HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-12-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE (Chaffey—Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development) (11:02): I move:

That standing orders be and remain so far suspended as to enable the introduction without notice and passage of a bill through all stages forthwith.

The SPEAKER: There being an absolute majority, I accept the motion. Is the motion seconded?

Honourable members: Yes.

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (11:02): I oppose the suspension of standing orders. Practice and procedure in this parliament mean something. It is a long-held tradition of this place that legislation introduced by Her Majesty's government is laid on the table for a period of—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for West Torrens, be seated for one moment. If this level of interjection continues, members will be leaving the chamber. It is up to you. The member for West Torrens has the call.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It has been a long-held tradition in this place that legislation is laid on the table for a period of two sitting weeks or 10 days. Indeed, the Leader of Government Business gave me his word at the beginning of his term that the government would honour that. The word of the Leader of Government Business is now at stake, as is the Premier's.

The reason we have this practice and procedure in this parliament is that we are able to read that legislation, understand it, go away and consult on the legislation, talk to stakeholders about that legislation, get advice on potential amendments we may or may not wish to move and be briefed by the government on the intent of the legislation. That is the way the normal practice of reform occurs in this parliament and it has for decades.

The Premier interjected earlier about the fairness clause. The fairness clause had sat on the table for months. Perhaps the Premier needs education between guillotine and suspending standing orders to introduce a bill forthwith without debate, without consultation. The government may give us a debate—I do not know if they are going to guillotine the debate or not—but the minister has not even briefed the opposition on this bill.

Mr Malinauskas: We haven't even got a copy of it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We haven't even got a copy of it. The parliament has had 18 months since the election—18 months—no green paper, white paper process on this change of policy, no consultation with anyone. Instead, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, who believes in the institutions of this parliament, is now being asked—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier is called to order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —to consider a bill we have not even seen. I say to members opposite: the Premier will never spend another day in opposition. He is never going to be over here. No matter what happens in two years' time, if the government is defeated he is gone. Those of you who survive and remain will want to form what is a loyal opposition and debate the government of the day and use this institution for your constituents. Yet the Premier is trashing the conventions of this parliament for his own personal benefit because there are no consequences to him. He will never be in opposition again. He will never be in the minority again to have to argue for what they believe in. He will not have that opportunity.

He wants all of you to sacrifice all this practice and precedence over decades for him again: first it was pairs, then it was government budget measures and now it is this. At what point does the independent Liberal Party room say, 'Enough, enough. It's not about the merits of the bill but about this building, this institution.' Does it matter or does it not, or is it just who has the most votes and that is all that matters? If that is the argument of the Liberal Party, you are not the heirs of those who have gone before you. You are not even a pale imitation of them. They would never have done this.

Even John Olsen when he was privatising ETSA—the most controversial decision a Liberal government has probably ever taken—went through the process, tabled the bill, let it go out to consultation, burnt political capital every single day because he believed in the institution of democratic representative government. This government, because of the incompetence of one minister, wants us to trash all that for the convenience of a Premier, who will never be in opposition again, not worrying about the legitimacy of the Liberal Party ongoing but just him, no-one else but himself.

Members, do not give the government an absolute majority on this. Do the right thing by the parliament: let this sit on the table for two weeks and let's come back and debate it. This is not about the merits of the bill: this is about the process. Do it properly. This is how real Tories and Conservatives behave.

The SPEAKER: Does the minister want to use any of his reply time? No.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: There are only two speakers, per standing orders.

Ms Bedford: There's a gender balance here this morning, Mr Speaker. I do like that.

The SPEAKER: Member for Florey! Members, per standing order 401, limitation of debate:

The mover is in every case limited to ten minutes (including right of reply) in stating the reasons for seeking the suspension. One other Member may speak, subject to the same time limit. No further discussion is allowed.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 24

Noes 22

Majority 2

AYES
Basham, D.K.B. Chapman, V.A. Cowdrey, M.J.
Cregan, D. Duluk, S. Ellis, F.J.
Gardner, J.A.W. Harvey, R.M. (teller) Knoll, S.K.
Luethen, P. Marshall, S.S. McBride, N.
Murray, S. Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S.
Pisoni, D.G. Power, C. Sanderson, R.
Speirs, D.J. Teague, J.B. Treloar, P.A.
van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J. Wingard, C.L.
NOES
Bedford, F.E. Bell, T.S. Bettison, Z.L.
Bignell, L.W.K. Boyer, B.I. Brock, G.G.
Brown, M.E. (teller) Close, S.E. Cook, N.F.
Gee, J.P. Hildyard, K.A. Hughes, E.J.
Koutsantonis, A. Malinauskas, P. Michaels, A.
Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A.
Picton, C.J. Stinson, J.M. Szakacs, J.K.
Wortley, D.

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE (Chaffey—Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development) (11:14): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004, to repeal the Genetically Modified Crops Management Regulations Act 2017 and to revoke the Genetically Modified Crops Management Regulations 2008. Read a first time.

Ms Bedford: Any chance we can see the bill?

The SPEAKER: Member for Florey! I understand where you are coming from, but there is a way and a means to—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister, please be seated for one moment. It is not that way. Member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I move that the debate be adjourned.

The SPEAKER: It has been moved that debate be adjourned. We have no debate.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I move that the bill be postponed, sir.

