HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-04-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FOOD (LABELLING—GENETICALLY MODIFIED PRODUCTS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (15:52): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Food Act 2001. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (15:52): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In 1996, I introduced a bill to require in South Australia the labelling of consumer products that contained either genetically modified material or food that had been irradiated. The argument of the then Liberal government was that we needed nationally consistent legislation. Some 12 years later, we are still waiting for that nationally consistent legislation. So, I hope that in the ensuing debate on this bill I will not hear that argument advanced again.

The state government, to its credit, has just indefinitely extended the moratorium on GM crops in South Australia. I understand the government's position is that the moratorium will continue unless there are 'compelling reasons' to lift it. Federal legislation spells out that the states can make their decisions on genetically modified crops and products only on the basis of markets. That means that the only compelling reason to lift the moratorium some time in the future could be proof that there is a market disadvantage to our farmers in being prevented from growing GM crops.

There may well be health reasons for not allowing the production of GM crops, but we in South Australia (and, for that matter, in other states) are prevented from taking these into consideration in our decision making. I think that that is unfortunate. However, given that we are constrained in our decision making to consider only the market, the question arises of how an assessment will be made.

Currently, we know that South Australian farmers are getting very good prices for their non-GM crops. Some have argued that this price is not related to their crop's non-GM status; rather, it simply indicates a supply shortage in drought conditions. As it appears that such conditions will be with us for quite a few years ahead, particularly with the world food shortages that are now apparent, it will be very difficult to assess the reasons for any price advantage that is occurring in South Australia.

So, how are we to measure the market advantage or disadvantage of not having GM crops in South Australia? It is interesting to know that Foodland has announced that its Home Brand products will be GM free; Goodman Fielder, which is the largest user of canola products in this country, has announced its intention to use non-GM products; and the Tatiara Meat Company has announced that it will stay GM free.

So the market itself is now providing us with the opportunity to be able to monitor market advantage or disadvantage. However, that opportunity will be limited without informed consumer choice. If labelling were to be required on all products containing GM material, that informed choice would be possible and sales could be monitored, allowing comparisons of foods that do and do not contain GM material.

I sit on the cross-bench, and I am here to help the government by providing in this bill a mechanism to assist the government in determining whether or not there is a market advantage. This legislation will require the labelling of products that contain genetically modified material. The consumer will the be able to check the labels and be able to make an informed choice.

Once labels begin to appear on food products, the consumer would be able to decide, effectively, for or against non-GM products and the government would be able to seek information from retailers about the sales of comparative products, and farmers would also experience either an increase or decrease in demand for their non-GM crops.

It is possible, in passing legislation such as this, that we could see a challenge based on the Australian Constitution and the section on free trade in regard to labelling. I am aware that in the 1980s something similar happened in regard to our container deposit legislation, and we as a state managed to withstand that.

We now see that products in the container deposit field that are nationally produced have labels on them so that they apply to South Australia, advising that, if the product is sold in South Australia, there is a 5 cent deposit on it. Of course, in the other states, where there is not that legislation in place, it simply does not apply. So, effectively, the same thing could happen with the labelling of foods that contain GM.

The implementation of this bill would assist the government by providing the information it requires about market advantage or disadvantage, and it is the only real way of finding out. From my perspective, we have waited more than 12 years, with no sign of any advances, for nationally consistent legislation on the labelling of GM foods.

We have gone out on our own on container deposits. Last week, the Minister for Environment and Conservation announced that we will go it alone on plastic bags. So, I am saying that we should make it a trifecta and go it alone now on GM labelling and maybe we will be able to bring some other states, such as Western Australia and Tasmania, along with us.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. B.V. Finnigan.

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