

I would be interested to know whether any of those three recommendations have been implemented and where the thought from the government came to actually amend this bill to extend the moratorium until 2028, because clearly you do not actually have a government policy that is unreviewed and not looked at for more than two decades.

This government had review after review after review. We had the Menadue review into health that did not mention anything about building a great new hospital. Five or six years later the government decided to build a $2.3 billon hospital. There is a whole range of things that this government has done, but they have neglected every aspect of this particular sector.

They had this particular review, looked at it and then decided that they were not interested in progressing it any further. In fact, my understanding is that that particular review went up on the PIRSA website and then came down again and then went up again a few weeks later.

Again, it is why after a decade we think it is appropriate to take a breath and have a look at the benefits we are getting, if the minister claims we are getting all of these wonderful benefits. It is interesting that we have one of the world's leading research centres at the Waite but we have seen nothing but a flood of people leaving that facility. Researchers are leaving. It is one of the world's great grain research facilities.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Where is this?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: At the Waite. Of course, we have also had the government, under the leadership of the Hon. Gail Gago, when she was the member, reduce the funding for the Centre for Plant Functional Genomics by about $1.2 million. One of the industry advocates writes:

We are very fortunate that Adelaide is home to the world-renowned Waite research precinct however support for it from state and federal governments is dwindling. And to make matters worse, because of the GM moratorium in SA, we are now seeing money from the private sector for research and development going interstate instead of being spent locally.

Again, it is time to have a look at the moratorium and the benefits that the minister and Premier Weatherill claim that we get and see whether they are in the best interests of South Australia. We also need to look at the future. If we are right now at the crossroads of 10 years of a moratorium, and the government's amendment will not extend it for another 10 years, we are at the halfway point of a 20 year journey, if the government's amendment is successful. I think we need to look to the future, and that is where you need experts. In 10 years' time, the Hons. Tung Ngo, Justin Hanson, Kyam Maher and Michelle Lensink might still be here, but pretty much I think the rest of us will be retired.

An honourable member: Not Mr Lucas, surely?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Rob Lucas may still be here, getting his third wind. Having said that, it is important to get the experts to have a look at the future, and some of the future things are really worth looking at.

Something that I think is quite topical and interests me as a South Australian is the medical use of cannabis. I have the view that, in terms of any plant that grows in the world, if we can take something out of it that helps human health and mankind, we should actually do it. I am told—but again I am not a scientist—that there are hundreds of different strains of cannabis. Some are good for epilepsy, some are good for Alzheimer's, some are good for dementia, and some are good for cancer and pain relief. However, we need to do decades of testing and research to find out which are the particular ones that have the chemical make-up to provide the best outcomes.

We may well find that, to fast track that, those plants will need to be genetically modified. Once we have identified what we need to do, we may find that that is required. Again, that is why we need the experts to have a look at this. There is some other great work being done. Canola is likely to become available soon that, I am told, contains very high levels of omega-3 oil, which is what we see in fish. I have an article that states:

When you do the calculations, if you can achieve 12 per cent levels of DHA in the canola oil, then one hectare of this crop can meet the same production levels produced by 10,000 ocean fish. And we couldn't have achieved this using conventional plant breeding methods.

Is that a crop we can grow in South Australia? Can the experts look at it and give some advice to government about whether in the next 10 years it will be worth growing? Maybe it is not worth it. As I said, I am not a scientist and I do not know. We have no scientists in this chamber who are specialists in this particular highly specialised field.

The issue of climate change I know is very dear to the Hon. Mark Parnell's heart. I think we all see extremes in weather. We see the hottest, the wettest, the driest, the windiest somewhere in Australia each year. I have been a farmer who has experienced the devastation of a frost. Droughts are easy enough to live with, in one sense—it is not going to rain and you know there is nothing coming. A frost is when the crop grows really well and then there is a little bit of a dry spell, and you get a cold night, a cold change, and the frost comes in and you lose an entire crop of barley, wheat or canola.

There is potential—and, again, that is why we need experts to have a look at this—for frost and drought tolerance to be put into our mainstream crops such as wheat and barley. I am so nervous because it is such a risky thing to extend the moratorium until 2028 without having a look at the halfway point to ask: is this the best thing going forward? Are there some opportunities for South Australian primary producers to cope with climate change and some of the variabilities we are likely to see?

