HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-04-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 February 2020.)

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (11:02): My get-out-of-gaol-free card has been withdrawn, so here I am back in parliament. It certainly has been an interesting few weeks. It is great to see South Australia do so well when it comes to COVID-19. It is a credit to all parts of the state, to all those people who have followed the good advice provided by the medical experts. I rise today to speak on this bill. I would like to acknowledge that there has been a significant degree of constructive engagement when it comes to arriving at a compromise that I believe will benefit South Australia in the long run.

As members would be aware, the opposition have a series of amendments to the bill. Those amendments represent that compromise of listening to those people who believe that the GM moratorium has generated a marketing advantage and listening to those people, especially broadacre farmers, who have been very clear that they want to be able to exercise the choice when it comes to whether they use GM or not. It will be interesting to see how many avail themselves of the use of herbicide-resistant canola in the first instance, and there might well be other GM attributes to come that will benefit our farmers in this state.

In summary, I will flag the amendments we are seeking. We believe that we need to give a voice to communities that might well want to retain the GM moratorium and that the way of giving voice to those communities is through their councils. We flagged that councils would have to consult with primary producers and food manufacturers in their council area, in addition to the broader community.

A council that goes down that track, and then comes to a conclusion based upon those recommendations of those deliberations, would recommend to the minister of the day—and I am assuming it will have the same minister—that that particular area wants to retain a GM moratorium. As part of that recommendation, not only would the minister consider it but the Genetically Modified Crop Advisory Committee would also play a role. Of course, that committee was set up under the previous regime when the moratorium was introduced.

I think that it is fair to say that when the moratorium was introduced a number of questions needed to be resolved, not the least of which was: can the state get a marketing advantage through having a moratorium? I think that it is interesting when you look at the evidence. I believe that the balance of the evidence does indicate that, in comparison to other states, there has not been a significant marketing advantage for South Australia. I could go into a lot of detail on that, but I do not intend to do so at this stage.

When it was introduced in 2004, I think that it was worthwhile to do. Obviously, it has continued since then, with a number of bills before the parliament. I think that it is worthwhile that this has now been seriously looked at. There were a number of reviews last year and a lot of voices have been heard. Those councils that choose to attempt to opt in need to realise that this is not opening a whole debate about the environmental issues or the health issues: the federal government has jurisdiction over those and we have a federal regulatory framework that covers them.

When councils engage in consultation about GM crops or non-GM crops in their area, they have to do so taking into account that this is about putting an argument up that there will be a marketing advantage for producers in that particular area. I would imagine that a lot of councils in this state are not going to engage in that process and are not going to attempt to opt in to retain a moratorium.

I believe that that would certainly be the case when it comes to many of our broadacre farming areas in South Australia. I cannot imagine a council on Eyre Peninsula availing themselves of this opportunity, and I think that it would be the same in the Murray Mallee and other parts of our state. There might well be a number of councils that will decide to opt in, but, at the end of the day, the decision-making authority is not at that local level. The capacity to make a decision in relation to GM is not devolving to 68 councils.

The decision-making should be at a state level, and our amendments clearly flag the role of the minister and, as I said, the role of the Genetically Modified Crop Advisory Committee. When it comes to addressing those health impacts and environmental impacts, it is within the commonwealth jurisdiction. It involves Food Standards Australia and New Zealand as part of that process at a federal level. It is worthwhile reflecting on the fact that only a handful of our GM crops have been approved for use in Australia. I think that indicates the degree of rigour around this.

The Anderson report last year indicated that the cost to this state as a result of the GM moratorium is approximately $33 million over the length of the moratorium. You could well argue that, in the context of a multibillion dollar grain industry, that is fairly small beer. Nonetheless, I do believe that farmers should have the opportunity to make those choices within the framework that has been established at a federal level. If the bill in an amended form gets through, farmers will have a choice about what they do on their property but, as I said, within a framework.

Bringing a GM crop to market is not a cheap process, both in relation to the research and development and the regulatory frameworks that have to be negotiated. As a result, you do have that bigger company involvement. The global average to bring a GM crop to market is 13 years in terms of time and approximately $130 million in terms of expenditure. It is not a cheap undertaking, but that might change in the not too distant future with the advent of CRISPR technology.

Some people have said that this technology is akin to democratising the investment in GM. It will be a lot cheaper and, when it comes to GM modification, there might well be the capacity to adapt plans to very particular geographic and climatic circumstances in a very nuanced way. CRISPR might well be the direction that we pursue in the future, though time will tell whether it lives up to the promise that exists.

There are some concerns with CRISPR, though they are not so much in the agricultural sector. We have seen COVID-19, which, contrary to the conspiracy theories, is from a wild animal and has not been engineered. One of the issues with CRISPR and with technologies like CRISPR, and it is something that all governments globally need to treat with extreme seriousness, is that in future it might well be a lot easier for people to adapt and modify pathogens. That is something of deep concern and needs strong global regulation, but that is not what we are here to talk about today.

When you look at South Australia, we have an incredibly variable climate, as does Australia as a whole, so the issue of adaption is going to be incredibly important to climate change. We know that Goyder's line is shifting south and we know that the ratio of precipitation to evaporation is going to generate real challenges for the primary industries sector in South Australia and in the nation as a whole.

When I came to look at GM, and I came to it relatively cold, I probably had a range of the prejudices that someone on the left might have about big companies, but I thought, 'Well, no, I have a responsibility here to actually sit down and go through as much information as I can.' I have read a lot, looked at quite a few research papers, gone to the usual credible sources of information and talked to scientists who are working in the field here in South Australia. Most of them were on the pro side, but there were one or two on the anti side. I met with farmers around the state, some of whom were agnostic but believed there should be a change, while others indicated that they supported a change but that they would not be adopting GM canola.

I think it would be fair to say that the majority of broadacre farmers in this state are supportive of lifting the moratorium. Certainly the peak bodies that represent those farmers were very clear that they wanted to see the moratorium lifted. So, when it comes to adapting to the challenges we are going to be facing, and are already facing in this state, GM might well be one of those tools that, in conjunction with traditional breeding methods, will give our farmers that capacity to just go that bit further. It is clear that farmers in Australia are often at the forefront of adopting and adapting technology to their circumstances.

I know that here the University of Adelaide is doing a lot of work on wheat and barley for both yield and frost tolerance and looking at GM, and also looking at drought tolerance, our salt tolerance and metal tolerance and increased iron levels and nitrogen use efficiency, and some of those studies are not far off concluding. If they were to be successful in developing some of those GM strains, it could make the difference between getting a crop in one year and not getting a crop, or a greatly diminished crop.

Chickpea drought tolerances have been looked at; we do grow chickpeas here in this state, and over the years legumes have become more popular, and that is good because there are huge markets for legumes. Chickpea frost and salinity tolerance have been looked at, and the Queensland University of Technology is doing that work and it is anticipated that, come 2024, they may have some results.

The CSIRO, our premier science organisation and an organisation that provides a lot of very useful information when it comes to the GM debate, is looking at rust and mildew resistance in wheat. They will have field trials running until 2023, so it is another potentially great attribute that might come as a result of genetic modification. The University of Melbourne is looking at increased iron levels in wheat and looking at the fixing of micronutrients. So a whole smorgasbord of things is going on.

