Bills

Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clauses 2 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Clause 5, I guess, is one of the operative provisions. It is the provision that effectively limits the operation of the moratorium on the commercial growing of GM crops to Kangaroo Island, and I thought that was as good a clause as any to ask the minister whether he has any comments or additions to make, or whether in fact he can answer the question that I posed in my second reading speech, which was in relation to drought tolerance and climate change. Is the minister aware of any GM crops that in fact are tolerant to drought or climate change on Kangaroo Island or anywhere else in South Australia?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I thank the honourable member for his question. I have made a whole range of contributions in relation to technology, plant breeding and opportunities for genetically modified crops that will help with frost, heat stress and drought. That is why I said that we should not turn our back on that research, that it should be ongoing.

The current technology allows for people elsewhere in Australia to manage their production systems by using genetically modified canola. It gives them a chance to sow Roundup Ready canola when it is dry and then spray the weeds once it germinates. That utilises all the available moisture. Some years, that available moisture is lost because you have to control the weeds before you can sow. What we have already is a form of drought resistant GM canola because you are able to sow it dry and get the benefit of every drop of moisture that falls out of the sky, giving it to a newly developed crop.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Again, I have a simple question on clause 6. Clause 6 inserts a new section 7A into the act entitled, 'Expiry of Part', which provides:

This Part expires on 1 September 2025.

What process does the minister envisage will take place ahead of 1 September 2025? By way of background, as some members would be aware, the most recent iteration of this debate occurred when we were coming up to the 1 September 2019 date because that was a date that was set out in regulations on which the moratorium would expire.

One of the reasons I was keen to bring this back to parliament—and I did so by virtue of the private member's bill—was that the way the regulations were drafted, no-one needed to do anything and the moratorium simply expired. My question to the minister is: are we now faced with exactly the same situation, that legally no-one need do anything and when that calendar rolls around to 1 September 2025, despite no action having been taken by the executive, by the parliament or by anyone else, the moratorium on Kangaroo Island would be lifted?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: We are replicating exactly what is in place now. It lapses in 2025, as the 2017 bill intended.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: No, I understand that that is what the government has done. My question of the minister is: if the minister was still part of government and if the minister, for example, was promoted from a tourism to an agricultural portfolio, what would the minister's intention be? I accept the legal situation that the moratorium evaporates on that date. Is that the way the minister proposes to handle the situation? Would the minister do anything ahead of 1 September or would the minister simply let the calendar take its course?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I thank the member for his question. I may be a little ahead of myself. It is a bit hypothetical that I will be changing to the portfolio of agriculture and primary industries, but I thank the honourable member for his vote of confidence. An amendment has been tabled by the Hon. Frank Pangallo, which we will be addressing shortly, that talks about a review, and it is the government's intention to support that amendment. It may allay some of the honourable member's concerns.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 3, after line 10—Insert:

6A—Substitution of section 29

Section 29—delete the section and substitute:

29—Review

(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation and impact of the amendments to this Act made by the Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Act 2019 to be undertaken.

(2) A report on the results of the review must be submitted to the Minster no later than 3 years after the commencement of the Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Act 2019.

(3) The Minister must, within 6 sitting days after receiving the report, cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament.

This amendment causes a review of the act to be undertaken in three years' time. Essentially, I think it is designed to give us some feedback on the success or otherwise of the introduction of GM plants in South Australia, to perhaps give us an indication of whether there have been any issues with non-GM growers, particularly with organics, and also to view the economic benefits and such of the introduction. It is also designed to give us an indication of how the exemption works on Kangaroo Island and, I imagine, whether there would be any calls for the exemption on Kangaroo Island to eventually be lifted.

Essentially, it is a call for a review, which needs to be submitted to the minister no later than three years after the commencement of the act, and the minister must, within six sitting days of receiving a report, present it to each house of parliament.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have a question for the mover. Who does he envisage would undertake the review? Would it be the department, for example, or some other body?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I imagine that the department that is responsible will undertake the review.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: We indicated earlier that the government is happy to support this amendment; however, just for clarification, I have a letter from the Hon. Anne Levy, Presiding Member of the Genetically Modified Crop Advisory Committee. A part of it states:

…if a decision is made to maintain the moratorium on Kangaroo Island only, the Committee recommends:

that the Minister must be satisfied adequate consultation has been carried out with all Kangaroo Island producers;

that consideration be given to any controls on movement of produce which may be necessary to support the Island's non-GM status; and

that the moratorium on Kangaroo Island be reviewed after an appropriate time.

As I said, we already have an indication from the Presiding Member of the Genetically Modified Crop Advisory Committee, a former member of this place, the Hon. Anne Levy. I think that it encapsulates that it will be up to the minister to decide exactly who would do the review, but clearly that committee is possibly one of the avenues that could be used and that is why we are happy to support the amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: To make it quite clear, in relation to just about every piece of legislation that we have debated, when someone slots in, or seeks to slot in, a clause, usually towards the end of the bill, stating that we should have a look at this in a few years' time, the Greens' position has nearly always been to support such review clauses.

I note that the honourable member's review is not explicit as to who or how the review should be conducted. The Hon. Clare Scriven asked a question about who the mover thought might be appropriate. The words simply are, 'The Minister must cause a review'. That review could be thorough. It could be quick and dirty. It could be credible. It could be incredible. We do not know. Nevertheless, the Greens' position has always been to support a review when the bill as drafted has no review, so we will line up and support the review clause as well.

However, given that we are marching rapidly through this bill—there has not been a lot of debate in committee—I might also point out that there has been a lot of discussion in recent days about whether other parts of South Australia might want to take advantage of the moratorium. Certainly, the discussion on radio this morning with the Leader of the Opposition alluded to that. My discussion with some local members indicated that they are concerned their areas might want to hang onto the moratorium.

But we are dealing with this bill with great speed and there has been no real opportunity for any members to consult with people in the regions about whether the moratorium should stay or go in their region. That is one of the reasons why I thought the most sensible approach to this bill would be to not conclude it today but to conclude it next year, when people have had a chance to have those conversations. I absolutely accept that.

We do not have anything before us by way of amendments other than this one, which relates to the review. The Greens' position is still that this would be preferable. The government is going to make a call very soon as to whether they put this to a third reading and test the will of the chamber. The Greens' position is that we will be opposing the third reading. That is not going to surprise anyone, but that is what we are going to do.

I know some members have been in discussions with the minister to see whether any further amendments might be possible. I am not aware of the success of those discussions. I know, for example, that there has been talk about the issue of the liability of the GM industry towards those this would harm. We know that it will result in harm. It is inevitable; it has happened elsewhere. I do not know whether those discussions have gone anywhere.

As I mentioned in my second reading contribution, I have moved, four times, for strict liability legislation; that is, legislation that says that if someone suffers harm as a result of GM contamination of their land, then they have a right to compensation but they should not have to sue their neighbour. They probably would not know which neighbour was the source of the contamination. If you have an organic canola crop and you are surrounded by GM canola and your contamination levels rise from zero to 0.9 per cent and even higher—if you lose money, which of your neighbours do you sue? What an outrageous, terrible situation in which to put a farmer—having to sue their neighbours.

The Greens' bill, which was introduced four times since 2007, was to make the owners of that material (such as Bayer-Monsanto) responsible for contamination so that farmers did not have to sue other farmers. That issue is still absent from this legislation. The only protection in the bill is to supposedly deal with a similar situation to that which occurred in Canada, where a farmer inadvertently grew GM crops because of contamination and was sued by the patent owner for something they had never intended to do.

There is an existing provision that seeks to address that. Of course, it has never been tested; however, the bigger issue is the person who suffers loss and has nowhere to go. I think that is something we should deal with over summer as well. I thought I would just put those things on the record now because we are rapidly marching to the end of this bill. The Greens' position is that if a motion to adjourn were put, we would absolutely support it and would want the adjournment to be for next year. If that is not the case, then we will be opposing this bill at the third reading and we would be looking for an opportunity to make some brief remarks at that stage as well, just in case this bill progresses at a very rapid pace.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I was not here for this morning's debate, but I cannot for the life of me understand why on earth we are going to sacrifice our state's clean, green image for a few farmers who have obviously been conned by the food industry—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: A few farmers?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: A few farmers, and I will tell you why I know. I understand what mass movement is about and I have not received one email from a farmer regarding wanting to lift this moratorium. I have not seen a rally on the steps of Parliament House. I saw a picture of about eight or nine farmers with the Hon. Mr Whetstone from the other place, and that does not represent a mass movement to have our—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I am talking, the Hon. Mr Dawkins, if you do not mind. This does not represent a mass movement. The only people who in the long term are going to be happy about this legislation are the people of Tasmania, which will then be the only state in this country that has a moratorium on GM food. It has been put to me by a number of sources, and just by doing some research, that some of the markets out there do pay a premium for non-GM food, including China, the European markets and some in the Americas. I have seen figures where there seems to be a 10 per cent premium on non-GM food.

I think we are being too hasty in lifting this moratorium and what we will see in the future are farmers suddenly waking up to the fact that that moratorium has been lifted and there will be a significant backlash on the Liberals opposite, in particular the Hon. Mr Whetstone, for lifting this moratorium.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (15:42): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:42): I have a contribution that I will make at this point. I say at the outset that we support the position just put by the Hon. Mark Parnell that the only way forward in this debate at this point in time is either that the bill is adjourned or we vote on the third reading. Can I say this: I cannot, in good conscience, stand up in this place and support bad lawmaking—I simply cannot do that. I did not on gambling, and I will not on this.

When we create laws that will benefit one group of farmers and at the same time not only potentially impact on another but blatantly and wilfully legislate to do so, then that is not good lawmaking; in fact, it is terrible lawmaking. I know there will be many, many farmers angry today, but my question and what I ask of them is: what if the shoe were on the other foot? What if the government was proposing to take away their livelihoods without any protections afforded to them? Why did you oppose the mining bill so loudly? Why are you opposed to fracking? Because not only is the government forcing those mining rights upon you, it is rendering you completely powerless at the same time. This scenario is no different.

In this case, if your business suffers, if it folds through contamination, there is (a) no going back, and (b) you will not be afforded any protections under the law—none. This is precisely what we get when you—and this is directed at the government—propose half-cocked proposals without any regard to the groups that you seek to disenfranchise. The Treasurer may not be legally trained, as he reminds us in this place often, but I am, and a number of others are. I will not be a part of the deal that serves to disempower one group over the other. Let me make it crystal clear for the record that I support any farmer's right to choose, but not at any price and not when it comes at such a high price—not unless and not until that playing field is evened.

The divide amongst our farmers through this debate has never been greater, and the same can be said for the divide in this place, but for very different reasons—very different reasons indeed. I am not opposed to GM crops per se

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Choke as much as you like, the Hon. Mr Stephens. In fact, just yesterday I had a discussion with an expert far more experienced in this field than me and than most of us. He mounted a very compelling case that I agree with entirely. We consume GM each and every day: we eat it, we feed it to our babies via baby formula, we wear it in clothing made from GM fabrics, we vaccinate ourselves and our children and we treat our diabetic family members with insulin. There is no disputing that, and there is absolutely no disputing the place and the role that GM has in our society.

The list goes on and on in terms of the GM products that we consume every day. I fully accept that, and I accept that there are very valid reasons and a very valid basis for GM products, but that is not the question that we are debating now. I am not opposed to GM, the Hon. Mr Stephens, perhaps for the same reasons as other honourable members. That said, as the Hon. Mark Parnell has pointed out very clearly and articulately for the record, once the genie is out of the bottle there is no going back.

This is a decision which, for more than one reason, there is no going back from. I will not be responsible for businesses potentially folding because we will not afford them the protections they not only deserve but should be entitled to in law. There are precedents right now that deal with that very issue—not because GM is bad but because our laws are bad. When governments attempt to introduce laws that undermine people's legal rights, alarm bells should ring amongst all of us—mine are ringing and have been ringing loud and clear.

I have made it abundantly clear to the minister that he could sit down and discuss those issues. I have spent the entire day today, in the time frame given to us, doing precisely that; we have focused on nothing else but that. However, the response received back has not been one that I am willing to accept. I cannot, in good conscience, support the position that minister Whetstone has put to me in this debate.

Perhaps where I differ from my colleague the Hon. Frank Pangallo—and I say this with some qualification because I agree with what the Hon. Frank Pangallo has said on the record—is that I do support extending the olive branch and indicating clearly the desire to work on this issue in a multipartisan approach. It is the most effective way to deal with divisive issues. It is exactly what we did in the instance of Gayle's Law. The message in that case was loud and clear. We were all forced back to the negotiating table and we came up with a position that everybody could agree to.

That is precisely what we ought to have done during this debate. I think it is the only decent proposal to come out of the Leader of the Opposition's mouth in relation to this debate in recent weeks, to be frank. We are all open to sorting through the mess that the minister—not anybody else, the minister—has created in relation to this debate. One can only hope that it serves as a valuable lesson. I might live in hope, but I certainly do hope that.

What I do not accept—and I refer these comments to the members opposite—is those members of the opposition who support the lifting of the moratorium hiding behind the vote of other members in this place, trying to hold one member responsible for the ultimate vote on this piece of legislation. My advice to them, and to everyone else in here who does not have the courage to stand up and put their opinion on the record, is: grow a backbone and stand up for what you believe in. If that means you have to cross the floor to make your position clear, then do so, but do not attempt to use others as your political pawns.