There are other things, too. I think that there is potential in lucerne and rye-grass, which give particular traits of extra production per hectare, digestibility and a whole range of other particular benefits. Again, we should get the experts to look at that to make sure that, if we extend the moratorium, we are not denying our primary producers something that every other primary producer in the nation will have. I have been looking at some information in a publication that talks about the commercialised crops. I will read a couple of passages from it:

There is evidence that the GM crops being grown around the world today have lowered farm-level production costs. Other significant benefits include:

higher crop yields

increased farm profit

improvements in soil health

reduced CO₂ emissions from cropping.

It then goes on to talk about crops in the pipeline. Again, I am no scientist, so I actually want the experts to have a look at these statements and do some analysis to see whether it is sensible to continue the moratorium and whether or not it is a benefit financially. I know there is a lot of work being done on potatoes and grapes around disease resistance. I know there is some research being done on allergen-free nuts. At nearly all the primary schools in South Australia kids cannot have nuts at school, so I suspect there are some benefits.

They are saying that some work is underway to boost the levels of carotenoids, which are the yellow and orange pigments found in plants. They can be converted into vitamin A, which is essential for normal growth and development, immune system function and vision. Antioxidants can protect the body by neutralising the activity of free radicals. It also talks about essential fatty acids, and it goes on and on. It states that research is also continuing on new and improved crops with agronomic traits, including corn, which of course we do not grow here, as well as canola and a couple of others, including wheat and barley.

It is clear to me that we are not equipped with the expertise, not even in a parliamentary committee. We have all been on them, and there are one or two people who are really focused and passionate, and the rest are just there toeing the party line and being the ones who make up the numbers. To me, it is absolutely the wrong thing to do to give the parliament the control over whether or not we extend the moratorium. I cannot believe a government that says that the food sector is one of its seven strategic economic priorities, yet it does not consult. It is a bit like the old 'announce and defend'.

There has been zero consultation with industry to say that the government has put on the table their policy that we are going to extend this moratorium until 2028—a 20-year moratorium without talking to industry at all. I guess that encapsulates a statement the Premier made a few weeks ago when he said, 'They really don't vote for us out there in the country, so we are not interested in their views.' That is disgraceful. It is the one industry that was here: this state was founded on agriculture. It is a disgraceful and arrogant statement that the Premier made in that particular interview around GM. It is a disgrace to go to a 20-year moratorium without any proper scientific review that this is the best thing to do for South Australian farmers and our economy.

I know the Hon. Mark Parnell and some of the people who share his view say, 'These things are not safe. We are putting these strange, different things and genes into plants.' We do not get the parliament of any country to decide whether a new drug is safe to be released to the community; we have the experts do that. There is scientific analysis, it goes through a testing regime and then a recommendation is made for a new drug, and this is no different. The parliament does not have the expertise to do this particular analysis.

I guess we are all very uncertain about what the next parliament may look like. There may be some members of this chamber who may not be here after the next election, and I am sure there will also be some in the next chamber. I am sure the Hon. Mark Parnell will say, 'Yes, but if really good information came to hand then the Greens would be prepared to consider it,' but we do not know what the make-up of the parliament will be. Are any scientists going to be standing for election for the Legislative Council? I doubt it. I am not sure we are going to get too many more people who have had any practical experience in farming.

From a practical point of view, I am not sure that any of the candidates I am aware of come with that skill set. To me and to the Liberal Party, it is absolutely time to have the proper scientific review to try to quantify it. I have been on the radio and the television saying, 'If there's a quantifiable benefit that we can measure and say we are getting $10 million, $20 million, $30 million or $40 million a year benefit, then let's measure it and make that judgement based on that particular information.'

We do not have that and certainly the parliament is not the place to make that judgement. To go for 17 years, as the Hon. Mark Parnell wishes to do, or 20 years, as the government wants to do, with no review and no expert involvement, that to me says to the farming community, 'Here we are: there are 22 of us. You get stuffed. We know best.'

I am not prepared to stand up for that. It is not worth the risk of locking our farmers out of the review and it is not worth the risk, not knowing what the next parliament is going to be like. We have no idea what members will be here. I do not want to be one of the members of this parliament who says, 'The 22 of us, we know better. We are not interested in having a review and having a good look at what the facts are.' I think we are failing the primary production sector of our state in a big way if we do not actually implement and have a review.

