HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-09-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

GENE TECHNOLOGY (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 11 September 2008. Page 90.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:42): I rise to indicate that the opposition will support the bill. It was introduced only a short time ago, on 11 September, by the Minister for Health. He has requested that this matter be dealt with expeditiously. I indicate that the opposition sought and obtained a telephone briefing on the matter and has expedited its processes to accommodate the request of the government.

My understanding of the history of this matter (and this was generally traversed in the minister's second reading explanation) is that, apart from Western Australia, we are the only state that has not attended to completing a COAG agreement. All other states have either transferred power to the commonwealth and/or passed similar legislation to this bill. Indeed, the commonwealth has attended to its legislation pursuant to an agreement that has been effective since 1 July 2007.

I expect that, because Western Australia had an election, it has a reasonable excuse, but I am not quite sure why it has taken so long for South Australia to deal with this matter. Nevertheless, having viewed and considered the legislation, we are happy to accommodate the government's request to attend to it so that we are not tail-end Charlie.

The first aspect of the bill that merits dealing with this matter expeditiously is the introduction of emergency powers that give the federal minister, after consultation with the Gene Technology Ministerial Council, the ability to expedite the approval for dealing with genetically modified organisms in an emergency.

In the course of the briefing, it was explained to me that we had experienced a circumstance in Australia since the passing of the federal legislation that has vindicated the importance of this legislation. At first blush, I assume that this involves gene technology to deal with vaccines in the event of some imminent health disaster that may affect humans. In fact, the example which was provided to us and which has justified the whole process was the equine flu difficulty faced by a number of states, including South Australia.

This arose out of—I think it is fair on anyone's assessment to say—total ineptitude of the monitoring and carrying out of duties associated with AQIS, an organisation which has been established under commonwealth power to manage and secure Australian borders against germs coming into Australia and to ensure that we have appropriate quarantine procedures supported by legislation and regulation to protect us and our stock, both domestic and wild. It is an important responsibility and one which fundamentally failed in relation to the equine flu problem. Suffice to say that the horseracing industry, to name but one, was severely affected financially, and significant imposition and loss of opportunity arose out of that event.

I vividly recall this time last year, I think, when ministerial regulation was introduced to prevent the transportation of horses interstate. The prospect of missing out on major events in the racing industry was devastating for those who had put in so much time and effort—trainers, jockeys and others—not to mention the financial contribution made by owners. The loss of opportunity arising from that regulation was devastating, particularly for New South Wales and Victoria.

I also recall reading with some amusement at the time the regulations published in our parliamentary gazette under the authority of the Minister for Health, if I recall correctly, to prevent any—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Surely Government Gazette, not parliamentary gazette.

Ms CHAPMAN: Correct, the Government Gazette—horses, donkeys, asses and I think some other—

Dr McFetridge: Zebras.

Ms CHAPMAN: Zebras, was it?—from going in or out of South Australia at the time. I am not aware of any major concerns—well, I am sure there are a lot of concerns—with any application of this flu virus in horses that contaminated our horses. Subsequent to the briefing, I was informed that, during this period, some 1,500 horses in South Australia were vaccinated with a vaccine that had been developed under the authority of the new commonwealth legislation under the emergency use permit. We are supporting this legislation to enable that vaccine to be developed in South Australia. I am also informed that all the vaccinations in respect of that event ceased on 30 June 2008.

It was a shining example of the emergency power being used to quickly develop a GMO-based vaccine for that purpose and, as a result, one can only assume that it was able to at least arrest the spread of the horse flu. On that basis, we are pleased to support that. Obviously, it will not be the last of germs or viruses that enter Australia, or South Australia, and we must be in a position to act quickly in order to protect our stock—wild animals and humans—and take advantage of genetically modified technology to provide that extra protection.

The second part of the legislation is fairly much glossed over, if I can say that, in the second reading explanation by the minister. I am not suggesting that it was done in a manner to diminish the importance of the other aspects. There are quite a few others which were described to me as technical amendments but which, on reading more thoroughly, do in fact streamline the process for field trials of crops that are using genetically modified seed.

This is to enable a shortened or abbreviated process which effectively cuts out public consultation in the initial period. There is provision for a subsequent consultation—I think it is after a six-month period—but this allows for that process to be truncated for field trials. That is as distinct from the current process which has applied and, I am assured, will continue to apply, to commercial crops.

