Genetically Modified Crops

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. J.A. Darley:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into and report on the moratorium on the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in South Australia, with specific reference to—

(a) the benefits and costs of South Australia being GM-free for the state, its industries and people;

(b) the effect of the moratorium on marketing South Australian products both nationally and internationally including:

(i) costs and benefits to South Australian industries and markets of remaining GM-free;

(ii) costs and benefits to South Australian industries and markets from lifting the moratorium on cultivating GM crops in South Australia;

(iii) current or potential reputational impacts, both positive and negative, on other South Australian food and wine producers, that may result from retaining or lifting the moratorium;

(iv) consideration of global trends and consumer demands for GM crops/foods versus non-GM crops/foods;

(c) the difference between GM and non-GM crops in relation to yield, chemical use and other agricultural and environmental factors;

(d) any long term environmental effects of growing GM crops including soil health;

(e) the potential for contamination of non-GM or organic crops by GM crops, including:

(i) consideration of matters relating to the segregation of GM and non-GM crops in the paddock, in storage and during transportation;

(ii) the potential impacts of crop contamination on non-GM and organic farmers;

(iii) consideration of GM contamination cases interstate and internationally; and

(f) any other matters that the committee considers relevant.

2. That standing order 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

4. That standing order 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

(Continued from 26 July 2018.)

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (18:02): As members would be aware, the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) food crops is currently prohibited in South Australia until 2025. GM food crops are crops that have been derived or developed from organisms that have had changes made to their DNA using genetic engineering. South Australia has a reputation for producing some of the world's most premium food and wine from our clean and green environment. In 2016-17, under the Labor government, gross revenue from our food and wine industry was almost $20 billion, a South Australian record.

Key highlights from the 2016-17 food and wine scorecard include gross food and wine revenue increasing by $1.33 billion to reach record levels of almost $20 billion, with increases in revenue generated by the field crop and wine industries. Finished food and wine values continue to grow, with an increase of $334 million, to reach record levels of $8.9 billion. Increases in revenue were generated by the wine, field crops, horticulture and dairy industries. Total overseas exports of food and wine increased by $419 million to reach $5.64 billion, a 49 per cent increase in merchandise exports.

Finished or processed foods and wine exports increased by $23 million and reached $3.4 billion. Many may think these record figures could be attributed to our non-GM status. However, this is not concrete evidence, and there is a need to examine the financial benefits of our current non-GM status and to what degree we receive a premium, whether that be locally, interstate or internationally.

I also believe there should be further examination of the impact of removing the moratorium on South Australia's reputation as one of the world's clean, green premium food regions. We also need to determine whether we can derive any additional benefits of our non-GM status, and determine what gains/losses would occur if we were to remove the moratorium on GM produce.

It is also important to examine whether GM crops can coexist with non-GM crops in South Australia. There is also the question of regional exclusion zones for non-GM food crops, such as Kangaroo Island. Before any decisions are made, it is imperative that we hear submissions from farmers and other relevant parties in relation to their views on whether South Australia should be allowed to have GM food crops.

It goes without saying that we all want South Australia's agriculture industry to continue to boom and, in the midst of the drought that is affecting the majority of the nation, it is wise to consider all options that would help the bottom line in this industry.

Whatever decision we make ultimately in relation to GM, it should be guided by the best available independent science and evidence in relation to the impact of GM and non-GM-related price premiums. For these reasons, I indicate that the opposition will be supporting this motion, and we thank the Hon. John Darley for bringing it to the council.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (18:06): On behalf of the government, I am happy to speak to this motion moved by the Hon. John Darley. As an election policy, the Marshall Liberal government committed to commissioning an independent expert review of South Australia's GM moratorium within the first six months of coming to office, and the process to instigate that review is underway.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Leader of the Opposition, allow the minister—

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I know it has been a long day for him and he is a bit frustrated, but best if we could just sit and listen for a change and learn something. As members opposite would recall, we had a long debate last year, very late in the parliamentary sitting period before the election and very late at night, which was a bit unusual the way things were dealt with when we had a bill that went through parliament last year, promulgated by the Hon. Mark Parnell, to give the parliament the right to decide whether or not we should have a moratorium.

We did not support the Hon. Mark Parnell's bill. I will make a few more comments, but it will be no surprise to members in this chamber that we will not support the select committee. We have the government review, the independent one—that will do—and I think the parliament will be given an opportunity to make a decision.

I can see that, if that review is tabled and the select committee has not reported because members choose not to report, or because they have not got around to reporting—I was talking to the Hon. Mr Hunter during one of the divisions that maybe we should instigate (I don't know the figure) three or four active select committees at any one time, and we have to deal with them before we can consider the next ones.

