Parliamentary Committees

Select Committee on Moratorium on the Cultivation of Genetically Modified Crops in South Australia

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:28): I move:

That the report of the select committee be noted.

The Select Committee on Moratorium on the Cultivation of Genetically Modified Crops in South Australia received submissions and heard evidence from a broad range of people and organisations. Essentially, the inquiry took on the form of a debate. The arguments put forward were strongly divergent as to the importance, even imperative, of removing the moratorium, as opposed to those foretelling the risks inherent in such action. Fundamental to the divide was whether the science around GM technology is settled.

Those advocating the lifting of the ban acknowledge that when the moratorium was introduced in 2004 it was a cautionary measure in response to the initial release of GM technology. Some 15 years later, however, those seeking change believe that the restrictions are at odds with established science and economic modelling and are detrimental to South Australia's future prosperity. The impact on business and research led to appeals for it to be revoked.

Voices supporting the moratorium, however, have called on the committee to acknowledge the uncertainties around many aspects of GM processes and products. They argue that opposition to GM technology stems from genuine scientific, ethical and governance issues that have been ignored. Despite the biotech industry's attempt to manufacture certainty over some decades with assurances that there is no debate about the safety and need for GM technology, advocates believe the moratorium's removal would destroy the state's clean and green image and lead to widespread contamination and loss of market advantage.

Those mounting the case for the retention of the moratorium included organic farmers, the organic industry's peak bodies, societies and associations. For them, GM technology epitomised the very destruction of the industry, their livelihoods and chosen way of life. Additional support came from anti-GM organisations, academics and researchers offering statistical data on international marketing advantages for non-GM, the growing health and wellness sector and the innate hazards of GM technology.

The former minister of agriculture, food and fisheries stressed the current benefits and future potential of the state's clean, green, GM-free reputation, while the directors of two Japanese cooperatives, buyers of Kangaroo Island Pure Grain, accentuated the worth of the state remaining GM-free. Many individual submissions petitioned the committee to uphold the status quo.

Conversely, a host of representative bodies from the agricultural sector called loudly for the moratorium to be removed. In their view, the bans have not delivered benefits in terms of price premiums or market advantage but have hampered farmers and a range of associated industries, including research and development. If the moratorium remains in place, they argued that South Australia will fall even further behind in a highly competitive world.

While GM canola, currently available, offers advantages of higher yield, fewer chemicals and better weed management, for those seeking the moratorium's removal, the promise of emerging GM crops is coveted even more. Apart from farmers themselves, many agricultural bodies, agronomists, researchers, academics, grain handlers and a current and a former member of parliament all insisted that coexistence and segregation is possible. They contended that, if the state is to progress, and even resume its former high rank standing in agricultural science, GM technology must be available.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (16:33): I rise to support the noting of this report. Can I indicate my appreciation for the manner in which not only the Hon. John Darley chaired the committee but also the way in which my three colleagues on the committee conducted themselves and the way, I think, they were very fair in dealing with all of the people that gave evidence to us. There were divergent views; there is no doubt about that. But I think, given the nature of that, the committee handled this topic very well.

I very much support the position that the Hon. Mr Darley and I reached, that the moratorium be retained for Kangaroo Island but lifted for the rest of South Australia. I do that on the basis that, in an overwhelming manner I think, there was evidence that reinforced my view that the farming sector in South Australia, which is highly regarded around the world and has been for decades, deserves the opportunity to have the choice of growing genetically modified crops within their rotation schedule.

It is something that happens everywhere else in Australia and certainly the world has not ended. I recently drove back from the Wimmera of Victoria, through the big towns of Natimuk and Goroke—which the Hon. Mr Ridgway might be familiar with but I am not sure how many others here are—through to Frances. There are thousands of acres of canola in that area and, while I do not have any figures on it, my understanding is that the great majority of that is GM canola. A lot of that country is very similar to country that is immediately over the border in South Australia.

I think, along with the Hon. Mr Darley, we recognise that, given the natural boundaries of Kangaroo Island, there is a benefit for the retention of the moratorium on that island. My support for the position that the Hon. Mr Darley and I took is also, I think, backed up by the fact that throughout my life I have been well aware of the world-renowned reputation of crop breeders and scientists in the research in crop varieties in this state. I think the continuation of the moratorium has weakened that position.

We had evidence of where some of the leading researchers in this state, who would have been the natural beneficiaries of money from the grain sector in doing further research, missed out on the tender and the tender was given to a university in Victoria. That university in Victoria then handed the tender back to the South Australian researchers on the proviso that they had to do the work in the Wimmera of Victoria. If that is not bizarre, then I do not know what is. In my time as a person involved in the farming sector, the quality of our research here and the terrific development in varieties suitable to our climate has been highly regarded around the world and has been taken up in other parts of the world. We need to do everything we can to make sure that that research capacity is enhanced and that we do not lose those people from South Australia.

In his remarks, the honourable member mentioned the word 'segregation'. We had great evidence on the ability of the grain handling sector to segregate grains and segregate different varieties of grain. I think those of us who visited the Viterra facility at Port Adelaide saw a great difference in the way that those segregations can be handled. We also have evidence that there are many silos around South Australia, and I know that the case is similar in parts of other states, where there are some smaller silos that generally are being bypassed as bigger transports take the grain to bigger facilities, bigger ports, but in many cases those smaller facilities are ideal for being the places where GM crops can be delivered and kept separate from any other grain.

The ability to segregate is something that is stark in my mind. Many years ago, we delivered grain in a seven or eight-tonne truck to Port Adelaide, which was not our closest silo but the easiest to get to as far as when the truck was full you were going downhill and the trip uphill was when you were empty. That was Port Adelaide.

My recognition of some of the unfortunate practices by some people, where things were put into loads of grain in those days, is not something that I reflect on well, but we have now seen a great advancement in the grain handling industry in the way in which loads of grain are monitored, measured and identified, which is something where the grain can be identified back to particular growers. That evidence we received about segregation only enhanced my views that this is the right way to go. With those remarks, I support the noting of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.