The SPEAKER: It has been moved that the bill be postponed. I have been advised that to move to postpone at this point is out of order, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is a motion of deferral within order, sir?

The SPEAKER: I am advised we need to move to the second reading.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, please. Members, I am calling the minister.

Second Reading

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE (Chaffey—Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development) (11:17): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am very pleased to introduce the Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill 2019. The bill will enable the government to pursue an important reform that will give South Australian farmers on the mainland the choice to take up the opportunities that genetically modified food crops can provide them now and into the future.

The Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004 provides for the designation of areas of the state for the purposes of preserving for marketing purposes the identity of certain food crops according to whether they are genetically modified crops or non-genetically modified crops, to provide for the segregation of genetically modified food crops and to provide certain protections with respect to the spread of genetically modified plant material.

The act, therefore, is in place for marketing and trade purposes and has been used to prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified food crops. This is commonly referred to as the moratorium on genetically modified food crops. It currently applies to the whole of South Australia. I would like to stress that this legislation is not in place for the protection of human health and the environment, as these matters are dealt with through the national regulatory schemes and are not grounds for retaining the moratorium.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens is called to order.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: The government came into power with a clear commitment to undertake an independent expert review of the moratorium to determine its true economic merits and enable a decision on its future to be made based on evidence. The government has undertaken an exhaustive process to fulfil the commitment, which I would like to explain to demonstrate that we have been open, transparent and provided stakeholders with ample opportunity to provide their views.

An independent review was commissioned within six months of forming government, and public submissions were invited during the review, which was completed in February 2019. In summary, the review found no evidence that South Australia enjoys better access to the European Union non-genetically modified grain market, that there has been no premium for South Australian non-genetically modified grain when compared with neighbouring states and, importantly, and the moratorium had cost South Australian grain growers at least $33 million since 2004.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: If extended to 2025, it would cost the industry a further $5 million. The review also found that the moratorium had discouraged public and private investment in research.

Mr Brown interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Playford is called to order.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: The only exception identified by the review was Kangaroo Island, where there are some canola producers who have specialised markets in Japan based on its non-genetically modified status. In considering farmers who wish to continue to access non-genetically modified and organic markets, the review also found the experience in other states shows that segregation protocols ensure successful coexistence of genetically modified and non-genetically modified crops.

I released the findings of the review, shortly after receiving it, for public comment to assist the government to determine the next steps. After considering the feedback, and the findings of this review, the government decided to lift the moratorium across all South Australia except Kangaroo Island.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is called to order.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: The government sought to implement the decision by following the process described in section 5 of the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004. The government undertook the extensive statutory consultation process as required by section 5(3) of the act on the proposal to amend the Genetically Modified Crops Management Regulations 2008 to lift the moratorium in all of South Australia except Kangaroo Island.

This third round of public consultation included releasing draft regulations and providing for public notice to be given on the Primary Industries and Regions South Australia website, and the public notice in the newspaper as required by sections 5(3)(a)(i) and 5(9) in the act, inviting the public to make written submissions to the government over a six-week period as required by subsection (3) of the act, and convening two public meetings in areas to be affected by the proposed regulations: one in Kingscote and one in Adelaide, as required by section 5 of the act.

The government also consulted with the GM Crop Advisory Committee as required by section 5 of the act. The majority of views expressed in the statutory consultation supported the proposed regulations. A total of 218 submissions were received in response to the consultation, of which 128 submitters were in favour of the proposed regulations. One submitter, being Livestock SA, favoured lifting the moratorium across the whole of South Australia, including Kangaroo Island, 75  submitters were opposed to the proposed regulations, and a further 15 submitters were opposed to the proposed regulations, referencing matters outside the scope of the act.

The GM Crop Advisory Committee also supported the proposed regulations. Lifting of the moratorium has been strongly supported by our grain growers, their representative organisations, Grain Producers of South Australia and the wider grains industry, as well as Primary Producers South Australia, Livestock SA, and the South Australian Dairyfarmers' Association. Kangaroo Island farmers have supported this proposal, too, to lift the moratorium on the mainland but retain it on the island, with some stressing the importance of having mechanisms to access any new pasture and crop varieties in future which may benefit local growing conditions.

Submissions from many of our state's highly regarded research institutions have also clearly highlighted the moratorium's negative impacts on research and development investment in South Australia. The independent review findings, the feedback from consultation undertaken following this review and the advice of the expert advisory committee do not provide economic grounds for retaining the moratorium. This process has instead shown that the moratorium has resulted in costs to producers and to the state, barriers to research and investment and, if it continues, will mean that our farmers do not have access to the current and future important innovations in crops and pastures.

It is also clear that the experience of other mainland states demonstrates that coexistence is possible and that the sale of non-genetically modified food crops can continue where there is no moratorium in place. The government therefore progressed this reform and made the Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designation of Area) Variation Regulations 2019, which amended the area where genetically modified food crops were prohibited to just Kangaroo Island.

This simple amendment was intended to retain the structure of the act, which makes it clear that the area where the moratorium is to apply will be designated in the regulations. As a disallowable instrument, parliament had the opportunity to scrutinise, debate and vote on these regulations, and this occurred on 27 November 2019, where the regulations were disallowed by a resolution of the Legislative Council.

