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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3219 ..

not a substitute for broader community consultation, and I would encourage the government to go further than this council when considering an exemption from the moratorium. That being said, it is a minor improvement to the act, so it is worthy of support.

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (9.18): Mr Speaker, the opposition will be supporting the government on this amendment simply because we recommended these things to the government, following consultation. Amendment 1 is the procedure of how the minister must consult with his council and what he must do if he goes against the recommendation of the council. Amendment 2 is to establish the council. The third amendment is just about reporting when you are establishing a GM crop, and the others are consequential. We will be supporting all of the government’s amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

MS TUCKER (9.19): I move amendment No 2 circulated in my name on the blue sheet [see schedule 10 at page 3250].

This amendment asks for the applicant to commit to preventing, or remedying, any contamination. It is very hard to understand, as I argued earlier, why the community or non-GM farmer should carry the risk of contamination caused by GM cultivation. I noticed that in the response speeches from members of the Assembly on the Liberal side, and from the government, nobody addressed the concerns about liability. For Mr Pratt’s interest, Mr Smyth was very concerned about liability when we were looking at it as a committee, so it is not just those terrible Greens that had some issues about this. This amendment attempts to bring that responsibility into the bill.

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (9.20): Mr Speaker, the opposition will not be supporting this amendment. Ms Tucker is right: I did have a large number of concerns when we did our report about the issues of liability—

Ms MacDonald: That’s why we needed to take a longer time.

MR SMYTH: Thank you, Ms MacDonald, for the wonderful interjection. But since then we have done some more research and followed some of the cases as they moved through the court system. Some of what was reported to the committee is not as clear cut as may first have appeared. The system the government has set up is that you proceed down either one path consistently or down the other path consistently. This will fly in the face of the path that the government attempts to take.

I believe that setting up the council and the advisory and reporting mechanisms will go most of the way to addressing the fears that were put to us. I still have some concerns and will monitor this closely, but I will not be supporting the Greens’ amendment.

MR WOOD (Minister for Disability, Housing and Community Services, Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for Arts and Heritage, and Acting Minister for Health) (9.21): The government will not be supporting Ms Tucker’s amendment. The clause is concerned with regulation for the purpose of environmental protection. Among other things, I believe that is beyond the territory’s powers. Further, its insertion into the government’s bill, if it did go ahead, would result

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