Motions

Genetically Modified Crops

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. M.C. Parnell:

That the regulations made under the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004 concerning Designation of Area, made on 10 October 2019 and laid on the table of this council on 15 October 2019, be disallowed.

(Continued from 31 October 2019.)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:57): On 4 July last year, I moved a motion to establish a committee to inquire into the moratorium on the cultivation of GM crops in South Australia. I did this in response to the Hon. Mark Parnell's 2017 bill to ensure the GM moratorium in South Australia would be enshrined in legislation rather than being in place by way of regulation. At the time I supported the Hon. Mark Parnell's bill but gave an undertaking that I would move to establish a select committee to inquire into the matter. At the time I did not have a strong opinion one way or the other on GM crops and South Australia's moratorium but believed it warranted further investigation.

The committee has now finished its inquiry, and the government has also had an independent review into the same matter. As a result of being a member of the committee, I learned a great number of things and have ultimately formed the position that the moratorium should be lifted on mainland South Australia but should be maintained for Kangaroo Island.

South Australia is the driest state in the driest continent in the world. This year, we have seen drought west of Cleve, north-east of Hawker, and east of Eudunda as bad as we have ever seen. I believe we need technology to find ways to help farmers with their business. GM technology can provide crops that are drought and frost resistant with better yields, especially with the advent of climate change. I believe that farmers should be given the choice as to whether they want to use this technology or not. Indeed, this week a number of scientists wrote an open letter supporting the lifting of the GM moratorium. Just like any experts, I know there are a range of opinions on this matter, but I did read what they wrote with interest.

The government's amendments to the regulations lifts the GM moratorium on mainland South Australia but maintains it on Kangaroo Island. I understand there is opposition to the manner in which the government has gone about this in that it amended the regulations rather than bring the matter to parliament for scrutiny. However, I also understand that there is a timing issue here and that, if farmers did not know whether they would be able to grow GM crops or not in the next few weeks, then they would be unable to utilise this technology for another year.

It is because of this that I am not supporting the disallowance motion. I do not agree with the way in which the government has achieved its aim; however, I do not believe farmers should be the ones who are penalised for the government's actions.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:59): I rise to speak in support of the Hon. Mark Parnell's disallowance motion on the government's plans to use regulations to lift the moratorium on GM crops on mainland South Australia. Let me make it crystal clear from the outset, as I have done multiple times this week, that our decision is not based on whether we support the lifting of the moratorium or whether we do not support the lifting of the moratorium, or whether we support GM crops or whether we do not support GM crops. That, we have said, is a debate for another day and one that SA-Best absolutely welcomes.

Our decision is based entirely on ensuring the due processes of parliament are maintained, in fact followed, because to do otherwise would be setting a very bad precedent, which could have dire consequences in the future. As we have said, the government is trying to use a backdoor method of using regulations to get the moratorium lifted. They know only too well that this is approach is fraught with danger. It sets a bad precedent. It is bad lawmaking. As I said just yesterday on radio, or it might have been today, it is a bit rich and totally disingenuous for the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development to accuse us of playing politics with this issue and failing our farmers by not falling in line behind the government.

I will set the record straight once again because our record in terms of our support for farmers speaks for itself. Minister Whetstone knows only too well that he has himself to blame for the predicament in which he finds himself. He alone has created this mess, nobody else. Anyone would have thought, listening to the minister this morning on radio, that this was an SA-Best motion, because we supported it.

I do not know if my colleagues opposite were invited on to radio this morning, but it was clear from his interview that he needed a scapegoat for the government's ineptitude, and it appears that we are it, and that is fine. I am more than happy to hang my hat on the principles underpinning our party's policies, but I have to say that the minister's failure—complete and utter failure—to appreciate the ramifications of what we have been discussing with him is mind-boggling.

The government appeared to understand and appreciate process in opposition, but now in government that has gone completely out the window. I have been giving one example over and over again. It is an example of bad law and bad precedent and it is one that we are dealing with right now in this place. It is also one that the Attorney is all too familiar with, in fact.

Members will recall that in 2011 the former government introduced, against all good advice, a change to the threshold that applies under the retail and commercial leases regulatory regime, and despite repeated pleas from landlords and tenants alike, and the legal fraternity, the government sought to increase, with the stroke of a pen by regulation, the rental threshold from $250,000 to $400,000. Why? Because the legislation had not been reviewed for a number of years, and someone somewhere in their agency thought that there was no other mechanism for CPI increases, so they would use the only one available to them—clearly not in the way it was intended.

That decision created massive uncertainty as to whether, during the term of a lease, it could be within or outside the operation of the act. It has created much debate and judicial consideration. It has resulted in a number of problems for landlords and tenants alike. The 2017 Supreme Court case of Diakou Nominees Pty Ltd v Gouger Street Pty Ltd and Ors [2017] provided some but not absolute clarity on the issue.