During the debate in the Legislative Council, members expressed the view that the areas to which the moratorium applies should be designated in the act, not the regulations. The government was invited to bring forward a bill to provide the parliament with an opportunity to consider and debate the merits of lifting or changing the moratorium. To fulfil the wishes of the parliament, I introduced this bill to enable this to happen.

The bill is not inconsistent with the recommendations of a recent parliamentary select committee into genetically modified crops in South Australia, with two of the committee members stating that there was overwhelming evidence that lifting the moratorium on the mainland would benefit the farming sector. The bill gives effect to the government's position that the moratorium should apply to Kangaroo Island.

The bill removes the power of the Governor to designate by regulation the area for which the moratorium on cultivation of genetically modified food crops may apply. The bill also respects the wishes of the 2017 parliament in applying 1 September 2025 as a sunset date for the moratorium. It is past time here in South Australia that farmers are provided with the same choices as their neighbours in other Australian states to use new and improved crop varieties and agricultural technologies to tackle the challenges they face.

South Australian farmers should have access to choice in crop varieties that build resilience, both financially and in their production systems, to drought, climate variability and change. Farmers who do not choose to grow genetically modified crops will be able to continue to sell to non-genetically modified and organic markets, as farmers have successfully done in other states using segregation protocols that have proven to be successful and reliable.

The Marshall Liberal government has a strong reform agenda to strengthen and grow the state's economy. The bill will be another enabler—and I use that word 'enabler'—to growing our agriculture and food sector. We are committed to supporting the grains sector to be vibrant, productive and competitive. I commend the bill to the house and look forward to further debate. I seek leave to have the explanation of clauses inserted without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

This clause is formal.

2—Commencement

The measure commences on 1 January 2020.

3—Amendment provisions

This clause is formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004

4—Amendment of section 3—Interpretation

This amendment is consequential.

5—Amendment of section 5—Designation of areas

The power to designate by regulation areas of the State in relation to the cultivation (and prohibition of the cultivation) of genetically modified food crops is repealed and substituted with the provision that Kangaroo Island is designated as an area in which no genetically modified food crops may be cultivated.

Provisions related to the making of regulations referred to above are also repealed.

6—Insertion of section 7A

New section 7A is inserted:

7A—Expiry of Part

This section provides that Part 2 of the Act expires on 1 September 2025.

7—Amendment of Schedule 1—Transitional provisions

These amendments are consequential. One of them provides a power to make transitional regulations connected to the measure. Such regulations may operate from the commencement of the measure, or a later day.

Schedule 1—Repeal and revocation

Part 1—Repeal

1—Repeal of Genetically Modified Crops Management Regulations (Postponement of Expiry) Act 2017

The Genetically Modified Crops Management Regulations (Postponement of Expiry) Act 2017 is repealed as a consequence of the amendment to section 5 of the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004.

Part 2—Revocation

2—Revocation of Genetically Modified Crops Management Regulations 2008

The Genetically Modified Crops Management Regulations 2008 are revoked as a consequence of the amendment to section 5 of the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (11:28): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 22

Noes 24

Majority 2

AYES
Bedford, F.E. Bell, T.S. Bettison, Z.L.
Bignell, L.W.K. Boyer, B.I. Brock, G.G.
Brown, M.E. (teller) Close, S.E. Cook, N.F.
Gee, J.P. Hildyard, K.A. Hughes, E.J.
Koutsantonis, A. Malinauskas, P. Michaels, A.
Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A.
Picton, C.J. Stinson, J.M. Szakacs, J.K.
Wortley, D.
NOES
Basham, D.K.B. Chapman, V.A. Cowdrey, M.J.
Cregan, D. Duluk, S. Ellis, F.J.
Gardner, J.A.W. Harvey, R.M. (teller) Knoll, S.K.
Luethen, P. Marshall, S.S. McBride, N.
Murray, S. Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S.
Pisoni, D.G. Power, C. Sanderson, R.
Speirs, D.J. Teague, J.B. Treloar, P.A.
van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J. Wingard, C.L.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (11:33): I guess I am in a state of shock at the absolute contempt the parliament has been treated with.

The SPEAKER: Member for Giles, are you the lead speaker?

Mr HUGHES: Yes.

The SPEAKER: Thank you. Continue.

Mr HUGHES: It is just contempt for parliamentary processes. We thought something might well have been learnt as a result of what happened in the upper house with the move to disallow the regulatory change that the government was seeking. It was clear from the crossbenchers, at least most of the crossbenchers, that they were deeply perturbed by the process the government had entered into. In saying that, I acknowledge that the act did contain a provision to introduce changes by regulation, but it was the wholesale nature of those changes, as a result of an attempt to move a change to regulation, that put the crossbenchers offside.

It was an incredibly clear message when it came to process. Some people in the upper house argued that a bill should be introduced. Given the government has been in place for 18 months, a bill could have been introduced at any stage in that 18 months instead of waiting for the last week of parliament. To then do it in the way it has been done—without any notice, without any opportunity to have a close look at the bill—to be handed the bill before the debate, before the minister moved it, is just not the way to do it. It is incredibly poor process.

I reckon that the majority across there believe that this is poor process. How is it that we have come to this situation where, in the final sitting week, we are faced with the prospect of pushing this bill through? Those opposite know that we have our own internal processes, that we like to take something to shadow cabinet. Deliberation happens at shadow cabinet. We argue the points. We have a close look at the bill that is before us. Of course, we did not have any bill before us—no bill whatsoever.