Kangaroo Island gets mentioned a fair bit: there is obviously the livestock industry on Kangaroo Island. A number of different organisations are working on improvements to ryegrass for stock feed. Omega-3 canola has already been approved, which from a health impact and attribute viewpoint is worthwhile. As a state with a significant aquaculture industry, we need to do anything we can do to reduce the wildcatch fishery as the basis for feed stock when it comes to aquaculture; omega-3 canola might well provide something of an advantage.

Over the Christmas break a number of changes happened globally in relation to GM. Some people are point blank opposed to GM in whatever form, and I guess one opposition has been to golden rice. It has been incredibly strong internationally from some western-based organisations. Some of the early criticisms about the attributes of golden rice were accurate in terms of the bioavailability of the vitamin A precursor that GM golden rice could produce in an enhanced form. Those issues were addressed to the point where a number of countries approved golden rice. I think it is approved here in Australia and a number of other western countries.

The point was that those western countries did not need golden rice; the countries that need golden rice are those countries where there is a very serious vitamin A deficiency in the make-up of the food that people eat. This is where you get some irresponsible counterarguments. The number of children under the age of five who die each year as a result of vitamin A deficiency is estimated at 670,000 children a year, and there are over 500,000 cases of irreversible blindness.

In my view, for western organisations to put a block on this—once the science had developed and some of the initial deficiencies had been addressed—did not border on irresponsible: it was irresponsible. It is good to see that the Philippines has now supported the use of golden rice. I am sure other South-East Asian countries will follow.

Just after the Christmas period, an individual from Bangladesh was over here talking about Bangladesh. There is a lot of very low lying land in Bangladesh where rice is cultivated, and they have a major challenge when it comes to global warming, rising sea levels and the infiltration of salinity into what was prime agricultural land. As a result of that, they have been working on more salinity-resistant rice crops in Bangladesh.

This is all a long way away from South Australia, but it is just a way of illustrating the importance of GM products and the increasing role they are going to play, and it is good that Australia, through science, is making some contribution to some of those worldwide efforts to increase food supply in what is going to become an increasingly challenging global environment.

At times we have approached this with argy-bargy, but we have now reached the point where we have an incredibly significant overlap between the opposition and the government when it comes to furthering what I believe is in the best long-term interests of our state. We are giving a voice to councils and their communities, but those councils are going to have to put forward a cogent argument, one that stands up to scrutiny, one that demonstrates that there is a real marketing advantage and a price premium for non-GM cropping in their areas.

It is clear that non-GM crops can attract a premium, and there are parts of the world that have a very strong preference, in some cases a mandated preference, for non-GM crops. A lot of the emails sent to me focus on that, but they do not focus on them making a comparison with the other states, because despite the fact that moratoriums were lifted in different states at different times, the non-moratorium approach has now been in place for a long time.

All those states are able to exploit non-GM markets and have done so very successfully, so the argument is not whether you have a moratorium or a non-moratorium; it is about what your farmers see as an advantage. Where can they get a commercial advantage? Where can they get a return? Some farmers will choose to be strong on growing non-GM crops and some, for reasons to do with the management of their farms, will choose to go down the GM track. As I indicated, there are a lot of other attributes that are coming down the track that we need to be aware of.

With those few words, I will come to a conclusion. Once again, in politics it is always worthwhile if people are willing to listen, if people are willing to evolve when it comes to positions adopted, and it is good when we can find common ground. It is one of what has now become those perennial criticisms of politics, that it is a winner-take-all approach, the constant pointscoring. What that does to the listening public over time, the public that does take an interest, is alienate them.

What they do then is drift to the minor parties, and often to minor parties that, if they ever held any real power, would be of great concern for the future of our nation and state. I am not necessarily reflecting on any of the minor parties here in South Australia, but there are some minor parties out there that are very scary indeed. When the major parties come together to work on a compromise, to see if we can get a bipartisan approach, I think that is something the public applauds.

Not everyone is going to get everything they want out of what we are proposing; as I said, there is compromise and there is some trade-off. Some of the policy purists are not 100 per cent fans of the amendments we have put forward, but they are political realists and acknowledge that this is a genuine step forward for our state and that there is a political process. Some of those who are strongly opposed to GM are not going to be happy with this compromise. That is the nature of the political process, but both the major parties, in a principled fashion, have tried to come to a constructive agreement.

Of course there is the issue of Kangaroo Island, and there has been some movement there as well. The position of our party is that any change in the status quo on Kangaroo Island should be a change that ultimately, come 2025, should be a decision of the parliament of the day. They say that a week is a long time in politics; well, five years is a long time when it comes to primary industries and some of the changes that are occurring, and when you speak to some of our farmers on Kangaroo Island they express various interesting views.

We have a way forward here, a way forward that will benefit the state, and a way forward that I believe is in the long-term interests of our state.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (11:28): I rise to speak on the bill in respect of genetically modified crops and note the foreshadowed amendments by the member for Giles as well as an indication from the government that they will be agreed to. Essentially, it is to set up a program of allowance for various councils to seek the approval of the minister, after having consulted with their communities, for their area of jurisdiction to be a designated area for the purposes of the continuing moratorium on the use of genetically modified technology.

The debate on this matter has been a very interesting one to watch. In a way, it reminds me of a time when I had discussions with my mother about radioactive waste and her fear of the unknown, and with my great-grandmother about the use of electricity, which she refused to allow in her house, notwithstanding raising 14 children, because she also feared its danger. It is hard to imagine in this day and age how we would live without electricity, but she did. She had her gas lanterns and her candles and she had her outdoor toilet. She survived well into her 90s and bore seven sons and seven daughters.

It is the fear of the unknown that I have seen evaporate over a period of time in relation to this debate. I am pleased to see it because the more we have become educated about genetically modified engineering organisms and the GM and GE debate the more we have become familiar with significant benefits of genetic engineering and, indeed, learnt a history of Australia, and South Australia in particular, being at the forefront of science advancement in this field, and we should proudly look at that history.

That has required us to become informed about circumstances that have exaggerated that fear, and with that I talk about the whole Monsanto debate and the enormous number of presentations which are given to us, and of which we have received a diet, which were to lead us to believe that there was some, effectively, carnivorous commercial conspiracy going behind the advance of companies such as these and their capacity and power—empire building—in the world of seed production that was designed to scare us.

I think it is important that we give this some critical analysis. Minds greater than mine of course have looked at these issues, and one by one there has been a development of understanding not only what has happened, what potentially could adversely occur, but also how we ensure that we go forward with benefits of GM genomics generally and have the advances without the perils of the disadvantages.

I thank the minister for bringing to full circle, I suppose, the consideration of genetically modified crop management in this state. It is a very important part of the history. It has had a long gestation period just within this parliament, and I think of people like the Hon. Anne Levy and her committee in assessing what her committee recommended years ago now in this space. I do commend the minister for bringing it full circle and to a close, and with that amendments which are presented and which I suppose allow it to limp along—I do not mean that disrespectfully—and allow a continued consultation and a model which could bring about some differences in application of this in our state.