The former government then had to introduce a new bill to clean up its mess for using a regulatory regime that resulted in that problem. But that bill lapsed once parliament was prorogued and now the current Attorney has been left to finish the clean-up to the detriment, I might add, of a number of landlords and tenants alike. That is what bad law-making looks like and that is precisely what we are dealing with now, bad law-making. The minister can, like the former Labor minister did, agree that we have Crown law advice, and it is solid, but we all know that that advice is only as good as the next legal challenge. That is what we saw with retail and commercial leases.

If we voted against the Greens' disallowance motion this time and sided with the government, as they have asked us to do, then who knows what we could be considering next. Imagine if we had a similar regulatory regime that applied to fracking and the government tried to lift the moratorium that applied on fracking across the state instead of GM crops. Imagine the outcry that we would be hearing in this place then.

Our decision, as I have said time and time again despite the government's refusal to accept it, is based on principle, on parliamentary process. It is based on the fact that the state government is ignoring the parliamentary due process in terms of having this issue debated here in parliament. If the government wants to lift the moratorium, it knows full well it needs to go through the normal parliamentary processes and introduce a bill into this place so that it can be properly, fully and transparently debated.

It was parliament that set the original moratorium and it is parliament that needs to debate the lifting of that moratorium. You are not attempting to lift a moratorium for a region. You are attempting to lift a moratorium across the entire state bar Kangaroo Island. When the moratorium was extended—and I am sure the Hon. Mark Parnell can confirm this for me—the intent of parliament was crystal clear. It may not have been in line with Liberal policy, it may not have been in line with any number of members' policies, but it was crystal clear nonetheless. If you want that changed, then my message to the government is go through the proper process.

The minister has been bold enough to suggest to me personally that that is what regulations are for and that we use regulations to overcome legislative obstacles. Maybe in Queensland but in this state we have an upper house and we have these things called disallowance motions, both of which exist for good reason. If this Liberal government is frustrated by the role of the upper house, then perhaps they need to rethink their approach to members of the upper house.

On the issue of certainty, which the minister keeps harping on about, let me say this. Whichever way you look at this, there is only one thing that remains certain—crystal clear, in fact. We will be back here in this place debating GM crops next year, either through another disallowance motion or a government bill or a private member's bill. If this situation has given rise to uncertainty, it is of the government's doing, not ours.

This is not a cop-out. I would have thought I have made it abundantly clear to the government and the opposition that, if you want a debate, bring it on because we are ready for a debate. We are ready, willing and able to appropriately consider the merits of any debate put before us. What we will not engage in as a party is bad law-making and the setting of bad precedents which will inevitably come back to bite us, every one of us.

Again, in terms of the certainty argument and in terms of the issue of time frame, it is flimsy at best because we all know that, if we were to vote against this disallowance motion and allow GM crops into the state now, as the minister says, it would not be a free-for-all, it is not open slather.

The situation, in terms of whether the moratorium is lifted, would come with some caveats. These are not caveats that I have come up with; these caveats have been put to me by the industry experts the government is relying on in terms of their support for GM crops.

These experts say that (1) farmers have already prepared for next year's harvest, so there is nothing this side of Christmas that will change that; (2) nobody is going to get GM seed this side of Christmas; and (3) regardless of whether the moratorium is lifted, suppliers have indicated they will be adopting a cautious approach in South Australia, which will see only a select few farmers have access to GM crops—they will undergo a stewardship program, which comes with measures and controls and contamination issues. They say the earliest this could occur would be in early April of next year.

So if anyone has been selling false hope and uncertainty to our farmers, it is not us; it is the minister himself. The only cop-out it in this debate is his cop-out for not having the intestinal fortitude to properly debate this matter in this place. We fully support our farmers and their right to make decisions and choices about how to best manage their properties, but that is not what we are debating. If you want to debate GM crops, then bring on a debate about GM crops; do not bring us a set of regulations that undermines our legislation and ask us to vote in favour of them.

I will not be lectured to by the minister—or any other member of the government, for that matter—about the rights and wrongs of our position. I will say this: even if all those issues I have just pointed to were to occur, in terms of timing and whatnot, the fact remains that we will be revisiting this issue next year. If we voted with the government now, then next year—in February, March, April, or whenever it may be—we would be back here having the same debate. We would be back on the same merry-go-round, going round and round on the issue of GM crops. If you want to debate GM crops and if you want to thrash it out in this place, then bring on a bill and determine the merits of GM crops.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:12): I will keep my remarks brief—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Well, if you would like me to keep going, I will. I rise to support the disallowance motion by the Hon. Mark Parnell and endorse the words of my colleague, the Hon. Connie Bonaros, particularly about the parliamentary process and its possible abuse. I am amazed at the gall of the government and the minister to imply that we are blocking something that would benefit the farmers of South Australia. We are not because, as the Hon. Connie Bonaros said, this is not about the GM debate.

Let me make it quite clear. I will not speak on behalf of the Hon. Connie Bonaros, but I am certainly not a luddite. I can see the enormous benefits of biotechnology, synthetic biology, nanotechnology and gene editing, which is saving lives and helping to battle disease. There are so many technological advancements going on in our world that are for the benefit of humankind. Incredibly, over the past few days, the government has decided to get activate its spin doctors and put out furphies about what we and the Greens are doing to the farming sector.

I heard on radio this morning attacks on what was going on with the process. They were making light of the fact by saying, 'What are we doing using this as an excuse to hold up something that would benefit farmers?' I picked up the paper this afternoon, or I went online, and the spin doctors have obviously got into the ears of The Advertiser and journalist Cameron England.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Quite clearly, here is the press release that went out from the Hon. Tim Whetstone accusing us and the Labor Party of putting the handbrake on the South Australian economy. We are not doing that, and to read this article today, 'Why do our gutless politicians keep ignoring science on issues such as GM crops, fracking and nuclear waste?'—he goes on to say that South Australian politicians have once again put evidence to one side and let their ideological biases drive the agenda, continuing to block genetically modified foods being grown by our farmers.

We are not debating that today, quite clearly we are not. In the last few weeks, since all this has come up—as I do with any topic that comes up in parliament, because we are not all experts on everything and the Hon. David Ridgway told me that I am not a farming expert, and I am not, and I never said that I was—through the experience of my previous working life, I always try to immerse myself in as much research and information on a particular topic as I possibly can, and that is what I have been doing on GM crops.

I have sought out a lot of information, probably more so than we see here on the government benches. I am currently going through this book Seeds of Science: Why we got it so wrong on GMOs. It was written by Mark Lynas. People in here probably do not know or remember Mark Lynas but you might recall that back at the time when GM crops started being planted overseas, Mr Lynas—along with a number of other environmentalists—was probably the most active destroyer of GM crops to be seen. He would go out with his fellow activists and deliberately destroy GM crops because they felt that they were a danger to the environment and also to human health. Here we are today, in 2019, and Mr Lynas has done a total about-turn. His book—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: And you can too.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I didn't say I had not. This is the thing: I have not made my case. I am talking about—

The PRESIDENT: Through me, the Hon. Mr Pangallo. Ignore them.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will ignore them, Mr President. Let me finish the story about Mr Lynas. He has done a total about-turn and these days he spends most of his time debunking the myths that have been going around about GM crops. It is quite an entertaining and informative read, if anyone would like to have a look at it. I am looking at it and I am also in contact with people in Canada where GM crops have been grown. When it comes time next year to formulate our position formally, I hope that I will be up to speed and able to make a rational judgement about it.

The argument that has been put up is: why don't we just wave this through and then let the government come up with a bill next year? Here is The Advertiser saying that our gutless politicians keep ignoring stuff; they are attacking politicians. Would you actually put your trust in something like that? Saying, 'Okay, we'll do that today. We'll let you pass this through and we'll wait for the legislation to come next year.' That is not what parliamentary process is all about.

I have only been in this place for a year and a half and I take this job really seriously. I actually want to see, when bills come up, that they are properly debated, that all the information is at hand and that we can make a proper judgement on this rather than having to rush things through because the minister and the government could not get their act together. Let's make it quite clear: that is the reason they are rushing it through now. They could not get their act together and now they just want to rush the whole thing through.

I saw the minister last week and I said to him, 'Why didn't you put a bill into the parliament? You had plenty of time; you've had months,' and he just shrugged his shoulders. I thought, 'Well, that's not good enough.' We do not want to see a situation like we saw in the British parliament, where Prime Minister Boris Johnson decided to just override and bulldoze parliamentary process and suspend the parliament, and then it goes to court and there was a massive judgement against his judgement. That is not what we want here. We want to see the proper parliamentary process put through and I think that is what the people of South Australia want. They want to see their politicians do what parliament is supposed to do: debate bills, pass the bills, and pass them on their merits, and that is what we want to do.

I think the government really needs to take stock. When they bring up regulatory issues before the parliament, they need to take into account what the bill was intended to do. The parliament made a decision to not allow GM crops into South Australia. That is what the parliament decided. What we are wanting to do, if there has been a change of views and if this is the will of the parliament, is debate it. Let's put it to the test like other bills, other pieces of legislation, are put, not merely try to ram it through because the government made a promise to farmers.

We have met with all the various interest groups in relation to this. They came in and saw us. They came in to basically give us a lesson on GM crops and the science and where it is at the moment. My response to them was, 'No, you don't have to give me that because I know where it is today. I know where the science of GM is.' This is not what this debate is all about. It is actually about getting the proper process done to enable this to be lifted, if that is what they want. After we explained it to them, they understood.

I can understand that farmers are missing out because that is what they explained. Some of them say it is costing them money, even though we know that some non-GM crops are getting premium prices. We know that researchers in South Australia—and South Australia is probably a world leader in this type of biotechnology—are losing contracts to companies interstate because of what is happening here. I empathise with them. I can see their frustration that they are unable to use their skills for the betterment of our agri-sector.

I keep saying in this place that I think the two most important things that will really impact on the world, particularly in a world where there is climate change, are food and water. They are going to be the two most important things that the world is going to be needing in years to come—food and water—and there will probably be wars fought over it. There is a lot of technology at the moment that is improving the type of crops out there. There is data that shows, particularly in the United States, that the GM crops there have been a benefit to the environment. Fewer insecticides are being used, they are getting higher yields and they do not need to clear as much land.

There are parts of the United States and Canada where the amount of land that has been saved from clearing because of the use of GM has been the equivalent of half the size of Wales. We have read all that. I have read the report that was done by the select committee, and I see where they are going. We will have an open mind on this when the bill comes up—we definitely will—but this is not what it is about today. It is about—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: What did I say? Anyway, this is not what it is about today. GM crops are for another time. I hope that the minister gets the message that he needs to prepare a bill, put it before the two houses of parliament and allow the debate to take place when that time comes, and everything will be taken into consideration. With that, we will be supporting the disallowance motion.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (17:25): I will be very brief. I will not occupy the chamber quite as long as you did, the Hon. Mr Pangallo, but I respect your ability and capability to do that; we do not have time limits in this house. I was a member of the select committee, and I spoke to that report some weeks ago. I refer members to the comments that I made on that. I stand to indicate that I do not support this disallowance motion.

It has been about 20 years since I was an active farmer, but I have an enormous amount of contact with farmers. There is an overwhelming wish from the farmers of this state, who are amongst the best in the world, for us to get on with this. We have had some discussion very recently this afternoon about the role of regulations. Regulations are part of the legislative system of the Westminster democracy and very much so in this state.

I am speaking as someone who has been on the wrong end of the development of regulations. The Hon. John Rau as attorney-general hid behind the development of regulations in the complex matter of surrogacy to delay the implementation of an act passed by the parliament; however, there is a significant distinction here in that the regulation that has been put in place by the minister is very clear.

It is very clear in relation to the fact that the wishes of mainland South Australia to grow GM canola will be respected along with the will of the Kangaroo Island farmers who put good evidence to the committee that they wish to remain out of it. Not all Kangaroo Island farmers want to remain out, but the great majority do, and that is the way this regulation operates. That is what it does. It is very clear. It is not the complex regulation that some have been talking about. I have great experience with the development of regulations in a complex area being used to delay a matter. I do have a bit of background in this.

Regarding the timing of what the minister has done, the way he has operated and whether he should have brought in a bill or not, the reality is that the minister has consulted widely. He brought in the economic report; we delivered that as promised. The minister respected that, consulted upon that report, has consulted upon the development of the regulations and has waited on the deliberations of the committee. So when my friend the Hon. Mr Pangallo says that it has been rushed, I think the minister has actually consulted this issue to death almost, so I respect the reason that it is being done.

In conclusion, can I say that I think it is time that South Australia allowed the growing of GM canola and, potentially in the future, maybe other crops. But as I have said in this place before, if you go over the border into the West Wimmera you will see thousands of acres of canola grown, and my organic farming friends tell me that it is 100 per cent GM. With those remarks, I indicate that I do not support the disallowance.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (17:30): I rise on behalf of the government to speak on this disallowance motion. I must say I was hoping that members opposite had been listening to the farmers and the researchers and the evidence before them to provide bipartisan support to lift the GM moratorium on mainland South Australia. The government wants to give our farmers the choice to grow GM crops. If farmers do not want to grow GM crops, it is their choice, and they will continue to access any non-GM markets, as has been done in every other mainland state for years. It is a lot about choice. It is interesting that Labor and Centre Alliance are now saying, 'It's all about the process.'

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: SA-Best, I beg your pardon. They are hiding behind the process. They are saying it is about the process. This is just another excuse, especially from Labor, to deny our farmers the right to this GM technology for the 16^th consecutive year. We are in the driest state in the driest continent, and members opposite think it is good to lock our farmers out of the latest technology. The regulation has been made legally, transparently and openly, following the statutory process, while listening to our agricultural industries, expert advisers and the general public.

I find it quite ironic that the Greens and Labor are also arguing about the process. For those members who were not here in the previous parliament, I will remind them that in late 2017 the Greens and Labor extended the GM moratorium to 2025. It is my view that there was no consultation done with industry and with the farming community. In fact, they did not even consult their own GM crop advisory committee.

If we are talking about process, we had some legislation rushed through the parliament with no consultation with industry, no consultation with their own GM advisory committee. So when other members in this chamber say, 'It's all about the process,' what they are doing is supporting bad process—the absolutely bad process—that was followed by the Labor government and the Greens in 2017.