With those words—I cannot speak strongly enough—I indicate that we will be opposing the bill and we will be opposing the government's amendments, and I encourage other members to do the same. It is simply not worth the risk.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (21:31): I will try to be more brief than the Leader of the Opposition. Firstly, I appreciate and respect the reasons that the Hon. Mark Parnell has put this particular proposal to the parliament. He has been consistent and I would expect that from the Greens. I have respect for the Hon. Mark Parnell. He is a good man. I am happy to contribute to this debate.

I want to place a few things on the record. There is a study being conducted by Mecardo industry analysis that is comparing the price differentials between the states for GM and non-GM products. I will put to the parliament in a moment some preliminary comparisons—I am advised that they are still to be finalised—of agricultural commodity prices between South Australia and other states. They do not show any evidence of a price premium for South Australia, being non-GM, over other states for like-for-like products.

Interestingly, today, I have been looking at all of the traders, because one thing my family still gives me the opportunity to do is to make a decision on when we do trade. We have canola sitting at Port Adelaide and Tailem Bend right now and we have to make a decision on where we are going to trade. It is disgraceful that today I also had to sign a sustainable canola declaration to actually show that we have the cleanest, greenest, most sustainable canola in the world, but we do not get any more money for it. We get diddly squat more. In Victoria, just over the border, they get more. I will come back to that in a moment.

In spite of what the minister for primary industries, Leon Bignell, espouses on the radio and elsewhere about South Australia getting this beautiful price for being GM, first, he has not shown any evidence and, second, it does not happen, and I cannot see that it is going to happen. On the other hand, he talks on behalf of his government about climate change and the like. It becomes very frustrating and confusing for farmers because one thing that GM can do is to address food shortages if there is to be climate change. People do not want to take a tablet, as we saw in movies about the future when we were kids at school, that you could take one tablet a day and you would not have to have any other food intake. That does not happen in reality. As they experiment with synthetic food, I would suggest to you that synthetic food is going to be much more of a concern than GM.

Both GM and non-GM products can be produced in the same state, even on neighbouring farms, and can be segregated through the entire supply chain. That is a statement of fact. It happens in Western Australia, Victoria and other states, and it happens across the world. I have a photo here, which I seek leave to table, a photograph entitled 'Simply canola oil'.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: That was taken at the Maitland Sporting Club on the Yorke Peninsula, the best malt barley growing region in the world. Their 20-litre canola oil containers are imported through Singapore, from multiple origins, including Canada, which grows and exports GM canola. Therefore, in tabling this, I am saying that many GM products are already available in South Australia and are sold here, despite the moratorium.

The irony of it is that, as with the example of the GM canola that I have just tabled, I am advised that the hybrid seed for that GM canola for Canada, which is belting us around the ears at the moment when it comes to infiltrating our export markets and making it harder for South Australian farmers, is grown in the South-East and is then exported to Canada, where they then grow GM canola. Where the hell are we as a state?

I also advise members that, if you look at trade lamb saleyards, Victoria has a 3 per cent premium over long term to South Australia. Look at the saleyards for trade steers: Victoria holds a 3.5 per cent premium over long term. This is a state that has GM, and they get a 3 per cent premium to their farmers on prime lambs, trade lambs and on trade steers. Canola in Geelong holds a $7.80 premium over Adelaide. Canola in Kwinana holds a $30 premium over Adelaide, minus receivals of $17.70—nevertheless, still a premium.

Wheat: Geelong holds an $8.90 premium over Adelaide and wheat in Kwinana holds a $25 premium over Adelaide, minus a receival of $10.80. There are premiums at times, however, on average where there is no apparent premium, and I acknowledge that when it comes back to farm gate, to the grower, but they are short lived. But when a short-lived premium does occur, it is as a result of supply and demand.

I will finish with a couple more points, and that is that farmers in South Australia have led the world on dry farming technology. Before we went to no-till and continuous cropping, regularly we saw dust drift right over Adelaide and we saw drift on the roads to the point where graders were out in the Murray Mallee grading the roads, the Karoonda Highway, from Tailem Bend through to Loxton—graders out there grading so that vehicles could actually pass.

Farmers used to build their fences—and I was involved in this as a young kid and was taught how to do it—on a base fence so that you could lift up the fence as the drift came in. That is how you built your fences. We do not do that any more because farming practices have changed. When it comes to things like omega-3, there is unbelievable research and development occurring at the moment where they may be able to improve canola, with genetic modification, so that it will have huge benefits with omega-3, something that is essential to life.