With that comes the complication of having designated areas. Kangaroo Island, frankly, is easy because it is geographically isolated, and we all understand that. In other council regions or, indeed, the outback authority (I cannot remember its full name now; the member for Giles will remember, as it certainly covers parts of his electorate) there are added complications, probably no more than we have to deal with already on the borders of our state, for example between South Australia and Western Australia. Nevertheless, it adds to the complication. Be that as it may, it is important that we recognise that there is a very significant advance by this being progressed.

What I would like to record from my perspective is two things; one is that over the course of the last 30 years there has been some significant conversation about the development of this area of research and application. It overlaps a time when, as an adult, I watched it with interest, and I have not seen it in any other area, perhaps, except climate change, where there is an ever-growing education of the general populace in relation to how we address, live with and, if necessary, modify our lifestyle to deal with climate change. Similarly, there has been a maturing of public education and understanding of the GM issue.

One of those is a book called Seeds of Science by Mark Lynas, which I was provided (and I think probably other members were too) by Mr Matthew Cossey from CropLife Australia in 2018. Members who might have read this book will remember that Mr Lynas was very active in the anti-GM movement in Britain about which, I suppose two decades later, he had a view that changed in relation to his approach to this area.

In the book, he outlines his activities as an activist in in fact destroying GM crops that were in trial cultivation, culminating in, I think, a mature development of what benefits there are. He fairly critically analyses at least the literature on GM crops, where they have applied in the world, whether they have fed the world and all those sorts of questions, and he has come to an understanding of the benefits of genetic engineering. In fact, I remember a reference in the book (although I could not find the quote as I was bringing it into the chamber) which really stuck with me—that is, that without genetic engineering we would not allow our children to be near dogs today, which of course with genetic engineering have evolved from wolves, as they would be too dangerous to live with our children.

I think it is important that we at least listen and embrace and be prepared, like Mr Lynas has, to work through and I suppose receive what is a sensible maturing of that education, exclude what is obviously not without sound scientific basis and also be prepared to say that perhaps the seeds of science, as he has identified, do have a benefit and that we need to be able to say, 'Let's move forward.' The passage of this legislation is not just symbolic; it is, in a very pragmatic way, I think, going to lead to a foundation of extra financial support in the recovery of our state, which, of course, like the rest of the world has been wounded in recent times with the COVID-19 circumstance.

It is of course not the first difficulty we have had in relation to pest management. All those in parliament who have a background in agriculture and horticulture, which this so significantly affects, would understand that pests and disease can be the biggest enemies in relation to the economic viability of those industries and therefore our state. I agree with the member for Giles: I think there is an opportunity, especially for South Australia, to be able to develop that.

The second area I want to talk about is Kangaroo Island itself. Members know my grandchildren are eighth-generation Kangaroo Islanders and we are proud of it. The development of livestock as an industry—mostly sheep and cattle but some pigs and other enterprises, and some horticulture and viticulture—has been an important part of the agrarian base of the economic underpin of the island. We have tried mining and a few other things over the years, but they have been hopeless failures. Nevertheless, it is still a very significant underpin.

With that is the provision of pasture, and members who have any familiarity with the island would understand that there is well-documented research in relation to the trace element deficiencies in soils on Kangaroo Island. This was a major impediment to the soldier settlement development after World War II, as were the difficulties a number of the new residents on the island took up with that challenge and had to deal with, along with the usual vicissitudes of the sometimes unreliable commodity price and obviously water, which has been difficult in some areas on the island, and pest and disease management.

There are a lot of things that already come with weather, price and disease, but when you are dealing with a trace element deficiency as well, superphosphate is not enough and, obviously, there have to be some other additions, but that is something that has been learnt and addressed. If we have the capacity on Kangaroo Island to ultimately look at genetically modified production, whether that is in pasture for livestock (as the member for Giles mentioned) or whether it is to deal with genetically modified crop production for export, for example, then we need to address that down the track.

It is not as if Kangaroo Island does not have other attributes for an economic base—namely, tourism, for example, which will need a bit of rebuild, and there is no question about that. However, we will need to appreciate the significance of the agriculture and horticulture, and particularly the livestock industry continuing there. Of the several hundreds of thousands of stock on the island, I think something like 60,000 were as lost in the recent bushfires, so the community over there needs all the help it can get to make sure that we rebuild that economic base for Kangaroo Island.

Right back from the recommendation of Ms Levy's committee, it was identified as a geographically isolated area by virtue of its natural boundary and, therefore, something that we are hopeful will be able to assist us in maintaining the benefits of that. If there was ever an example, it is that we have saved the Ligurian bee from Italy from extinction. Whilst I have never been all that excited about the koalas that were taken over to Kangaroo Island and bred up, again the isolation has actually allowed some of those koalas to be brought back to the mainland, and although they might never return to Kangaroo Island they will be important in a breeding program both here on the mainland and, hopefully, even overseas, to enable us to be part of the insurance for that species.

With those words, I would like to say that I appreciate the extraordinary work that has been done by the minister and his department, and I appreciate the contribution made by the opposition, and the member for Giles in particular, in coming to a resolution of how we might advance this. I think the parliament will be recognised for it and our state will be rewarded with it.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (11:43): I rise today to speak to the amendments to the Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill 2020—it is quite a mouthful—and it is a pleasure to finally be here. I have lost track of the number of times I have stood to contribute to the GM debate in this place in my time here. Our moratorium extends back to 2004, when the then Rann Labor government imposed, for whatever reason at the time, a ban on growing genetically engineered crops in this state. Despite recommendations to the contrary, that same government decided to maintain that moratorium again in 2008, if my memory serves me correctly, and here we are in 2020, finally having reached a compromise between the government and the opposition to be able to allow the growing of genetically engineered crops across the majority of South Australia.

I need to declare an interest here, Mr Speaker. For 30 years I was an active grain grower on Eyre Peninsula and for the last 10 years, during which I have been a member of this place, I have retained an interest in that grain growing operation. I do not come to this debate without an interest and I do not come to this debate without also some experience, I might add, on this particular subject.

I was introduced to GM crops way back in 2002 when I was fortunate enough to visit the United States as part of my Nuffield Scholarship travels during that year. It was in the very early stages of GM crops being grown in the US—baby steps at that time—and certainly Monsanto was a company that was on everybody's lips at the time and probably still is. I might add that I am not into conspiracy theories; I concur with the Deputy Premier in regard to that. I do not think there is any conspiratorial intention by any of these major companies to control the world's food supply. I just do not buy that as an argument at all.

I digress. I visited the Monsanto factory in St Louis and was briefed on what were the very early days of Roundup Ready corn. Within a very short period of time, much of the corn and the vast majority of soybeans grown across the American Midwest—that huge grain belt, that food bowl of North America—was actually Roundup Ready or glyphosate tolerant.

At that same time, experiments were being done, and slowly but surely introduction into Australia came, in other states initially and particularly around Bt cotton. I think that was probably the first crop that gained any real foothold here in Australia. I understand cotton is grown in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland. What it really gave those cotton growers and that cotton plant was resistance to insects. I was told at the time that growers were able to reduce the application of pesticides significantly. They had been spraying up to seven times with pesticides—chemicals being applied to the crop—and this inherent resistance bred into Bt cotton meant they only had to have one spray. It was a significant saving and a significant benefit to the environment.