Mr President, I am sure you will recall also that when pressed about the issue—to lift the GM moratorium—the former premier said, 'Well, the truth is there are not a lot of votes in that out there in country South Australia for us, so in some ways we're free of the electoral imperative to listen.' What an arrogant way to approach one of our biggest industries and one of our longest standing. South Australia was established as an agricultural business and colony and experiment, and that was the sort of arrogance that we were faced with.

Following the 2018 election, the opposition promised to listen to regional communities and the very people who are the backbone of the state's economy, yet here we are: it is just the same old Labor. They actually have not changed at all. It is funny: those opposite often talk big on climate change, and there we see, even right now, members opposite reading New Scientist. Former minister Hunter says you should always trust the science. Well, where is the trust in the science on this particular issue? Here is an opportunity to give farmers a vital tool helping them to adapt to climate change, and the Labor Party again is denying them this.

Lifting the GM moratorium will put the choice of what to sow back in our farmers' hands. They can make informed decisions on the individual businesses and specific environmental and seasonal conditions. It is interesting that we will see here today a group of people, none of which come from a farming background, who will vote, probably, I suspect, given where the numbers are, to support the disallowance. None of them have come from an agricultural background. The Hon. John Dawkins and I are the only two in this place who have come from an agricultural background.

South Australian farmers should have the choice of using new and improved crop varieties that farmers enjoy in our neighbouring states. I took the Hon. Tung Ngo to Victoria a couple of years ago, where we could see canola growing on both sides of the border, probably no further apart than the two backbenchers in this chamber. The one in South Australia was non-GM. I did not speak to the farmer on the Victorian side, but it could legally be grown as GM canola, yet there was no problem with the farmer in South Australia still having the non-GM benefit.

It is a bit of a furphy to say that if we keep GM free, you can do that on the state border. You can do it in Keith, in Kimber, Kyancutta, Cleve, Yorketown; anywhere you go, you can have the same segregation between two farmers. Here is what a couple of farmers said during the process. Mr Wayne Hawkins said:

We farm on the Victorian-South Australian border at Frances SA, it has always been difficult to understand why I can grow a crop in Victoria without worries but when I grow the same crop in South Australia I could be fined or put in gaol.

Russell Zwar, a sixth-generation Upper North grain grower, said:

As growers of canola I find it frustrating when farming acquaintances in other states of Australia have access to more varieties, different weed control options and potential new traits when choosing canola varieties. They successfully grow both GM and non GM canola on the same property and alongside neighbouring farmers with no issues of cross contamination and receiving virtually the same price for their end product as we do here in SA…The current extension of the GM Moratorium until 2025 leaves SA growers way behind other states of Australia not just for current GM crops that are available but also new and exciting opportunities in development.

Heather Baldock from Buckleboo said:

If our state is to embrace the science of climate change, be truly clean and green, and remain competitive with sustainable, safe and nutritious food production then we need GM technologies to facilitate our adaption and to support farmer's choice to grow varieties that best suit their markets, climate and agronomic challenges while remaining good stewards of the environment.

We need to be able to give our farmers the choice to take advantage of any new GM crops and pastures that may come on the market, particularly given the challenges with drought and frosts and, of course, uncertainty with rainfall. Lifting the moratorium will increase farm profitability and drought resilience, create job opportunities in our region, grow our state's economy and attract greater research investment.

It is interesting that the Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at Waite has closed. I could not believe that after the work that had gone into that, the researchers there have now left because of the former Labor government's policy. I think the Hon. Mr Pangallo alluded in his contribution to the researchers who are no longer here. One of the sectors that we are hoping to grow in our sector plan to grow the state's economy is the tech sector—agtech especially—yet this decision, if it goes the way we think it will go, will deny that part of our economy an opportunity to grow.

I would quickly like to touch on the process the government is undertaking to get to the decision we have made on lifting the GM moratorium on mainland South Australia. As an election commitment, we undertook a high-level independent expert review of South Australia's GM moratorium, which was undertaken by Emeritus Professor Kym Anderson AC. The review received 216 public submissions, with the reviewer consulting with experts in the field as well as the Labor-appointed, but rarely consulted, GM Crop Advisory Committee. The review found many of the submissions, including those from organisations representing South Australian farmers, favour the immediate removal of the moratorium.

The independent review's final report was released in February 2019, with 19 findings. Another round of public consultation was undertaken, with a total of 31 submissions received. The review found that the GM moratorium had cost South Australian grain growers at least $33 million since 2004 and will cost the farmers at least another $5 million if extended to 2025, harming the state's ability to attract investment in agricultural research and development.

GM crops are obviously licensed by the federal body and there are no health impacts, so the only aspect that a state can use is an economic one, and now we have independent proof that there is no economic benefit. The moratorium also found that it has discouraged public and private investment in agricultural research and development. We have world-leading dryland research in South Australia at the Waite campus, and our universities, we know, have lost millions of dollars of interstate and experienced research personnel because of the moratorium.