We had our shadow cabinet meeting yesterday, and there was nothing before us. Here we are today; we had our caucus meeting, and there was nothing before us. There is a due process that we enter into internally: the government submits a bill, we get an opportunity to look at the bill and we get an opportunity to scrutinise the bill. We get an opportunity to go out and speak to people, and I have gone out to speak to people in relation to GM. I have spoken to a lot of people in relation to GM.

Mr Pederick: What do those Kimba farmers want, mate?

The SPEAKER: The member for Hammond is called to order.

Mr HUGHES: There are some excellent farmers up Kimba way. They do an amazing job in what is often a very challenging environment. We all know, and I will get to this soon, that Goyder's line is shifting south. I always like to acknowledge Goyder. The work he did all those years ago in drawing that line was absolutely amazing, but we know that it is now shifting south.

This has been an incredibly poor process on the part of the government. As I said, the crossbenchers in the upper house were perturbed by the way it was done. You would think that the message would have been taken on board when it came to process, but here we are in this house with a process not dissimilar to what was done in the upper house. The opposition has essentially been ambushed and is not in a position to do what an opposition should do: to have dialogue, to deliberate internally, to come to a decision in shadow cabinet and then see if caucus accepts the position that shadow cabinet has arrived at.

It is a very deliberative process, as it should be in this house. It should be a very deliberative process. That is why this bill should have sat: so we had the opportunity to take our time to go through this. Once again, I would say, 'You have been in government for 18 months. You are not serving primary industries well with the processes that you have entered into.' I might well have wanted to go and speak to people about this bill so that they could have a look at it and see what is good about it and what is bad about it. Amendments might well have arisen due to that process but, given the way the government have done this, it has been impossible.

This almost seems to be somewhat par for the course now with the minister. He put a wrecking ball through the snapper-dependent part of the commercial fishing industry; it also did not help the recreational fishing industry, and the charter industry is being gutted as well. Whatever the science on the snapper ban—whether there is a need for a three-year ban, a two-year ban or a one-year ban—the industry should have been looked after in that process. When we were in government, through cabinet and through a deliberative process, there was a $20 million restructure put on the table, to come into play on 1 July this year—

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HUGHES: You, as a minister, could have built upon that work—

The SPEAKER: Member for Giles, please address your remarks through the Chair; I am not a minister.

Mr HUGHES: —but instead, a wrecking ball was put through that particular industry. Budget No. 1: no tangible assistance for drought-affected farmers and pastoralists in this state. Budget No. 2: no assistance, once again, for farmers in this state. Quite a bit has been said about GM and its attributes in relation to drought and climate change.

When we compare and contrast this state with others on the issue of drought, we see that the Victorian Labor government is providing real assistance for farmers and drought-affected communities in Victoria. In New South Wales, the extent and duration of the drought are far greater than in South Australia, but just look at the degree of assistance that has been provided in that state. This government always says #RegionsMatter. Well, #RegionsMatter does not help the farmers and pastoralists that are experiencing drought; they need real, tangible assistance.

We have seen the fruit fly shambles at Yamba, in the minister's own electorate. We have seen the recreational fishing council unwind, with four members leaving that council and changes to the bureaucracy, with advertisements in the paper. Things are not looking all that good, and this is the latest example of poor timing.

Instead of giving the parliament time to consider the bill before us in a deliberative way, it is going to be truncated. We are not going to be given that opportunity. When we talk about GM, we are talking about a handful of crops that are being approved by the federal regulator. At this stage, one crop that is of interest in South Australia is herbicide-resistant canola. I imagine that would make up a very small part of the market, and the uptake is probably not going to be significant.

We have omega-3 canola, and it may well be that some farmers will be interested in that. We will see how we go if the moratorium is lifted. At the moment, we are talking about very limited opportunities in South Australia. A bunch of trials are being undertaken—some of which are happening in South Australia despite the moratorium. It is probably worth reflecting on the fact that the Waite Institute has done amazing work over the years, as have Roseworthy and some of South Australia's smaller research institutions, and they will continue to do so.

The trials being looked at in South Australia at the moment are on wheat and barley for better yields, so they are looking into tolerance for frost and drought. Those field trials are ongoing, with the anticipated conclusion date of 2021, and they will then have to go through processes beyond that. A number of other things are being looked at, including drought tolerance, as I have mentioned, and better nitrogen efficiency. If that particular attribute comes to the fore, this will save farmers money and will also be beneficial for the environment. Those trials might well come to an end early next year. There is a series of other trials, a number of which will not come online—at least the conclusion of the trials—until 2023 or thereabouts.

I am not denying that, when you look at these trials taking place here in South Australia, there are some things that we have to take incredibly seriously. When it comes to the challenges faced by our farming community and our pastoral community as a result of climate change and as a result of the drought that some are going through now, we need to have an open mind about looking at the tools that are going to be available in the future. But we do have time. We do have time to do this in a considered way and we did not need to adopt the process that we have going on at the moment.

I remember asking a few questions in estimates about climate change and farmers in South Australia, and the minister's response will always stick in my mind when he was asked questions about climate change. The response was about variability. The language about variability is often language to cover denial. I am not saying the minister is a climate change denier, but he did use the word 'variability'. We have always heard, 'Climate has always been variable.' The issue that we are talking about is this inexorable trend that science overwhelmingly indicates that we are already facing and that we are already in the early stages of.