The shadow minister talked about golden rice, and of course that too is one of the great success stories, and I think that is an incredibly responsible thing for us as a world community to pursue—to be able to feed the masses and have an addition of vitamin A into a very limited diet across vast areas of the world. We are talking very much about Roundup Ready canola in this state at the moment. There will be other opportunities very soon probably, in relation to canola—that is the addition of omega-3. Of course we all know the health benefits of having omega-3 in our diets; hence the recommendation for us to eat more seafood than we are to gain those benefits.

I mentioned the shadow minister, the member for Giles, and I am going to congratulate him and our Minister for Primary Industries on the negotiations they have had. They have been able to reach agreement on some amendments that will allow, after all this time, our grain producers the opportunity to plant and grow genetically engineered canola, in this instance, at this point in time, and have the benefits of that. It will be their choice to do so. Not all will, I might add.

So it has been very much about choice for us as a government, and we have reached an agreement. It is great news for our farmers and regional communities who for a long time have been calling for the opportunity to have that choice.

I will just spend a little bit of time talking to the agreed amendments under this bill, which will establish a time-limited, six-month period whereby the Minister for Primary Industries may, upon application from a council—that is, a local government area—designate that council area as being an area where it is prohibited to cultivate GM crops. In other words, we are giving local government areas, local councils, the opportunity, after required consultation with their communities about whether they may wish to apply to the minister, to seek to have their council area remain GM free.

The minister would be required to consult with the GM Crop Advisory Committee prior to designating a council area and must take into account any advice provided by that committee. Ultimately, the decision will be left with the minister. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I am sure there will be some councils which might want to consider taking this position, after suitable consultation. There will be many which will not. Many across the broadacre farming areas of the state will be pleased to give their farming ratepayers the opportunity to do that. It is a compromise position but it will ensure that our farmers have the management tools they need.

I want to talk a little about farming systems because I have seen incredible change and evolution in farming systems over the last 40 years. My father, who is 84 now, has seen incredible changes in his lifetime, as his father did before him, so my point here is that farming systems are continually changing and evolving. They are never perfect. We never come to a perfect system. In fact, often just when we think we are getting it right, something changes. Mother Nature will throw something at us or we will discover that we have pushed a particular part of the system too far and we have to make adjustments. This is part of the next change to those farming systems.

In this place before, I have traced through South Australia's history of changes in farming systems. It began with the Ridley Stripper in 1842. That single development allowed larger areas of wheat to be harvested in a day. We go through the development of superphosphate, the introduction of traction engines, lay farming systems, and trace elements, as the member for Bragg mentioned, which were critical in large areas of the state, up to what was called the green revolution in the 1970s. There were new varieties which gave a significant yield increase at that time. It was all about plant breeding at that stage, and in a way this is as well. We move on to the current day where we have specific applications for fertilisers, chemicals, varieties and rotations, which are long considered to give the best result, not just financially but also to the production across areas of South Australia.

There was an independent review undertaken which supported the government's position in relation to lifting the GM moratorium. The independent review found the cost to canola farmers of South Australia's GM crop moratorium was estimated to be $33 million over the period from 2004 to 2018. My quick maths tells me that that is a cost of about $2.5 million a year. I am going to stand here and say that that is not a whole lot of money in the grand scheme.

But my point is, and I go back to my experience as a farmer, I want to talk about how grain producers make a decision in relation to crop varieties and crop systems. Their goal, our goal, is to make money; it is to make a profit on every single acre on one's property. Profit is derived by multiplying yield by price achieved and subtracting the cost of production. It is a very simple formula but it works.

Much has been made about the so-called price premium that is available for non-GM canola to growers here in this state and elsewhere. The evidence is that there is not really a premium, but even if there is, that is a consideration for the farmer to make, not for the parliament. The farmers themselves, the growers themselves, have to decide whether an increased yield and lower cost of production make up for a lower price or otherwise. These are really serious considerations and they are considerations that our grain producers and farmers need to be able to make themselves and not have such things dictated to them by the parliament in South Australia.

Of course, we need to respect our growers and their choice and their responsibility in managing vast areas of South Australia's landscape and production. There will be other benefits for our farmers. We will have more varieties to choose from to suit specific environments and seasonal weather anomalies.

I can see that the area assigned to canola may extend a little bit further north in this state. The further north we go, the drier it gets. There may be the opportunity now to sow canola prior to the break of the season, so in those areas that have a shorter growing season they can sow earlier and they can sow dry. The crop comes up. The weeds come up at the same time—that is a reality. We cannot farm without weeds and an application of Roundup or glyphosate would take out the weeds and not the crop. That will allow growers to make full use of the growing season.

There will be environmental and health benefits from reduced farm chemical applications. Roundup has had a bit of bad press in recent years and it is seen by some as a big ogre. I am going to put to you, Mr Speaker, that the development and introduction of glyphosate, often known by the trade name Roundup, is the most significant development in broadacre farming in this state, across the country and around the world since the introduction of the tractor—it is that significant. There is no shying away from that. We should not be frightened of that.

Farmers often worry about crops and weeds developing resistance to chemicals such as Roundup, but that is something we should be managing anyway. That is all part of this whole farming system package whereby we make decisions about rotations and systems to manage that very resistance that we talk about. It is not just resistance to Roundup that we should be considering, there are other chemicals as well, so we need to balance that out.

There is likely to be a boost to the value of farmland whose productivity and profitability is raised. Remember that formula: yield by price, less cost of production, equals profit. I think that our farmers deserve the regulatory certainty and confidence to know they can invest in GMC and plant GM crops if they want to. Now, it is not going to be for this year, or this coming season.

For those grain growers who have not had rain yet they are about to get rain, given the forecast for the coming week, and that is an exciting time. It means that our growers will be on their tractors planting, or cultivating if they are not, or direct seeding if they choose to. It gives them some certainty. We are already in the 2020 cropping season, so this will carry over to the 2021 season.

All foodstuffs containing GM crops must be labelled so that we are considerate of consumer choice. I talked a lot today about what growers are looking for and what grain producers are requiring and expecting, but ultimately consumers play a role in this as well. I suspect that, as we go forward and the functionality of some of these crops and some of our foods through genetic engineering is developed, we will have people actively seeking out that functionality for health benefits and otherwise.

I have had emails, as we all have had, urging us to consider carefully the impact of lifting this moratorium, which I have dutifully done. As I said, I come with an interest and some experience. Often, those emails come from producers who describe themselves as being organic producers. I do not have a problem with that. If they choose a production system that is defined and described as organic then so be it.

Ultimately, I am sure they are profitable at the end of it and that will allow them to remain in business, but I did put a question to the organic growers association at a presentation here in Parliament House. I put to them that I did not feel that genetically engineered crops and organic farming are necessarily mutually exclusive. It just did not seem to fit with my concept of farming.

The answer I got was that the association itself had decreed that organic farmers must not grow genetically engineered crops. Of course, there is no doubt that many of them will be growing varieties of cereal and other things that have been developed and bred using traditional means. There is a bit of an anomaly there that still exists for me. As I said, I am not being critical of that; it is just that questions need to be answered.

It will be interesting to see how the situation evolves on Kangaroo Island. Obviously, that part of the state is geographically isolated and has chosen to be. It has indicated to us as parliamentarians that it wants to be dealt with separately in this legislation and it will be interesting to see how the situation is in 2025. We are talking very much about just Roundup Ready canola at the moment, as that is the crop that will be available to South Australian growers. There is no genetically engineered wheat available commercially to growers, but that may come.

My question for Kangaroo Island and the other grazing areas of the state is, if and when genetically engineered fodder crops become available, whether they will come under the same jurisdiction. A large area of our state cultivates improved pastures that contain such things as ryegrass, lucerne, sub clover, medics and all those things that potentially could have their production enhanced by genetic engineering. It will be interesting to see how that evolves over time.

As I said earlier, farming systems are continually evolving and no system is perfect. This, too, will take us to the next level of production. I mentioned earlier that my father still believes at 84 that the greatest developments in his farming career were the introduction of cabs on tractors and hydraulics. We need to put these things in perspective. This is just simply the next development in our farming system.

Congratulations to the minister and the shadow minister on being able to reach agreement on this. There has been a lot of work over a lot of years and I appreciate now being able to stand up and contribute to a debate where, hopefully, we will be able to deliver a good result for the grain growers of South Australia.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (12:02): I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the second reading of this bill. Last year, the government introduced a bill exactly the same as this in the dying days of the last session. It was brought on after the disallowance of a regulation in the other place, without notice and through a suspension of standing orders.

At the time, I expressed my disquiet with the treatment of this house, and it is a concern shared among a number of my colleagues in this house and in the other place. As I predicted at the time, the government went on to remake regulations to allow GM crops despite the fact these very same regulations had already been disallowed and despite the fact a subsequent bill had been defeated. Now, only a day after the government's regulations were again disallowed in the other place and while this bill remains listed for debate in this house, the minister in what can only be described as a stunning act has remade the regulations. In his press release of 3 March, the minister said, and I quote:

We will negotiate with Labor and willing crossbench MPs to seek agreement to pass our GM legislation and provide long-term certainty for the industry.

This sentiment is, of course, the right one, but it has not happened in any true sense. As I indicated in my contribution on the same bill last year, this is an abuse of the democratic system. In my Address in Reply speech, I indicated political shortcuts can lead to political headaches, and there are a few recent examples. All these political tactics serve to achieve is to erode public faith in our democratic system and cause damage to the conduct of good government in our state. That is why I have just this week given notice that I will be introducing a private member's bill to amend the Subordinate Legislation Act to prevent this from ever happening again.

When regulations are disallowed, no minister should have the power to remake them. Indeed, I know but for the prorogation of parliament the government would not be able to reintroduce this bill now, given it had been defeated in the other place. Had time been taken to examine the issue properly, had the traditions and conventions of this parliament been adhered to and had there been proper respect for the democratic system parliament embodies, it is quite possible there may have been a policy win by now.

I, for one, have always been open to revisiting the moratorium if there is evidence that it no longer works or it no longer offers an advantage, although to be clear nothing presented to me to this date has shown this. Rather, my office continues to be inundated with requests to hold the current line, and I ask: can all these people be wrong?

Because of this, I will not support this bill in its current form. Instead, I have moved separate legislation to enshrine the notion that, once a regulation has been disallowed by either house, the government cannot make the same or similar regulation within a period of six months. This applies to the commonwealth parliament, and I refer members to my prior speech on this topic. I can assure you, sir, I and my colleagues on the crossbench will have more to say about how this parliament should better operate for the interests of the people of our state in future.

Mr BASHAM (Finniss) (12:05): I rise in support of this legislation and the potential benefits it can deliver to the farming community of South Australia and the economy of South Australia generally. Genetically modified crops have been around since 1996, and GM-ready canola was introduced in Canada in 1996, 24 years ago. So we have been at a disadvantage here in South Australia competing with countries like Canada in the canola space for 24 years, as they have had access to these new technologies.

GM is such an important technology and allows for gains in productivity that other methods just cannot achieve for the community. As the member for Flinders outlined in his address moments ago, agriculture has certainly been great at taking up new technologies and delivering that proactivity gain to the economy. In the industry I come from, the dairy industry, we have seen one of probably the biggest things in my lifetime, having started before my lifetime, namely, the introduction of artificial insemination of cattle.

This allowed the dairy industry to fast-track the genetic gains that can be made by finding the appropriate genetics to allow greater milk yields, etc., while requiring less input. It also allowed greater selection tools to improve the animal welfare issues, such as making sure the feet and legs were able to carry the animals to the best of their ability, giving the animals the most robust legs and feet possible to carry them through their productive life.

Those changes have been steady in that genetic space over my life in agriculture, to the point where in recent years we have seen the mapping of the genetic make-up of cows and working out what can actually be achieved by particular bulls by placing over certain cows to lead to a particular outcome. All that helps with those productivity gains, and agriculture has been great at taking advantage of those technologies to deliver returns and greater food for the world as required for our ever-growing population.

I have had some personal experience with glyphosate Roundup in the very early days. I very much remember my father, I think in 1978, conducting a trial with one of the representatives of Monsanto at the time coming out and doing a trial on spraying reeds in a paddock to selectively remove those reeds from a pasture, allowing the clovers, etc., to grow underneath them. That was very much in the early days of glyphosate being available in Australia, and we have seen that progress over my lifetime.

People have joked that if anyone is going to die of glyphosate poisoning, it is going to be my father with the amount he has used it over the years spraying weeds around trees, as well as broadacre applications to make sure our farm was as productive as it could be. All these technologies are very important, and we need to continually look for these new technologies.

I very much thank the opposition and the minister for reaching this compromise. I think there will still be some interesting debates at council level going forward, but I think it is very much going to be an opportunity for farmers themselves to be the ones making the decision whether they want to go down the genetically modified plant line in their operation. It is a fantastic outcome for our community. It now looks like we are going to see this legislation pass, which will bring South Australia into the fore with all the other jurisdictions around Australia and finally catch up to Canada, which has been there since 1996.

We also heard from the member for Flinders that he sees glyphosate as being the biggest improvement in agriculture since the tractor. I am not sure that it is more important than the tractor because, in a lot of cases, you can actually put the tractor back in the shed, because we no longer need those tractors out there working the fields. We have seen enormous environmental improvements in the management of soils and pastures as well as cropping ground from the use of products like glyphosate, which is a key part of the reason we have headed down this genetically modified path, particularly in the use of canola. I think there are also enormous benefits coming into the future in this space, particularly around pastures.

Certainly one of the key debates going around in my roles with the South Australian Dairyfarmers' Association and Australian Dairy Farmers over the years from the early 2000s, was whether the industry should be allowing genetically modified feed stuffs to be used in the production of milk. The industry has very much come to the conclusion that yes, it must allow these into the future, and very much must allow the use of genetically modified plants. It believes that the system we have in Australia at a federal level to assess each of those plants as they are developed is certainly one of the best in the world, if not the best in the world to make sure we are managing the system correctly.

I think we are heading into the right space, and the further we go the better we are getting at it. I guess one of the concerns I had, certainly in my roles at Australian Dairy Farmers, was that we had to send a lot of our research overseas to be done, particularly in developing the genetically modified organisms in ryegrass. We could not bulk up any seed, etc., in Australia and then grow it in trials here; we needed to send it across to South America. Certainly I do not think that is the best way for us to manage and give robustness around the development of those things. I think we need to do it here and understand what is going on.

I think it is a very important outcome for the industry and I very much support the passing of this bill. Likewise, I would like to see local governments support it in not seeking applications to keep moratoriums in their particular councils. I do not think we are going to see a lot of applications but there might be some out there. Certainly, I have three different councils that the seat of Finniss sits over: Yankalilla council, the City of Victor Harbor and Alexandrina Council.

Victor Harbor sits wholly within Finniss, but it is very much based around the city of Victor Harbor itself. It does not have a lot of agriculture, so I do not see it being a big issue for that council to be looking at. I have a very small section of Yankalilla council—probably about 30 of my constituents are in the Yankalilla council area—and it is interesting to see that it is very much an agriculture-based council area with very productive, high rainfall country. It will be looking to the development of pasture-based, genetically modified organisms rather than the cropping-based areas; there is not so much cropping in the Yankalilla council area.

Alexandrina is a much more complicated council area in this regard. Most of the cropping areas in this council area are not actually in the seat of Finniss; some are, but most of them are probably in Heysen and Hammond. However, it is a very large council and I would imagine there are very different views, in this space, from one end to the other. There would be some very township-based views around some of the major settlements in Alexandrina—Strathalbyn and Goolwa, Port Elliot and Middleton—right through to farming-based views around Finniss through to Langhorne Creek, etc., and that would very much influence where that council might head.

It is going to be an interesting journey, and we will need to support councils in that journey if they decide to go along the path of seeking an extension of the moratorium in their particular regions. However, I am thrilled that an agreement has been reached with Labor and the minister in this space to get to this point. It is going to be a very big gamechanger for agriculture as we move forward and see the development of things beyond canola; canola is certainly the one that is here and now, but other things are coming forward.

So thank you very much to all those involved, and thank you very much to the minister for all the work he and his staff have done to get to this point. With those few words, I commend this bill to the house.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (12:17): I am glad to take this opportunity to rise to speak in support of the passage of the bill, now in its amended form. I had the opportunity to speak in support of the bill when it was first introduced in the last session. I will not repeat my remarks from that occasion, except to say that when I spoke on 3 December last year in support of the bill the emphasis in my remarks was very much that the importance we placed on our ability to continually enhance our productive capacity and our care for the environment over the course of decades was with a view to staying in tune with technological advances, in tune with the capacity to apply improvements and, in so doing, make the best use of the natural resources our wonderful regional areas provide.

That has led to extraordinary change in agricultural practices and productivity over a long period of time, and these reforms take it that next step further. That they would remove a longstanding impediment that has stood in the way of our local farmers relative to those in the rest of the world stands, perhaps, as a cautionary note: when we let indulgence in ideology get in the way of demonstrated scientific capacity to do things better we not only risk going down a blind alley but we also impose very real disadvantages on those who derive their livelihoods in this area.

I could not, Mr Deputy Speaker, express it better or anywhere near as eloquently as you did just now in reflecting on some of the dramatic changes that have been applied over recent decades, particularly in the area of pesticide introduction and the use of chemicals to increase productivity, not to mention mechanisation all that time ago.

I am very pleased that we have come to a position—and I am sorry it has taken as long as it has—where there is a bill that has the support of the two major parties in South Australia. I am conscious and recognise the observation of the member for Giles about that because it is true and it is important: there are major parties in this state that are parties of government that are responsible for implementing reform which makes changes that are of real consequence in the state.

Sometimes, it does take those major parties, those responsible parties of government, getting together and working through these matters in order to have responsible reform passed through the parliament. I think in that respect the contribution of the member for Giles is important not only in the work he has done in working towards this series of amendments that will permit passage of the bill but also in his observations just now about the importance of effective parliamentary process. I note them and I recognise his work and contribution to this.

I also recognise and acknowledge contribution of the member for Florey in relation to the proper place of regulations and processes within the parliament. In that regard, having spoken as emphatically as I was able in the last session on 3 December in support of passage of the bill, I note that it was very much in the context of both a degree of urgency and, importantly, the need to provide both timely and clear certainty to farmers that were needing to make decisions and are needing to make decisions about how they go about sourcing product that they would put in the ground.

So I note those remarks of the member for Florey. I think there is certainly something to be said for the notion that regulations have a particular role in the ordinary course, and I am glad we are now legislating in the form of this bill. The key amendment that I would refer to, and perhaps just by some more specific remarks, is that set out in amendment No. 5 of the member for Giles that would insert a new section 5A. As others have noted, following a process that is set out in that clause, this would provide a process for individual councils within South Australia to apply for the designation of a particular council area within which it may be prohibited to grow GM food crops.

The process by which that application would be made, which is set out in section 5A, importantly, in my view, is preceded by the requirement that the council (if there is any council that would embark on this path) must go about the process of consultation with their communities prior to making the application and that that consultation would include—and, relevantly, this will be populated in different ways in different council areas—those primary producers and food processors and manufacturers within the council area.

Secondly, I note that where an application were to come to the minister following such a process, then the minister would be required to go about a process of consulting with the relevant advisory committee, the GM Crop Advisory Committee, before going ahead and so designating a council area, and that the minister is further required to take into account advice that may be provided by the advisory committee before making a decision.

I think both of those steps are important because they provide the capacity for there to be, to a certain degree, a socialisation of any such consideration by a council—and I hasten to add that I am not aware of any and I certainly do not anticipate any, nor would I seek for that to occur as I stand here—a certain thoroughgoing degree of socialisation as well as the seeking out of inputs from those who might be directly impacted by any such designation, and I refer to my remarks at the outset that the responsibility that we have for applying technology so as not to put our South Australian producers and processors and manufacturers in a position of relative disadvantage relative to the rest of the world. So that process of consultation is important.

Secondly, and I suggest equally if not more importantly, the minister is then obliged to seek out expert advice to ensure then that any such designation would be on some sort of expert footing that may be more specifically applied to the relevant council area. I say that that is important, having emphasised in my contribution back in December and again today the important role that the scientific experts have in bringing us to this point and in assessing decisions that might be made under this proposed process.

That is because we want to make sure that if producers, manufacturers or processors in a particular area are to be considered as different from the rest of the state and the rest of the world that get the benefit of these technological developments, then there ought to be some basis in terms of that more scientific and technology-based assessment.

I also take the opportunity on this occasion to say that in South Australia we have the benefit of a number of very well-credentialled, well-developed and expert industry bodies. In South Australia—and it is one of our strengths relative to the rest of the world—we are fortunate to have a whole range of institutions that serve us tremendously well, and we have seen that no better demonstrated than in the recent weeks of this extraordinary global pandemic, as we see the world-leading work that is being done by health authorities in the state, and they are to be commended.

In this context, I want to make particular mention of the industry body that leads in relation to grain production, that is, Grain Producers SA (GPSA). It is a body well known to members in this place. It is an industry body of long standing and with a strong reputation throughout the industry and the rest of the state. As we have seen in a range of areas where grain producers are affected by regulation, that body has demonstrated its capacity to contribute to the policy debate and to the implementation of reform in the state.

Having an industry body such as GPSA, with its proven stewardship programs to manage the introduction of GM crops in South Australia, is no small advantage, might I say. The capacity of GPSA to be there as a relevant leading body to assist in the implementation of this reform is one that should give both producers and members of the broader community a high degree of confidence that growers, processors and manufacturers can be well assisted as the process is implemented.

