HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-10-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

GENE TECHNOLOGY (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 October 2008. Page 288.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (22:30): I rise to indicate the opposition's support for this bill, which enacts the national regulatory regime agreed by the Gene Technology Ministerial Council in 2006. The corresponding commonwealth act took effect on 1 July 2007, and I understand that all other states (bar Western Australia and South Australia) passed the corresponding legislation.

In that regard I note the government's desire for this legislation to be passed post haste, which we consider to be hypocritical considering that all other states have passed similar legislation but we are only now debating this bill. As with several other pieces of legislation, the tardiness of this government means we have to consider legislation with undue haste, which is dangerous and often leads to errors. However, that aside, the opposition does not take issue with this relatively straightforward piece of legislation. Primarily, the bill makes two amendments. The first relates to the emergency powers extended to the relevant government minister with respect to GMOs. These emergency powers give the federal minister the ability to expedite the approval to deal with GMOs. The example given by the government was that of the recent equine influenza epidemic. The federal minister exercised emergency powers in relation to the vaccine for the horse flu to allow the genetically modified vaccine to be used without delay.

Whilst the influenza, no doubt, had a large and adverse impact on the horse racing industry and other primary industries, the expeditious use of the genetically modified vaccine mitigated the impact of the outbreak. The opposition believes that these emergency powers agreed to by the ministerial council are appropriate and we, therefore, support them. The other key element of this bill is the streamlining of the licensing process for field trials of GM crops. As I understand it, anyone wishing to deal with a GMO must apply for a licence to do so and, as part of that licensing process, there is a risk assessment by the regulator and a requirement of public consultation, which includes allowing the public to make submissions to the regulator.

After consideration of the application and any submissions received as part of the public consultation, the regulator may then approve or reject the licence application. My colleagues have suggested that this process takes approximately 12 months from beginning to end. This bill aims to maintain that process with regard to commercial crops but truncate the process when dealing with field trial crops. It does so primarily by removing the initial public consultation requirements. Obviously, this is designed to assist the scientific development of GMOs, which is considered to be low-risk dealing, whilst still maintaining the process with regard to high-risk commercial crops. Again, the opposition supports these provisions which we regard as common sense.

There are several other minor amendments which the opposition also supports. As I said at the beginning, the opposition supports the bill, although we do regard this as yet another example of a government that cannot manage the state and cannot manage the parliament or its legislative program. There is no excuse for this tardiness; the government has had long enough to learn the ropes. Hasty legislation is not good government.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R.P. Wortley.

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