Since the Industrial Revolution, we have had 1° of warming, but we are on track at the moment, on current trends, to 4° of warming within this century, which is a totally different planet. With the challenges that our farming sector and our pastoralists are going to face, they are going to be on the front line of those challenges. The cost to the farming community, to the state and to the nation are potentially going to be huge.

It would have been good to see the minister use some of his time to advocate with the climate change deniers at the federal level, because they have no coherent climate policy at a federal level and they have no coherent energy policy at a federal level. They have no amalgamated policy when it comes to those two incredibly important things. The response to the bushfires from Morrison was, 'My thoughts are with you. I will pray for you.' That is absolutely appalling. It is a bit like Trump after each massacre in the United States saying, 'My thoughts are with you and I will pray for you.' It is exactly the same nonsense approach.

I will get back to estimates. The question was raised and I got 'variability'. As I said, I suspect the minister is not a climate change denier, but he did mention variability. When I put to him that we are on track for a 3° to 4° warming trend, his response was, 'I haven't heard that.' I said, 'What? You haven't heard that? This is something basic.' He said, 'No, I have not heard that.' I tried to get clarification. He said, 'I haven't heard anyone say that the temperature is going to increase 3° to 4° in the next year.' I said, 'Wow! And you are the Minister for Primary Industries.'

You might think that on this side we go on a bit about climate change, but that is because we know how serious it is. Those on the other side should go on about it a bit more. I know there are some people who are incredibly scientifically literate on the other side who have absolutely no issue when it comes to assessing the scientific evidence and knowing where the overwhelming balance of that scientific evidence is.

We have a number of research institutions in South Australia doing good work, and they are doing some good work on GM crops. But that is not going to happen overnight. When you look globally at the launch of GM crops, from inception to going to the market, the average time period globally is 13 years—13 years to get a GM crop to market. And it does not come cheap. The average cost is $130 million, and it is why the big companies are involved.

You can understand that because they have the wherewithal to go through the processes that are needed, both the regulatory processes and all the other costs associated with getting a GM product to market. When you look at some of the real attributes that are potentially down the track, we have time, as a state, to benefit if ultimately the moratorium is lifted.

I have said time and time again that I go with the science and I go with the evidence. Those on this side do keep an open mind, but there are people on this side who argue—and it is a reasonable argument—that what we are talking about at the moment when it comes to GM crops is an incredibly small fraction of the grain industry. Year in, year out, it is one of the major building blocks of the economy in this state, a multibillion dollar industry.

We know that the Anderson report indicated that there have been losses to the state of $33 million since the introduction of the moratorium, so that is about $2.3 million per year. When you look at a multibillion dollar industry in this state, it is not good beer, it is not big beer, but we do know that there might well be other attributes coming down the line and we do have time to seriously consider this. We do not have to do this in this truncated fashion.

When it comes to some of the priorities that are out there, I would call on the minister. I am sure he has spoken to some of the drought-affected farmers and pastoralists. They would like to see some action on that. They would like to see some action on that now. Try to give that a truncated going over. Try to do that quickly. A year ago now, we had the minister in the Stock Journal talking about various things that could be done, saying that these are things that could be looked at.

Well, they are still being looked at and they still have not happened for drought-affected farmers when it comes to assistance with their council rates, with their NRM levies, with a whole range of other things, stuff that the other states have actually instigated because they know that their farmers are struggling and that each bit of tangible assistance helps them to get through what is a difficult set of circumstances.

When you talk GM you get inundated with emails, and there is a lot of stuff on Facebook. I am probably one of those people in this chamber who is not a great fan of Facebook—suddenly, everyone is a scientist and everyone knows how to do research. I have truck drivers telling me about climate change and how it is all bullshit. Facebook is a very strange world indeed.

The SPEAKER: I caution the member about that sort of language in the chamber.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell: 'Agriculture'?

The SPEAKER: No, not 'agriculture', member for Mawson; that word is okay.

Mr HUGHES: I am more than happy to withdraw that word and use something more appropriate.

The SPEAKER: The member has withdrawn; thank you.

Mr HUGHES: Everyone becomes an expert. It disturbs me that, in this era when everybody is an expert, we see the proliferation of all sorts of conspiracy theories, and some of them are applied to GM. There is a lot of misinformation out there about GM, and I accept that, but it is for those here to work through this process in a deliberative way. It has been at times a vexed issue in this state.

There are elements of the farming community that have concerns, but I acknowledge that the peak bodies representing the larger primary industries in this state favour the lifting of the moratorium. I would say to those peak bodies that they should not be pleased with the processes that have been adopted in this house. When you are presented with a bill minutes before the debate, with no opportunity to really consider it in a deliberative fashion, that is just not good practice.

I am not sure if this approach is unprecedented. People who have been in this house longer than I have might well be able to fill me in on that, given that I have only been here since 2014, but this does look like an unprecedented act. I wonder what is going to go on in the upper house with the crossbenchers, who, as I said, were not happy with the previous process. Let's see whether they are going to be happy with this process. If it is defeated ultimately, I think it is in our interest as a state to have a real look at the direction we are going in.

