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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (27 November) . . Page.. 4907 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

did he, or could he, reassure us that those amendments are not needed. It is, in a way, one of the implications of Commonwealth-state agreements that we may find ourselves trapped with legislation that this parliament has never agreed to and would never willingly agree to.

Given that the gene technology regime as it now exists is governed by a very narrow construction of the notion of science, specifically excludes the consideration of social or economic cost, does not include a mechanism to ensure that liability is carried by the enterprise engaged in the trial or commercial exploitation of gene technology, and only applies the notion of the precautionary principle where it is cost-effective, we do, as a society, need to set up a framework to consider these other factors.

It is for that reason that I have proposed a ban on any environmental release of GM organisms, at least until such time as we have a better structure in place, and until more information is at hand. I understand from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator that there are no applications for trials in the ACT before then. As the turnaround time is about 170 days, there is no likelihood of any such trials being put in place before March 2004.

Similarly, at the same time, the only new crop that is likely to be permitted for general release is the Roundup-ready canola, which in this part of the world is a winter crop, and so, even if it were to be planted in the ACT, would also not be planted before March next year. Consequently, the debate on the Greens bill, which does impose a ban on the environmental release of GM organisms, can be held off until a cognate debate with the government's moratorium bill in February next year. If, however, we find in the next few days that it is important to debate the ban earlier, then we would seek to have it debated in the December sitting.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 7, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 8.

MR WOOD (Minister for Disability, Housing and Community Services, Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Arts and Heritage) (10.07): On behalf of Mr Corbell, I move amendment No 1 circulated in his name [see schedule 4 at page 4921].

Clause 8 of this bill is to be amended due to the repeal of the Criminal Code 2001 and its replacement with the Criminal Code 2002. The 2002 code commenced on 1 January 2003 and will apply to all offences against the Gene Technology Act. The amendment substitutes replacement clause 8 in the bill. This is to ensure the correct version of the code is referred to and to update the clause to the standard form of this provision that is currently used in the new principal legislation. I present the explanatory statement to the government amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

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