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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3207 ..

yet, however, has put a cogent argument as to why that should mean that the liability does not exist or that costs should be carried by those who are not involved in the enterprise.

I notice that the question of liability came up in a couple of the debates; the most recent speaker was Mrs Cross. The whole notion of the liability questions is so fraught that I find it really surprising that people in the Assembly are not pursuing that problem in the debate tonight, because it is one of the fundamental ones. It is fundamental to the question about who carries the cost. Will it be the non-GM farmers even when, with no responsibility at all, they find their farm contaminated by a GM crop?

The question of socialising the problems and privatising the profit is an obvious problem in the particular framework that is set up at the moment. It is one of the key issues that keep coming up from many people in the community. It is one that we have tried to address. In our amendments to the government’s legislation we are still trying to address it, because it is obvious that my legislation will not be successful. Surely anyone pursuing research for private or business gain should not be able to just palm off the risk to the community or, even more particularly, to those individuals making a living out of a non-GM enterprise.

It is interesting that, at a forum of biotech researchers and business people to address issues arising out of these bills earlier this year, some frustration at another layer of regulation was expressed. It was conceded by some at that forum, however, that liability was a valid concern and that it was reasonable to seek some mechanisms for dealing with it. It is worth remembering that in many areas we have a fault based insurance system in order to build in an imperative to take care. Of course, the other alternative would be to set up a no-fault insurance cover. As far as I am aware, no-one in the biotech area is doing that.

Finally, there is the question of who should constitute an advisory committee. Without going into too much detail—and I would like to acknowledge that one can take a capability or a representational approach, both of which have their strengths—I would like to put on the record that it is important that such a group encompass some diversity of perspective and expertise. In this scheme, and with amendments to the government’s own amendments, I will be looking for Assembly support to ensure that, at the very least, there is someone on such a committee representing organic or non-GM farming; a nominee from the Conservation Council of the South East Region and Canberra; and a person with academic legal skills, perhaps a nominee of the Australian Centre for Environmental Law at the ANU.

Some concerns about our approach have been put to us by the CSIRO, among others. I recognise the validity of some of those concerns on issues such as intellectual property, and amendments were made to the scheme prior to final circulation in response.

Other issues, I think, are more philosophical. For example, there was considerable concern when the ACT’s Gene Technology Act was debated last year and at our attempt to move back to the precautionary principle rather than, as used in the Commonwealth act, the precautionary and cost-effective approach that was eventually passed. Concern was again raised when we suggested proposals for putting the principle into this exemption scheme. It has since been taken out of the circulated amendment.

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