Kimba was mentioned. I had the privilege—and it was a privilege—of visiting one of the young farmers in Kimba, out the other side of Buckleboo. I got in the header, and he was reaping barley at the time. It was interesting what he had to say about the barley that he was reaping. It was a traditional genetically modified crop, if you like. He was using long-established, old plant breeding methods.

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone: That's because he grows under a moratorium.

Mr HUGHES: Well, who knows?

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Primary Industries is called to order.

Mr HUGHES: At the moment, there is not a GM barley that he could use, but what he was using did generate benefits. In a not good year, he was able to get a crop. That crop will not be going into any of our beer, but it was 20 per cent protein, so it is going to provide incredibly useful feedstock for their livestock, so he got something in a poor year.

It would be of value for all people in this house—and I probably say especially when it comes to some of the people on my side of the house—if they get the opportunity, to go out on farms. There are some farms in this state that do well year in, year out just about, but there are other farms where people have to be right on top of their game. Their approach is incredibly sophisticated. They are putting their businesses on the line year in, year out. The way that they manage risk—and it is significant risk—is something to behold.

There are a lot of people still in the metropolitan area who have this image of farming, that it is a farmer with a hat on, chewing a bit of straw. They really do need to get out and listen and look, because it is far more sophisticated. When they are in a header, they are getting the readout of the soil. They know just about every inch of their soil and know where and when to apply the inputs that need to be applied. They are doing protein readouts as they are doing the harvesting. The GPS technology that is being used and the advances that are going to take place in primary industries over years to come are going to build on the advances that have already happened. These are going to be incredibly sophisticated enterprises.

There is always that fear—and I think it was a widely expressed fear—that there might well be a corporate takeover of our family farms. A lot of that has not worked out all that well because there is something about family farms in this country and the lived experience, all that historical experience that has accumulated, that shows a willingness to be open to adaption, to looking at different approaches, to look at trial and error, and when something works for one person another person picks it up.

As someone who comes from a heavy industry background, it has been a pleasure and an honour to have this particular portfolio. To me, coming from a heavy industry background, albeit quite a few years ago, we did stuff that was productive, that added to the wealth of the country, and we made stuff. We have that in common with farming, that people do stuff that is of value. I have not read the book—and I could use the b-word again but I will not—but I am told that there is a book doing the rounds that talks about work today, modern everyday work and how so much of it is just, 'What does it actually do?' So when you see people doing stuff day in, day out that does make a real difference, I think that is a great thing.

I do not think the minister has served the primary industry sector well with the approach that has been taken. I think we all should respect parliamentary processes. We all should have the opportunity to have a look at a bill, to give that bill serious consideration, and to go through internal processes. I know they have fallen down on the other side when it comes to the mining bill and a few other bills. There have been no internal processes—at least no internal processes that appear to involve the backbenchers. At the least, we have to consider it at a shadow cabinet level and then we have to consider it at a caucus level.

Mr Pederick: You have to lock into a position, Eddie. You have to find a position.

The SPEAKER: Member for Hammond!

Mr HUGHES: When you look at democracy and what it is all about, I call it the four Ds of democracy: it is about dissent, about dialogue based on dissent, about deliberation and then a decision. One of the great things about an open society is that people can have different views. In our respective parties you can have different views.

We have maybe different ways of coming to a conclusion when it comes to those different views, but that dialogue is incredibly important and the deliberative process is incredibly important. It is why science is not like Facebook. It is why this parliament should not be like Facebook, where someone has a thought bubble, 'Oh, now we'll do this,' without any notice. It is not the way to do it. I cannot believe the backbenchers across the chamber think that this is the way to do it.

When did the backbenchers know about this bill that was going to come before the house today? I bet you have had a lot of time to have a look at this and seriously consider it. I know it has happened to you on a number of occasions now. We had to have a select committee when looking at the bill that the emergency services minister brought before the house. I think it was the member for Flinders who moved the motion to set up the select committee, because the minister had failed to consult. I was a little bit peeved that the member for Flinders moved that motion because we had one ready to go to set up a select committee as well.

That select committee was an incredibly worthwhile process, but the minister should have consulted beforehand instead of relying on a bill that was essentially years old and that came out of the work Paul Holloway did quite a few years back. The minister just assumed that nothing had changed, but a lot had changed. The harvesting code of practice had been brought in and bedded down and is working incredibly effectively. I think that is yet another example of how the organic, grassroots approach (no pun intended) to addressing issues, when it does work out well at a local level, does not need you to come in at a government level with jackboots and poor legislation. So that has been amended and will be an improvement.

This bill has been brought before us right at the death knock of this parliament. I am giving myself deja vu now, but some of the backbenchers must be perturbed about the processes that are in place. You should come over to our side: at least we have robust internal processes.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right!

Mr HUGHES: I ask for your protection, Mr Speaker.

Mr Teague: Resign, and have the courage of your convictions.

The SPEAKER: The member for Heysen is called to order.

Mr HUGHES: Our farmers are facing major challenges, so I call upon the minister, once again, to provide some tangible assistance to the drought-affected areas of our state. I would ask of the primary industries ministry that there be serious attention paid to climate change. We need to do some serious work on Goyder's line. You can smile, but this is going to have a far greater impact than whether tomorrow people can have herbicide-resistant canola. This is something unfolding, and it is major. More serious works needs to be done on adaption in this state. More serious work needs to be done at a federal level and at a global level.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Morphett!

Mr HUGHES: You can get your federal colleagues into the right gear and get serious about mitigation. With those few words, I will conclude and move that the debate be now adjourned.

The SPEAKER: It has been moved that the debate be adjourned, but someone else must adjourn the debate. I call the member for Flinders because he rose to his feet. The member for Giles had spoken so he cannot adjourn. The member for Flinders has the call.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (12:08): I rise today to speak in support of the Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill 2019, brought to this place by the Hon. Tim Whetstone, minister for agriculture. At the outset, I must also declare an interest: I spent 30 years as an active grain grower and farmer on Eyre Peninsula prior to coming into this place. I still have an interest, obviously, in my family's property and I am watching with interest how the current harvest unfolds.

Following the election, our government commissioned a high-level independent review into the GM crops moratorium. The review found that the moratorium had cost the state's grain growers at least $33 million since 2004 and would cost at least a further $5 million if extended to 2025. It had also discouraged public and private investment in research and failed to provide a premium for South Australian canola growers when compared with growers in neighbouring states—pretty damning stuff.

In accordance with the findings of the review and supported by public consultations, including the GM Crop Advisory Committee, the government sought to introduce regulations to lift the GM moratorium on the South Australian mainland, while retaining the moratorium on Kangaroo Island, where KI Pure Grain have secured a niche market into Japan.

Last week, we saw SA-Best and the Greens MPs vote in the upper house to disallow regulations. They argued that the government should have introduced a bill to change the boundary of the moratorium, rather than following the process provided by the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act to amend regulations. Well, here we are: we have introduced a bill—exactly what they wanted. Should the bill pass this week, it will provide South Australia's farmers with certainty for the 2020 cropping season.

I congratulate the minister on introducing the bill. For those who have continually said in the past few weeks that they have not had enough time to do their research on this particular issue, I remind them that we have had a moratorium in place in this state since 2004. If 15 years is not long enough, I am not sure how long is.

My first introduction to GM crops was in 2002 when I was in the US as part of a Nuffield scholarship. I was in St Louis and became familiar with GM corn and GM soybeans. They were relatively new at that stage and there was much discussion about them. Monsanto had the patent, I think, or at least had the rights over GM corn and soybeans. They were essentially glyphosate tolerant or Roundup Ready tolerant.

They were being adopted with great enthusiasm by growers across the Midwest, the heart of the American corn belt, where they very much work on a corn and soybean rotation. It was the enthusiasm and the rate of adoption which struck me, which led me to believe it must be a good thing. Farmers do not do things for no reason. They adopt a new system because it is economic to do so, it is beneficial to the environment and it is beneficial to their business.

When we first had our moratorium in place in South Australia, other states also had moratoriums in place. Essentially, we were talking about glyphosate-resistant canola or Roundup Ready canola. I am not into conspiracy theories. I do not feel the threat of great multinationals taking over the world food chain and the world food supply. We, as farmers, are already purchasing our canola seed. Even non-GM canola is relatively difficult to kill in the field with Roundup or glyphosate, and usually it needs to be spiked with another chemical to do so.

While we remained under moratorium, the lifting of the moratorium in the other states enabled producers in the southern states to grow GM canola, Roundup Ready canola. It also allowed cotton growers in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland to grow Bt cotton. This had great environmental advantage. Cotton is often looked down upon, particularly for us at this end of the Murray-Darling Basin, but it has been a significant crop in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland. It is an opportunity crop: it is grown when there is enough water—there is not at the moment.

Regardless of that, the introduction of Bt cotton meant that the cotton was resistant to certain insects and greatly reduced the amount of chemical that had to be used in controlling that insect on the crop. It reduced chemical applications by as much as seven times. Eventually, the other states lifted their moratorium. South Australia became the only mainland state to remain under moratorium. My understanding is that, in 2008, advice was given to the then Rann Labor government to lift the moratorium. We, as growers, were fully expecting the moratorium to be lifted in 2008.

Contrary to the advice that was received, the moratorium stayed in place, thanks to the Rann Labor government. In 2017, we debated a bill in this place to extend the moratorium out to 2025. It was introduced in the other place by the Hon. Mark Parnell, supported by the then Weatherill government, opposed by the Liberal Party in opposition, but ultimately led to the current moratorium being extended to 2025. We now have the opportunity to lift that moratorium and allow our producers to be at one with the rest of the world, remembering that we compete on the world market, and we cannot afford to have any disadvantages in relation to our competitors in other states, in other countries around the world.

I have a friend who farms in Essex and I have quoted him before in this place. His name is Guy Smith. He is currently the Deputy President of the National Farmers Union in the UK. Right at this very moment there is much discussion about the reaccreditation of glyphosate in Europe. It is a discussion and debate which defies logic, I might add, because in my humble opinion glyphosate has had the single biggest impact on agriculture around the world since the introduction of the traction engine, or what we know as the tractor. Amid all of this debate in Europe about glyphosate, Guy put an article in the Farmers Weekly, which is the UK farming magazine. He said:

When politicians and administrators stop listening to the authorities charged with scientific evaluation, you get bad regulation.

It is interesting that we have that comment coming from him, and I think that applies to this debate as well.

Throughout history, agriculture has improvised: for some 10,000 years, if that is as long as we have been growing cereals, and the general consensus is that it was probably barley first followed by wheat, which was first cultivated in the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Since that time, agriculture and our producers have striven for improvements, for a better and more productive and more sustainable way of doing things, and that is the critical word here—sustainability.

I will give you a quick history lesson. I do not mean to bore you, but I probably will. The member for Hammond, I know, will pay attention. Back in the 18th century in England, and that is as far as we can go back really with our history books, Turnip Townshend introduced a system of rotation into Norfolk. He had a four-field system of rotation, which involved turnips, hence the nickname. Wouldn't you love a nickname like 'Turnip', member for Narungga? He was able to lift production across a whole farm, across a four-field rotation, and lift sustainability. Jethro Tull, that famous agricultural inventor at the end of the 18th century, invented amongst other things the mechanical winnower. He was roundly ostracised at the time.

Mr Hughes: It was a band.

Mr TRELOAR: It was a band also. Did they ever play at Westlands?

Mr Hughes: No.

Mr TRELOAR: No, they did not. Yes, I am assuming the band took their name from the great agricultural inventor who I said invented the mechanical winnower and was roundly ostracised at the time for going against the will of God. Imagine having a mechanical means to thresh grain, and here we are essentially having the same discussion. South Australia has been at the forefront of agricultural developments over the last 180 years or so. The Ridley Stripper was invented here in 1842. The stump jump plough was invented by Richard Smith on Yorke Peninsula. The member for Narungga would be well familiar with that. It allowed settlers to more effectively cultivate land that was, in the first instance, populated by mallee.

We brought in fallowing. We discovered our soils were deficient in superphosphate. The Correll brothers developed a seed drill—once again, on Yorke Peninsula at Ardrossan. It was all happening then and probably still is now. That was to insert phosphate into the soil to boost production. At about the same time, we saw Federation wheat, the beginning of wheat breeding. Federation wheat was grown throughout southern Australia and was the primary source of breed stock for wheat genes for many years to come.

I talked about the tractor being introduced here in South Australia, and we introduced lay farming. Rather than constant fallow-wheat rotation, we introduced sub clovers into the more acid soils and medics into the more alkaline soils. That enabled farmers to not only carry sheep but also boost their nitrogen and hence gain a better cereal crop subsequently.

We have seen the introduction of agricultural chemicals, grain legumes, beans, lupins and, more recently, lentils, high-analysis fertilisers and the bulk handling of grain. We now have GPS tracking on our harvesters, our tractors and our sprayers. We have yield mapping and we have precision agriculture. My point is that agriculture is continually evolving. Systems are continually evolving, and they will continue to evolve. As a parliament and as an industry, we just have to recognise where we are at this point in history.

This legislation is about giving farmers choice. They will have a choice of whether to grow GM crops or not. You do not have to grow them. In fact, my feeling is that uptake in the first instance will be relatively small. I am a canola grower. I do not know that I would necessarily grow GM canola in the first instance—but I might. At least I will have the opportunity to do that.

As I said, our growers, our producers, are competing in a world market. Often, we forget that as decision-makers. We are competing head-to-head against other exporters from southern Australia. We are competing head-to-head in world markets—against the Canadians, against Ukraine, against the US, against Argentina and against Europe. I urge people not to be fearful of the science.

Interestingly, I had a quick conversation earlier with the member for Newland, who I know is going to make a contribution here. Way back in 2002, when I was in the US, there was much discussion about mapping the genome of these various plant crops. At that stage, they had mapped the genome of corn. My recollection is that there are some 32,000 genes in a corn plant. There are about 20,000 genes in the human genome, which makes us relatively simple folk. Incredibly, wheat is complex, and has about 50,000 genes. So it is important that we recognise the significant scientific effort and research going into all this development at this stage.

Gene editing is just around the corner. Gene editing is where DNA is inserted, deleted or replaced in the genome. Are we going to deny our agricultural producers in this state the opportunity to access that technology when the rest of the world has it? Should we be deprived of this opportunity, we run the very real risk of being left behind and we run the very real risk of becoming an agricultural backwater. We are dictated to by governments and a parliament who do not understand necessarily the imperatives here, not the least being a significantly growing world population that we in a way have an obligation to ensure has enough protein and food at an affordable price.

The passage of this bill will give our growers choice, certainty and opportunity. It is timely because, even though we are probably still six or seven months away from the beginning of the South Australian growing season, with the passage of this bill growers will need the opportunity to order seed and the opportunity to be organised. There will not just be significant economic benefits. Business decisions will be made, so the economic benefits will be taken into account. Potentially, gene technology could bring significant environmental benefits as well as significant health benefits.

The member for Giles talked about omega-3 being inserted into canola. Omega-3 is important to human health and available, at the moment, through humans eating fish. If we were able to make it available through our canola crops, our canola oil and our canola spread, then that omega-3 would get into our human food chain, bringing health benefits. So there are functional benefits from GM technology.

In relation to the environmental benefits, we talk a lot about frost tolerance. In some areas this year, South Australian farmers have once again taken significant hits from frost. However, there are such things as salt-tolerant barley. I must check on this but I think breeding of that has already taken place and it is just a matter of giving our growers access to those sorts of things.

I once again declare my interest, which is not insignificant, in the grain industry because I am an active grain grower and producer still. With those words, I congratulate the minister on bringing the bill to the house. After 15 years under a moratorium, when the rest of the world has left us behind, we now have the opportunity to lift that moratorium. I commend the bill.

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