HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS MANAGEMENT (RIGHT TO DAMAGES) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. M. PARNELL (19:48): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. M. PARNELL (19:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill is similar to a bill that I introduced about 1½ years ago, on 21 November 2007. At that stage it was part of a package of measures we were considering in this place which included moves to maintain the moratorium on the commercial growing of genetically modified crops in South Australia. As it turns out, this state kept that moratorium going. That was the right decision, but they were not so wise interstate, in particular in Victoria and New South Wales, and that provides real risks for South Australian farmers.

The bill that I have reintroduced has at its heart the question of responsibility and liability in relation to genetically modified crops. The question is: who is responsible when things go wrong? Who is responsible for losses that might be suffered as a result of the release and subsequent escape of genetically modified organisms into the environment? Those who support the growing of GM crops often raise the issue of free choice. They say that you should be free to grow genetically modified crops just as you should be free not to grow them if you choose not to. However, it is not that simple, because genetically modified material does not respect state boundaries and, certainly, it does not respect farm boundaries.

My bill deals with the freedom that our farmers have to redress if they do end up with genetically modified material on their land through no fault of their own. My bill provides that, if you do end up with your property contaminated with genetically modified material, you have the right to be compensated. So, in effect, it is the flip side of the freedom of choice argument that the pro GM advocates maintain.

The likelihood of genetically modified crops escaping from the place where they are grown and ending up elsewhere is high. In fact, it is close to a certainty. We know that a range of vectors spread plant material, whether genetically modified or otherwise. There is wind, we have water run-off, we have the action of pollinators and we have trucks which are carrying grain up and down our roads and which crisscross our porous state borders.

We can compare the situation of our state borders with the situation when you depart or arrive in Australia, where there are strict quarantine checks and controls. We do not have checks and controls at the state borders, and we know that there are farmers with property in both Victoria and South Australia who are likely to be growing genetically modified crops in Victoria and using the same equipment back in South Australia.

So, the question about compensation for loss is a very real one. The types of losses South Australian farmers might suffer include the loss of premiums they can attract to their clean, green organic crops when those crops become contaminated. Two years ago, I hosted a meeting in Parliament House of Japanese consumer organisations, and they came here to urge us to maintain our GM-free status. They represented millions of Japanese consumers who did not want to eat genetically modified crops.

There is a real risk that South Australian farmers will suffer and, unless we have law reform, there will be nowhere for them to turn. The question is: if they suffer some loss, for example, loss of a price premium through no fault of their own through the escape of genetically modified crops, who should be responsible? My bill provides that the responsible party will be the patent owner in that genetically modified material, and in practically all cases that means big multinational companies such as Monsanto and Bayer.

The alternative would be to try to make liable the farmer from whose land the genetically modified material escaped. I have not gone down that path for a number of reasons. First, it could well be impossible to determine from which Victorian or New South Wales farm the material originated. If we cannot determine exactly who is to blame, it would be unfair on farmers if they were wrongly blamed. More importantly, I do not seek to pit farmer against farmer. Farmers will do what they can and what they must to make a go of their business.

Liability should rest with those companies which are promoting genetically modified seeds and which are wealthy enough to pay compensation when things go wrong. Liability is an important part of the GM debate because it is an important part of the precautionary principle, which states that, when faced with uncertainty as to the outcomes, a precautionary approach might mean that you do not do it. Another way of looking at it is to say that, if you are going to do it—in this case grow GM crops—you should at least bear the risk of something going wrong and another party suffering loss.

The bill is very simple, with only three clauses. The main clause provides for a new section 27A in the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act of 2004, which basically provides that an action for damages lies against any person who has a proprietary interest in the genetically modified material which, in most cases, will mean big multinational corporations.

It is great that South Australia has kept the moratorium alive, but it is disappointing that our interstate colleagues have not. I had hoped that I would not need to bring this bill back to the council and, if our Victorian and New South Wales counterparts had kept the moratorium in place, we probably would not have needed this bill. They have allowed their farmers to go down the GM path. I want to ensure that South Australian farmers are protected.

In conclusion, I remind members of the forum that is being held in Parliament House tomorrow morning from 9.30am. Along with the Hon. David Winderlich, I am hosting two North American farmers, one from the United States and one from Canada, who have direct experience with genetically modified crops and the attitude of the big multinationals that effectively control them. North American farmers have suffered a severe reduction in their choice about how they farm, as a result of the introduction of genetically engineered crops.

Biotechnology companies such as Monsanto and Dupont own the majority of seed companies, and they have a vested interest in promoting their genetically engineered crops because it means that farmers can no longer save their seed. This means that there are greater profits for the seed selling companies. Therefore, these companies have withdrawn investment from improving conventional varieties, and these varieties are becoming increasingly difficult to buy. Some farmers are finding themselves locked into growing genetically engineered crops because no GE-free option is available. Contamination problems in North America are rife, which means that farmers can no longer get premiums for their GE-free product. In Canada, it is estimated that 90 per cent of conventional canola seed is now contaminated with genetically modified material.

All members will have the opportunity tomorrow morning from 9.30am in the Plaza Room to hear these North American farmers talk about their experiences, one of whom was sued by Monsanto. I think there are some important lessons for us to learn. With those words, I commend the bill to the council.

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

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