HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-02-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (16:02): Late last year the Victorian and New South Wales governments lifted their ban on growing GM crops, specifically, canola. Our government under the act was required to review the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act by April 2008. A committee with expertise and chaired by the Hon. Anne Levy was set up to conduct that review and brought down the following recommendations:

that the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004 be retained;

that the South Australian government endorse the NACMA Market Choice and Access Plan as a way of achieving the desired nationally consistent approach to market and trade issues;

that the cultivation of GM canola in South Australia, other than on Kangaroo Island, be permitted; and

that the cultivation of InVigor canola and Roundup Ready canola be prohibited on Kangaroo Island until 31 March 2010.

In other words, other than on Kangaroo Island, it recommended that the moratorium for the growing of GM canola in South Australia be lifted.

I want to know what act of utter lunacy caused the government late last week to spit in the face of the recommendations of its own committee. Is it aware of some—just some—of the ramifications of its decision? Is it aware that it may well have put the future of the Plant Genomics Centre at Waite Institute at risk? Why would sponsors put money into South Australia when Victoria is showing all the signs of encouraging, not discouraging, research? Why would a young plant scientist consider a future in South Australia when they can only do half a job? And can the government not see that research will now be concentrated on the southern and eastern states' climatic conditions rather than on the drought and salt-tolerant plants we so desperately need in South Australia?

This government speaks of market access and competitive advantage. There is none. There is not one cent of premium pricing for canola in South Australia, and that is the grain we are discussing. South Australia grows approximately 250,000 tonnes of canola per annum. Ten per cent is crushed in South Australia for biodiesel and the remaining 90 per cent is sent overseas to crushers that are already accommodating GM canola. Yet this government is arguing that the extension of the moratorium is on the ground of market advantage. I repeat: there is none. The government is prepared, therefore, to jeopardise our crop plants research for what is a figment of someone's imagination. More importantly, it has given no indication as to how it is going to enforce this moratorium extension now that Victoria, our nearest neighbour, has very sensibly lifted its moratorium.

Will there be roadblocks at the border to ensure that no farmer from the South-East gets a bag of seed from his neighbour in Victoria? Will a farmer who has half his farm on either side of an imaginary line be forced to grow our old redundant canola on half of his farm but be able to use the new technology on the Victorian side? Does this then prevent free trade between the states for grain or seed? Does it also mean that contract harvesters and carters who work across the border will no longer be able to do so? And, if they are able to, will they have to have certification? Who will carry out the inspections?

In spite of minister McEwen's press release suggesting an extension of two years to the moratorium, my information is that the intention is for this to go on for the duration of the life of the act; that is, 10 years. Further, no protocol has been put in place to assess South Australia's performance or markets against Victoria's. This decision will conservatively cost South Australian farmers $20 million per annum and put them behind their Victorian neighbours in the safe use of technology. It will risk our grain research and development industry and our future as modern farmers. I repeat: who in cabinet precipitated a decision that is unwarranted, ill considered, illogical and simply will not work?

Time expired.

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