Bills

Genetically Modified Crops Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 20 February 2020.)

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (17:52): I rise as the lead speaker on behalf of the opposition and indicate that we will not be supporting this bill. I will speak quite briefly today because we expect to have large discussions about GM crops on a bill coming up from the other place in the very near future.

This bill allows the moratorium on genetically modified crops to be lifted but introduces requirements around notifications to neighbouring properties and also in regard to buffer zones. The view of the opposition is that, as has been previously mentioned, certainly it is appropriate that any changes to GM should come through a bill in legislation and not be done via regulation. Because the previous movements on this were around regulation, the opposition could not support that.

I do commend the Hon. Mr Pangallo for introducing this via legislation and not following the Leader of the Government in trying to get something through that is not given full consideration by the parliament. However, we do not consider that the changes proposed in this bill would be of benefit. We look forward to saying more in relation to another bill that will be coming to the upper house.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (17:53): I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak today on the Genetically Modified Crops Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, introduced by the Hon. Frank Pangallo. The bill seeks to lift the moratorium on the cultivation of genetically modified crops on mainland South Australia via legislation. Leaving aside the merits of this issue, this is far more appropriate than the disrespectful method of lifting it via regulations, which the Minister for Primary Industries keeps doing and this chamber has earlier today again disallowed.

It will come as no surprise that the Greens do not support the lifting of the moratorium. This has always been our policy. We believe that the moratorium has served South Australia well and will be even more important into the future. However, there are some provisions in this bill that we do support, and these relate to the farmer protection measures that the honourable member has included in his bill.

The first of these is the right to damages provisions. This section is identical to my rights to damages private member's bills that I introduced four times previously in 2007, 2009, 2012 and 2014. The Greens applaud the inclusion of these provisions in this bill as we have long recognised the need for our farmers to have an entitlement to damages if they have suffered a loss due to GM contamination on their land.

We also subscribe to the 'polluter pays' principle and these provisions make the true owner of the GM seeds that cause the contamination—that is, the multinational agrichemical corporations who are the patent owners—responsible. This provisions removes the appalling situation that we have seen in other Australian states where farmer is pitted against farmer, destroying friendly neighbour relations and where the non-GM farmer is the one who ultimately suffers the loss.

There is nothing fair about this. The rules need to change so that we can even the playing field. You would think that even those purporting to represent farmers, both the handful that want to try to grow GM canola and the rest who do not, would be supportive of measures that protect farmers from economic loss resulting from contamination but, interestingly, Grain Producers SA has decided not to support the rights and economic interests of all farmers. It appears that they are instead looking after the economic interests of the multinationals. In response to this bill in their media release of 19 February 2020, CEO Caroline Rhodes said:

GPSA cannot accept legislation that would impose legal risk and complexity in adopting GM crops eroding the competitiveness of the state's industry through imposing unnecessary red tape.

If you are wondering whose legal risk she is referring to, it is the legal risk to the multibillion dollar foreign-owned, agrichemical corporations who are unwilling to accept legal and financial responsibility for their patented products in the event that they cause financial loss to others. Why are the representatives of our South Australian grain growers so concerned about the legal risks to these rich corporations to the detriment of our own local farmers? I think it is worth pondering that question.

I have lost count of how many times I have had heard the furphy that there are no cases of contamination from GMOs. We all know that that is not true. To the fanatic GM lobbyists who keep trying to sell this myth, I pose this: if GM contamination does not happen, if it is not real, then this protection measure will have no effect. It will have no work to do. It will not change anything, so why are they so opposed? If there is no contamination from GMOs then there is no loss suffered and there will be no entitlement to damages, so what is the problem?

Then we come to the government's response to this measure. On 3 March 2020 a government media release stated:

Minister Whetstone said seed companies would boycott South Australia and refuse to release GM seeds because of the untested right to damages provisions.

Nearly all provisions that parliament puts in legislation are untested until they are enacted and implemented, so is the minister suggesting that we never pass new legislation because it has not been tested? That is simply ludicrous.

If these seed companies want to boycott South Australia because we as legislators expect them to take responsibility and liability for their own product, as we expect from all other companies selling their products to South Australian consumers, then so be it. If you cannot stand by your product and take legal responsibility if it causes damage to others, then perhaps you should peddle your product elsewhere.

In relation to the other provisions of the bill, if GM crops were allowed, the Greens think it is important for neighbours to notify each other if they are planning to cultivate or harvest a GM crop, so we fully support the proposed requirement for at least 60 days' notice. Although we appreciate the intention of the Hon. Frank Pangallo in proposing a buffer zone of at least 10 metres for GM crops, I am told by farmers and other experts that this is not nearly far enough. In the parliamentary briefing that I hosted on 3 March on this issue one of the speakers, Bob Mackley, a conventional farmer from the Wimmera region in Victoria, spoke about his experience of his farm being contaminated in 2011 by his neighbour's GM canola crop.

Mr Mackley traced germinating GM canola seed at least 100 metres into his paddock, and some material was washed all the way across the paddock which was about 300 metres. There was so much of it that it not only went through his fence but it pushed his fence completely over. Likewise, we appreciate the intention of the crop inspection requirements in this bill which enables testing for GMO contamination and ensures that the cost of the testing will not be at the expense of the non-GM farmer but rather an expense to the public purse. It may be that PIRSA is a more appropriate authority for this responsibility than the EPA, but we think the intention is the right one.

We acknowledge the efforts of the honourable member in incorporating these farmer protection measures into his bill. If the moratorium is to be lifted permanently in South Australia, protections are essential for non-GM and organic farmers suffering economic loss due to GM contamination. However, the Greens know that the best protection for our farmers is actually to keep the moratorium in place. With that, the Greens will not be supporting this particular bill.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Minister for Trade and Investment) (18:00): I am happy to speak on behalf of the government on the Hon. Frank Pangallo's SA-Best Genetically Modified Crops Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2020. It does feel a bit like deja vu: every few months we come back and talk about genetically modified crops here—and of course we did see one in the twilight of the parliament before the election, when things were rushed in with no consultation with industry. This one is very similar in the fact that there has been very little consultation with industry.

We have indicated that we will not be supporting the legislation. Our farmers deserve regulatory certainty with the confidence to know that they can invest in a GM crop and plant it if they wish to, in the knowledge that the government has their back and will support them. If this bill were to somehow miraculously escape the Legislative Council and pass, it effectively would impose a permanent moratorium on South Australia's primary industries.

I am always interested when the Hon. Mark Parnell talks about the multinationals. Every farmer I know plants crops based on a management plan to control weeds or based on profit. If they cannot make a profit and it is not worth doing, they will not be kowtowing to any of the multinationals. While I am on some of the Hon. Mark Parnell's comments, he spoke in his brief contribution about a GM crop in Horsham, or in the Wimmera, that was so aggressive and vigorous that it pushed a fence over.

Actually, I think it was storm, rain and water that picked up material and pushed it onto the fence. I do not think that you should blame the GM canola for pushing the fence over; I expect it was a storm and weather event that picked all the material up and pushed it against the fence. It could have been phalaris, dock and thistles, and canola as well, so are we going to ban phalaris, dock and thistles and everything else that was pushed up against the fence in that storm?

I do not believe the SA-Best legislation has gone through anywhere near the consultation that we would normally have seen. This issue has been consulted on for well over 10 years; I think it was 2004 when the ban went in. I do not know how many times in this place I have heard people say, 'You should listen to the stakeholders. Listen to the people whom this will impact. They are the ones who want it.'

Our big concern with this bill would be about forcing the EPA to send officers to undertake inspections on farmers' properties without the permission or the request of the non-GM farmer. We believe that seed companies would boycott South Australia. The other thing we have to understand is that we have the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics. We have a challenge, globally, to feed the world, and we have one of the world's greatest agricultural research institutions at Waite, just out here on the edge of the city.

If we have a GM moratorium, it will stifle any of that research. While I know that some members are nervous about that research, there is a whole range of things that I suspect our scientists will look at over the next 10, 20, 30 or 40 years that will help feed the world when all of us are long gone. Of course, we also know that the independent review of the moratorium found that it has cost grain growers $33 million a year since 2004, and it would cost another $5 million or so if we continue any further.

I am not going to delay this debate any longer. I know there will be a lengthy debate when the very sensible arrangement and agreement that the opposition and the government have come to in progressing a GM bill that we will see in this chamber in the next couple of weeks, so I will not prolong it. I am certain the Hon. Mark Parnell will have a significant amount to say at that time, and also I suspect will the Hon. Frank Pangallo. We have consulted, we have talked, we have listened and we do not support this current proposal.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (18:05): I wish to thank all members for their contributions to the bill that I introduced that lifts the moratorium on GM crops, as well as providing some safeguards for those who choose not to grow it and perhaps have their business or livelihoods impacted by it. I roundly reject the Hon. David Ridgway's assertions that we have not consulted: we have. How would he know who we have consulted with?

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Well, the main stakeholders for one.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We have consulted with all the stakeholders, Mr Ridgway—all of them on both sides. We have done that, so you got that wrong, like you have on many other occasions. The primary industries minister, grain producers and farmers have always said that growing GM is about choice, and so it should be, while also respecting the wishes of those who do not with to grow it. Unfortunately, the government and Labor have thrown them under the harvester.

My position on GM has been clear right from the outset: I support it and I feel it will bring benefits to not only our farmers who want it but also to our world-class scientists working on research into crops to improve yields and lower costs. GMOs are not only about improving farming methods, particularly in Third World economies, they are also used in areas like medicine. I am sure GMO technology is being used in the race to find a vaccine against COVID-19.

I welcome Labor's support in the other place for GM crops in a bill that has been rushed through by the primary industries minister with the input from the opposition's primary industries shadow, Eddie Hughes. I realise I will now most likely not have the support from either the government, the opposition or the other crossbenchers for my bill, which I believe strikes a very fair balance and has received support from both sides of the debate. We had built in a mechanism to protect both the GM growers and the non-GM growers, while providing flexibility and compromise.

I would like to thank my senior adviser, Adrian Gillam, and parliamentary counsel for their work in developing a workable solution to this emotive discussion. It legislates for the moratorium on GM crops on Kangaroo Island so it cannot be altered by regulation. This seemed to get up the goat of the minister when we had a rather tense briefing with his chief of staff. He also did not like the idea that a farmer had a remedy for damages and could sue, if they wished, persons or the company that held the patent or intellectual property rights without having to prove negligence. It also does not limit their rights for damages in the event of spray drift of insecticide or herbicide on their crop.

There are a few other minor inclusions, like issuing notices to neighbours before planting, harvesting or spraying, and imposing a distance between properties, which the Hon. Mark Parnell has pointed out might be unworkable. That could be the case and could always have been amended. It is quite disappointing and a dereliction of the minister's duty of engagement that he failed even to respond to us after the briefing. He instead issued a media release attacking us and made false accusations, including claiming that we wanted to set up a GM watchdog. Fake news!

My bill also had built in a tolerance level of 0.9 per cent contamination, which is a benchmark used by other states. Recorded levels of contamination have only been less than 0.5 per cent, so, put into effect, legal action by a non-GM farmer would have been highly unlikely. However, in his latest deal with the devil, in consenting to Labor's amendments, the minister has, in his bumbling way, complicated the uncomplicated.

I call this the Forrest Gump GM bill. You might recall one of Forrest's more memorable sayings: stupid is as stupid does. I might also suggest the minister, the opposition leader and Mr Hughes take note of the lyrics of a song with the same title recorded by the Dune Rats. To avoid blushes, I will not repeat them here, but in essence that is what they have done: stuffed it up. Giving local councils six months to apply to an advisory committee to opt in for an exemption to remain as a non-GM region with the minister still having the right of veto is plainly ridiculous and unworkable.

I understand both the government and Labor failed to consult with local government about this. It caught them by surprise. So who is going to pay for the consultation process? It is yet more cost shifting offloaded onto local government. It is a dog's breakfast. The thought of having non-GM zones and GM zones scattered around the state is dopey. What happens to a farmer who has a property that traverses two council boundaries or to transport vehicles contracted to collect and deliver GM and non-GM crops across different council boundaries? Who is going to supervise that?

Once the genie is out of the bottle, that is it. I cannot see many regional councils taking it up anyway, especially Kangaroo Island—bad news for the member for Mawson. The Mayor of Kangaroo Island, farmer and former Liberal MP Michael Pengilly, gleefully applauded the prospect of GM being lifted in one of his tweets yesterday. His own council is stacked with pro-Liberal supporters, so you can be assured that KI's GM holiday will soon come to an abrupt end, taking with it the marketing advantage we wished to protect.

On the subject of KI, stupidity seems to be contagious in the Liberal Party at the moment. Take the insane proposal by the energy minister, the Hon. Dan van Holst Pellekaan. In a submission to the state electoral boundaries review—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Pangallo—

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I am nearly finished, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: No, the Hon. Mr Pangallo, it would be advisable—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Well, it is; it is about Kangaroo Island.

The PRESIDENT: —if you could stick to your bill. I have given you latitude. You are speaking about a bill that is not even before the house as yet, so speak to your bill.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Well, Mr President, I fear that what is being proposed is going to divide communities, particularly in the Adelaide Hills. How can you trust councils to represent the wishes of their communities when there is likely to be conflicts of interest from members who are also primary producers? The Premier came out loud and clear himself and said it was the stupidest idea he has ever heard, and I will even quote him directly, 'I've heard of some pretty stupid ideas in my time'—

The PRESIDENT: Again the Hon. Mr Pangallo, you are not talking about your own bill.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: No, I am talking about what your government is proposing.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, speak to your bill, please, and sum up.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Okay, I will finish it off.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: It is disappointing that we have a situation here today where I have proposed a bill. I think what has probably happened in this is there has been some backroom deal done to get to this point, and it probably needed to score a few brownie points because they are suffering from relevance deprivation syndrome. Judging by the nature of the bill yesterday, the minister was snookered by my bill, which I flagged two weeks ago I would bring to a vote. Politically, it would have been awkward and uncomfortable for the government had it voted to defeat a lowly crossbencher's bill which would actually lift the moratorium on GM. That is likely to happen with Labor's support now they have their insurance tucked away in their back pocket.

However, rather than withdraw the bill, I think it is important that it be put on the public record that SA-Best did and still does support the introduction of GM. I flag that we intend to move amendments from elements contained in this bill when the government's bill eventually hits committee stage.

Ayes 2

Noes 17

Majority 15