HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-05-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Genetically Modified Crops Management (Designated Area) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 April 2020.)

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (15:31): I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill. It feels like we have talked about genetically modified crops ad nauseam since well before Christmas, which is kind of ironic, given that the government's initial move was to try to rush legislation through, or in fact to make changes by regulation, thereby depriving the chamber and the parliament of making considered commentary, from having a debate and from actually coming to a conclusion that would assist those who would like to utilise the benefits of GM and yet allow those who see a benefit in remaining GM free to do so.

In the original bill, the government sought to make all of mainland South Australia available for genetically modified crops, but there are regions that see that they obtain a competitive advantage by remaining genetically modified crops free, GM free. Kangaroo Island, of course, has been acknowledged by the government as being one of those regions and therefore has been excluded from the bill—something which the opposition supports—but it is also important that those other regions that may wish to remain GM free, for good marketing reasons, for economic reasons, should have the opportunity to do so.

The opposition wanted local communities to be able to have a say, to be able to have input into whether their area was in fact to become available for GM crops or whether it would remain GM free. I am very glad that, despite the Premier describing such local input, such local involvement, as a stupid idea in months not that far past, the government has in fact come round to agreeing that it is a good idea to allow local communities to have a say. Therefore, the bill that we have before us represents an outcome of consultation—I acknowledge the hard work of the member for Giles, Mr Eddie Hughes—and compromise, so that we have a bill that is acceptable to many people.

Obviously, not everyone will be happy, but this bill represents an effective compromise, which allows local communities to have a say but still sees an outcome where broadacre farmers who want to access GM, particularly GM canola technology, can get what they want. Importantly, that will not be at the expense of communities in South Australia that do benefit from genetically modified free status. So, whilst the final decision will be with the minister, it is important that it has been acknowledged that those regions that need to have input and would like to have input will have an opportunity to potentially remain GM free.

We will have more to say in the committee stage, and of course there are a number of amendments—some of which the opposition supports and some which we do not. I will be able to make further commentary at that stage.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (15:34): South Australians are rightly proud of our international reputation as a clean, green, healthy place to live and to visit. Equally, we are proud of our reputation for producing clean, green, quality food. It is no wonder that so many South Australians, as well as a number of iconic South Australian food producers, are disheartened and dismayed that the Marshall Liberal government is intent on threatening this reputation by ruthlessly lifting the moratorium on growing genetically modified crops, no matter the cost.

They have made it very clear that they are more interested in putting the economic interests of the multinational agrochemical companies ahead of South Australian farmers. They are refusing to consider simple amendments to protect our farmers and the financial losses that they will incur once GM contamination of non-GM farms happens. Contamination is inevitable; it is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when.

It is absolutely appropriate that so many South Australians have been questioning the motives of this government and the Minister for Primary Industries over protecting foreign-owned big businesses at the expense of our own farmers. It is a question that I would like the government to answer as well. The original bill, as introduced into the House of Assembly, was identical to the bill that this council rejected last December. The current bill should have met the same fate and likely would have had it not been for the complete about-face by the Labor Party.

This is the same Labor Party that had been the architects and the champions of our state GM crops moratorium for 16 years. That was until two weeks ago. Under the leadership of Peter Malinauskas (member for Croydon) and opposition spokesperson for primary industries, Eddie Hughes (member for Giles), the Labor Party has sold out its own supporters—those who voted for them based on their election promise to retain the moratorium.

The Labor Party has also sold out our organic industries and non-GM farmers with their dirty deal to get the GM crops moratorium lifted without any of the protections, safeguards or avenues for compensation that non-GM and organic farmers and their representative bodies have been calling for. This behaviour is disgraceful.

What makes the Labor Party's sell-out even more ridiculous is that less than 48 hours after the deal was done and the amended bill had passed the lower house—so before the ink had even dried on the deal—the Minister for Primary Industries turned his back on the agreement with Labor and unilaterally lifted the moratorium again, via regulations, for a fourth time. Those regulations remain in force today and, again, the government has refused to table them in parliament because they are fearful of yet another disallowance motion.

So much for Labor's plan to allow local councils six months to consult and decide whether they would like to stay GM free. The moratorium is lifted, and it was lifted less than 48 hours after the deal was struck between Labor and the government. With the moratorium already lifted, once GM crops are planted, there is no going back. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you cannot put it back.

If the government had had the courage of its convictions to table the regulations today, and if this council was minded to disallow these regulations again, for a fourth time, tomorrow, then the minister would no doubt have put new regulations into the Gazette again on Thursday, as he has every other time that this council has disallowed the regulations.

The minister put out a media release saying that he will continue to ignore proper parliamentary processes and keep using regulations until he gets his way. This minister has no respect for our parliament, our democracy, or the people of South Australia. The frightening thing is that the minister's behaviour in this matter is a clear indication to me that he has no intention of approving any application from any local council that decides that they want to stay GM free. When the minister continually overrides the democratic decisions of this chamber to impose his own will and agenda on the state, then what chance does a local council have?

That is the first major problem with Labor's dodgy deal, that it was broken within 48 hours of being signed. The second flaw is that Labor has moved some inexplicable amendments that relate to experimental rather than commercial GM crops. They moved these amendments without so much as a word of explanation. There was nothing in Labor's second reading speech in the lower house. They were not explained when the amendments were moved in the committee stage in the lower house. They were not explained to the media, and they were not explained in the form letters sent to their constituents.

I am hoping that Labor has had a change of heart in relation to this because the Labor amendments inexplicably removed ministerial exemptions for experimental GM crops from the act. Just to be clear, they are not removing the ability for experimental GM crops, also known as GM crop trials, to be grown in South Australia, they are in fact doing the opposite of that. They are effectively vacating the field and removing all ministerial discretion and decision-making as well as public notifications through publication of crop trial information in the Government Gazette.

While deleting this power in the act, they have also gone one step further and allowed experimental GM crops to be grown without public knowledge or ministerial discretion on Kangaroo Island and also in any council areas that are subsequently declared GM free. In short, they have gone even further than the government in abandoning all South Australian autonomy over trials of GM crops that are not authorised for commercial release. I am hoping very much that Labor has seen the light in relation to that, but we will see when we get to the committee stage.

I will just briefly run through the sets of amendments to this bill that I have filed. The set of amendments [Parnell-2] relates to this issue. It arises from the Labor amendments that went through in the other house. My amendments Nos 1, 4 and 5 are related. As I have mentioned, the Labor amendments in the lower house that established new subsection (1a) in section 5 and new section 5A(8) enabled experimental GM crops, or crop trials, to be grown anywhere on Kangaroo Island and in designated GM free council areas without the current requirement for a ministerial exemption. Labor's amendment at section 7(2) removes the provisions in the current act for ministerial exemptions for experimental GM crops anywhere in South Australia.

The effect of these amendments is that there will be no requirement for any ministerial decision or public notification in South Australia if someone with a limited-scale GMO licence issued by the federal Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) decides to grow an experimental GM crop anywhere in South Australia. My amendments seek to go back to the status quo in relation to that issue. I am hopeful that the Labor Party, having had this explained to them, will join with the Greens in supporting that amendment.

