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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3201 ..

environmental sustainability. In the ACT we are fortunate to have the CSIRO conducting such research. It is the sort of high-tech, creative industry that we must encourage. So we support this bill.

That being said, there is still a long way to travel in the use of genetically modified crops, particularly in the ACT, in surrounding New South Wales and in Australia. I will certainly continue to monitor the progress of that.

Some years ago, the health committee did a report into genetically modified foods and their impact. Around the world the jury is still out as to their impact and their potential to increase, decrease or harm existing markets. The question here is: how do we in the ACT approach what we do here? We can stand King Canute-like and oppose the tide that is raging around us or we can take what is proposed in this bill—a middle road. It is not quite what the Commonwealth wanted and it is certainly not quite what, for instance, the Greens would want. But it allows us to play to our strengths, which are the strengths of research and the CSIRO, and other biotech-type companies, given that there probably will not be large-scale cropping of many, if any, genetically modified foods in the ACT.

That being said, it is not an excuse not to be wary. But I think the approach that we take in the bill, modified by the amendments that the government has put forward, so that the government is responding to the community and seeking advice from those with expert knowledge in this, gives me an assurance that we can use genetically modified research in the ACT for the betterment of the community. Only once the research is done, and perhaps moratoriums lifted, will there be widespread use. With those words in mind, the opposition will be supporting this bill.

MS DUNDAS (8.11): I would like to speak to both bills. I think that there is a general agreement in the Assembly that we do not believe it is appropriate for genetically modified food crops to be commercially grown in the ACT at this time. However, there is a clear difference of opinion on how to best achieve this.

Ms Tucker has put forward a bill, as has the government. They are similar in many respects. They both have the effect of preventing commercial release of genetically modified organisms. However, Ms Tucker’s bill goes significantly further than the government’s bill in its scope, as it deals with the environmental release of all genetically modified organisms, which is far beyond the specific issue of food crops.

We need to be careful not to capture too much in the bills before us, as we would not wish to prevent important medicines, such as insulin or Factor VIII, which are produced by transgenic bacteria, being used in the territory. Equally, there are some important questions about Ms Tucker’s bill such as whether the ACT has legal jurisdiction to legislate on these issues, particularly as they may end up being inconsistent with Commonwealth legislation.

At this stage, I am happy to support Ms Tucker’s bill in principle, although I highlight the problems that I have just put forward. We need to look further at her bill before the detail stage to ensure that those issues are cleared up. I note that Ms Tucker has circulated amendments to her bill that go some way to addressing these issues. But, as I said, the Democrats support the general thrust of total GMO regulation in the territory and hence support Ms Tucker’s bill in principle.

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