When you look at the challenges of Third World countries, when you look at the fact that we have to double food production by 2040, I think it is, to even allow people to enjoy the food supply they have around the world now, notwithstanding that my goal as a food producer and the goal of my family as farmers is to ensure that those people who are dying of starvation at the moment can be fed, and that would make for a safer world, a happier world and a world that was more integrated.

One of the ways through this may well be genetic modification. So, to extend that opportunity further out to protect and enhance all that I have highlighted tonight would, in my opinion and that of our party, be wrong. Therefore, whilst we look forward to whoever is in government early in the next term having a proper debate on this, I would say at this stage, from all the time I spend with farmers right across the state, that the absolute majority of the farmers actually want an opportunity to make a bottom line profit and to continue to grow food. It is getting harder and tougher—much harder and tougher.

People in Adelaide expect to have food because it is an essential input cost to them. Governments do not like farmgate prices going up because that upsets their CPI and their lack of ability to manage within their budgets, so they definitely do not want to see improved farmgate prices. The bottom line is that we do need to, once and for all, come to a decision on this. I acknowledge that there is an element of the farming sector that is concerned but, from what I can see, the absolute majority of farmers at this point want genetically modified opportunities on their farms, and they want to be on a par with opportunities in other states in Australia.

We are already the driest state in the driest continent in the world; we are punching above our weight. Let's give our farmers a chance. Let's have a serious and intelligent debate early in the next term and come to a landing. Let's listen and involve the farmers and their peak organisations. To simply extend it out would not be the right decision, and therefore we will be opposing this proposal from the Greens.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (21:41): South Australia is one of the few jurisdictions in the world to be phylloxera free, fruit fly free and have a moratorium on growing genetically modified (GM) food crops. These credentials give the state's primary producers and food and beverage manufacturers a competitive marketing advantage in the global marketplace. South Australia is the only remaining mainland state in Australia to prohibit the commercial cultivation of GM food crops. This non-GM status is one of several elements that underpin our global reputation as a supplier of premium food and wine from our clean environment.

Our position is consistent with the national gene technology regulatory system, which allows states to prohibit the growing of GM crops to protect their market position. This is exactly what we have done in South Australia so that our $18.6 billion agriculture, food and beverage industry is in the best position to capitalise on the growing global demand for non-GM foods. This is not just our government's view. A University of Adelaide research report indicates that the global market for non-GM labelled foods and beverages is growing significantly. It is estimated that the global non-GM trade will double by 2019 from $678 million in 2014 to around $1.2 billion, creating further export market opportunities for South Australia.

The university research found that there is particularly strong demand for non-GM foods in the US and China, the largest and fastest growing markets for South Australian food and wine. This report also identifies South Australia's moratorium on growing GM food crops as one of several assets available to our state that could be used to capitalise on food export market opportunities. South Australia's non-GM status has attracted international investment, acting as a strong drawcard for Japan-based Hirata Industries, which has come to South Australia to import non-GM canola from Kangaroo Island.

Currently, the only GM food crop approved for commercial use that would be suitable in South Australia is canola. South Australia's annual canola crop averages $183 million. By protecting against non-GM canola, we are also protecting the field crop industry as a whole, which averages a value of $2 billion at the farm gate per year. In considering the impact of the GM moratorium on the state as a whole, it is imperative that we consider the broader direct and indirect implications introducing GM food crops would have on the state's entire food production system.

I believe this bill would extend these regulations until 2025. Extending the regulations would provide greater certainty to our international trading partners and industry and enable South Australia to maintain its market position as a producer of premium food and to respond to the expected increase in global demand for non-GM food. Therefore, the government will support this bill but intends to move a minor amendment in the committee stage to extend the expiry of the regulations for a further three years until 2028.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (21:45): This bill will extend the current moratorium on growing genetically-modified crops in South Australia. At present the moratorium is due to expire in September 2019. I understand it is the Hon. Mark Parnell's intention to not only extend this expiration date but also to provide a mechanism whereby a parliamentary debate will occur should the decision to lift the moratorium be made.

This matter has been one of great conflict to me. The safety or hazards of GM crops have not been determined. Farmers argue that they want GM crops as they have a higher yield; however, I have received information to the contrary. I have spoken to a farmer who is concerned that the moratorium is a hindrance to South Australia because it may impede us from accessing new technologies which would be advantageous to the agricultural sector; however, I understand that by incorporating the moratorium into legislation rather than leaving it to regulation, it will provide any member of parliament with the opportunity to present a bill to remove the moratorium. This is in contrast to what would occur now, whereby the decision is entirely at the discretion of the government of the day.