It is fair to say that my colleague Frank Pangallo and I have had many discussions on this issue. We have thrashed it out more than I care to think about. We have been through the pros and cons. We have not shied away from the debate. In fact, short of calling our bluff, as was suggested in the media this morning, we urge the government to introduce a bill and put it to a vote instead of using stealthy backdoor means to achieve their goals, because that is precisely what the government attempted to do in the first instance.

When I had those discussions with minister Whetstone, I said to him, categorically, 'If you want a favourable outcome, then make sure that everyone is involved in that process, make sure that you have a proper debate and make sure that you take into account all the concerns that have been raised by every single sector involved in this debate.' He has failed in that regard.

I say to the minister, 'You haven't called our bluff. You've been forced to do what you should have done in the first instance by bringing this bill before the parliament. What you have failed to do since then is to ensure that it is dealt with with the respect that it deserves—again. You have failed again to ensure that those individuals who stand to lose in this debate are protected.' There will be individuals who stand to lose in this debate, and we have done nothing to ensure that they are afforded appropriate levels of protection.

If, as this government has become accustomed to doing, they are not willing to entertain amendments that will address those shortcomings, if they are not willing to entertain amendments that do not suit their political agenda, if they are not willing to entertain amendments that everybody else could compromise on—perhaps with the exception of a few; no-one in particular, but perhaps with the exception of a few—on the issue of GM, then they will do so at their own peril.

I am genuinely sorry that this debate has resulted in the action that we have chosen to take, but only insofar as it relates to more uncertainty. That uncertainty, can I say, has not been created by anyone other than the minister in this situation, and I just hope that he receives the message loud and clear—crystal clear, in fact—that we are all willing and able in this place to work through this with the government.

We have indicated that, the Greens have indicated that and the opposition has indicated that. They have done that publicly today in the media. You might not take the Leader of the Opposition at his word, but I think that the commitment he has given today is one that he cannot back away from easily. I think he has backed himself into a corner in terms of saying, 'We're willing to talk to you and come up with a position that we can all agree with, just like we did when we dealt with Gayle's Law in this place.'

That is my take-home message to the minister, and I hope that he does hear it loud and clear, because if, again, there is any uncertainty—any uncertainty—amongst our farming communities that is going to be created as a result of today, then he has himself to blame and absolutely nobody else.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:53): I have not contributed to this debate, but I intend to do so on the basis of that particular contribution and others that I have heard during the third reading. Let's be quite clear here: if people in this chamber are indicating a willingness to adjourn the debate, or an intent to adjourn the debate, they are just mealy-mouthed words to kill the bill, because quite clearly, as the Hon. Mr Parnell has indicated, his preference and his strong position—and I respect the fact that he has nailed his colours to the mast on this issue—is that he does not believe in the bill or the principles behind the bill, and he wants to see the bill defeated. His second preference is to kill the bill in another way, by adjourning it off to next year or whenever it might happen to be. He made that clear in an earlier contribution—

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: It does not kill it. That allows time for negotiation. That is what that does.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, there is no negotiating with the Greens in relation to this particular issue in any way that will see a bill that is acceptable to the government and to the farming community in South Australia. Let's be quite clear that any motion, any attempt or any endeavour to adjourn this particular debate is nothing other than a mealy-mouthed attempt, thinly disguised, to kill this bill and to reject the position of the farming community, the grain producers and the others, who put their position very clearly in support of the legislation. Any endeavour to adjourn this bill off in any way is an endeavour to kill this bill and to stop it progressing.

The only reason why the Hon. Mr Parnell and the Greens will support that particular position is that they see it as a vehicle to achieve their aim, that is, not to see this legislation pass this parliament. If they cannot get the numbers to defeat the bill outright at the third reading, their next best endeavour is to adjourn it off to another day so that they can try to mount the forces to oppose the legislation.

I reject strongly the position the Hon. Ms Bonaros has just put. The Hon. Mr Pangallo has been an outspoken supporter and advocate on social media publicly of those farmers who have been running a social media campaign. He has been retweeting their messages. I know he has been indicating to members of the farming community his support for the legislation. He has made his position quite clear. If this is to go to a vote either to kill the bill through the alternative mechanism to vote for an adjournment or for it to be voted down at the third reading, let's be clear in relation to what is going to occur on this occasion, and that is ultimately a judgement call for each individual.

As I said, I at least acknowledge the position of the Hon. Mr Parnell but not the mealy-mouthed position of the Labor Party on this particular issue. I do not accept the genuineness of the position of the Leader of the Opposition in another place. Again, he is just trying to keep the opposing forces within his party together on this particular issue because it is a divided party. The member for Mawson is holding the rest of the party to ransom—we all know that in relation to this particular issue—with threats of leaving the party, going independent, or whatever it might happen to be.