After considering the findings of the independent review and the subsequent consultation, the minister released a proposal to amend the regulations of the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004 and to lift the moratorium on mainland South Australia but leave it on Kangaroo Island, recognising the existing non-GM markets in Japan. Under section 5 of the act, the government undertook a six-week statutory consultation on the proposed amendments to the regulations and held two public meetings, one in Adelaide and one on Kangaroo Island.

The views of the GM Crop Advisory Committee on the draft regulations were also sought, and the committee supported the making of the regulations. Of the 218 submitters who provided written submissions to the statutory consultation, 129 were in favour of the draft regulations, including one submission seeking to lift the moratorium across the whole state; 74 were opposed; and 15 were out of scope.

We have the respectful select committee of the Legislative Council inquiring into the moratorium, chaired by the Hon. John Darley. As we know, the committee handed down its report and made three recommendations relating to supporting greater marketing opportunities and assistance of non-GM produce. The government will support these recommendations only if the moratorium is lifted on mainland South Australia.

Labor had 16 years to demonstrate there were marketing advantages for South Australia on GM. Where is the evidence showing that South Australia has received an economic advantage of having a moratorium in place? It simply does not exist.

Clearly those opposite, and particularly the Labor Party, have made a decision. I am really not quite sure what has forced them to make the decision. There is a lot of speculation that the member for Mawson, Mr Leon Bignell, had threatened to resign from the Labor Party and become an Independent. More importantly, he may have resigned from the parliament. That might be an incentive for everybody to support it.

I thought Peter Malinauskas might have been stronger than this. He has shown his true colours. He is a weak Leader of the Opposition. He could not even stand up to a backbencher, a former minister who said that he knew all about agriculture because he grew up on a farm. He left there when he was six, and he is in his 50s now. A lot has changed in the best part of nearly half a century.

You have the opposition leader, Peter Malinauskas, not even listening to people like the Hon. Ian Hunter, who said 'trust the science'. He is not even listening to the people like the Hon. Emily Bourke, who I know, deep down, actually supports GM crops. She sticks up for the farmers when it suits her, but does not stick up for them in this particular way.

Through the independent review and numerous rounds of consultation and a select committee hearing, it is clear that other mainland states have proven that coexistence is possible, segregation is strong and the sale of non-GM canola can continue. The Marshall government has a strong reform agenda to strengthen the state's economy. This decision will enable it to grow our agriculture sector. We are committing to supporting the $2 billion—$2 billion, Mr President—South Australian grains industry. We want it to be vibrant and productive.

It is interesting that, as I said, 11 people in this place will probably vote shortly. None of them come from an agricultural background. We have what we call it a representative on democracy. None of them represent the people that this will impact the most. We have talked about medical cannabis. I am certain from what I am told that there are a number of different clones and traits. Some are good for epilepsy, some for cancer, some for pain. I am certain in the evolution of that industry there will be genetic engineering to make sure we get exactly the right attributes from those plants to provide the absolute best medical benefit to the patients, yet we are saying we cannot have that sort of research in this place.

There are a couple of things quickly I will touch on before I wrap up. It relates to something the Hon. Mark Parnell said in his speech in relation to the select committee. He made a statement that farmers douse their paddocks in Roundup. That is a joke and an insult to farmers. The word 'douse' is like flooding and all of it. If you actually read the label on Roundup and talk to farmers—which I am not sure he would have ever done—you use about 1 litre to 1½ litres of Roundup per hectare. Applications rates with water can be as low as 25 litres per hectare. There are 10,000 square metres in a hectare. It is about a third of a teaspoonful per hectare of total spray—not Roundup; Roundup is a fraction of a millilitre. I think it is really a bit inflammatory to make statements such as 'douse their paddocks in Roundup.'

He then touched on some of the concerns around Roundup. In other parts of the world there will be some opportunities for a whole range of new generations of herbicides. Glyphosate is an interesting chemical. It has been reported to me, and I would agree with this, that it is the greatest invention for agriculture since the invention of the tractor. The benefits to farmland, the reduction in emissions from tractors, the lack of damage to the soil, the more organic carbon in the soil and improved opportunities for farmers to sow, as you would say, canola dry—and it rains, the weeds come up and they can spray it with Roundup. They get every millimetre of rain that falls on their farm to grow a grain to make them more profitable.

So this chemical that members opposite see as nasty and horrible has been the greatest benefit to modern agriculture of anything we have seen. It is interesting to see that the former minister, who obviously has some hold over the weak Leader of the Opposition, marched against Monsanto. That would be like a doctor marching against the discovery of penicillin. It is just unbelievable that you would have an agriculture minister march against a company that produces goods that make his sector more profitable. It is insane! I do not know what hold Leon Bignell, the member for Mawson, has over the opposition, because clearly he has some hold over them, and it just shows how weak and gutless they really are.

It is interesting to talk about organics. There are more organic farmers selling organic product in the other states where GM canola is grown. So that is clearly a furphy. It is about farmers' choice, and I know that members talk about price: it is about a management tool and about choice. Considering the future impact on farmers, it is time to lift the moratorium on the mainland and allow farmers the opportunity to make informed choices about what to sow based on their individual business and scientific conditions.

