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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3208 ..

I think it is worth posing the question, a question that has not yet been answered by government or the CSIRO: what dealings would not be captured by the different wording between the precautionary approach with its cost-effective rider and the precautionary principle?

In regards to the Greens’ approach, one issue that has arisen time and again is our argument that in situations such as this a public interest test ought to be applied.

In earlier discussions, the potential and value of biotech were described to us in several ways. One was that we now have a form of cotton in Australia that requires significantly less water than the usual crop. I am inclined to argue that a shift in Australia to growing hemp for fabric could quite well make more environmental, agriculture and social sense nationally and globally.

Similarly, the notion of beef with the health properties of fish was offered to us as a step away from obesity and heart disease. Again, I would argue that less meat consumption overall would be better for western health, probably result in more ethical treatment of animals and would eventually lead to better distribution of nutrition around the world. I do not know how to make that shift, but cattle made of fish oil would not appear to be the right direction.

I took the liberty of forwarding some of the discussion to Dr Charles Lawson, Research Fellow, Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture at the Griffith University School of Law. He is also visiting Fellow at the Geonomic Interactions Group at RSBS at the ANU. Dr Lawson made the point:

… some of us still believe that science is not value free and that values drive research. So, what better place to have those values explored than by the legislature. It is a figment of regulators’ imaginations that somehow science is value free and its results neutral. With respect, the OGTR’s decisions are demonstrably value laden as she makes judgments about what are and not acceptable environmental and health risks ... scientists are no better placed to make judgments about the values of science than anyone else.

On the issue of liability, Dr Lawson is most eloquent:

If it’s safe then the market will apply a very low premium to the risk. Perhaps those releasing GMOs into the environment would have no trouble getting insurance. However, insurance companies are reluctant to provide insurance as they are unable to quantify either the risk or the amount of damages resulting from the risk. In those circumstances it is individuals or the broader tax paying community that assumes the risk for releasing GMOs. If this is correct, then those proposing potentially damage causing activities should be prepared to cover the losses they cause, unless they can demonstrate the public interest in their liability being carried by others.

On the issue of who should make judgments about whether risks are worth taking and who is on the advisory committees, I will quote Dr Lawson for a final time:

… most decisions about the risks and release of GMOs are not questions that require specific scientific expertise, although the views of scientists and others with science expertise might be informative. Perhaps significantly, were a decision of the

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