That is an issue for the Leader of the Opposition. I do not accept the genuineness of his position. If this vote is adjourned off, he is not looking for a process seeing a solution to this: he is trying to resolve a political problem that he has with the member for Mawson on this issue. There are any number of members of the Labor caucus who have openly said in the corridors of this place that they support the legislation and that they want to see the passage of the legislation.

The Hon. Ms Bonaros has raised the issue of potential amendments and has been quite critical of my colleague the Minister for Primary Industries. I want to indicate on behalf of the minister and the government why we have been unable to agree to what we believe is a completely unacceptable amendment that the Hon. Ms Bonaros wanted the government to support. She has been quite critical of the minister in saying that he was not prepared to compromise and negotiate. The amendment, which was provided to the government, was in two parts. In the first instance, it provided:

A person who proposes to cultivate a genetically modified food crop…must give notice of the proposal to the EPA before cultivating the…crop.

After that, a notice would be issued identifying the land on which the crop was proposed to be cultivated, given within a period before the proposed cultivation of the genetically modified food crop specified by the EPA, and must comply with any other requirements of the EPA before they can go ahead. It continues:

On receipt of a notice under subsection (1), the EPA must, as soon as reasonably practical, have an authorised officer inspect the relevant land, and any land surrounding the relevant land that the authorised officer considers it necessary to inspect, for the purpose of assessing whether cultivating a genetically modified food crop on the relevant land may give rise to a risk that GMO may spread from the relevant land to a crop (not being a genetically modified crop) on other land.

There are some complicated provisions, and I do not intend to read all the rest of the first part of the amendment but, in the end, there are significant penalties if the EPA serves a notice on a particular farmer:

…the authorised officer may serve on the proponent a notice prohibiting the proponent from cultivating a genetically modified food crop on the relevant land until further notice.

In essence, the EPA has veto right or ultimate power in relation to whether or not a farmer could go ahead with his or her crop and could issue a prohibition notice.

One can just imagine what the farming community would think of the whole notion of having the EPA let loose in this particular area, having them as the ultimate arbiters of whether or not a farmer could go ahead with a genetically modified crop. Certainly, in the discussions we had today with representatives of the grain producers' association they made it quite clear that it would be unacceptable to the farmers of South Australia. It is unacceptable to the Liberal Party, it is unacceptable to the government and it is unacceptable to the minister in relation to these particular proposals and the penalties that would ensue from that.

The second leg of the amendment was in relation to a request for a crop inspection. That is, 'A person who cultivates any crop for fee or reward…may request a crop inspection under this section.' So under this section a person can ask the EPA to do a crop inspection in a manner and a form determined by the EPA and the EPA would then do that inspection:

An authorised officer [of the EPA] may exercise any power of an authorised officer under section 87 of the Environment Protection Act 1993 for the purpose of determining—

(a) whether GMO is present…; and

(b) the likely source of the GMO; and

(c) whether the presence of the GMO in the crop is likely to detrimentally affect the value of the crop,

The officer may exercise any relevant powers, etc., in relation to this purpose. Then:

If, having completed a crop inspection…and found the presence of GMO in a crop, an authorised officer is satisfied that particular land is likely to be the source of the GMO in the crop and that the presence of the GMO in the crop is likely to detrimentally affect the value of the crop, the authorised officer may serve on the owner of that land a notice—

(a) requiring the owner to pay a specified amount of compensation to the person who requested the crop inspection within a period specified in the notice; and

(b) notifying the owner of their rights of appeal under this section.

Then they could take it to the ERD Court in relation to their right of appeal.

In broad terms—I will not read the whole of the three pages of the amendment being canvassed—it would make this legislation completely unworkable for the farming community of South Australia. If this is the price of getting the legislation through, you may as well defeat the bill. If you want to defeat the bill, defeat the bill. Stand up and say, 'We don't support the bill,' but don't say, 'We support the bill if you agree to all these amendments, and if you don't agree to all these particular amendments, we'll stand up and criticise you because you're not prepared to compromise on this legislation,' etc.

We are not prepared to compromise, the government is not prepared to compromise, on the essential principles that underpin the legislation. There is no point in saying, 'Okay, we are going to allow it,' and then construct a whole process and procedure that involves the EPA that would, in essence, destroy the very fabric and essence of what the legislation is about. This is, again, just a thinly veiled attempt to defeat the bill through another mechanism, through another course, and then stand up in the chamber and say, 'Well, the minister has been intransigent and has refused to compromise in relation to the legislation.'

The minister is obviously not able to speak for himself in relation to these issues. There were genuine endeavours in trying to reach some sort of a compromise throughout today in relation to the amendment but, in the government's view, the essential principles of this legislation had to remain. Whilst not all the farmers will be aware of the nature of the amendments being proposed, I am sure their representative association will be able to indicate to its membership, and to the broader community, the reasons the government, on their behalf, could not accept this thinly veiled attempt to defeat the whole purpose of the legislation.

It was not intransigence, it was not a reluctance to compromise, it was not arrogance from the minister, it was a genuine endeavour to say, 'Okay, what can we do to see this legislation passed?' But, in the end, the price that was being asked of us by the Hon. Ms Bonaros was unacceptable to the government and, more importantly, it was unacceptable to the groups that represent the farmers of South Australia. These are the people who have been running that social media campaign who have been effectively supporting this legislation for a number of weeks now—months, I guess, and years in some cases; for a long period of time. For the government to have rolled over and accepted this particular amendment in the interests of saying, 'Okay, we got the legislation through, albeit we have had to agree with some unacceptable compromises as part of it,' was a price too high to pay from the government's viewpoint.

That is the reason that the government was not prepared to compromise on the principles of the legislation. As I said, have the courage in this chamber one way or another: either vote for the bill or vote against it at the third reading, but do not try the mealy-mouthed way of going around it by voting to adjourn it, because we all know, the farmers of South Australia will know and the grain producers will know that a vote to adjourn the bill is just a vote to kill the bill in another way.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (16:05): I had not intended to speak on this legislation because I think my views have been put fairly strongly in previous contributions on the report of the select committee and on the disallowance motion, and both of those very recently. I speak as one of I think only two people in this place who have actually been practising farmers, so I bring the fact that, of the overwhelming number of farmers I know, I have had no farmers tell me that they do not want this legislation. That does not mean that there are not some—

The Hon. C. Bonaros: I have had plenty.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I see plenty of them. They have told me that this is absolutely what South Australia needs: the choice for them to do this. There is overwhelming support for that.

I think the proposal brought by the Labor Party today is ludicrous. It is the sort of position where you have to try to stall it so that you can eventually try to nut out the problems they have, because so many of their members I know in their hearts support this bill, but they cannot bring themselves to do it because the member for Mawson and maybe one or two others are holding them to ransom.

I totally support the bill. I will conclude by saying something I have said a couple of times before in this place—the Hon. Mr Parnell read out something earlier on which tries to say that no-one is using GM canola in Victoria or in other states.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: I didn't say that.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: You read something out that says there was no demand for the seed and that there was only one site in each state for segregation. You read that out on the record. I said recently that if you want to drive through West Wimmera—and the Hon. Mr Parnell knows that part of Victoria quite well—at this time of the year, there are thousands of acres of canola and, as I said before, my organic farming friends who live a bit further east will tell you that that is 100 per cent GM canola. I just think that the perception that no-one is wanting to grow this stuff is a lot of rubbish. I support the bill.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:08): I have to say that I am extremely disappointed in many respects about the government and the way they have handled this.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: The Hon. David Ridgway can mock, but this has always been about making sure that there has been ample time for legislation to come in—which is what we wanted—and for it to be properly considered by the parliament. Instead, it was rushed through. It was rushed through with a bill, and we had very little time to consider it and to consider the amendments.

I am pretty disappointed in the fact that the Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon. Tim Whetstone, is not even here today for such a vital piece of legislation that he wants to hang his hat on. Instead, he has chosen to attend a ministers' conference in Moree in relation to the drought. That is not downplaying the drought at all, but I—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Well, it is not—but I would have thought his priority would have been here for this vital piece of legislation. What really disappoints me is the fact that SA-Best is the friend of farmers, and we have said—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Well, Frank, we are about to see, aren't we?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes, you are. Mr Stephens, you are about to see how, again, you have let farmers down by your inept attitude towards legislation. You let them down with the mining bill. You have let them down with that and now you are letting them down with this.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: We are friends of the farmers.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Well, we are, and we always made that quite clear. I have made it quite clear throughout this whole debate. I think all the farmers know that because I have supported them all the way through.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: You heard my speech, Mr Stephens, and it was quite strong in support of lifting the moratorium. All we are seeking to do, and what my colleague is seeking to do, is to get some protections and a level playing field for other growers who do not want GM and may be impacted by it. They may be impacted by the effects of contamination or having an avenue to be able to seek some kind of recourse for any losses, loss of reputation—or whatever it may be—but to have that mechanism in place.