Amendments Nos 2 and 3 in my set No. 2 relate to the decision-making in relation to remaining GM free. The government's bill simply provides that a local council can ask the minister for permission to stay GM free. These amendments ensure that the council, having consulted their community, will have the final say over whether or not they want to stay GM free. I think that actually puts into effect what the Labor Party said they were trying to achieve when they reached their agreement with the government.

The [Parnell-1] set of amendments starts by establishing a new part 3A in the act, 'Protection from contamination'. It establishes a process for contamination risk assessment that must be conducted by the minister when a person gives notice that they propose to cultivate a GM food crop. The assessment looks at the potential for contamination of other land by the proposed GM crop and the likely effect on the marketing of other non-GM crops.

The minister may then grant approval for the cultivation of the crop if they are satisfied that the proposed crop is not likely to have an adverse effect on the preservation, for marketing purposes, of the identity of other non-GM crops. In a subsequent year, if the minister has previously conducted a risk assessment for the same crop and land, they do not need to conduct another one, they can rely on the previous assessment and the minister must publish the location and type of GM crops being cultivated on a website.

The rationale behind this is that the commonwealth Gene Technology Act allows for the assessment and approval of licences for commercial release but it also allows states to designate areas—for example, mainland South Australia—for the purposes of preserving the identity of non-GM crops for marketing purposes. Where the current South Australian act allows for the designation of an area of the state as the only part of the state in which genetically modified crops of a specified class may be cultivated and that decision is made for marketing purposes, this amendment requires an assessment of the impact on marketing of individual crops in specific locations rather than on the entire class of GM crops.

Rather than looking at impacts across a broad area, this ensures that impacts are considered at a local level. The rationale is that some GM crops may have little impact on marketing of their non-GM counterparts but others are likely to have major impacts, so to make a blanket decision to allow all GM crops ignores the potential differences in market impacts from the different GM crops. That is entirely consistent with the regime under federal law which focuses on marketing as the rationale for declaring areas or parts of areas as GM free.

My amendment proposes a new clause 17D, which is the right to damages provisions, and is identical to the four previous private members' bills that I have brought into this place on a fairly regular basis since 2007. It provides that anyone who suffers loss as a result of GM contamination is entitled to damages against the patent owner of the GM plant material that has caused the contamination. My proposed clause 17E amends the current special protection provisions which are consequential on the above. Similarly, the new 7B which repeals section 27 is also consequential.

Before concluding, I wish to put a number of questions on the record for the minister to answer:

1. What consultation did the Marshall Liberal government undertake with the LGA or councils before supporting the Labor amendments in the other place?

2. Why did the government regazette the regulations to lift the moratorium across mainland South Australia while, at the same time, they were doing a deal with Labor to allow councils six months to consult and decide whether they wished to apply to remain GM free? Is it because they know that some farmers have already planted GM crops in reliance of these regulations?

3. How can a local council area remain GM free if the government is allowing GM crops to be planted before consultation even begins?

4. Why did the government support the deletion of ministerial exemptions for experimental GM crops from the act?

5. What offers, inducements, promises of investment or other incentives has the Marshall Liberal government, any of its ministers or any government bodies or agencies been offered by Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, or any other agrochemical corporation if the GM crops moratorium is lifted?

6. Why is the government refusing to support farmer protection measures? Are they protecting the interests of foreign-owned big businesses because they are fearful of a boycott or other retribution from agrochemical companies?

7. Why is the government ignoring the calls of important and iconic South Australian food producers, such as San Remo, Maggie Beer, BD Paris Creek Farms, Tucker's Natural, Jonny's Popcorn and others, to keep South Australia GM free?

8. Why is the government ignoring the concerns of South Australia's important and growing organic sector and their representative body, the NASAA Organic?

In conclusion, I believe that this Marshall Liberal government will be remembered as the government that took us down the path of no return. This is a path from which there is no turning back. It is a path that chooses agrochemical giants over South Australian farmers. It is a path that undermines healthy and natural organic foods and will lead to inevitable contamination of our non-GM and organic food industries. This will be the legacy of this Marshall Liberal government and it is not one that they can be proud of.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:49): I have already had a lot to say on this topic, particularly in the debate for my defeated bill in the last sitting week. I was cut short on commenting on this bill—and I acknowledge the President's direction in this—so I will just take over where I left off. SA-Best does support GMOs. We have said it all along: the benefits are there, the science is there, not just for cropping but also in areas of medicine. The introduction of this technology also presents greater opportunities for our world-class agricultural researchers and institutions.

In this world, gripped by the health uncertainty and challenges of COVID-19, we should be thankful we have the enormous biotechnology expertise available around the world that can be utilised in creating life-saving medicines and vaccines. I am sure this technology is being used in the urgent and complex task to find an antidote for the novel coronavirus that has virtually shut down the entire planet. It would be foolhardy to ignore a development that benefits humanity and our existence.

The science is proven when it comes to the ag sector and it continues to evolve with other crops that can be designed to be resistant to pesticides and herbicides. For now, the jury is very much still out on any indirect health consequences. If you look at clinical studies and trials of these types of crops, particularly in Third World countries like those on the African or South American continent, the benefits far outweigh the negatives.

As for this bill, it has won the support of the previously obstinate opposition, primarily with its amendments to give councils around the state a six-month period to opt in via an application to an advisory committee. This was declared patently stupid by the Premier and the primary industries minister, Tim Whetstone, back in December last year. Well, apparently, 'It is not stupid now,' the minister declared on radio a couple of weeks ago. I am scratching my head to see what has changed, apart from the minister's desire to get this done and dusted and get the numbers rather than see a crossbencher's bill get up before his. That is why I referred to it as the Forrest Gump GM bill—stupid is, stupid as, like Forrest declared.

This GM bill could create GM and non-GM zones within the state. Is there anywhere in the world where this happens? Although, in the end, it really will not be councils making the call; that responsibility has been solely given to the minister—by the minister himself, I might add, who signs off on it. Essentially, the state could eventually be totally GM, including Kangaroo Island, which under this legislation remains GM free and requires separate legislation. It also contains a Labor-inspired facility where the minister can approve trials of GM crops. The size and locations of these trials are not specified—lacking detail.

The Local Government Association has told me there was no consultation with its members by either Labor or the government. It remains totally in the dark on the details and who will bear the costs of community consultations. I can see it creating divisions in communities, particularly in the Adelaide Hills, Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island. Can you trust councils to represent the wishes of their communities when there are likely to be conflicts of interest from members who are also primary producers? How do you prevent cross-contamination being spread from GM to non-GM areas? What if a large rural holding in a GM council area also happens to sit or traverse into a non-GM council area?

What I particularly find disappointing is, despite the minister's mantra of giving farmers a choice, this bill does not actually give the choice or any rights to those who wish to remain GM free, whether they be organic producers or those who cultivate canola as a marketing advantage and are also able to get a premium price for it. I flag that we will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendments that give non-GM growers a right to civil remedies, in the event they suffer losses resulting from contamination, without the need to establish negligence.

We also have a clause that civil remedies will not be affected. Mr Parnell has attempted to have this provision inserted in previous GM debates and it mirrors a clause that was contained in my defeated bill providing safeguards and protections, although mine differed in that the affected farmer would be able to sue the patent rights holder of the GM seed for contamination.

This is contradictory of the government, which opposed this measure in its farm trespass bill, passed only in the last week of sitting, where primary producers were given the right to sue for any losses caused by unwanted intrusions, so what is the difference here? There are other manufacturing industries where their legal obligations are enshrined to provide protections. This bill serves the interests of the biotech chemical giants.

My amendments are taken from my defeated bill and include giving two months' notice to neighbours before seeding or cultivation of GM. There is a provision to provide at least a 10-metre buffer zone separating non-GM and GM crops. That may be unworkable and I may withdraw that section of the amendment at a later date. Another amendment effectively provides a sunset clause for Kangaroo Island, where its non-GM status can be reviewed by parliament around the time the existing moratorium would be lifted in 2025. The bill before us does not offer that.

I have consulted with some property owners on the island who support this, and today I took a call from Jamie Heinrich, who is vice chair of AgKI. Mr Heinrich informed me that there have been three recent community meetings on the island where there was strong support for the moratorium remaining in place but only until at least 2025, and leaving the door open for it to be lifted by parliament should other GM grazing crops that are currently being evaluated, like rye and clover grasses, became available down the track.

The farming community on the island wants the matter left in its hands and it is disappointed in the government's seemingly inflexible attitude, which leaves KI permanently GM free until yet another act of parliament is passed, with Mr Heinrich describing it as 'a kick in the guts'. AgKI has also sent a letter to minister Whetstone, expressing its bitter disappointment, and I will read from this letter and also seek leave to table it. It is dated 4 May 2020 and states:

Dear Minister Whetstone,

As you are aware our local $150m industry is the largest on the island and we are the major employers, our members represent the vast majority of local primary producers.

The recent developments in parliament regarding the GM bill are quite concerning given all the time and effort we contributed into the Grain Producers SA hearing in Parndana (15/03/2019) and the Legislative Council select committee hearing in Kingscote (28/03/2019).

We clearly indicated our support for KI Pure Grains' desire to remain GM free in the near future, however, we also clearly stated we did not want to be precluded from having access to GM technology that may advantage the remaining 95 per cent of KI primary producers when it comes available.

During the GPSA meeting we discussed legislation versus regulation and setting up the bill such that we can relatively easily allow GM technology to be utilised at such time when all of the sustainability, management and production advantages outweigh the marketing advantages possibly gained by a small component of our entire industry. We are extremely disappointed that this is not reflected in the current bill.

Furthermore, the same views resulted, the importance of the need to retain the sunset clause, at a public meeting (organised by the government, facilitated by PIRSA) on 19/09/2019.

It is our understanding that amendment 6 will remove clause 6 from the Government's bill. This effectively means KI will be permanently GM free until another act of parliament is passed. This means we lose control of our own destiny, exactly the opposite to what we fed back through the local hearings.

We have a relatively young and very progressive membership base who will want access to any future 'game-changing' technology that becomes available. We are concerned with this long…phase between actually wanting policy change, and actually achieving it once this bill is locked away—this is our opportunity to get it right the first time!

And he goes on:

If you would like to discuss our views and concerns regarding GM, please contact me direct...

Yours sincerely,

Rick Morris

Chairperson

I am not sure whether the minister has even responded to that. I seek leave to table the letter.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: In closing, I am also calling for a review of the act by the minister every three years, an amendment I moved and which the government agreed to when its bill failed late last year. With that, SA-Best supports the second reading.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (16:00): I rise as a former farmer and, sadly, there are not a great deal of us with primary production experience. I know the minister, who will sum up this debate, is one of those. I understand that our newest member of this chamber also has some experience in the primary production sector. It may not be the growing of grain, but I acknowledge her experience in that area as well.

I rise to support this legislation. I would like initially to note that, while there may be people here who highlight the things that this bill does not do, that it does not satisfy everybody, I think this bill and the negotiations that are taking place between minister Whetstone and the opposition's primary industry spokesman, the member for Giles, have been a very good example of what can be done to get the best possible result for, let's face it, the people who are actually the practitioners out there, who are growing the grain in South Australia, who have been very good at it and want the ability to be able to do that into the future. So I give credit to minister Whetstone and Mr Hughes for the way they have worked.

I know the member for Giles has been working away over many months to try to get the Labor Party to see that this is the way forward for South Australia. I know there are some significant agitators in the Labor Party who are dead against this, but I give credit to Mr Hughes for the way he has worked not only with members of the select committee going back a number of months ago, which I was one of, but also particularly in relation to the minister. Of course, the minister has been prepared, I think in consultation with the broad representatives of industry, to come up with some sensible compromise, so I give him credit for that.

I did spend a number of months, probably longer than that, on the select committee into that issue that was initiated by the Hon. Mr Darley as part of the arrangement that I think he came to with the Hon. Mr Parnell at the death knock of the previous parliament. I give credit to the Hon. Mr Darley as chairman of the committee and the Hon. Mr Parnell and the Hon. Ms Bourke for the way in which we all worked together to get the best information.

I did speak on the report of that committee, and I will repeat a few of the things that I said on that occasion. Firstly, I said on 30 October 2019:

I very much support the position that the Hon. Mr Darley and I reached, that the moratorium be retained for Kangaroo Island but lifted for the rest of South Australia. I do that on the basis that, in an overwhelming manner I think, there was evidence that reinforced my view that the farming sector in South Australia, which is highly regarded around the world and has been for decades, deserves the opportunity to have the choice of growing genetically modified crops within their rotation schedule.

It is something that happens everywhere else in Australia.

If we go a bit further down in what I said on that occasion, I will quote again from that speech:

We had evidence of where some of the leading researchers in this state, who would have been the natural beneficiaries of money from the grain sector in doing further research, missed out on the tender and the tender was given to a university in Victoria. That university in Victoria then handed the tender back to the South Australian researchers on the proviso that they had to do the work in the Wimmera of Victoria. If that is not bizarre, then I do not know what is. In my time as a person involved in the farming sector, the quality of our research here and the terrific development in varieties suitable to our climate has been highly regarded around the world and has been taken up in other parts of the world. We need to do everything we can to make sure that that research capacity is enhanced and that we do not lose those people from South Australia.

I also want to highlight one of the key things, I think, in the evidence we took in that committee, which was about the industry's, and particularly the grain handling sector's, ability to deal with segregation.

As someone who has been around the grain industry most of my life, the ability to have advanced scientific segregation regimes is one that I am so impressed with, because it has come so far from my early days as a grain grower. Yes, we hear about the fears of people growing things next to other people and contaminating things, but the great majority of people who farm respect their neighbours and actually work with their neighbours.

I think I remember minister Whetstone himself quoting the fact that—not that this was grain, but in the horticultural industry—in the neighbouring property he had an organic farmer who had different principles and practices to his own, but they respected each other and they got on and excelled in their own particular ways. That is the way that most farmers do it. It is a little bit like neighbours: yes, there are neighbourly disputes, but the great majority of people respect each other and get on with it. The basis of this legislation is working to actually make use of that attitude, I think.

Once again, I think it is time for us to get on with it. It has been a very long saga. South Australia has been left out on its own in Australian agricultural terms. We have shown and we have demonstrated for decades our ability to be leaders in the agricultural sector, and I think it is time that we respected that.

In closing, the Hon. Mr Parnell, whom I have great respect for, even though we have very different views on this matter, talked about the legacy of this government in relation to this matter. I think it will be a proud legacy. There has been reference today to some very well educated young farmers who want to advance the economy of this state, and this legislation will allow them to do so. With those remarks, I support the second reading.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Minister for Trade and Investment) (16:10): I rise to speak on behalf of the government to sum up the second reading debate on this very important piece of legislation. As I enter my 19th year here, in every one of those 19 years we have discussed GM to some degree. In the precursor to the decisions made, I think in 2004 by minister McEwen at the time—I think that is when it was—this has certainly been a well ventilated debate for the best part of two decades.

It is interesting how views change, and I am pleased to see that we now have some agreement between the two major parties. I know that comes as a disappointment to the Hon. Mark Parnell and his team. He has been a strong advocate for a point of view that I, as with my colleague the Hon. John Dawkins, do not agree with; nonetheless, I recognise his strong advocacy for his position.

I thank everybody for their contributions, including the Hon. Clare Scriven, the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the Hon. John Dawkins. I do not want to prolong the debate and go over too many old issues, but the Hon. Mark Parnell posed a number of questions and the minister's office has provided me with some answers, so I will now read them onto the record.

In his first question, which was not a formal one, the Hon. Mark Parnell talked about multinationals. This makes me laugh because, for example, if you drive a Toyota, are you supporting a multinational? Of course you are; it is a good car and they are good supporters. Mitsubishi are starting to build their new corporate headquarters; they are a multinational and we support them. However, we have a choice: the choice to buy whatever motor vehicle we would like to buy.

The basis of this debate, from my perspective and that of the Liberal Party, is to give farmers a choice. That is something that has been missing from this debate. Four other mainland states—Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia—have allowed it, and the farmers there have had those choices.

I will just address some of the Hon. Mr Parnell's questions, and there may be some other answers coming, so I may have the full suite. I have a few notes of my own. The first question was: what consultation did the government undertake with local government authorities on the ALP amendments? The government consulted widely on the original bill introduced into the House of Assembly. Of course, there was the independent expert review by Emeritus Professor Kym Anderson, and submissions in response to the Anderson review findings and statutory public consultation on the regulations.

The amendments providing councils with an opportunity to apply to be a non-GM cultivation area are as a negotiated outcome to enable the bill to pass the parliament. Ultimately, the parliament has the final say on this legislation. I will comment in relation to local government. The Hon. Frank Pangallo talked about consultation with local government and asked whether it had been done. He then went on to talk about conflicts of interests, because you might have farmers and primary producers who are also councillors.

As I said, this debate has been raging for almost two decades. If you are a primary producer on a council, you would have to be totally disengaged with the community to not know there has been a debate on GM crops. I think councils have been well aware of it. Secondly, the Hon. Mr Parnell asked: why regazette the GM regulations while negotiating with the ALP? The government has previously explained that we would be re-regulating to lift the moratorium while the bill remains before parliament. This would be done to provide farmers with certainty.

It is the government's understanding that no commercial crops have been sown or seed released into South Australia given the uncertainty of the status of the bill. I am a bit disappointed that the Hon. Mark Parnell would think that any of our primary producers would break the law and sow a crop if they did not have the approval to so.

Thirdly, the Hon. Mark Parnell asked: how could council areas be GM free if crops were grown under the regulations? If the bill passes in the parliament, councils will be able to apply to be a non-GM crop cultivation area and it would be unlawful for a person to cultivate GM food crops. It is the government's understanding that seed companies will not release GM seeds into South Australia until the parliament resolves the legislation.

Fourthly: why did the government support the lifting of the ministerial exemption for research and development? The government agreed with the opposition proposal to allow the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator to allow licensed research to be undertaken in areas that are non-GM crop growing areas, including Kangaroo Island. The understanding was that the opposition did not want to support commercial crop cultivation. There was agreement that research should be supported. The proposed removal of the existing requirement for ministerial exemption for GM science was a consequential amendment resulting from the addition of specific provisions to proposed sections 5(1a) and 5A(8), enabling science to be undertaken.

I will just look at this latest document that has arrived. It may have some more answers as well. What incentives are there for Monsanto or other seed companies? None. I think the honourable member could consult the electoral returns to see any donations and the like that have come from anybody, but none that we are aware of have come from Monsanto. Why does the government not support farmer protection measures? Is it a fear of boycott or other action? The government does not support the Parnell so-called protection measure amendments and does not support the similar measures in the former bill introduced by the Hon. Frank Pangallo because they have not been widely consulted and are untested and likely unworkable.

Nowhere else in Australia have such provisions been introduced. Such provisions create untested legal principles and significant uncertainty for industry, which would likely prevent the adoption of new crop technologies in South Australia. The Anderson report demonstrated that there is no issue across the rest of South Australia with GM grain segregation. As a result, the government does not believe such measures are needed and, worse, the proposals may cause harm to South Australia's economy.

Seven: why not support food businesses seeking to remain GM free? The Anderson report found that there was no economic benefit and no special premium to be gained for businesses arising from the SA moratorium. Food businesses will be able to market honestly their products that are GM free, where that is the truth.

I do recall the honourable member mentioning Jonny's Popcorn in a previous contribution. While I know that we grow forage maize for some dairies around Meningie, the lakes and Mount Gambier, I am still not certain that we grow the corn that you pop in South Australia. I did ask the honourable member at the time. I know Jonny and Mrs Jonny, his lovely wife; I cannot remember her name. It is magnificent popcorn. In fact, they were with me at FOODEX in Japan a bit over 12 months ago. It is a fabulous product, but I am not sure that the actual corn itself is grown here.

Why is the government turning its back on the organics sector? The organics sector thrives in other states alongside GM producers. That is right. Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland have very large and lucrative organic industries where people have still been able to have their organic products, growing them alongside GM crops and marketing them as organic. I think that has pretty much covered all the questions the honourable member asked. I thank everybody who has made a contribution. For the record, so there are no surprises, the government will be supporting three of the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendments in his set No. 2, which are amendment No. 1, amendment No. 4 and amendment No. 5.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I might say at clause 1, in response to something the Hon. David Ridgway said in his summing-up—and it relates to the question I am about to ask him—that I was not suggesting that farmers had broken the law. In fact, the point was the opposite. The thing is that it has been legal to grow GM crops at most times since 1 January this year, and that is as a result of the regulations the government has continually introduced.

So if a farmer had planted a GM crop during the period when those regulations were live, they would not have broken the law. Mind you, they may have broken the law very briefly in the 24 hours or so between a Wednesday afternoon, when this chamber disallows regulations, and a Thursday afternoon, when the Government Gazette comes out, but I want to correct the record that I was not suggesting wholesale law breach by farmers.

The minister did allude, in summary—I do not want to verbal him; I would have him answer this question again. The question was whether anyone has planted any GM crops or otherwise dealt with GM material during any of the last five months since 1 January when the moratorium was first lifted by regulation. I think the minister said that he was not aware of any, but if he could again put on the record his understanding about whether any of the previously unlawful dealings with GM material have occurred in South Australia during the period that the moratorium has been lifted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I will reiterate that I am not aware of any crops being sown. Of course, this debate has been well ventilated all summer, with regulations being disallowed, and the honourable member would know that we are talking about canola, which grows best when it rains. While you can sow it dry in April, nobody much would sow anything at all at least into April, even if they are sowing it dry.