We have fought world wars for people to have the right to choose on their own farms to do what they would like to do. There are no damaging health aspects to GM crops: it is simply an ideological view that the Greens have taken and they are now supported by an absolutely weak and gutless opposition.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (17:46): I begin by thanking the members who have contributed: the Hon. John Darley, the Hon. Frank Pangallo, the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. David Ridgway and the Hon. John Dawkins. I thank them all for their contributions. As tempting as it is to go through each of the issues that were raised, especially those just now by the Hon. David Ridgway, I am going to resist the temptation and will limit my remarks to an update of things that have happened since I introduced the motion, because I think that is appropriate.

The first thing I will say is that, in this game of numbers that the Hon. David Ridgway likes to play when he says, 'Well, 129 people put in a submission saying they wanted the GM moratorium lifted', it is a question of meet you and raise you one because I said last time that we had 900 South Australians who had signed a petition saying they wanted to keep South Australia GM free. Since I made those remarks I have collected another 500 on the steps of parliament today—another 500 South Australians who want the moratorium to remain in place.

The other thing I would say, in relation to the question of whether this is about process or about the merits of the issue, certainly for some members, from what we have heard today, the process has been the dominant consideration. For me—and I think no-one would doubt this—it is a question of both. We have argued and debated the merits of the GM issue for at least the last 14 years I have been in parliament, but the process issue is not unimportant. I know it has been the defining factor for our colleagues in SA-Best.

I remind members that the process that this parliament goes through in relation to regulations is a blunt instrument—it is one of disallowance or not. We have a statutory committee of parliament whose job it is to have a look at regulations. I urge members to go back and have a look at the ground rules for that committee to operate. If you go to the website of the Legislative Review Committee, it says that 'the committee scrutinises regulations in accordance with the following principles'.

One of those principles is whether the regulations contain matter which, in the opinion of the committee, should properly be dealt with in an act of parliament. That is one of the criteria for the Legislative Review Committee to determine to disallow regulations. I think the list of rules, (a) through to (g), that the Legislative Review Committee relies on are a good guide for us as well.

As the Hon. Connie Bonaros said, and I will paraphrase her, what parliament giveth only parliament should be able to taketh away, and that is how it should work. Only one-third of this parliament is actually getting to debate this issue; there are two-thirds who are not. The government needs to bring back a bill.

The other thing I would say is that the Hon. David Ridgway and others seem to think that this is somehow a question of belief or non-belief in science. He no doubt has in mind the fact that five scientists who work in the field of genetics published a full-page letter in The Advertiser. I do not know what it would cost these days to put in a full-page letter. One suggestion was $10,000 at least and it would have been out of their own pockets, I am sure. I do not know who paid for that letter by those five scientists.

People are thinking they had better pay attention to the science. Well, I will meet you and raise you one. I have a letter here by 30 international scientists from around the globe who urge us, as members of this South Australian parliament, to keep the moratorium in place. Because they do not have the capacity to put a full-page ad in The Advertiser, I am going to read the letter to members of the South Australian parliament about the moratorium on the cultivation of genetically modified crops in South Australia. The letter reads:

An open letter was recently written by five scientists making claims about the SA moratorium on GM crops, seeking to end the moratorium. The following should be noted.

The five scientists have vested interests in the matter that they have not declared.

In contrast to the claims by the five scientists, the moratorium does not prevent research into GM crops in South Australia. Nor does it prevent scientists from growing GM crops in trial sites in SA. The moratorium does not prevent the development of more resilient crops, or more sustainable farming.

The letter from the five scientists suggested that the moratorium has harmed scientific research and innovation in the State more generally. In fact, the GM crop research sector undertakes a tiny proportion of all scientific research conducted in the State, and employs a tiny proportion of all scientists in the State. Most SA scientists are not even aware that the sector exists in SA.

Crops that are genetically engineered to allow farmers to adapt to a changing climate are still undergoing research and are not currently available for farmers to plant. Such GM crops may never be commercially available. It is absurd to end a moratorium now, in order to plant crops that are actually not available.

Much of the debate in SA is about whether to grow GM canola. Yet GM canola is a small fraction of SA's agricultural produce, and those who want to grow GM canola are a small fraction of all canola growers. GM canola costs more to grow, has no yield advantage and routinely sells for a lower price. Consequently, GM canola remains a minority crop compared to conventional canola in States that allow it to be grown.

An argument has been put forward that ending the moratorium will allow non-GM farmers to market their produce as non-GM, which will allow them to get a premium for their crop, and therefore increase their income. This ignores the inevitable contamination of non-GM crops by GM crops, and the subsequent loss of any premium.

