HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-03-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS MANAGEMENT (EXTENSION OF CONTROLS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 November 2007. Page 1485.)

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (16:19): The government opposes the bill. The commonwealth's Gene Technology Act 2000 established a national cooperative regulatory scheme for gene technology that seeks to protect the health and safety of people and to protect the environment by identifying risks posed by or as a result of gene technology and by managing those risks through regulating certain dealings with GMOs. The commonwealth Office of the Gene Technology Regulator manages the scheme.

In accordance with the commonwealth/state/territory regulatory framework, states and territories can regulate genetically modified crops where there are risks to markets and trade as these are not addressed as part of the national regulatory process. South Australia's Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004 gives effect to the government's commitment to regulate the cultivation of GM food crops in South Australia. Pursuant to this act the government proposes to designate the whole of South Australia as an area in which the cultivation of GM food crops is prohibited. The proposed regulations will take effect no later than 29 April 2008, which is when the current regulations that prohibit the cultivation of GM food crops in South Australia expire. Therefore, the Hon. Ms Kanck's bill, which seeks to extend the current moratorium for another five years, becomes redundant.

The government acknowledges the findings of the GM Crops Advisory Committee, which recommended the lifting of the current moratorium in South Australia, except on Kangaroo Island, but in reaching its position also considered a number of other significant market signals that has led it to believe that maintaining the status quo is the responsible course of action. These signals have included a statement by Foodland saying that it would ensure that all its home brand products are GM free, and a reaffirmation by Japanese meat importers that they want a guarantee that none of the meat products they purchase have come from cattle that have eaten GM grains.

Additionally, there is no immediate need to give the go-ahead for commercial cultivation of the GM canola varieties approved by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. Primary Industries and Resources SA has advised that the availability of the GM canola seed is likely to be limited, and consequently only a very small number of growers would have been able to access the seed developed by companies Monsanto and Bayer.

It is intended that a review of South Australia's position will occur when there is a compelling reason to do so, having regard to the Victorian and New South Wales experiences with the commercial cultivation of two of the OGTR-approved GM canola varieties. The benefits of the moratoriums in Western Australia and Tasmania will also be monitored. A public consultation period has now commenced and interested parties have the opportunity for further comment on the changes to the regulations in the act that will continue the current moratorium in South Australia.

I applaud the government and the Hon. Ms Kanck for adopting a precautionary approach to GM crops. There is insufficient research into the environmental and consumer safety impacts of GM products. I do not oppose the concept of GM crops per se, but the public and governments need to be more discriminating in deciding which genetic modifications should be supported.

The crucial thing to understand is that it is the trait that is important, not the mechanism used to introduce the gene that expresses that trait. I grow distinctly uneasy when a large multinational tries to extol the virtues of a crop designed to resist the application of weedicide, for example, especially when that very same company just happens to market that particular weedicide to which the crop is resistant.

The Hon. Sandra Kanck: You are cynical.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Some may say I am cynical: perhaps I am just a sceptic. I am not convinced that such applications are desirable compared to alternative practices that may be available. I am a strong supporter of GM technology, but I am also a strong advocate of rigorous and long-term scientific evaluation. To believe the claims of commercially-driven multinational companies—whose primary goal, after all, is to get a quick return on their investments—without independent evaluation would be extremely foolish.

Making the decision to extend the moratorium on GM crops for good, sound, market-based reasons has also given us the opportunity to extend the testing of these crops for environmental and consumer safety. Since the government's decisions in this area have essentially made the Hon. Sandra Kanck's bill redundant, we will not be supporting it.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J. Gazzola.

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