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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4393 ..

MS MacDONALD (continuing):

of having several scientists in the family. Take, for example, one of the clauses in the report, which states:

Genetic engineering bypasses the reproductive barriers that prevent genetic transfers between unrelated species, thus allowing transfer of genes from an organism of one species to another, completely unrelated species. Genetic engineering also includes methods of gene deletion and gene manipulation that are not possible using conventional breeding methods.

That sounds good to me, but I do not know because I am not a scientist. All I was trying to get the committee to do was get a scientist to look over the report and say it is fine. I did not want that person to give us an opinion about the ethical concerns of gene technology and say, "Yes, you should have gene technology because I am a scientist and you should trust me."That is not what I was trying to do.

I wanted that person to assist both Siobhan Leyne, the committee secretary, and Lesley Wheeler, the research person, who both did a lot of work on this area, by saying, "Yes, you can actually refer to those things that way, but you cannot mention these words because they do not actually apply to this area of science."Having a scientist look over the report need not and would not have detracted from the non-scientific evidence and from the evidence about the many valid ethical concerns, which is as valid as the evidence that has been presented by the scientists.

There are a number of scientists out there who have said to us, "Yes, we also have concerns about having this product released in field trials. We also believe that you should wait. We do not know what the effects are going to be."Whereas other scientists have said, "You just go ahead and do it."As I have said, they are equally valid points of view.

My final concern with the report was about the moratorium of five years. I know that Ms Tucker has said that she believes that it is quite acceptable that we take this amount of time before actually having a field release. However, I do note that Tasmania also has a five-year moratorium, but I also note here in the Assembly that New Zealand has a two-year moratorium. My concern is whether or not putting a moratorium of five years on field releases is too restrictive a practice. Yes, of course, we can revisit it, but it may well act as a disincentive. I do not know, but I just raise it as a possible concern.

Finally, I have already mentioned Siobhan Lane and Lesley Wheeler, but I want to say that the work that Siobhan, Lesley and Judy Moutia did on this report was invaluable. I know that Lesley spent a great deal of time researching this, and it is the sort of thing that makes my mind boggle if I look at it. I would not know where to start with the research and I have to say that I believe that Lesley did a superlative job with it. I know that it was a relief to Siobhan that she had Lesley there to assist with it. I know it was also a relief to Ms Tucker that we had Lesley there to assist with the research.

I also want to mention that in the back of this report is a fairly amazing looking map of farming in the ACT, the inclusion of which took a great deal of Lesley's time. I also note that we have managed a first, I believe, by getting some colour pictures into the report. As well as the superlative photograph of the committee hard at work, on page 23 of the report we have a photo that shows the canola seeds scattered through a wheat sample.

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