GM crops easily contaminate other crops. In North America alone, there have been contamination incidents from growing GM canola, wheat, flax, corn, rice, alfalfa and creeping bentgrass. Some of these have been from trial sites, before any commercial production. Losses have been in the billions of dollars.

GM canola has also contaminated non-GM crops in Australia. Pollen from herbicide-tolerant canola has been found to travel up to 5km in Australia.

If the moratorium ends, any initial freedom to choose to grow a GM crop or a non-GM crop will end once contamination occurs. Then farmers will be growing GM crops whether they want to or not. Under Australia's system, farmers who have been contaminated with a GM crop can be charged an end point royalty and fined for growing a GM crop without a licence. This is expected to push farmers into the arms of GM crop companies, to grow GM crops under licence rather than facing such costs from contamination.

GM crops have not increased yields compared to non-GM crops. Europe (which does not grow GM crops but invested in conventional plant breeding instead) and North America (which grows GM crops) both grow corn (maize) and canola, allowing yields to be compared between the two systems for this crops. Yield improvements in Europe have significantly outperformed those of North America for these crops since GM crops were introduced. Europe also reduced herbicide and insecticide use to a greater extent than the USA.

Repeated surveys show that consumers prefer not to eat GM crops. Why would SA drop its moratorium in order to plant crops that people don't want to buy?

Dropping the moratorium will allow all GM crops to be planted, including GM wheat. GM wheat has never been commercially grown anywhere in the world, and any escapes of GM wheat varieties from old trial sites are quickly eradicated. This is because wheat is eaten by people on a daily basis and is labelled in many countries. When Canadian farmers asked their markets whether they would accept GM wheat from Canada, they found that: 'The international customers that buy 82% of Canada's wheat crop say that they will stop buying if Canada introduces GM wheat. These customers have been clear—they will stop buying all wheat from us—GM and non-GM alike. This market loss issue applies to all GM wheat, not just RR wheat.' Any introduction of GM wheat into South Australia therefore risks losing an industry, that is worth $7.1 billion per year nationally (5-year average).

We urge the South Australian Parliament to maintain the GM crop moratorium until there is evidence that contamination can be prevented and farmers and the SA economy can benefit from its introduction.

I could read the list and all the qualifications and titles of the 30 signatories, but I undertake to provide that full list to any member who wants it. I will point out that they come from University Paris-Sud in France, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland—I just make the point that a number of these signatories are from Switzerland. The scientists from Switzerland who signed this letter said in their replies that their country has been thriving under a GM moratorium and they could not understand why we in South Australia would want to drop ours.

Other signatories come from King's College, London; Ithaca, New York; California; University of Canterbury, New Zealand; and the Health Research Institute in Iowa. I will not go through all of them, but you need to get a feel for the calibre of the institutions in which these people work—University of Edinburgh, Coventry University—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Parnell, do you wish to table it?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Yes, I will table the letter, but that will not appear in Hansard so I just wanted some of these institutions—

The PRESIDENT: I understand that.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Thank you. I seek leave to table the letter; I will provide a copy.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I will not go right to the end of the list, but there are signatories from American universities, European universities—it is an extensive list of scientists, and they debunk the paid advertisement placed in the newspaper by those five scientists on Monday. The final thing I will point out is the government's official response to the parliament's Select Committee on Moratorium on the Cultivation of Genetically Modified Crops in South Australia.

We have previously discussed the tabling of that paper and I have spoken to that. The government response was tabled today, just a few hours ago. Effectively, it says that the three recommendations that did find unanimous support by the committee did not relate to lifting or keeping the moratorium; they related to helping farmers. For example, they related to working with primary producers and the food and wine industry:

…to outline key steps and milestones to enhance marketing opportunities for primary producers and the value adding chain.

These are recommendations to help farmers. The government's response is that if we, today, disallow these regulations, the government will not support any of these pro-farmer measures. If we allow the moratorium to be lifted, the government will support these recommendations. The government's support for farmers is conditional on this regulation not being disallowed. What a pathetic response from the government. What a pathetic 'take your bat and ball and go home' response to say, 'We like these recommendations but we are not going to support them unless you play our way and don't disallow these regulations.' It is remarkable.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order, particularly from the government benches!

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Ridgway, I have said 'order'!

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: That was the final thing I wanted to put on the record, other than to thank the 1,400 people who engaged with me on my website and through my petition. I would particularly like to thank—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Are they all South Australian?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Yes, they are all South Australian; I have their addresses. I would like to thank Dr Judy Carman from the Institute of Health and Environmental Research. I would like to thank those 30 international scientist who, on a day's notice, agreed to sign this letter to correct the scientific record. I thank them, and I would also like to thank Cate Mussared in my office, who has researched this issue for well over a decade. Cate knows more about GM than, I would suggest, almost everyone else in this room. I thank her for her research. I thank those members who have agreed to support this disallowance motion and I am confident that it will shortly pass.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 11

Noes 8

Majority 3

Motion thus carried.

Sitting suspended from 18:04 to 19:45.