Notwithstanding the above, I understand the moratorium is based on whether there is a marketing advantage to being GM free. I do not think there is any dispute that there is a worldwide marketing advantage to be able to say that products are from a state that is entirely GM free. As such I support the Hon. Mark Parnell's bill to extend the moratorium, but indicate that next year I will refer the matter of the GM moratorium to be investigated by a committee. I am not sure yet as to whether this would be referring the matter to one of the standing committees or establishing a select committee, but I am putting on the record that Advance SA believes this matter requires further investigation so that the parliament can make an informed decision about the matter.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (21:48): To sum up the debate, I would like to thank the four members who have made a contribution: the Hon. David Ridgway, the Hon. Tung Ngo, the Hon. John Darley and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. A lot has been said in the last half an hour or so, and I do not intend to counter every single argument that was made. If people go back to my second reading contribution they will find that these issues were all covered. However, I cannot let it go through to the wicket-keeper without raising a few issues.

I will start with the Hon. David Ridgway. The essence of his contribution is that parliament is not the right place to make decisions about the future of South Australia in relation to this particular topic. He wants a high level, expert review and he has committed to one within six months. When you put those two things together, what the honourable member is saying is that the parliament is incapable of taking advice from experts, of undertaking reviews, of getting people in, grilling them about their positions, interrogating the science, and then coming up with findings and recommendations.

The Hon. John Darley understands that that is what parliament can do, and that is why I am very pleased that he is supporting the bill. I am happy to say on the record that I will get behind his commitment that this issue needs to go to a committee of parliament. I think it is an important issue and I think we need to investigate it.

But the Hon. John Darley put his finger on it in that, if we do not do anything, then all we have is a Liberal promise that they are going to have some sort of an expert inquiry. We do not know who is going to be on it, who is going to pick the experts, we do not know if it will be public or secret. We do not know what its terms of reference will be. At the end of the day, if the Liberal Party is in government and they decide to lift the moratorium, they do not actually have to do anything. They can just wait until 1 September comes around and the moratorium evaporates.

That is not a sensible way of making policy. A sensible way of making policy is what the Hon. John Darley suggested—a proper inquiry to get all the evidence in and, as the honourable member pointed out, if any member of parliament wants to come back and say, 'No, we think the moratorium is a bad idea. We think it is time that it was lifted,' they can bring it to parliament and parliament will decide. That is what we do in a democracy.

I cannot let this go through: the Hon. David Ridgway verballed me in relation to safety. If you look at the contribution I made, it was reflecting the law of the commonwealth which says that moratoriums at the state level exist as a result of economic and marketing advantages that the state believes it has. That is what I addressed in my second reading contribution. That is the basis of the current moratorium and it is the basis of keeping the moratorium going.

Other members, including the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, denied that there was any premium. Well, he is denying the weekly chart that appears in The Weekly Times newsletter which sets out in two columns—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! No debate.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: It has the different prices—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: —of GM and non-GM. The Hon. David Ridgway—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Go and have a look.

The PRESIDENT: Stop verballing the Hon. Mr Parnell.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: —says that I do not understand farming. I have pointed out to members that the grain growers association, when grilled on radio, admitted that half their members want to keep the moratorium. Sure, half might want to lift it but half want to keep it. This is not as if it is some city versus country thing. It is not as if the farmers are completely unified in wanting GM and everyone else is against them, it is just not that way at all. You need to look at the evidence and hear what the farmers are actually saying. They admit that half their numbers do not want it.

The point is that once GM crops are allowed, what the Hon. Robert Brokenshire said I do not think is correct. He said, 'You can just keep it separated.' It does not work like that. It does not work like that in terms of the spread of material through wind and rain and animals, and it is by the side of the roads, the so-called volunteers that spill out of the side of trucks. Ultimately, you end up with mixed crops. Long term it is impossible to segregate them. That is the experience in other jurisdictions.

