Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 9 Hansard (26 August) . . Page.. 3159 ..
MR SMYTH (continuing):
Answer: not agreed. But the opening line of the government's response is:
The Government recognises the importance of sustainable agricultural practices and natural resource management in Australia.
I would have thought that was in agreement with what the committee was saying. It goes on to say:
While the Government supports continued investigation in farming practice and the use of GM products it is considered an independent Federal inquiry is not warranted at this time.
When would such an inquiry be warranted? When else will you get another opportunity like this to spur us on to do something better and make sure that we get it right into the future? I'd ask the minister to answer why.
There are another two paragraphs where they outline a few bits and pieces. For instance, it says:
The Government considers that adequate activities are currently undertaken.
But why not raise the whole issue in the context of drought-proofing farms, making farms sustainable, looking after local environments and seeing the impact of GM technology and products on those farms? It's a golden opportunity; it's a golden opportunity that has gone. Indeed, it wouldn't have taken the government much to write a simple letter to the federal government saying, "On the basis of what the committee has said"-blame the committee here; the committee has asked for this to happen-"would you tell us why you cannot do it?"Raise the issue and make sure that something occurred. I think it's another golden opportunity missed, and that's a shame.
Mr Speaker, recommendation 8 states:
The Committee recommends that the Government make representations to the Ministerial Council to ensure that all residents within a reasonable radius of field trial sites be informed in writing of the location and nature of the site and that the sites of field trials within the ACT be listed on the ACT Government website.
It's agreed in principle, and then the government will write to the regulator. The comparison between recommendation 7's response and recommendation 8's response, I think, is unfortunate, because the opportunity is there. For the want of a simple letter calling on the government and then, if necessary, some lobbying and some work afterwards to look at this whole issue, there's an opportunity gone begging again.
Mr Speaker, in recommendation 9 the committee asked that we make sure there are risk assessments and a standard application that ensures risk assessment management plans are actually done and that they be based on long-term studies taken in Australian conditions. Again, it's not agreed by the government. The government response says that they believe that the case-by-case evaluation is a better system.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .