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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3204 ..

should be left to the industry. The problem is that the gene technology regulator is operating, and continues to operate, under a very narrow mandate. There are large holes in our science, and science based decision making is not giving confidence to our farmers. This needs to occur before we go further down the GM route.

For these reasons the ACT Democrats will be supporting a moratorium on GM crops here in the territory. But we have amendments to help ensure that this moratorium is as strong as possible.

MRS CROSS (8.20): I will also speak to both bills. First, I will not be supporting Ms Tucker’s GMO (Environment Protection) Bill 2003 as it was originally proposed. I believe that Ms Tucker’s bill goes a little too far. It stifles progress as a whole and is a little draconian. Simply, this bill is punishing those who have any dealings with GMOs, which essentially is prohibiting GMOs from the ACT.

The main problem with Ms Tucker’s bill, even with her exception regime, is the fact that it places those dealing with GMOs in a position, it seems, of indefinite liability. I find that unacceptable. Certainly the prohibition of GMOs will stifle development and experimentation, some of which will certainly be beneficial to the ACT. Ms Tucker’s amendments to her own bill providing an exception regime certainly improve the bill. But in my view the bill is still unsupportable.

I shall, however, be supporting the government’s Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Bill 2004. This bill is modelled on the New South Wales Gene Technology Bill 2003. The government’s bill will not prohibit genetically modified crops but rather will allow the minister to place a moratorium on certain genetically modified food plants in order to preserve the identity of crops. This is much more reasonable than Ms Tucker’s bill.

The bill also allows the minister to make exemptions for the moratorium imposed. This exemption regime is extensive and allows for Assembly scrutiny, a very important point. Simply, the government’s bill provides both flexibility and safety. It allows GM crops to be cultivated and transferred within the ACT, whilst providing the safety of allowing the minister to place a moratorium on GM crops that may adversely affect existing crops.

Whilst I accept that there are many fears about the impact that GMOs will have on nature, I do not believe fear alone should stop progress. Who knows what benefits some GMOs will produce? If we did not allow for experimentation because we feared what may come out of it, the world would be nothing like it is now. There is a possibility that some GMOs and some GMO experimentation may, indeed, damage our natural environment, but we should not stop progress because of a “may”. We need to look to the future and what in the long term could be best for the ACT.

MS TUCKER (8.23): I would like to address some of the issues raised in this debate, in terms of specific details that gave rise to aspects of the exemption program proposed in my bill and circulated to members and some of the broader issues that gave rise to our approach. I will refer members to the report of the health committee inquiry into the gene tech bill 2000, which was published in December 2002. I was chair of that committee. Brendan Smyth was a member, and Karin MacDonald was and still is deputy chair of the committee. It was a unanimous report.

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