It is becoming more complicated for people to get the time to sit on select committees, and I wonder whether this is an opportunity to say, 'Okay, yeah, let's have them.' The feds have an inquiry, they deal with it and they do the next one, rather than having these things drag on. Anyway, I am getting a little distracted on standing orders and procedure.

It is important to note that the regulatory scheme for gene technology only allows states to have in place a moratorium for trade and marketing purposes. This was because the commonwealth regulates all the human health and environmental impacts for genetically modified organisms. The state government's independent review will consider similar matters to those proposed in the select committee. The government's review is focused on assessing, marketing and trade issues and economic costs and benefits of the moratorium across the supply chain.

The Hon. John Darley has correctly stated, following last year's extension of the moratorium to 2025, that it cannot be lifted unless it is the will of the parliament. The government's independent expert review will provide critical, impartial data to allow the parliament to have its considered debate on the merits of the moratorium, to ensure the best outcome for the people of South Australia. As I said earlier, we will not be supporting it.

There are a few other comments I would like to make in response to some of the comments made opposite. It was interesting that the Hon. Ms Bourke said that we needed the best science and evidence. I find it strange that the Labor Party have a member and former minister in Mr Hunter, who has a science degree and reads the New Scientist magazine every day in parliament to keep himself abreast of the latest issues and trends, but, bafflingly, is not being proposed as a member of the committee because—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: He's been sidelined.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: He must have been sidelined and excluded from it. We actually try to draw on the skills of the members in this chamber. Maybe you should say we should exclude the Hon. Mark Parnell because he already has a view on GM that is already well documented in this place. Maybe we should have some independent scientists there, rather than people who have already declared their hand. Anyway, the Labor Party has made the decision as to who they would have.

The Hon. Ms Bourke, who is new to the parliament—and I am sure she learnt something about the former government's budget—I am sure will be very happy that she was not a member of the former government and she can actually distance herself from all of the atrocities that I am sure our new Treasurer will tell us about over the coming weeks. It is interesting that she made the comment that we should be able to see whether they could coexist. Your colleague the Hon. Tung Ngo was in Bordertown with me last year to present some money, I think to a local soccer club. We actually had the pleasure of going to the Bordertown Cup, the race meeting on the Sunday, and I was down there for a family birthday on the Saturday night.

I said to Tung, 'Come with me, I want to take you for a drive out to Victoria,' because I farmed on the South Australia-Victoria border. We went along the back road of my old farm, and lo and behold there was my neighbour, Mr Jamie Edwards, and his son, harvesting canola right against the Victorian border, and blow me down, on the other side of the border was the canola of a Victorian farmer. He had harvested his so I do not know whether it was GM or non-GM. I know him but I did not have his mobile phone number to call him.

But Tung saw that it is only a matter of a few metres between South Australia and Victoria—no different to any neighbours anywhere in South Australia—only a few metres between two farms. We talk about coexisting—we do coexist between South Australia and Victoria because we have to. I think a lot of members in this place, when they think about the moratorium, think about our state borders north of Loxton, right the way around the Northern Territory, Queensland, and down Western Australia, where it is just desert and nothing grows. But you have an important interface between Victoria and South Australia and we can prove that we can coexist.

The distance between those two crops is no different from two neighbours at Clare or Blyth or Buckleboo or Bordertown—no matter where you are you can still have that same situation. My good friend and neighbour Jamie Edwards was happily growing their non-GM canola because that is what they could grow. He and his wife happen to be two farmers who have mixed views about GM, but the neighbour, I am sure, who is a very progressive farmer may well have been growing GM. So the two can coexist.

At the South Australia-Victoria border, there is a lot of cropping. There are actually farmers who own land on both sides of the border and grow the GM canola on one side and non-GM on the other side and use the same harvester, the same air-seeder, the same trucks and bins and everything is the same. It is interesting, last year we had a farmer from Auburn send me a photo. He could not kill the volunteer canola in his wheat crop because it was GM canola. We asked questions of the former honourable minister, I think in estimates, who said that these days we allow 1 per cent of GM canola in canola because we have a tolerance.

This farmer sprayed the volunteer canola from the previous year and sowed the wheat crop in a timely fashion, and there was one plant in every 20 metres that did not die because it was GM canola. So, we think we are totally GM free—there is already a tolerance there. I was happy to show the Hon. Tung Ngo that two farmers can coexist.

I am also interested in the fact that the Hon. Ms Bourke spoke about the drought. Right now, everybody talks about Monsanto or the big chemical companies when it comes to GM, particularly in relation to herbicide tolerance. However, what we need in South Australia is drought tolerance, salt tolerance and frost tolerance, all the things that will improve the productivity of our farmers. Certainly, chemical and herbicide resistance has been a tool from the point of view of farm rotation and wheat management.

I remember that, during the debate last year, the Hon. Mark Parnell talked about GM premiums. He missed the point that farmers often use GM canola not because it makes more money than non-GM but because it can control some of the weeds in their rotation so that they can afterwards grow a better wheat or barley crop, or lentils or peas or beans or whatever. So it is not about the crop itself at the time. It is a sort of myth that we have. We deny our farmers the latest technology. It does surprise me that the Hon. Mr Hunter's mobile phone is a bit older than most. Where everyone else has pretty modern technology, he is taking a little while to catch up.

We embrace technology wherever we can to make our lives better and our businesses and hospitals more productive. I was talking to somebody last night about how building a new hospital is a challenge, because if you design it in 2011 and move into it seven years later, technology has changed so much in that time. We expect our community, our public leaders and our politicians to allow uptake of technology for our children at school and in universities, yet we say to our farmers, 'No, you can't actually access that technology because we think we know best.' I think this is unfortunate for our farming community because they need to have the right to make a choice.

I note that the policy of the Hon. Mr Pangallo and the Hon. Ms Bonaros, which I looked at before the election, was that farmers have a right to say no to GM. That might not have been the exact wording, but I think that is right. The farmers in Victoria have a right to say no—they do not have to grow it. They are not forced to grow it.

I think there is a bit of a myth put around by some of the friends and supporters of the Hon. Mark Parnell in relation to being beholden to the big chemical companies, namely, if you grow this stuff you will have to use their seed and their herbicides. Farmers will only grow what makes them profitable. They will not do something if it is not profitable. It is tough enough as it is, and in years like this, when it does not rain, it is very tough.

So I always find it bizarre when I hear, 'You'll be beholden to the big companies.' The only company you will be beholden to, if you are a farmer, is the bank. It is the bank that is breathing down your neck, especially in a season like we have now. I am very grateful that, finally, we have the Farm Debt Mediation Bill that has passed through parliament because, tragically, we will probably have some need for that in this particular year.

I always find it strange that we think that farmers will be beholden to the big companies. Surely they should have a choice and a right to say no. In all the other states nobody is beholden to any of the big chemical companies—they have the right to say no. I think it is interesting that that part of the debate is thrown up.

It is also interesting that, straight after the last election about four years ago, our former minister joined the march against Monsanto out the front of Parliament House. If you look at what Monsanto has delivered, which is a herbicidal glyphosate marketed as Roundup, most people in agriculture would say that it is the best invention since the invention of the tractor because of the productivity gains, the environmental gains, the reduction in diesel usage and more soil carbon and organic matter in soil because people are not cultivating to kill weeds. Every vineyard would be spraying the weeds in and around the vines with Roundup because it is universally seen as a fabulous productivity gain for farmers.

We had a minister who had his views about GM, and he had a view of Monsanto that was totally at odds with the entire industry he was meant to represent at the cabinet table. So it is an interesting debate. I think Mr Darley has the numbers. I look forward to the committee reporting on the evidence given to it. I hope it is done in a timely fashion because a government review will have to be done.

When it is completed, if there are compelling reasons to bring the bill to parliament—and the Hon Mr Parnell and the Hon. Mr Darley supported him last year—that will be a debate that we will have in this place. I know the Hon. Mark Parnell said publicly that he would be happy to be convinced, that he would take all the evidence and advice that we are looking at, which are the economic benefits, because that is the only thing that we as a state can look at. The federal Labor Party already have a position that supports the GM technology in Australia, so they are already on the record as supporting it at a federal level.

I think the Hon. Mr Pangallo said he was doing a tour of regional South Australia. It would be good to get a bit of a feel for what people are saying out there in relation to GM, drought, frost, heat and all those things. They are important factors. While we do not have access to it, we do not have that next generation of technology breeding or plant capacity coming into our farming systems.

Another thing is that we have lost a number of key scientists from the Waite Research Institute. They have been here for 16 years in an environment where the government policy was at odds with their views. We have seen the funding of the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics withdrawn, and some of the people working there have left, which is a shame.

With those few words, I indicate that we will not be supporting the Hon. Mr Darley's select committee.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (18:21): I move the following amendment:

Delete paragraph 2 and insert new paragraph as follows:

2. That the committee consist of four members and that the quorum of members necessary to be present at all meetings of the committee be fixed at two members and that standing order No. 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (18:21): I thank honourable members for their contribution: the Hon. Emily Bourke, the Hon. David Ridgway and the Hon. Mark Parnell. I commend the motion to the chamber.

Motion as amended carried.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Minister, can you restrain yourself?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (18:23): I move:

That the select committee consist of the Hon. Emily Bourke, the Hon. Mark Parnell, the Hon. John Dawkins and the mover.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

That the select committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place and to report on 5 December 2018.

Motion carried.