This year we have had great opening rains for our agricultural sector—in fact, it was probably one of the best openings to the season in a long time. I do not know how long it has been, but it has been particularly good. I doubt whether anybody would have sown any crops at all prior to the beginning of April. It has been disallowed and reintroduced and disallowed—it has been well ventilated.

My understanding is that the seed companies were not prepared to sell, or so I am told. The advice I have had from others is that, even if you wanted to be sneaky and grow some canola, the seed companies simply would not sell it to you. While the honourable member might say that they are big, nasty multinationals, they actually do want to make sure, as we said in the answers from the minister's office, that they have some clarity that parliament has passed legislation to allow crops to be grown, or that the regulations are in place to allow crops to be grown. I cannot speak for every primary producer, but as far as we are aware nothing has been sown this season.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for his answer. He says to the best of his knowledge, and I accept what the minister says, but the question that flows from that is: how would you know whether or not crops have been planted in the past? Let's look forward: if the moratorium is lifted by this bill before us, how will the government know who is planting GM crops, and where?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Once this act comes into operation and part of the state is able to grow a GM crop, it is really about choice. Farmers will be able to sow the crops. Having been a farmer myself, I know that most farmers have a level of interest. You look over the fence and see what people are growing. I expect there will be some trials. My little home village of Wolseley has a very robust agricultural bureau. There will be trials done. There will be all sorts of things done. People will talk. So while we might know about it, the community will know about it and they have nothing to fear.

As you remember, I took the Hon. Tung Ngo to the South Australian-Victorian border where there were canola crops either side of the fence. I do not know whether the Victorian one was GM canola because it is pretty hard unless you are a plant geneticist to tell whether it is actually GM canola or not. The Victorian farmer is Mr Ian Tink, if he still owns that property, and Mr Jamie Edwards is on the South Australian side. Jamie does not want GM. I can guarantee that his crop was a non-GM crop. Mr Tink may well have been growing GM canola. Across the border fence, both people were able to grow their crop and market them and harvest them very satisfactorily and independently of each other.

I do not think there is a need for us as a government to know what people are doing. That is the responsibility of the local farmers. But communities do talk and people like to share when they have had a successful crop. Everyone likes to brag at the footy or at the cricket or at the pub on a Friday night or at the local clearing sale about what they did and how they did it and why it was successful. I actually think there is no need for government to know what people are doing but there will be reasonable transfer of information around the community.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I guess what flows from that is that if the government does not know which people are planting GM crops and where, and if you do not happen to live in that community and are talking personally to those farmers, once this act has come into place the community will have no idea what GM crops are being planted where. I guess what I am trying to work out is, aside from returns from the silo, perhaps, at the harvest end of the cycle, is there any mechanism at all for anyone—government or other citizen—other than the good neighbour in us that you have talked about and that the Hon. John Dawkins talked about, is there any other way that anyone in South Australia can find out who is growing GM crops and where?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have a little bit more information. They will be under a stewardship program by the seed supplier, so there will be some arrangement with the seed supplier. Of course, when you deliver that GM grain to a silo, whether it is Viterra or any other receiver, there is an obligation. From a segregation point of view, you must declare that it is GM canola because the penalties are massive if you do not make that declaration and you knowingly tip GM canola in with existing non-GM canola. So there is some traceability at that point.

If I choose to plant it, I will enter a stewardship agreement with my seed supplier and so there will be some undertakings. I am not entirely familiar with those stewardship agreements so maybe we could provide the honourable member with a copy of one of those stewardship agreements just to give him a little comfort of what multinationals—I will not put any other adjectives—supply, so that we can actually see the sort of relationship between the seed supplier and the farmer. Then, of course, there is an obligation on the farmer to actually truthfully label and deliver their grain to a silo or to an end user clearly stipulating what variety and that it is GM canola.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 4 passed.

New clause 4A.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 3, after line 10—Insert:

4A—Insertion of section 4A

After section 4 insert:

4A—Civil remedies not affected

The provisions of this Act do not limit or derogate from any civil right or remedy and compliance with this Act does not necessarily indicate that a common law duty of care has been satisfied.

This clause is to make it clear that civil remedies are not limited or derogated from any civil right or remedy that is available and that compliance with this act does not mean that a common law duty of care has been satisfied. So unless the Greens' amendments providing for a right to pursue damages against the GM patent holder are passed, I would expect that the government's bill will give rise to a lot of litigation between non-GM farmers whose land will be impacted by neighbouring GM crops.

My bill that failed in this place in the last sitting week was designed to avoid such adversarial and expensive litigation, making the defendants in these cases the patent owner, the GM licence holder for the GM canola seed and the owner of the GM technology and intellectual property. My bill did not set farmer against farmer or, as some incorrectly claimed, farmer against seed merchant. It gave rights in the same way as the Greens' amendment does, that is, it gave some rights to a non-GM farmer to protect their interests and claim for damage and loss without the need for the highly stressful and costly process of showing negligence.

This clause also puts the non-GM (and for that matter, the GM) crop grower in no doubt that the usual common law civil remedies are still available to them. This is less than ideal of course, but nevertheless it provides some comfort to non-GM farmers to know that this option is available to them. As I have said throughout this troubled debate, SA-Best supports all farmers and does not want to set farmer against farmer, but rather to ensure that adequate protections, checks and balances are available to GM and non-GM farmers alike, so that they can coexist and each seek to maximise the economic returns for themselves and the state.

What we have seen from this government is the sheer hypocrisy of it pushing through a primary production farm trespass bill, which had astonishing provisions for a convicted defendant to be liable to primary producers for unlimited compensation. Here we have in this government bill non-GM farmers having to fund and sue their neighbours for the trespass of GM seed, which is farmed under contract with the GM patent holder, which prescribes strict conditions on the farm with regard to chemicals they must use and other directives with which they must comply.

In reality, non-GM farmers know that under this government bill they will have almost no prospects of compensation for contamination of their crops and land. I never cease to be amazed at the double standards this government applies, focusing on political popularity rather than fair and balanced laws.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens are supporting this amendment.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the government will not be supporting the amendment. It is interesting, if you look at the other states, by and large farmers can get on with farming alongside each other. There have been a couple of isolated incidents, although the Hon. Mark Parnell talked to one farmer late last sitting week where the canola jumped up and flattened the fence (it was probably not the canola but probably the rain and the flood that did that). If you look at all the consultation, the review, the consultation with farmers, GPSA, and look at all of the other states, we do not think this is necessary at all, and we can manage it with segregation and the way it has been managed in every other state.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The opposition will not be supporting this amendment.

New clause negatived.

Clause 5.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Parnell–2]—

Page 3, lines 15 to 19 [clause 5, inserted subsection (1a)]—Delete inserted subsection (1a)

I explained in my second reading contribution why amendments in [Parnell–2], amendments Nos 1, 4 and 5, were necessary in order to allow the state to re-enter the field as it were in relation to experimental non-approved for commercial release GM crops. One of the consequences of the deal that was struck in the lower house was to remove those provisions. My amendments seek to put them back in, but using the principle of 'quit while you're ahead', given that both the government and the opposition have agreed to support my amendments Nos 1, 4 and 5, I do not think I need to agitate those any further.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Just for the record, I will reiterate in the committee stage that, yes, the government will be supporting [Parnell–2], amendments Nos 1, 4 and 5.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I confirm that the opposition will be supporting those three amendments that the government has just referred to.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Parnell–2]—

Page 3, line 25 [clause 6, inserted section 5A(1)]—Delete 'may' and substitute 'must'

Amendment No 3 [Parnell–2]—

Page 3, lines 33 to 35 [clause 6, inserted section 5A(3)]—Delete subsection (3)

Amendment No. 2 [Parnell–2] has the simple effect of allowing local councils to have the final say in relation to whether or not the moratorium is lifted in their area. The deal that was struck between the government and the opposition was that a local council could consult with its constituents, and if its constituents wanted to stay GM free the best that that council could then do is get down on its knees and ask the minister to please give effect to that decision.

This amendment seeks to give the council the final say by replacing the words 'the minister may' to 'the minister must'. So if the council decides that they want to stay GM free, then that is what happens, rather than having to go through the process of the minister considering it, the minister getting further advice and, my fear would be, the minister then rejecting what local councils want.

I saw this amendment as giving effect to what the Labor Party said they wanted to do, which was to empower local communities in relation to this issue. I understand that it does not have the support of the government or the opposition. Nevertheless, I think it is important because the consequence might be that local councils go to all the trouble of consulting their community, at their own expense I should say.

The government is not pitching anything in here. No surprise to people, but councils have a few other things on their plate at the moment. There is a pandemic out there, there is a whole range of council services that they are trying to rejig, so this idea that the council at their own expense has to reprioritise its work, it only has six months to consult, and then they can be overridden at the end of that time, I think is an unsatisfactory way to proceed. So I would urge the committee to support this amendment and the related following amendments.

Amendment No. 4 is a different category again, and that does have the support of the council so I will not move that just yet. In order to prevent a division, I do need people to put their position on the record just to be really clear.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate the government will not be supporting the amendment. I will look at the scenario of my council, the Mitcham council, which the Waite research facility is in. It is something that I think we should be extremely proud of, with a century or more of research around agriculture. It could be a scenario where, if we supported the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendments here, it would mean that the Mitcham council could be a significant over the research that is done at the Waite Research Institute, unless they got a ministerial exemption. It is fine that the honourable member is talking about some of his amendments in a broader sense, but that is a world-class research facility that needs to operate unfettered from any sort of political influence, so we certainly will not be supporting the honourable member's amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The opposition, similarly, will not be supporting this amendment. The reality is that not all councils want to have that final say. They do not necessarily want to be the decision-maker. They are happy to be involved in checking the views of their constituency and making recommendations but not necessarily being that final decision-maker. They also should have the ability to provide input but not necessarily take that full decision, given that different council areas, different council sizes and all of those different characteristics mean that councils are differently placed in terms of this particular matter.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Regrettably, I will not be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment here, simply because, as I have pointed out in my speech, there could well be instances of conflict of interest on councils. If you leave it to them, you have many regional councils where many of the members are also farmers. I do not think it should be up to the councils to make that call.

I do share the Hon. Mark Parnell's concerns about the cost shifting again on local government and the fact that the minister and the government, even Labor, failed to consult with local government on this. It has just been foisted upon them to do what the government and this legislation will impose upon them. With that, we will not be supporting it.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Parnell–2]—

Clause 6, page 4, lines 9 to 13 [clause 6, inserted section 5A(8)]—Delete subsection (8)

This does have the support of the council and I look forward to the vote on that.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: We are supporting amendments Nos 4 and 5 of the Hon. Mark Parnell.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The opposition is supporting this amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will be supporting it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Parnell–2]—

Clause 7, page 4, line 33 [clause 7(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

This also has the support of the council.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The government will support it.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Supported.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clauses 7A, 7B and 7C.

The CHAIR: There are amendments in the name of the Hon. Mr Pangallo and the Hon. Mr Parnell to insert new clauses 7A through to 7C. Due to the sequence of where the amendments fall within the principal act, I intend to, when we are voting, split the amendments. The Hon. Mr Pangallo, would you like to speak to your amendment first?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 4, after line 33—Insert:

7A—Insertion of section 7A

After section 7 insert:

7A—Expiry of Part

This Part expires on 1 September 2025.

7B—Insertion of section 27A

After section 27 insert:

27A—Crop requirements

(1) A person who proposes to cultivate a genetically modified food crop on land (the relevant land) must, at least 60 days before cultivating the genetically modified food crop, give notice of the proposal to each owner of land adjacent to the relevant land.

(2) A person who cultivates a genetically modified food crop on land (the relevant land) must, at least 60 days before harvesting the genetically modified food crop, give notice of the harvesting to each owner of land adjacent to the relevant land.

(3) A person who proposes to cultivate a genetically modified food crop must ensure that a buffer zone of at least 10 metres exists between the boundary of the genetically modified food crops and the boundary of crops that are not genetically modified food crops.

7C—Substitution of section 29

Section 29—delete the section and substitute:

29—Review of Act

(1) The Minister must, within the last year of each prescribed period, undertake a review of the operation of this Act.

(2) The Minister must cause a report on the outcome of the review to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament within 12 sitting days after its completion.

(3) In this section—

prescribed period means—

(a) the period ending 3 years after the commencement of this section; and

(b) each successive period of 3 years after the period specified in paragraph (a).

The first of these provisions is to ensure that this part expires on 1 September 2025. This means that the moratorium on Kangaroo Island expires on this date and for that to continue it will need to come back to the parliament. As I have pointed out and I read in that letter, there are many on Kangaroo Island who would prefer to see at least an end date on the moratorium on Kangaroo Island. I am mindful that the Greens' bill put in place the moratorium until 2025 only.

This clause is to mirror this, as well as to acknowledge that in 2025, after the moratorium on the mainland has been lifted for a period of five years and the three-year review report is in, there will be an opportunity to continue the moratorium, or in fact even to modify it. Either way, the process is transparent and done by legislation, not by regulation. As I have said many, many times, this is the proper way to deal with this issue. It is interesting that the government's bill has come along to try to remove this safeguard.

As we have seen, this government often operates by stealth and here is another example where it can allow experimental GM crops on Kangaroo Island. There has been no mention of this that I can find, but allowing experimental crops on Kangaroo Island is not what we understand to be a continuing moratorium. The second part of these provisions is what I would call normal good neighbour practices, but we will come to that afterwards.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the government will not be supporting the Hon. Frank Pangallo's amendment; however, I do put on the record that the government will continue to work with the Kangaroo Island farmers. I think it is not only Kangaroo Island, there is a large number of very progressive young farmers farming right across South Australia.

The government intends to continue to work with the farming community on Kangaroo Island and the rest of the state as we go through this journey now that it looks as though we will no longer have a GM moratorium in South Australia. I indicate that we are very happy to work with those sectors but we will not be supporting the amendment moved by the Hon. Frank Pangallo.