I understand that in Western Australia they looked at ways of having some form of compensation built in for those non-GM growers who may well have been impacted by all this. In good faith, we have negotiated with the government on this bill.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Well, in good faith we have negotiated with this government, particularly on a proposal that my colleague the Hon. Connie Bonaros has put up to the minister. We have been speaking with him all day. Whilst we are willing to accept the first part of the provisions and to let the offending parts go, we certainly wanted some protections up there, and they knew that. We wanted some protections for these growers, and they said that they were going to get back to us this afternoon. We heard nothing—we heard absolutely nothing.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: That's not true; we told you we wouldn't support it.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: You won't support it. You were going to come back with something and you did not come back with something. From SA-Best's point of view, this is not a mealy-mouthed attempt to try to kill this bill. We do not want to kill this bill at all. We want to ensure that these growers in South Australia who choose to get GM, or those who want to stay without GM, are on a level playing field and that at least they are not going to be disadvantaged, whether they are on the mainland or even on Kangaroo Island, and that is what we have tried to do.

I do not want the farmers to feel that they have been let down by us—because they have not. We have been very willing to get this bill through but we also wanted to build in protections that the government does not want. I cannot understand why they do not want to ensure that the growers do have an inbuilt protection for them.

The Treasurer was going on about not having the EPA go marching in like the Gestapo on properties to inspect and to see whether there has been any contamination of GM or not, or whatever. Your NRM already does that. In fact, they almost behave like Gestapo from what farmers have told me about the way they behave.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: You want more of that.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: No, we do not want more of that. The Hon. David Ridgway is conceding that your officers behave like Gestapo. Is that what you are saying?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: No, you want more of what you said you talked about.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: What I am saying is that the government has really let down the farmers by the way they bungled and botched this legislation. What is disappointing is that we have come to the last hurdle and they have just totally raised the bar again to trip themselves up. You have tripped yourselves up on this. Again, you should take blame for letting down those farmers who were expecting something.

We were there to assist the farmers, big and small. That is what we were there for. We were there to assist them all and also give them some protections in case something happened. But, no, I think what we have had is a government that has been prepared to play this poker style bluff game all the way through, and they have done it again today by ignoring getting back to us and at least trying to come to a compromise so this can get through.

If we are going to keep upping the ante, I am going to up the bet on the Treasurer in this game of one-upmanship and say that we still have a couple of days that you can call up so parliament can continue to sit. So I challenge you, Treasurer, to sit for another couple of days and see if we can come up with a compromise to get this bill passed. With that, I will be moving for the bill to be adjourned.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, you cannot move an adjournment because you have spoken. Mr Hunter has sought the call.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (16:16): I rise, I have to say, with a bit of sadness that we have come to this sorry pass at this end of the debate, particularly with the contribution of some honourable members not being what I had hoped it would be in addressing the issues of the legislation but in fact trying to take down a man or, in this case, a woman with some spurious arguments, to my way of thinking. The contribution of the honourable Leader of the Government in this place was not the contribution of a statesperson, it was not the contribution of a leader and it certainly was not the speech that you would give if you were trying to get an outcome in terms of a compromise resolution to this situation. That saddens me.

He seemed like he actually was very proud that he was not going to compromise, that he was actually very proud that the government were so arrogant that they would not talk to any other person with a different position to get a settled, compromise position that might be supported on the floor of this chamber. From that perspective, it is sad. That is what they do every day that we are in here. The government do not have the numbers in this chamber. They compromise on legislation, they negotiate with the opposition, they negotiate with the crossbenchers and they get a settled outcome that most of us can live with.

That was not the vibe that the Treasurer wanted to leave us with today. It was more threats. The velvet glove that he normally wears when he is negotiating with us had come off pretty quickly, and we felt the fist come whistling through this chamber with not too subtle threats about the future. That makes me sad, too, particularly that the government has been so maladroit in handling this legislation, so arrogant—that its position is the only way or it is the highway—that this was always going to be the outcome. That is always the outcome in a place like this when there is a contentious issue that needs to be negotiated through this chamber, and the government said, 'On this one, we're not doing that.' That saddens me too.

The Leader of the Opposition today made a very public, genuine and sincere offer to work with the government and the crossbenchers over the break to come up with a resolution.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: He is sincere. He is genuine; otherwise, he would not have said it on the radio.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: He would not have said it on the radio today and made that public commitment. I appeal to the government to take advantage of the offered solution from the Leader of the Opposition to deal with the crossbenchers and the opposition over the summer break and see whether we can come to a position within a policy that is implemented in legislation that we can all agree to early next year.

