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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 11 Hansard (13 December) . . Page.. 2951 ..

MR CONNOLLY (continuing):

What is of most concern to me is the trend in genetic pigs, which have modified human DNA present to switch on pig growth hormones. Mr Humphries read from the article in the Canberra Times which made fun of this Bill. In it somebody said, "People have been eating pigs for years, and we don't have little curly tails, pointy ears and trotters". It is unfortunate if that is the level to which this debate is trivialised. People can have legitimate concerns about the use of modified human DNA in the process of livestock production. People must know. That is what this law says; that people must know. It is a very strong signal by this parliament - the first parliament to debate the issue of the public's right to know about genetically altered products - despite the Liberals not wanting to debate the issue - - -

Mr Humphries: Not at all; that is not true.

MR CONNOLLY: You have hidden behind the claim that I am introducing a food standard and therefore we are in breach of the agreement. As I pointed out, this is no more a food standard than is a sign, where you sell alcohol, requiring proof of identification. That is not a food standard, but it does say that when alcohol is sold certain standards must be complied with. This does not attempt to limit the type of product that can be sold or set a standard for the type, level or nature of either genetically engineered ingredients or irradiated ingredients. This is at the point of sale, not on the product.

There was some suggestion that it would stuff up distribution arrangements because you would have to have special packets for Canberra. Mr Moore, very quickly, saw that that was nonsense. I have deliberately structured this law so as not to require it on the packet, because that would be a problem for manufacturers, but to require a sign at point of sale. In the United Kingdom the Government has not acted, but consumer pressure has forced some of the largest distribution chains in Britain to place these signs. Laws like this one have been passed in some American States. A law to this effect was passed in Vermont. That law was challenged in the Supreme Court by food industry interests, and that challenge was unsuccessful. A law in terms very similar to the law that I am proposing is currently being debated in the State of Illinois to apply in the city of Chicago. The city of Chicago and its suburban areas, from my recollection of American geography, have a population larger than the whole of Australia.

This is an issue that is very important. I thank members for their support in principle. Understanding the problems that the Government faces in dealing with the national arrangement - although not saying that this is in breach - I indicated some months ago that I would be prepared to have this Bill passed in principle, then to adjourn the detail stage and give an undertaking that it will be adjourned for six months; and in that six months I hope that Mrs Carnell, on behalf of this Assembly and on behalf of the people of Canberra, will at Health Ministers meetings make it very clear to the experts from the National Food Authority that the public will not cop being kept in the dark in this area. I hope that my law never comes into force in the ACT, because the National Food Authority comes to its senses and makes it abundantly clear, as part of the national scheme, Mr Humphries, that there must be mandatory labelling. Then it would be on the packaging and the product as well as at point of sale. Mrs Carnell has an opportunity to carry this issue forward and achieve change at the national level.

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