The CHAIR: We are only looking at 7A at the moment. The Hon. Ms Scriven, can you please give an indication, on behalf of the opposition, on 7A?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Certainly. The opposition will not be supporting the Hon. Mr Pangallo's amendment. Our view is that a moratorium continuing on Kangaroo Island is the intent of this bill, and having an automatic expiry whereby the new legislation would need to come back to extend that moratorium is not in the intent as it stands at the moment. Any member can introduce legislation to remove a moratorium at any time, including in 2025 or before that; therefore, this amendment will not be supported.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: In some ways, the Greens' position is similar. We have been very consistent, from the time we first started this debate, in saying that important things should not happen just because the calendar clicks over. Important things should happen because the parliament makes a decision to change something. In this situation, we have the moratorium on the growing of GM crops on Kangaroo Island and I think it should continue until the parliament decides otherwise, rather than just because 1 September comes around. I take the Hon. Frank Pangallo's point; I think that was the original date we put in the legislation that went through the last parliament—

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: At the last minute.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: It went through the last parliament. It was democracy in action.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I guess the reason for that is because that is what the parliament agreed to do, but if the Hon. John Dawkins and others remember, we had a situation where the statewide moratorium was going to expire simply because the calendar rolled around and the 10-year death knell on regulations was coming up.

That was the reason why the whole legislative thing was done. If no-one had done anything and not a single person lifted a single finger, the moratorium would have ended because the regulations expired. This is probably not the point at which to have an argument because we are in furious agreement—

The CHAIR: Thank you, the Hon. Mr Parnell.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: —that the parliament should decide if and when the moratorium is lifted on Kangaroo Island.

The CHAIR: I put the question that the amendment in the name of the Hon. Mr Pangallo, clause 7A, is proposed to be inserted. Those for the question say aye. The Hon. Mr Pangallo, do you want to vote for your own amendment?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: No.

The Hon. F. Pangallo's new clause 7A negatived.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Parnell–1]—

New clauses, page 4, after line 33—Insert:

7A—Insertion of Part 3A

After section 17 insert:

Part 3A—Protection from contamination

17A—Interpretation

In this Part—

contamination—land is contaminated by genetically modified plant material if—

(a) genetically modified plant material is present on the land; and

(b) the existence of the material on the land is attributable to the spread, dissemination or persistence of the material; and

(c) the original introduction of such material to the land was not knowingly undertaken by or on behalf of any person who is, or who has been, an owner or occupier of the land;

genetically modified plant material means—

(a) a plant or propagating material that is a GMO, or that is derived or produced from a GMO; or

(b) a GMO that is capable of modifying a plant or propagating material;

propagating material means seed or other material from which a plant can be propagated.

17B—Contamination risk assessments

(1) A person must not cultivate a genetically modified food crop unless the person has—

(a) given notice in writing to the Minister—

(i) identifying the land on which the crop is to be cultivated; and

(ii) identifying the crop that is to be cultivated; and

(iii) including any other prescribed particulars; and

(b) received an approval following a contamination risk assessment under this section.

Maximum penalty: $200,000.

(2) Subject to subsection (5), the Minister must, on receiving a notification under subsection (1)(a), conduct a contamination risk assessment to consider—

(a) the likelihood of contamination of other land by the genetically modified plant material; and

(b) the likely effect of such contamination on the marketing of other, non-genetically modified, food crops.

(3) In conducting a contamination risk assessment, the Minister—

(a) may require further information from the person who gave the notice under subsection (1)(a); and

(b) must consult with the Advisory Committee and take into account any advice provided by the Advisory Committee in relation to the matter.

(4) If the Minister is satisfied that the proposed genetically modified food crop is not likely to have an adverse effect on the preservation, for marketing purposes, of the identity of any other food crops in the State as non-genetically modified crops, the Minister may grant an approval for the purposes of this section.

(5) If the Minister has previously conducted a contamination risk assessment in relation to the same land and the same crop, the Minister may rely on the results of the previous contamination risk assessment for the purposes of dealing with the notification and determining the matters referred to in subsection (4).

17C—Right to information about location and type of GM crops

The Minister must maintain a register, on a website determined by the Minister, of notifications under section 17B(1)(a) (and the register must include at least the information referred to in section 17B(1)(a)(i) and (ii) and may include any other information the Minister thinks fit).

17D—Right to damages

(1) An owner or occupier of land who suffers loss as a result of the contamination of the land by genetically modified plant material is entitled to damages under this section.

(2) An action for damages under this section lies against—

(a) a person who cultivated a genetically modified food crop and who caused or permitted the contamination; and

(b) any person who has a proprietary interest in the material.

(3) All of the persons referred to in subsection (2)(a) and (b) are jointly and severally liable for the damages under this section.

(4) An action for damages under this section will be in the nature of an action in tort but it will not be necessary for a plaintiff to establish negligence.

(5) This section does not limit or derogate from any other civil right or remedy that a person who may be entitled to damages under this section may have apart from this section but nothing in this section is intended to allow a person to be compensated more than once for a particular loss.

(6) This section does not extend to any case where genetically modified plant material was present on land before the commencement of this section.

(7) For the purposes of this section, a person has a proprietary interest in any genetically modified plant material if the person—

(a) holds a patent or other form of registered interest; or

(b) is the owner of intellectual property, with respect to the material.

17E—Special protection from liability for owners etc of contaminated land

(1) No action may be brought in a South Australian court or under South Australian law against a person who is an owner or occupier of land that is contaminated by genetically modified plant material on account of the fact that—

(a) the material is present on the land; or

(b) the person has dealt with the material.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the relevant court is satisfied—

(a) that a person who is an owner or occupier of the relevant land has deliberately dealt with a crop knowing that genetically modified plant material was present in order to gain a commercial benefit; and

(b) that, in the interests of justice, another person's rights with respect to that material should be recognised or protected.

(3) This section extends to any case where genetically modified plant material was present on land before the commencement of this Act.

7B—Repeal of section 27

Section 27—delete the section

My inclusion of a new clause 7A is the entirety of set No. 1. These are the provisions that I mentioned in my second reading speech. These are the farmer protection measures. They include contamination risk assessments. They include the public's right to know. I am glad the minister has put on the record already that the government will have no idea who is planting GM crops and where. As a consequence, the public will have no idea who is planting GM crops and where.

My amendment provides for the minister maintaining a public register online. I think that is a very important point, and I am incredibly disappointed that at least the major parties do not see fit to recognise that the public has had a long interest in this matter and that they do have a legitimate right to know what crops are being grown. Normally, you just have a look. If it has yellow flowers, it is probably canola. If it is tall, it might be corn. Often it is clear, but not when you have GM crops.

If you have bought a property next to a canola grower and you are thinking of trying to get organic certification, the good neighbourliness that the Liberal members have referred to is all you have to go on. You have no right to ask and you have no right to be told. The government does not even know, and the government will not tell you where they are growing GM crops. So your decision is: 'Do I establish an organic farm next to this canola grower? I don't know whether or not they are growing GM canola, and I don't know if that's going to be a risky measure for me.' I think that is an insult to those farmers who are trying to add value to their crops by tapping into lucrative organic markets.

I have referred to all these provisions before, including sheeting home the responsibility to companies like Bayer when things go wrong. Interestingly, the government's only objection to making these companies stand behind the products they sell is: 'Well, no-one else does, and no-one else has tried that before.' Let us think about this. What other good or service provided in South Australia does the provider not have to stand behind? If you are an accountant or you are a lawyer, you are providing a service. You have to stand behind what you do. You can be sued, and you can be liable for damages.

Yet when it comes to GM crops, the government is refusing to make these companies responsible for the natural consequence of their activity, as we have discussed many times before, which is that their product will spread to places where it is not wanted. They will walk away from liability, and we will end up with, as the Hon. Frank Pangallo has been talking about, the very unsatisfactory situation of farmer suing farmer. This is the package of measures that is in my amendment. Again, if we are to avoid a division on this clause, I do need the other parties to put their positions on the record.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I thank the honourable member for moving his amendment. I indicate that the government will not be supporting it. Let us look quickly at some of the provisions. This would require a farmer to notify and receive approval from the minister before growing a crop, and the government would have to publish a list.

Before the minister grants approval, he must assess the likelihood of contamination of other land and the effect of contamination on the marketing of non-GM crops. This assessment must include consultation with the GM advisory committee but may rely on previously conducted assessments. These requirements would introduce a significant regulatory burden and delays and uncertainty for farmers wanting to grow GM crops. This is red tape—green tape, if we like—from the Greens just to make this unworkable and effectively almost keep the moratorium in place.

The independent review and subsequent consultation did not support the premise that prior approval is needed to ensure that GM and non-GM farmers are not impacted by the growing of GM crops. It found that segregation protocols are successful in all other states that have a moratorium. I make the point that the economies of the other states have not collapsed. We have not seen farmer pitted against farmer. We have not seen rioting in the streets. We have not seen people upset with it. This is just another way to frustrate the process and basically to make it unworkable, and the government does not support the amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The opposition will not be supporting this amendment. Our intention throughout this has been to ensure that there is a balance between the interests of those who want to grow GM crops and those who want to remain GM free. Putting in place systems and bureaucratic processes that essentially make it unworkable, that block the ability for farmers to make that choice, is in our view not consistent with the goal of the bill, which is to lift the moratorium but to allow those who wish to retain it to have that input. So we will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment in this regard. I think we have already made mention before about what the implications are. I think I have also mentioned that you are going to have communities that are going to be divided over this, particularly in the Adelaide Hills and in the Fleurieu, and probably even on Kangaroo Island, but particularly in the Adelaide Hills where there is an abundance of organic growers. This effectively robs them of that opportunity.

I know of some large producers in South Australia, and some large manufacturers, who are also upset that they will no longer be able to use the branding on some of their products because of that. So I support the Hon. Mark Parnell. The intention here is basically to try to protect the organic growers. The minister goes on about the fact that there has not been all that much protestation and litigation in other states, and I acknowledge that. However, I do not think the honourable minister realises just how many organic growers this state actually has. Would you be aware of that, minister, of how many organic growers we have here, particularly in the Adelaide Hills?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am not sure of that number.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: No?

The CHAIR: Order! We are not having a conversation.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: In fact, I am sure I have heard you extolling the virtues of our organic growers in the Adelaide Hills, such as the apple growers, the cherry growers and others. With that, we will be supporting—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: There are plenty of organic growers in other states, where they—

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes, there are, but they also want a choice—and also to try to protect them. It is all about coexisting, being able to coexist with neighbours, and even having an opportunity to know what is being grown next door. What is wrong with that? There is nothing. We will support the amendment.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell's new clauses 7A and 7B negatived.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I want to correct the record: I do actually support my own amendment, where I said 'no'. If that record can be—

The CHAIR: I think it is too late, the Hon. Mr Pangallo.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Is it? I do not think it is.

The CHAIR: That will be discussed at the President's dinner at Christmas time.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I was not going to put it to a vote—to divide was my intention. Anyway, the second part of these provisions are what I would call normal good neighbour practices. Much like the Hon. Mark Parnell has pointed out, given the worrying concern that has been expressed about GM crops, it aims to maximise communication and cooperation and minimise conflict and dispute between farmers. Obviously, the two greatest risk periods for GM contamination or GM transfers is during the sowing and harvesting of GM crops, and giving your adjacent neighbours 60 days' notice of your intention to sow a GM crop is hardly an onerous or unreasonable imposition.

I believe that many farmers already would ordinarily give formal or informal notice to their neighbours. This notice gives the GM and non-GM farmer an opportunity to discuss any concerns, agree on any risk mitigation measures and the parameters for spraying; for example, if the wind is blowing at a certain strength.

Similarly, the clause requiring that a notice of intention to harvest be given to your adjacent landholders is best practice to try to prevent contamination, spread and a dispute. The purpose of the notice is to foster good working relationships in this new operating environment. Again, I am sure most farmers would adhere to this practice anyway but this clause gives everyone certainty that sowing and reaping of GM crops will not come as a surprise. This is to try to avoid localised and polarised disputes which can be very damaging in agricultural communities. I also have subsection (3) of my amendment which I understand is unworkable and I am prepared to withdraw that one.

Finally, I believe it is always good practice to review legislation, and this final provision is to ensure this act is reviewed after three years—that is 2023—and then each three years thereafter. The minister must report the outcome of the review to the parliament within 12 sitting days, which places an accountability element in the bill. We have seen quite a few backdoor attempts by this government to regulate rather than legislate in relation to GM crops, all of which I am pleased to say have been disallowed by the Legislative Council. As a house of review we need to retain our vigilance and monitor and review acts which are as significant, contentious and untested as this bill is.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the government will not be supporting this amendment. Again, I refer the honourable members to the recent great weather conditions we have had. Timely sowing of a crop is one of the greatest benefits in getting a good yield, so if you get an unexpected rain or an early rain you then think, 'I've got to give 60 days' notice to a neighbour before I can sow a crop,' you will miss 60 days of the growing season if you want to grow a GM crop and there has been an early rain, so that is totally unworkable.

In relation to a previous question, the website of the Australian Organic Market Report 2017—I know it is a couple of years old—states that 77 per cent of all organic producers with certified operations are in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria; 3 per cent in Tassie; 12 per cent in South Australia; 1 per cent in the Northern Territory; and 1 per cent in WA. More than three-quarters of the certified organic operators are in the three Eastern States that allow GM crops to be grown.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The opposition is not supporting this amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: We will be supporting both the provisions that the honourable member has moved in relation to notification and also the review of the act.

The CHAIR: I am going to put the question that new clauses 7B and 7C as proposed to be inserted in an amendment form by the Hon. Frank Pangallo be inserted, bearing in mind that he has removed subsection (3) from 27A.

The Hon. F. Pangallo's new clauses 7B and 7C negatived.

Remaining clause (8), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Minister for Trade and Investment) (17:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The council divided on the third reading:

Ayes 16

Noes 2

Majority 14

AYES
Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Centofanti, N.J.
Dawkins, J.S.L. Hanson, J.E. Hood, D.G.E.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I.
Maher, K.J. Ngo, T.T. Pangallo, F.
Pnevmatikos, I. Ridgway, D.W. (teller) Scriven, C.M.
Wortley, R.P.
NOES
Franks, T.A. Parnell, M.C. (teller)

Third reading thus carried; bill passed.

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