I will just finish my summing-up by saying two things. Firstly, in relation to the Hon. Tung Ngo's contribution, I am grateful that the government is going to be supporting this bill because that gives us the numbers to get this bill through this chamber tonight. He has indicated that the government's intention was to move an amendment to extend my bill even further with three years. I am relaxed with that. I am comfortable with extending it further. The principles stay the same. It will be a parliamentary decision, but the Hon. John Darley has expressed the view that he would rather stick with the original bill, and I think that is probably the way to proceed. As I said, I am relaxed about the government's amendment.

At the end of the day, the most important thing is that we put this important issue back in the hands of the people's representatives so that the moratorium does not just evaporate because a date on the calendar comes around. I am delighted that we have the numbers tonight and I look forward to the speedy passage of the bill through the committee stage and into law.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 9

Noes 8

Majority 1

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Let's try to handle the whole bill with a little bit of maturity, if we can. It is emotional for some people, so I think we would respect that.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I would like just to quickly put a couple of things. The Hon. Mark Parnell addressed some of the comments I made, and again I said he should go out and have a look at farming. He made the comment around contamination and how it is impossible to manage. All we are actually talking about is having a high-level review and having a look, but in relation to contamination, if you go to the South Australian-Victorian border from where I lived, Bordertown to Mount Gambier, in most cases the border is an old netting fence not much higher than about your waste.

There are not many cattle there, so it keeps sheep in. There is meant to be a three-chain road on every border because that is what you have, a road so that you can traverse your state without having to go into foreign territory in Victoria, but most farmers actually crop that road, knowing that if somebody wants to drive through or drove some sheep through, your crop is going to be flattened. In actual fact, we have crops much closer than the Hon. Kyam Maher and I are apart. In Victoria, they can grow a GM crop and the grower on this side of the fence cannot grow it. It is no different to what would happen if you grew it inside a state.

I am amazed at the lack of understanding. People think South Australia is surrounded by desert, from the Nullarbor Plain, all the way around until you get to the Murray River, where it starts to get a bit more arable. From about Pinnaroo, you go through the big desert and then you come down from where I used to live to Mount Gambier, Nelson and the Glenelg River, where it is highly productive land. I introduced the opium poppy bill because people just over there could grow opium poppies and on this side of the border we could not.

I ask the Hon. Mark Parnell to consider: how do farmers in the South-East, if there is a benefit in a rotation sense to be able to have that opportunity to spray out some weeds, grow a crop over the next four or five years and get a better yield? The bloke over there can do it, but here I cannot. You have to actually understand the statements you make around contamination. If it was a real problem, we would have 10 years of contamination in South Australia over the South Australian/Victorian border. There are farmers I know who grow two crops—GM canola on one side of the border and non-GM on the other—and manage it without any problems. I think you have to have an understanding of how that particular part of the rotation works.

What we have been asking for is a high-level review. I made that very clear and I think it is very disappointing that people do not want to have that. I am astounded, and I am certainly going to be communicating to the agricultural sector—the grains sector—the decisions that this chamber has made tonight. They are the ones who actually have an opportunity to have the moratorium that affects their lives reviewed to measure exactly the benefit that the minister claims he will get. I will be asking questions of the Hon. Tung Ngo when he moves his amendment.

With those comments, I want to make it clear that this is a particularly important issue. If there are benefits, why are we going to lock our farmers out of those benefits? I do not know. As I keep saying, I am not a scientist. The Hon. Ian Hunter is the only one in this chamber with a science degree.

The Hon. Mark Parnell and the Hon. John Darley say somebody can bring a motion back to the parliament. I do not know whether Nick Xenophon is still honourable or not, but he could be back in this place. He probably is still honourable. He is allowed to keep that title. The Hon. Nick Xenophon and his team may get four or five members elected to this chamber and have the balance of power.

We have no idea of the make-up of this chamber. The Hon. Tammy Franks might not get elected this time. Who knows? The Hon. Robert Brokenshire might not get elected. At the end of the day, I am amazed that the Hon. Mark Parnell thinks that a parliament of an unknown capability and expertise would be a better place than a high-level review that actually has experts—scientists—to make this judgement.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Ngo–1]—

Page 2, line 9 [Clause 2(2)]—Delete '2025' and substitute '2028'

I am moving this amendment on behalf of the government to extend the expiry of the regulations to 1 September 2028, rather than September 2025, as a 10-year extension of South Australia's non-GM position would provide greater certainty for investment in the sector and enable continued work with industry to capitalise on its benefits and gather evidence of its impacts. Ten years is the usual period for regulations to be in place before a review, and this extended time frame is considered to be more in line with market needs.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I would like to know from the mover of the motion what consultation the government has had with the industry stakeholders. I notice from the government's report that you were going to invite businesses to be interviewed as part of this, to liaise with Food SA and, depending on sufficient industry support, provide a briefing to relevant government ministers on the findings and implications of government policies. What consultation have you had with Grain Producers SA, Primary Producers SA and Food SA?

The Hon. T.T. NGO: I cannot respond to that question, because I am moving this on behalf of the minister, who is in another place. The minister is obviously not here tonight, and his adviser is not here. I am happy to provide that question tomorrow or in the following sitting week, if that is the case. My advice is, as I said earlier, that the 10 years provides certainty and gives the sector the opportunity for further investment. I also spoke about how the canola industry is important to the South Australian food and wine industry. That is the reason I am moving for the 10-year extension.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It says in the recommendations of the government's report that they provide a briefing to relevant government ministers. Which ministers have been briefed?

The Hon. T.T. NGO: I will have to bring back that response, because, as I said, I am moving this on behalf of the minister. I am happy to provide that answer on the next sitting day.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In that case, if he is happy to provide an answer, I move:

That progress be reported.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 6

Noes 11

Majority 5

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I just want to put on the record that I am surprised that the Australian Conservatives did not see the opportunity to support an adjournment so that we could actually find out if the government had consulted. The Hon. John Darley, I am surprised that you would not support an adjournment to see if the government had actually spoken to the industry, to see whether they had actually honoured the recommendations of the report that Hon. Mark Parnell refers to.

This was not voting against it, it was just adjourning it so that the Hon. Tung Ngo could come back with information that he offered to bring back to the chamber. I am very surprised and I think a lot of South Australians will be equally surprised that you have not taken this opportunity to adjourn this until the next Wednesday of sitting when, if it passed, there would still be ample opportunity in the last sitting day, or the optional week, for the government to jam it through in the House of Assembly. It was not as though it was going to be dead. I am very surprised that that decision has been made.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The Australian Conservatives have made their position very clear, but there are protocols and procedures in this place. I am not going to apologise for the ineptness of the government. We know the government's position: for short term political gain they are prepared to cause potential serious income losses to agriculture in South Australia without the science. I do not think they have any science. This goes back to Rory McEwen when he was the minister and did a deal with the Labor Party back in the Hon. Mike Rann government era.

The point is that it is not a government bill. This is private members' time. The Hon. Mark Parnell has put something up and we oppose it—we have made that clear—but to report progress and delay it further we do not support. I am very happy to go on Country Hour tomorrow and put the reason why we wanted to get on with it. We do not agree with it; we are opposed to it—let's tell the public of South Australia. The fact is, the government do not have any science whatsoever.

The Hon. Leon Bignell's best attribute is that he plays bluff. He bluffs his way through and he is not challenged. The fact is, this government has no scientific evidence. It is a policy decision of this government based more on marginal seats in Adelaide—that is what it is. If it was a government bill we would have supported the Liberal Party, but in private members' time we cannot support reporting progress because there is a challenge to the government on a private member's bill from the Hon. Mark Parnell. That is the reason for that.

Our position is clear: we do not support the Hon. Mark Parnell's bill. We know where the government are and we look forward to a time when we can have, with cool, clear, calm heads, a proper scientific debate that we will support. If the opposition become government, we will support, as the number one priority, in April next year, or whenever the government, if it is a Liberal government, want to do it, a full, detailed and urgent inquiry into this and we are not going to allow it to procrastinate and go forward. There are procedures here that we have to stick to as principles. This is not a government bill, it is a private member's bill.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (22:16): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT: Seconded. All those in favour. Against. I declare it carried.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: What about the noes?

The PRESIDENT: I said, 'All those in favour. Against. I declare it carried.'

The Hon. T.A. Franks: You didn't say no; what about the noes?

The PRESIDENT: That is quite an extraordinary position to put to the President.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Do you want to read it a third time now?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: As a matter of procedure, sir, I understand that any member has the right to divide on the third reading. I thought I heard a division called and I second that division.

The PRESIDENT: I honestly did not hear any division.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: No, I am not going to put it again. I am not going to jump at shadows every time I make a decision.

Bill read a third time.

The PRESIDENT: I now put the question that this bill now do pass.

The council divided on the question:

Ayes 9

Noes 8

Majority 1

Question thus carried; bill passed.