My understanding is that, at present, anyone who wishes to deal with a genetically modified organism must apply for a licence from the regulator. Essentially, the regulator carries out a risk assessment. Consideration is given then to submissions that are received under a public consultation process and, if that assessment deems the process to have been acceptable, a licence is issued. My understanding of the briefing that I was given and of information provided is that that whole process takes about a year and, obviously, the truncated process for field trials will significantly reduce that.

I also raise the question of whether the failure to pass the bill here under this sort of agreement arrangement—because different things apply with these agreements—is fatal to the application of other legislation. My understanding is that—using the equine flu example—because the commonwealth legislation had been passed and the GMO vaccine developed, it was able to be applied in South Australia, notwithstanding that this legislation had not been passed here and, indeed, as I have indicated, some 1,500 horses were actually vaccinated.

It raises the question, I suppose, whether we would have faced impediment if we had the only individual entity, that is, an unincorporated entity—and this relates to the whole question of the commonwealth having corporations power—that had the capacity to produce such a GMO vaccine, whether we would have been able to do it here in those circumstances. This is the whole dilemma that faces us when we deal with pieces of legislation that are supposed to complement each other, and sometimes can be fatal.

I am assured in this case that it has not. Similarly, I recall—and I think we are probably going to be debating it again at some stage—the question of stem cell research. There was similar difficulty with the capacity for South Australia to proceed with stem cell research in the manner that was anticipated by previous legislation in this house in the event of it not signing up, and we are again, I think, the last state to make a positive determination to pass legislation of that nature.

I think there is only one corporate body, which is part of the University of Adelaide (Repromed is another company), that would be able to exercise corporate powers under commonwealth legislation to facilitate that and, whilst there is some doubt around what might happen with others, in practical terms, of course, there is no other unincorporated entity operating in South Australia that would currently have a licence to undertake the work in any event.

One has to look at the legal parameters within which we are working and what the other opportunities and benefits are and, in this case, in relation to the emergency power and truncating of the process, what advantage there is in South Australia joining up. In this instance, the opposition supports the government and the answer is in the affirmative.


[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. J.D. Hill]


Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (16:55): This debate on the Gene Technology (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill is a very timely debate. At the start, I can say that I support this amendment very strongly. I say it is very timely because, only this morning, there were reports coming out of Sydney about a horse testing positive for equine flu. There has been a lot of media chatter in TheSydney Morning Herald, Adelaidenow and other media outlets about this suspected case of equine flu.

This reminds us, once again, just how vulnerable we are in Australia when exotic diseases get out of quarantine and go across the broad populations of horses and animals—in this particular case, horses and horse species. As a member of the Equine Veterinary Association I have just received an urgent message from the Chief Veterinary Officer stating that the borderline equine influenza result at Eastern Creek has retested negative. It was a borderline positive but the horse has now been retested and it is negative.

There are 70 horses in quarantine at Eastern Creek. All of these horses initially tested negative but will now be retested as a precaution. That is good news because we can all remember the devastation that was caused across Australia by the outbreak of equine flu. We need to have this sort of legislation in place so that if there is an emergency situation, where there are human or animal health concerns—medical or veterinary health—we need to bring in control measures as quickly as possible.

In the case of equine flu the best control measure was quarantine, backing that up with vaccination of horses in buffer zones, and then strategic vaccinations. The problem was that the most efficacious range of vaccines were made by a company called Merial (which I think is a French company). They are PROTEQFLU vaccines which are made of a recombinant virus, a canary pox virus. The vital parts of the equine flu virus are combined with the canary pox virus and then it is attenuated so that not even canaries will be affected by this virus. However, it enables the virus to be used as a vaccine against equine flu.

We needed the legislation to be able to use this genetically-modified vaccine. Making these vaccines is a very valuable piece of scientific progress and there is nothing to be afraid of. Having the ability to use them to cope with serious outbreaks of exotic diseases in Australia is something that we need to be able to do. We cannot always predict what diseases are coming next. We have a very proud history of quarantine in this country but the outbreak of equine flu, obviously, gave us all a real wake-up call.

With those few words I do support the bill. The other part of the bill, to allow for the streamlining of processing for field crop trials is one that I strongly support. I wish this legislation a swift passage through both houses because, although it was a false alarm in Sydney this morning about another suspected case of horse flu, it reinforces the fact that we need to act, and act very swiftly if we are going to maintain Australia's quarantine status and disease-free status.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (16:59): I want to speak briefly on a matter which I think is very important to the house. I support the shadow minister in relation to supporting the government's bill. There are several issues in relation to this matter, but we support anything that expedites a process which enables our farmers (and anybody else) to, first of all, produce food economically and cleanly but also to be able to handle emergencies. This is what this does, particularly in the area where emergency powers are introduced that give the federal minister, in consultation with the Gene Technology Ministerial Council, the ability to expedite the approval to deal with a GMO in an emergency. The shadow minister told us about the equine flu outbreak; you have to be able to breed these things up very quickly, which you can do under GMO technology.

There are also the amendments to streamline the process of trial field crops. I can understand if you want to grow something commercially, but when you just want to trial it, it is a nonsense to have to go through all of this red tape just to put down maybe one or two acres of a trial crop, when it is just for testing purposes. To go through all the rigmarole, which takes over a year, is just a lot of nonsense and it is just too hard. We are expediting processes, and I welcome that.

In relation to that field crop, I will comment on our position. I know it is on the same topic, but it is not what this bill is about. It is in relation to GMOs on canola. I note that over the two weeks' break the minister is going to Canada. I have just come back from Canada.

The Hon. J.D. Hill interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Not this one. No; the minister for primary industries is going to Canada to look at this issue of GM food, and particularly genetically modified canola. We in South Australia do maintain a moratorium against the growing, harvesting and storing of GM canola. I went over to Canada to look at that issue. I went to Winnipeg, which is a long way away, and it is cold, because this is where it all started. To see what is happening there, in consideration of where we are, it makes a real nonsense of the position we have taken, because all the Canadian research is now done with GM canola—everything.

I am fully supportive of our changing the laws, because it is a nonsense. GM canola can be grown in Victoria and New South Wales, and the only border we have is a line on a map. It is a nonsense to consider that we are going to be able to keep it to the South-East, where the member for MacKillop lives. It is going to come over the border anyway. It is a nonsense to think it will not.

The Hon. J.D. Hill: What's his view?

Mr VENNING: The same as many who over this side support the production of GM canola. But one has to be very careful in relation to what you do then with GM wheat. I want to see a lot more work done with GM wheat, but not in the chemical resistance side of it. I think we need GM wheat that is drought tolerant, because I will tell you what is happening out there, as I said earlier today, with the lack of rain. We will reap barley because it is pushing up, but it will be skinny, low grade feed barley.

Wheat does not have the same tolerance to drought. We need to breed that into it so that, with weather like this, we can at least get a crop and have some food to feed our people and animals. So, that is an area to look into, but I would put on the record that I would be very careful about breeding the chemical intolerance into wheat, because you would have trouble having both canola and wheat resistant to Roundup. That would not be smart.

So, the minister is going to Canada. He says he is going over there to repair the damage that I did. He always says that. I have briefed the people over there for when he does get there, and he is going to walk into some information. I was very impressed with the presentations made to me in relation to the issue of GM canola. GM canola is selling very well all over the world; it is improving in sales and all the new technologies are done only with GM canola. When you crush the GM canola the oil extract does not carry the transgenic gene; it is only in the pulp. So, it is a nonsense to consider that using this stuff is detrimental to anybody's health. Yes, the pulp is; if fed to animals it can carry over, but there is no proof of detriment there anyway.

The Japanese, who were originally resistant to buying this product, are now buying it. Even the Europeans, who have had the biggest opposition to GM canola, are buying it, because there is no choice, because 75 per cent of the world's canola is now GM modified. We are out there with the old product, and it is costing our growers. People have to understand that when you have GM canola you can use the safest chemical there is on it. The canola that we grow has some of the most dangerous chemicals used on it, because the old canola would be killed by Roundup, which is glyphosate, but it is a very safe chemical. So, you are eating canola here that has been sprayed with some of the most toxic chemicals, whereas the GM canola has been sprayed with the least toxic. That, to me, sounds like common sense.

I support this bill and commend it to the house. I also commend the shadow minister for the work she has done on this measure. It is great that we can agree on something that I think will be for the overall good of everyone.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health, Minister for the Southern Suburbs, Minister Assisting the Premier in the Arts) (17:05): I thank the opposition for supporting these measures and agreeing to deal with the bill expeditiously. As the deputy leader said, we asked that it be dealt with expeditiously, and we appreciate the opposition's agreement to that. I think all the matters have been covered and there are no questions left outstanding. At this stage, I thank the officers in my department who worked on this legislation (Fay Jenkins and Elena Anear) and also our parliamentary counsel, Shirley Fisher.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT