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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3211 ..

There is a lot to be said, and so much of that is emotive. There is a group of people who, as in many cases, have very strong views and are strongly motivated, and they participate in the debate. And there are a whole lot of people who are entirely agnostic on the subject and are not going to the trouble of participating in the debate. But they are the people who will benefit from this process.

We have to be alert not only to the problems but to the benefits that we will see. We cannot afford to have more years of trials that do not happen because we do not have the courage to look to the future for our own prosperity and wellbeing and because we bury our heads in the sand and say, “Goodness, something bad might happen.”

As legislators, we have to be prepared to go down this path cautiously, and this is what the government’s bill is about and this is what the federal government’s bill is about; it is about doing it cautiously. Actually I have come to this debate with a very open mind and have looked at it for a very long time. I have explored the arguments about whether or not there is a market for non-GM food. I have looked at the research and actually went looking for an opportunity to have my prejudices confirmed. I actually started out in this argument thinking, “If everyone’s producing GM food, perhaps for a country like Australia—we sell our food into Europe and Asia with the clean, green brand on it—you add to that ‘clean, gene and GM-free’.” When you look at the research from Australia and around the world there is no premium for GM-free. People do not go out and pay a higher price because something is GM-free.

That surprised me, and I went away and continued to research and I found that this was the case. There is a very small niche market; it is a bit like going to the organic butcher or the organic greengrocer and paying the premium. I actually walked into an organic greengrocer the other day and looked at the apples for $9 a kilo and thought, “Well, it’s very nice, it’s a good service and it’s a good product to have, but it’s not the product for the average man in the street, with three kids; he’s not going to pay $9 a kilo for apples.”

Third World countries looking for a solution to the problems of feeding their populations are going to want good nutritious food that is going to come to them relatively cheaply, and that means that they need to have resilient food, resilient crops which are not going to be knocked about radically by changes in the weather patterns. We had a discussion earlier today about projections for lower rainfalls across the southern hemisphere. Part of the solution and part of the answer to that may be in some of these crops and their drought resistance. We cannot afford to throw the baby out with the bathwater; we cannot afford to say, “Stop the clock,” or, “Stop the world, I want to get off,” because if we do that we are doing a disservice not only to our own electors but to people beyond our waters.

MR PRATT (8.48): Mr Speaker, I rise to support the government’s bill and also to oppose Ms Tucker’s GMO bill. I will also oppose Ms Tucker’s amendments to the government’s bill if they arise. I am deeply concerned about the Greens’ credentials in respect of gene technology, and the reasons are as follows. I am going to quote wholeheartedly from Sally White in The Land of 18 December, who wrote:

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