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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4391 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Another issue of concern on which the committee made a recommendation is liability and insurance. There is confusion about liability in regard to the unwanted consequences of environmental release of GMOs. There is no requirement in the current act or the bill for licensees to be insured against damage to human health, the environment and other producers. Licence conditions may require insurance, but it is unclear whether that is the responsibility of the applicant or the grower.

The committee recommends that the government, through the ministerial council, advises a policy which requires everyone undertaking any dealings with GMOs to hold adequate insurance. This is a significant issue, especially as the insurance industry is very cautious about how to deal with it. The insurance council is reported as saying that "it is loathe to insure farmers, biotech and food companies for claims involving GM foods". In fact, the European Commission is currently debating a proposal that would hold the industries and firms dealing with GMOs liable for incidents that pollute water, air or soil, or harm protected natural sites or species.

The issue of liability and adequate insurance cover must be addressed as a matter of urgency and before any environmental release occurs. Obviously, the situation in the ACT has to be examined in the context of our physical proximity to New South Wales as well. The committee has recommended that, as a matter of urgency, the government talks to the New South Wales government about concerns regarding cross-border contamination and potential liability if the New South Wales government should allow the environmental release of GMOs.

In conclusion, I want to say that I think this is a very good report. I am delighted that it is a unanimous report. I know that there is interest around Australia, and in one case international interest, in this report. I am confident the arguments presented are well researched and referenced, and if people look at the report in detail they will see that.

Through the work of this committee we have been able to understand the varying levels of confidence that exist in the gene tech industry, and the fact that, within the scientific community, there are very different views on this subject, as is the case in the community. What I believe we have done in this report by recommending a five-year moratorium is ensure that we can protect members of the community, farmers and researchers from the unwarranted consequences of a premature release of genetically altered organisms into the environment.

What we are saying as a committee is that we support research and we understand the potential benefits. However, we are also saying that we think the regulatory framework needs more work, that risk assessment should be better refined, and that five years is a reasonable period of delay for environmental releases in the ACT. We can then feel more confident about the regulatory system in which we will proceed with this important work.

There is also a very strong economic argument throughout the report, which is that we would love to see the ACT as a centre for research and biotechnology. We are aware that researchers are equally concerned to have a very stringent regulatory framework in place to protect them in their work.

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