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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3213 ..

bill seeks, broadly, to ban the environmental release of GMOs. This covers dealings with GMOs that include the conduct of experiments with a GMO to make, produce or manufacture the GMO; to grow, raise or culture the GMO; and to propagate the GMO.

Such a broad moratorium is likely to have a detrimental impact on our scientific and research community. A key issue of concern is the restrictions the ban would place on gene technology research activities, in particular those of CSIRO, ANU, University of Canberra and the Cooperative Research Centre for Pest Animal Control.

A substantial part of CSIRO’s biotechnology research conducted in the ACT focuses on gene technology, and as such it is regulated by the regulator. This includes research work by the CSIRO divisions of plant industry and entomology at the Black Mountain site, sustainable ecosystems at Gungahlin and field trials at the Ginninderra experimental station.

Ms Tucker’s bill also has the potential to impact on the ability to use therapeutic GMOs currently commercially available in Australia and in the ACT. It would appear that under the scope of the proposed legislation the genetically modified oral cholera vaccine, Orachol, which was registered as a prescription medicine by the Therapeutic Goods Administration and granted a licence for continued commercial release by the regulator in June 2003, would not be allowed to be used here. Such a clause would potentially also affect research on prescription drugs in animals such as noxious pests.

Ms Tucker’s bill is without a sunset clause. If the bill were to be passed, it would place a ban on the environmental release of GMOs for perpetuity or until repealed. It would see the territory act on gene technology development in a fear-driven manner, locked out of opportunities the technology may bring in the future. This could well result in a marketing disadvantage for the territory’s scientific community, with research moving interstate.

By contrast, the government’s proposed legislative scheme will enable any future government of the ACT to serve the interests of the community in a sound and rigorous way. Ms Tucker’s bill would create uncertainties for the operation of the national gene technology scheme and threaten the existence of the biotechnology research community in the ACT. Hence, the government is quite opposed to Ms Tucker’s bill.

Mr Smyth, when he spoke, asked about marketing. Mr Smyth, I have highly expert advice on the matter, as you expected. The word “marketing” in the act will mean what it means in the Commonwealth act. In simple terms, marketing is what happens in markets. That is a sensible, reasonable definition. As Mr Smyth observed, we thought it better to not specify a special meaning in line with the Commonwealth legislation. If a special meaning needs to be determined, the courts will decide. Mr Smyth, you have your answer.

Mr Smyth: I have your non-answer, Minister.

MR WOOD: Not at all. For the government’s part, gene technology involves the modification of living organisms by incorporating or deleting one or more genes to introduce or modify the characteristics of the organism. As a new and rapidly evolving

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