That is my plea. That is what I ask the government, in considering its position, to do. Whether the debate is adjourned or killed off at the third reading makes no difference—I agree with the Hon. Mr Lucas on this. The government will need to come back to this chamber with a new position that at least we can get some common ground on if we are going to make any progress in this legislation and on this issue.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (16:19): I will make a brief contribution at the third reading. I agree with what the Hon. Ian Hunter has been saying. The Hon. Rob Lucas' contribution was, to put it in the most generous terms, unhelpful. Basically he is saying, 'It's my way or the highway.' He was offered an olive branch by other parties—not by the Greens. We think that South Australia is best served by keeping the moratorium and that is our consistent position. He was offered an olive branch by others and he has rejected it out of hand, so there is no option for an adjournment. He has challenged us to vote it down at the third reading, and I think that is what the Legislative Council should do.

I want to put on the record my disquiet with how the Treasurer dealt with negotiations that other members have been having with the minister. My understanding was that the Hon. Connie Bonaros negotiated with minister Whetstone in good faith only to have that effectively thrown back in her face and for the Treasurer to explain in some detail how silly the honourable member's amendments were.

That is no way to undertake negotiations. I understand exactly where the Hon. Connie Bonaros was coming from. She was seeking, in good faith, to get protections for people we know will be contaminated by GM crops, if they are allowed to be grown. So, to have that thrown back in your face, I would be as angry as she is over that.

In this case, I think the government is a victim of its own arrogance. People have offered to help them. The Greens have only two votes in this chamber and our position is known. Other members offered to work with them and they have rejected that. The only real option left for us today is to vote against the third reading of the bill.

Whilst it has never been officially announced, everyone's expectation is that parliament will be prorogued and will be back in February for a new opening, and I expect the government will come back with something. I urge them not to come back with something unless they have negotiated in good faith with those who have expressed themselves to be open to that approach; otherwise, the government will end up in exactly the same position they are in today.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (16:22): I will sum up the third reading debate. It should not be lost on honourable members that the government has sat down and worked with Grain Producers SA, the peak body, the group whose members have their livelihood invested in this part of our economy, our broadacre dryland farming. They are the people we have negotiated and worked with.

You have to understand that modern farming systems want to be able to make a choice, as I said earlier in my contribution. They do not want more bureaucracy and more legislation. Farmers need to be able to make decisions. All the proposals—the ones from the opposition leader involving various councils and the Hon. Ms Bonaros' amendment with the EPA and authorised officers—are unworkable.

There was an alternative amendment from minister Whetstone, who is doing good work in Moree with all the other ag ministers and primary industry ministers in relation to the drought. He looked at it. There was an alternative amendment that gave increased protection for Kangaroo Island, but that was not acceptable to the Hon. Ms Bonaros. It is not the government rejecting this. We actually compromised. We looked at how we could get more protection for the area that we all agreed should remain, at this point in time, GM free. We were happy to have a review. The Hon. Mr Pangallo made the suggestion of a review after three years and we were happy to do that.

The Hon. Ms Bonaros talks about businesses that will fold. I have been here 18 years (a bit longer than the Hon. Mark Parnell) and, apart from the one case in Western Australia where, in the end, the court found against the non-GM grower, I do not know of any business—and I stand to be corrected—in Victoria, New South Wales or Queensland that had to fold because GM canola and GM crops were allowed to grow. In fact, in New South Wales and Queensland, where they grow cotton, it has enhanced their productivity.

I do not know of any businesses that have had to fold. It is interesting that the Hon. Ms Bonaros said that businesses stand to lose. I do not know of any in the nation that have, especially in the Eastern States. I have heard of one farmer and former friend—not former friend, they are still a friend—who lives on the Victorian border, who does not want to have GM.

The Hon. Mr Wortley interjected earlier saying that people have not been listening to everybody. We have been. But this is about choice. It is about choice, and the Liberal Party is very proud, the government is very proud, to say that we are happy to support our farming sector, Grain Producers SA, the peak body, and all those amazing young men and women who are prepared to put their names to the campaign.

I think that is the future of agriculture in South Australia. Often we hear the statistics that the average age of a farmer is getting older. Nearly all those people are in the prime of their life wanting us to give them the freedom to make choices about how they run their businesses. The Hon. Mr Hunter said that he is saddened about some of the things. I am saddened, as I have said before, that 22 people, of whom only two of us have ever really had an interaction in agriculture—and I have been out of it now for more than a decade—are going to make a decision today. If we vote down this bill, those who vote against it will be held responsible by the farming community for taking away the choice.

That is all they want: the choice to go about their business, adopt the latest technology and make a fist of their businesses in a pretty tough environment. South Australia has always been the driest state on the driest continent on earth. Our dryland farmers do a magnificent job. We want to give them the tools to keep doing that job. Clearly, members in this chamber do not want that to happen. I urge all members to support the bill.

The council divided on the third reading:

Ayes 8

Noes 11

Majority 3

Third reading thus negatived.