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

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr BROWN (Playford) (12:31): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Ayes 19

Noes 24

Majority 5

AYES
Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K. Boyer, B.I.
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.

Dr HARVEY (Newland) (12:37): I rise today in support of the Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill 2019, a bill that is essentially enshrining in legislation what has already been attempted through regulation. There is nothing new or outrageous about what is being proposed here today.

We are seeking the speedy passage of the bill through this house and, indeed, this parliament to give our state's farmers the certainty they need and deserve: that the choice to utilise genetically modified crops is available in time for next year's season. Agriculture is a major economic driver for our state. As a parliament, we should be backing this industry and simply get out of its way. I would like to commend the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development for his diligent and methodical work in this area.

We have certainly heard a lot about process today from those opposite. I think it is worth just running through the process that has actually occurred. The Marshall Liberal team went to the 2018 state election committed to a review of the moratorium on GM crops in South Australia, which had been legislated by the previous government to be in place until 2025. Within six months of the 2018 election, the new Marshall government went about establishing a review, chaired by Emeritus Professor Kym Anderson AC, to conduct a review into the moratorium.

The independent, evidence-based review found that not only did the statewide moratorium not provide an economic advantage to South Australian farmers but, in fact, our farmers were left much worse off than interstate counterparts, even compared with those who had opted to continue to grow non-GM products. This is a critical point, I think, for the member for Mawson, who has certainly been making the case against GM crops via the media. That is presumably outside the deliberative process of the Labor Party, which the shadow minister spoke about earlier. The evidence for a market benefit for our state by remaining GM-free simply does not exist.

Following the consultation period that was prescribed in the act, the minister introduced regulations to lift the statewide moratorium leaving only Kangaroo Island as GM free, as there was a price benefit for that particular location, particularly going to the Japanese market, but we are talking about a statewide moratorium and there is no evidence for maintaining that.

It is worth also noting that there had been a select committee on this issue that heard plenty of evidence from stakeholders supporting the lifting of the moratorium. Unfortunately, though, in spite of all this evidence, the regulations were subsequently disallowed in the other place, and somewhat puzzling, I might add, was that the Labor members were not prepared to make the case in that place for why the regulations should have been disallowed, but the arguments made by SA-Best and the Greens centred on their belief that the change in the boundary of the moratorium should have been done via a bill, and so here we are.

But now we are hearing cries from those opposite—process arguments, of course—that they have not had enough time to consider this. Certainly, the member for Mawson has been making his case for why we should maintain a GM crop ban for a while, so this issue has certainly not come as a surprise to those opposite, yet they are the arguments we are hearing now. How much more time and consultation do those opposite need? The farmers want it, the scientists want it and the evidence, both scientific and economic, backs it, and now as a parliament we need to do our job and get on with this, get out of the way and give our farmers the choice.

Just by way of some background, it is important to note that, in relation to genetically modified organisms, federal legislation deals with the protection of the health and safety of people and regulates all dealings in Australia through the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR), including research, manufacture, import, production, propagation, transport and disposal of GMOs. With respect to GM crops, the OGTR is responsible for the approval of field trials and commercial release of GMOs.

Moreover, Food Standards Australia and New Zealand is concerned with the regulation of GM food products, including safety standards and labelling. Both agencies, that is, the OGTR and Food Standards Australia and New Zealand, are tasked with administering regulatory regimes that provide very strong protections and national consistency. The state government is responsible for the regulation of GM crops for trade and market purposes.

Since the passage of federal legislation, which was shortly followed by legislation in the states in the early 2000s, different states varied in their timing in terms of the implementation of moratoria and the eventual lifting of those moratoria. South Australia is now the only mainland state to still maintain a statewide ban on GM crops, and under the regime left to us by the former Labor government the moratorium is set to continue until 2025, with no evidence of any benefit for our state.

At present, canola is the only GM crop currently approved for release that is really relevant to South Australia and the most likely candidate for use here, but there is certainly a lot of important work underway right now around the world, including right here in Adelaide (and a particular example is the Waite Institute, which has been talked about earlier) that will very likely provide many new varieties with enormous potential for improved benefits for the economy, human health and the environment.

These benefits can include increased yields. This can mean reduced fuel consumption, which not only has reduced costs for farmer but also reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced land area required, reduced use of pesticides, reduced demand for water, greater tolerance to salinity, greater tolerance to frost and many other potential benefits. Our farmers would be deprived of all these benefits under the continuation of the moratorium.

Recent amendments to the commonwealth Gene Technology Regulations have provided some greater clarity around whether the products of some newer gene-editing technologies are classified as GMOs. It is important to note at this point that random mutagenesis of plants, whether that be through a method like gamma irradiation or using some kind of chemical mutagen, does not produce a GMO. It is not regulated under that act, whereas products of gene technology generally have been.

Newer technologies, which are often grouped together and classified as gene editing, can make very small and subtle changes to the DNA sequence that may alter a gene product or alter the regulation of that product to achieve a particular outcome. This is quite different from some of the older gene technology methods that involved the replacement of whole genes or the insertion of large chunks of sequence.

The amendments to the regulations at the federal level have had to grapple with the question of whether something is classified as a genetically modified organism due to the fact that it has gone through a particular process or it is classified as such on the basis of what the produce actually is. What the amendments have done is define that the most basic form of gene editing is now deemed not to generate GMOs, meaning that it is not regulated under those acts, and that would include under what exists here.

Essentially, every other gene editing technique remains classified as gene technology. These technologies have enormous potential because only very small and subtle changes can be made, which potentially generate many more varieties that could have enormous benefits that would also, given the maintenance of the moratorium here, be out of reach of our farmers.

It is also important to note that the continuation of the moratorium not only applies a massive handbrake to the efforts of our farmers but also severely restricts the research community's ability to do important work right here in South Australia. Without a clear local pathway to market, the South Australian research community suffers in what should really be a key area of strength for our state with enormous potential down the track for the export of technologies right around the world.

I have talked about this before, but I do think it is an important point to reiterate. Whilst the state government's decision to lift the moratorium is based on the implications for the state in terms of trade and market access, which we have already established through multiple bodies, that market benefit that has been talked about does not exist on a statewide level. There is no doubt the debate on this is often conflated with other issues not within the state's jurisdiction, and that is the notion that GM crops are inherently bad.

The fact of the matter is that humans have been genetically manipulating plants for centuries. The difference with gene technology is that the products that are being generated are altered in a manner that is highly specific, with defined changes; random changes are not considered GMOs. This technology is simply a tool, and it is true that like any tool it can be used for good and potentially it could be used to do not so good things and should, quite rightly, be tightly regulated, as it is, but it is not fundamentally bad.

The role of government is to back the experts and respond to the evidence. We do not get to pick and choose what science we like and what science we do not like. It is like the hypocrisy of championing the cause, as we have already heard this morning, for accepting the science of climate change (which, I add, I certainly agree with), but at the same time object to the use of gene technologies that could very well help address the issue.

This is not to say that science is infallible. There should rightly be robust processes and caution exercised with any new invention, but we need to accept the best available evidence when it is presented, and in this case GM crops have been available and in use for a very long period of time now. There is plenty of evidence, both from a scientific standpoint and from an economic standpoint, about where things sit.

The Marshall government has listened to the experts, listened to the key stakeholders and is making decisions in the best interests of the state as a whole. Once again, I commend the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development for his work in this area, making the case for the lifting of the moratorium using facts to the point that now those opposed to this quite frankly look quite ridiculous. We need to pass this bill to give our farmers the certainty they need for next year's season, and I commend the bill to the house.

Mr BASHAM (Finniss) (12:48): I also rise in support of this bill. The South Australian agriculture industry has a reputation for excellence in research and for more than a century has built on incredible innovation by some of the best minds that have ever graced our state institutions of learning. This issue of genetically modified organisms is one that has been around for many years now. I was looking on the internet this morning at some of my involvement in the debate over time, and I acknowledge my role as a dairy farmer previously, and the interest I have had in that space. Unfortunately, I am now too busy to be involved with dairy farming, but I am still very supportive of their pursuits.

It is important to note that in 2006 there were some reports about me commenting in the media about GM back at that point in time. It is really important to note that at that point I said it was very important that we continue the research into genetically modified organisms, and when the consumers are ready we, as farmers, need to have the ability to deliver to the consumer. We now look at how well the consumer has been prepared to take up the use of GM in their foods.

Most of the soys that are very commonly used are very much a genetically modified organism: the soy milks, etc., the soy lattes that people choose to have rather than milk lattes—I am not sure why they would, but they have chosen to do that. Interestingly, there is a very strong uptake there. We have also seen other GM products that are really important to human health: insulin is a genetically modified organism. Those who need insulin on a daily basis thank scientists for the GM technology that has been used to make the insulin available and to make their lives more livable.

