Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 11 Hansard (13 December) . . Page.. 2947 ..

Mr Moore: Of course; because they have been caught out not doing their job.

MR HUMPHRIES: Again, that is not true. The National Food Authority has been working on a national standard on food irradiation for some time. In the meantime - which, I think, is news to Mr Moore - they have banned irradiated food in this country. Mr Moore clearly finds that a bit surprising. He had not counted on that fact. He thinks that this is about slapping labels on all this food which is presently passing through our children's bodies without our knowing what is going on. That is not the case. We do not eat irradiated food, unless we somehow irradiate it ourselves. It is not available in this country, because the National Food Authority has arranged for it not to be available.

Genetically engineered food is, similarly, not available in this country; unless, on a case-by-case basis, it is agreed by the National Food Authority. There are some cases where it has been agreed. There is some argument about our need to be much less concerned about genetically engineered food than about irradiated food. Members would have seen the article by Simon Grose in the Canberra Times in September in which he quoted Professor Nancy Millis, who chairs the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee of the National Food Authority. She pointed out that it is not an easy task to distinguish genetically engineered food because a genetically engineered organism might be indistinguishable from its naturally occurring counterpart. She said:

I find it extraordinary that people worry about a gene like a porcine growth hormone in pigs. It's one of their own genes with just a few extra copies. We've been eating pigs for years and we haven't got pointed ears and a curly tail.

That is an argument that we would have to have on the day. The point is that we ought to be moving down the track of national standards in these things. We are already doing that as far as genetically engineered food is concerned. I believe that we ought to try, in a case like this, to abide by that agreement.

It will possibly be the case that future governments will come into this place - maybe this Government will come into this place - and say, "We have signed this agreement". I might be in opposition or in government at that stage; I do not know. The Assembly will say, "No; that is not an agreement that this Assembly can abide by". While we have minority governments in this place, that will have to be an issue which governments will need to deal with. They will need to work out how they are going to promise, in a national forum, to legislate in a particular way when they cannot necessarily deliver on that back in their home legislature. It is a matter for debate as to how we do that in the future.

I do simply say to the Assembly, "For goodness sake, let us think carefully before we put aside such agreements". This clearly is a breach of that national agreement.

Mr Connolly: No; it is clearly not a breach, Gary. I will explain later.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .