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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 9 Hansard (26 August) . . Page.. 3161 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

principle as named in the Environment Protection Act 1997 (ACT) ... This definition should explicitly name the precautionary principle and not include a reference to cost-effectiveness.

That's not agreed either. I would have thought, as I've said before, if the government was truly interested in sustainability and the Office of Sustainability was anything but a façade, then surely getting to the heart of the precautionary principle in bills like this would be what we would do. The government sort of almost agrees. They say:

If the ACT Bill was amended in light of the Committee's recommendation, it would fall out of line with the Gene Technology Legislation in the Commonwealth and other States.

Then it goes on to talk about all jurisdictions, and I quote from the government response:

All jurisdictions agreed in reality the precautionary principle allows governments to take action and decide on measures in circumstances where there is serious or irreversible threat to the environment that the available scientific evidence may be inconclusive. All jurisdictions agreed that the risk assessment and management process outlined in the legislation embodied a precautionary approach.

Then it goes on to say:

Rather than explicitly referencing the precautionary principle and potentially creating uncertainty about its interpretation, all jurisdictions agreed it was better to provide clear directions to the Regulator about how to apply the precaution in considering each application.


I would have thought the clearest direction you could send to the regulator was to put it in the act. If all states agree in reality that we should follow precautionary principle and all jurisdictions agree that you have to take that into consideration when you do the risk assessment and management process, why not put it in the bill? Perhaps the government needs to go back to the council and go to bat on that issue. If we are going to make a significant and long-term change, this is where we're going to make the change-at the start of the process, not cleaning up potential messes after the event. If you look at what's happening with some companies and some farmers, both large and small, in America and in Canada, what they are now doing is cleaning up the mess.

Mr Speaker, there is an issue on insurance. The committee asked that people take out insurance before they undertake to use GM modified crops. The response is: there are measures that you can resort to in common law. Again, if people do this before they go into using GM crops, if they know that there is a potential and they have to be insured, it may modify their thinking.

Again, if we're keen on the precautionary principle rather than just giving lip service, if we actually do believe in sustainability rather than lip service, then these things are sensible and get people who wish to gain the benefits from GM technology to take what they're gaining seriously so that they also at the same time protect the

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