That is no different, I expect, in terms of the navigation of any process that might be embarked upon pursuant to new section 5A, the subject of amendment No. 5. I commend in particular the leadership in that respect of the GPSA CEO, Caroline Rhodes, who has led a team of very able and engaged people at that body.

In the context of a bill that was first introduced in the last session and that has been the subject of concerted endeavours by the government to act on the science and to implement reform, when the science has demonstrated emphatically that it should be implemented, I am pleased to have made a contribution to this debate and supported the bill prior to these amendments. I acknowledge that the amendments will provide the capacity for individual communities within the state to navigate these reforms within their council areas in a perhaps more localised way.

I come back to the primary driver for this reform—and that is that, absent ideology, it is a process of change that we embrace with the benefit of all the knowledge we have and with a view to improving the way in which we interact with our natural environment, improving the way in which we value scarce resources and minimise the use of scarce resources in the production of our food and ensuring that in doing so we continue to lead the way globally in our capacity to export very large volumes of food to feed the rest of the world and demonstrate to the rest of the world that, where there is evidence that supports how we can do things better, we have the capacity to implement those measures to improve the way we do things. With those words, I commend the bill in its amended form to the house.

Dr HARVEY (Newland) (12:37): I rise today to speak in support of the Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill 2020. In the lead-up to the 2018 state election, the South Australian Liberal Party, the Marshall Liberal team, made a very clear commitment that we would establish an independent review on the moratorium to address what is the key point from the state's perspective—that is, whether or not the moratorium provides an advantage to our state for market or trade purposes.

On coming into government, that is exactly what the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development did, and within six months he established an independent review led by Emeritus Professor Kym Anderson. The reasoning for pursuing this issue via an independent review was to ensure that any decision the government made was not to be based on ideology but instead based on the best available evidence. It would not be a decision based on the vibe or some unsubstantiated fears about the unknown; this would ensure that we made a decision based on facts rather than fears.

The review was thorough and, importantly, made a number of clear and unambiguous findings. The review found that not only did a statewide moratorium not provide an economic advantage to South Australia but it actually left our state worse off by tens of millions of dollars and put our farmers at a disadvantage compared with their counterparts interstate. In fact, our farmers are worse off even compared with interstate farmers who opted to grow non-GM canola, thus demonstrating the idea that somehow overseas markets were discriminating between states based on state boundaries was not supported by evidence.

Consistent with what we had committed to do, the minister initiated the consultation period as prescribed in the current act and then introduced regulations to lift the moratorium from mainland South Australia. Unfortunately, these regulations were subsequently disallowed in the other place. There were a number of varied reasons for this but one of the reasons that was cited was that this moratorium should have been lifted via legislation rather than regulation, so that is then what we sought to do.

We introduced a bill to achieve, through legislation, not only what we had sought to achieve by regulation but to do exactly what we said we would do all along which was to support the evidence. Unfortunately, once again, our efforts to lift the moratorium—an outcome that was supported by farmers, scientists and economists—was blocked again for a number of different reasons, often process arguments and continuously shifting goalposts.

We landed, once again, at a position where the experts and key stakeholders were ignored and instead had caved in to unsubstantiated fears, but we have refused to give up on our farmers and ignore the science and economics. I would like to commend the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development for continuing to prosecute the case to where I am hopeful for a much more positive outcome. The minister has also sought to be constructive and, credit where it is due, the shadow minister has also been able to bring his party on board and has landed a number of proposed amendments that both the government and the opposition can agree on. I thank and give credit where it is due to the shadow minister for that achievement.

The agreed amendments under this bill include establishing a time-limited six-month period whereby the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development may, upon application from a council, designate that council area as being an area where it is prohibited to cultivate GM food crops. Councils would be required to consult their communities prior to making such an application, including with primary producers and food processors and manufacturers. The minister would be required to consult with the GM Crop Advisory Committee prior to designating a council area and must take into account any advice provided by the GM Crop Advisory Committee.

Once again, I stress the point that from a state perspective what the state is interested in is the economic benefit that is being claimed to be gained by having a ban in that council area and, importantly, that will inform the decision that ultimately the minister has. Also, the transport of GM products and the conduct of research licensed under the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator will be permitted in any designated council areas. What is also important to note is that these proposed amendments do not place an additional unnecessary regulatory burden on our farmers in the way that proposals put forward by others would.

This is certainly a pleasing position to reach as it allows South Australia to finally move forward on this issue and give our farmers the choice. I also think it demonstrates something the vast majority of South Australians like to see us do, which is work together to achieve an outcome for our state. In recent days I have received emails, not so much from my local electorate but from around the state, and I imagine they are the same emails going to everyone. Some individuals are expressing concerns about GM crops in a general sense and, for that reason, while I have spoken about some of these things here before, I think it is important to remind the house and those in the community who have concerns of the substantial regulation that already exists in respect of genetically modified organisms, over and above what is done at a state level.

Federal legislation is responsible for dealing with the protection of the health and safety of people and regulates all dealings with genetically modified organisms in Australia through the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. This includes research, manufacture, importation, production, propagation, transport and disposal of genetically modified organisms. As someone who has worked in a laboratory in the past and has dealt with genetically modified organisms, not plants but dealing with bacteria, I can assure you that the OGTR is very studious and thorough in its work and not the kind of regulator that you would want to have breathing down your neck. It is a very robust system.

In terms of GM crops, the OGTR is responsible for the approval of field trials and the commercial release of GMOs. When it comes to food and the consumption of genetically modified foods, it is Food Standards Australia New Zealand that is responsible for regulation, including any safety standards and labelling. Both agencies, the OGTR and Food Standards Australia New Zealand, are tasked with administering regulatory regimes. They both provide very strong protections and, importantly for our state, provide a national consistency.

As I mentioned before, the state government is responsible for the regulation of GM crops for trade and market purposes. Since the passage of federal legislation, shortly followed by legislation in the states in the early 2000s, different states varied in their timing, in terms of implementing moratoria and the eventual lifting of moratoria, but South Australia is now the only mainland state to still maintain a statewide ban on GM crops.

To provide a bit of perspective for South Australia, what is important is that, at the moment, the only GM crop that is really considered for growing here is canola. Looking at canola, the Anderson review estimates that the moratorium on GM crops cost South Australian canola farmers $33 million between 2004 and 2018 and it would be expected to cost a further $5 million if the moratorium is left in place until 2025.

What is important to note here too is that there is a great deal of work underway right now right around the world, importantly including right here in Adelaide at the Waite Institute, that will very likely provide many new varieties that will have enormous potential for improved benefits to the economy, human health and also the environment. Some of these benefits will include increased yields, which has an environmental benefit in that those increased yields can reduce fuel consumption, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and also reduce the amount of land that is required.

There are other varieties where the end goal is to reduce the use of pesticides, reduce the demand for water and increase tolerance to salinity, which of course is very important, particularly in parts of South Australia, as well as many other areas. In the absence of allowing GM crops, these potential benefits would not be achieved by our farmers. This also hampers their own research efforts here in South Australia. One of the things the Anderson review identified was that, without a clear pathway to market, it is difficult to attract investment into our local research to produce those kinds of varieties that are relevant to the climate that exists here.

As the member for Giles also alluded to, the research effort in this area has a potential international benefit. There are many parts of the world that would benefit greatly from gene technology and growing crops that may provide additional vitamins that are deficient in those populations and improved yields where they may not have access to some other kinds of nutrients or whatever to try to achieve that the way that we might. I believe that there is also a humanitarian argument for ensuring that we do whatever we can to support research into plant science because there are a lot of people in the world and we are very lucky in Australia.

One of the things that the recent crisis has pointed out and made us make the case very strongly is that in Australia we are not likely to run out of food. I am trying to remember the numbers, but it is around about 75 million people we can feed with food from Australia, which is clearly three times what we need. There are plenty of places in the world that do not do that and rely on the importation of food. Anything we can do to make the growing of food more abundant and less susceptible to environmental stresses and puts less pressure on the environment is undoubtedly a good thing.

Another thing worth mentioning, in terms of some of the future benefits of allowing GM crops within South Australia and also the research that can come with that, is some of the recent amendments to the commonwealth Gene Technology Regulations that have provided greater clarity around whether the products of some newer gene editing technologies are classified as genetically modified organisms.

It is important to note here, and I often have this conversation with many people who do come to me concerned about GM crops, that if you use random eugenesis, you use some kind of chemical mutagen or gamma radiation and you randomly mutate the genome of a plant to then achieve a particular outcome, that is not classified as a genetically modified organism. Interestingly, if you compare that to gene technology, where you are going in and making a targeted change, then that is. That is fine, but in the latter example we know what we did. In the first example, we know what we have, but you actually have to go in afterwards and sequence the whole thing to know what it is you have changed to achieve that outcome. It is actually less defined.

These are newer technologies that are collectively described as gene editing, and these can include the CRISPR-Cas9 systems. These can make very small changes to the sequence that may alter gene products directly or may alter the regulation of those products that will achieve a particular outcome. These are different from some of the older technologies that generally replace or insert whole genes or chunks of a sequence, so these changes are much more discreet and much more targeted.

The amendments to the federal regulations have had to really 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, i.e., having used technology to achieve an end, or whether something is a GMO because of what it has become. In other words, if you could take a gene out of one organism and put it into something else, you have a different outcome, whereas you might use a CRISPR-Cas9 system where you insert something to make a change and then take it back out again and really all you are left with at the end are a small number of base pair changes. Is that a genetically modified organism or not?

In the end, where the federal regulations landed was to say that for the most part, yes, they are still GMOs, except for the most basic forms of gene editing, which have been left out of that sort of regulatory regime. I guess the important point, though, is that these technologies are incredibly powerful and the sorts of varieties or things that can be constructed by them greatly open the opportunities there through very discreet changes to the actual sequence.

I have more or less made these points before around the importance for research and some of the arguments for why that research is very important, but also in Adelaide I think we really want to be a leader in this area. Innovation is where many of the jobs of the future are going to come from and plant science is something where historically we have had a competitive advantage in Adelaide. A GM moratorium only serves to hold that back.

In closing, it is really important—and I am very pleased we have landed on this position without having to pre-empt what is going to happen; there is at least agreement, which is a good thing—for governments and parliaments to make decisions based on evidence, rather than be driven by emotion, particularly in those areas where we are not talking about moral judgements but are actually talking about a decision on an issue that has a large scientific base behind it.

Given the current environment and the world we live in at the moment, I think this highlights how important that really is. Governments around the world are asking their citizens to now accept expert advice, to dramatically change the way they live and to change the way our economies work. They are basically saying to people, 'You don't have a job now because we are concerned about the health risk of your business operating.' That requires governments to make decisions based on expert advice. They are very difficult decisions to make.

I think something we as South Australians should all be very proud of is the fact that, for the most part, that is exactly what South Australians have done: they have taken on the expert advice and they have done it. They have actually taken a pragmatic approach rather than an ideological approach.

We have seen some of the anti-expert rhetoric in other jurisdictions around the world, which is incredibly damaging. We have not really seen that here, and I think that is something we should all be really proud of, as it shows not only that, for the most part, South Australians and Australians are quite pragmatic, and not really driven by ideology but by practical outcomes, but also that what we are trying to achieve from a health perspective will actually work.

There are lots of things governments are doing to increase capacity within our hospitals, to increase the testing regime and to implement directions to affect people's behaviour. But, ultimately, if people do not comply, then there is a limit to how effective all that will be. We need everybody to buy into this, and I think people have. I think something we should be very proud of is the fact that South Australians have taken on the expert advice and have dramatically changed their behaviour. So far we are seeing the benefits of that.

To finish off in relation to this bill, it is pleasing to see that we have landed on a position where there is agreement between the government and the opposition, a position that will allow us to finally move forward on this issue, one that means the facts are winning out rather than the ideology. I would like to commend and thank the minister for all his work in and persistence with this and commend the bill to the house.

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (12:55): I rise again, not for the first time, to speak in support of the Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill 2020. First, I congratulate the Minister for Primary Industries and member for Chaffey for all the hard work he has done in the background working with the opposition and the crossbenchers in both houses—the upper house and the lower house—trying to get this bill through over the last six months perhaps, if not longer. All credit to him and his staff for getting to this position, and hopefully it has a good transition through both houses. Also a special thank you to the member for Giles in gathering his troops and to the opposition for being on board with this bill.

Our state is now the only mainland state to still maintain a statewide ban on GM crops, and under the arrangements left to us by the former Labor government without change the moratorium is set to continue until 2025, with no evidence of any benefit to our state. This bill is an important one for our state's farmers and our state's primary productivity bottom line. It is a bill that offers the opportunity for farmers to grow genetically modified crops and to capitalise on the benefits of these crops for the enterprises on the mainland of South Australia.

The bill has been drafted in response to the evidence from the independent review that identified 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 grain growers at least $33 million since 2004, and would cost at least a further $5 million if extended to 2025. Genetically modified canola is one of the varieties of interest; however, we know more broadly that the genetically modified breeds offer a range of benefits.

The bill provides an important reform that will activate a range of benefits for our cropping sector: increased competitiveness in the market is one of those benefits. It will put our farmers on an even footing with that of the rest of the world. It will enhance the ability of our farmers to compete on the world market. Our farmers cannot do that with one arm essentially tied behind their back, not having a full suite of cropping options available to them like farmers in the rest of Australia or around the world.

The view that our GM free status provides better prices for our cropping commodities was also refuted by the independent review. The review also concluded that there was not a compelling argument that any current price premium or that market access for non-GM crops grown in South Australia would be diminished if GM crops were allowed to be grown in the state, as long as there was careful segregation of products.

I note that the Minister for Primary Industries at the time of the last debate on this matter highlighted a range of figures in relation to the market at the time for grains, in which he highlighted that other states that allow GM crops are benefitting: Western Australia has a $60 premium over South Australia; New South Wales has a $30 premium; and, Victoria has a $10 premium over that paid in South Australia.

Our farmers need a range of tools to help them deal with the ever-increasing costs and environmental pressures. Allowing for the use of genetically modified crops can enhance and support better yields. Enabled by the genetic selection of appropriate attributes, genetic selection can result in enhanced attributes for the management of diseases and opportunities. 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