It is an interesting debate that we face and it is very much, at this point in time in South Australia, focused on GM canola, being one of the few GM products that can be grown in our environment. However, as we see and have seen the progression in this space over time, it will not be long before other plant products are available. Certainly, in my time in the dairy industry, that industry, Dairy Australia and others, has invested heavily in genetically modified organisms and research in that space, looking for pastures that will be helpful for the dairy industry.

We have seen estimates of $325 a hectare improvement in returns to dairy farmers if they had a GM product available to them that produced high milk yields and removed some of the issues they face in relation to drought and other things, such as increasing digestibility of rye-grass and other grasses to cows. All that can lead to better returns but also better outcomes.

One of the issues that I was involved with and something that was discussed at the time was looking at GM rye-grass. Rye-grass is one of the major grasses that causes hay fever. By looking at some of the genes within rye-grass itself, it may be possible to actually turn off that effect to stop people being so allergic to the pollen that comes from the rye-grass plant which will, in turn, improve people's lives.

There are many reasons why we need to get involved in this space. One thing we need to be very careful about is that we look at the science and make sure that we do what is appropriate and make sure that it is regulated, and that has certainly, to this point, been done well. We also need to make sure that we are confident in the product, which we are in Australia, and we have seen in every other state where the moratorium has been lifted that the confidence is there. We have many examples in South Australia to now look at that confidence and to allow the adoption of this technology.

Drought-tolerant crops and pastures, frost-tolerant crops and pastures, disease and pest resistance, herbicide tolerance, all these things are something that can be achieved through gene technology. We can also achieve greater shelf life for products to reduce food waste, and we can increase crop yields. They are just some of the things that can be achieved from gene modification and genetic modification of plants. It is interesting to note that if you have had a flu shot that is also something that it is fairly likely GM technology was used to come up with. Many of us in this place would have had our flu shots this year—another place where GM technology has been used.

It is something we need to have confidence in. The scientists have done the work and they have delivered their opinions. I think the member for Newland, in his address to this place on this topic, very much outlined how the science in this area is very robust and that we need to be confident in its use. In 2017, almost two million hectares were sown to GM crops globally—two million hectares—and a million of those were in Australia. That is how confident we can be in the use of these products.

In closing, there is no legitimate reason for this parliament to continue to restrict our farmers from accessing this technology. This is a stellar bill, a stellar example of evidence-based policy, and I implore all members to support the passage of this bill.

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (12:56): I rise today to speak in support of the Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill. This bill is an important one for South Australia's agricultural productivity and is in response to the directions outlined in the findings of the independent review into the ban on genetically modified crops undertaken in late 2018.

The focus of the independent review was to examine the merits of the moratorium on GM crops that has existed since 2003 in the state of South Australia, including investigating the benefits and costs of the moratorium to the state of South Australia and the state's ag and food production industries and considering if it is in the interests of maximising the state's economy and returns for the agriculture and food production sectors for the moratorium to continue; and, if so, under what conditions. The terms of reference of the review set out a range of matters, including:

the available evidence re marketing benefits to South Australia under the moratorium;

assess evidence of trading partners in South Australia and interstate of South Australia's GM-free status;

where there is evidence of market benefits from the moratorium, examine if it is possible to retain these through segregation in the supply chain;

examine the potential for innovations that would justify reconsideration of the moratorium; and

examine benefits and costs of maintaining, modifying or removing the moratorium.

The bill has been drafted in response to the evidence from the independent review that the moratorium has cost the farming industry many millions of dollars, which has unfairly impacted on our ability to grow our agricultural sector. It has been estimated that the moratorium has cost the state's grain growers at least $33 million since 2004 and would cost at least another $5 million if extended until 2025.

Our government has recognised that it is time for our farmers to be given a choice on which crops they want to grow. Providing choice is timely, as the review report highlights many points that provide a strong case for the removal of the moratorium. Regarding price premiums, there was no compelling argument that any current price premium or market access for non-GM SA crops would be diminished if GM-free crops were allowed to be grown in the state, as long as there was careful segregation of product, noting that Kangaroo Island is the exception—and this is recognised in the bill before us.

I want to touch on the fact that I believe one of the reasons the previous government actually maintained the moratorium was the marketing to niche markets. Niche markets are generally small markets that try to find market access and points around the globe, as we trade in today. There are, and can be, some opportunities; however, one of the responsibilities of this government is to manage and govern for all producers and all the people of the state to make sure we are maximising our returns.

This is not to go about destroying small niche markets, and it is not about making sure niche markets have a priority over any other larger markets: it is to make sure that our agriculture and industry as a whole can flourish without the imposition of government regulation. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.

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