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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3220 ..

in the duplication of regulations and undermine the national cooperative regulatory scheme, which defers to the Commonwealth expertise and authority on environmental issues.

MS DUNDAS (9.22): This amendment goes to a very important issue in the debate. It goes to the heart of the precautionary principle, ensuring that those who profit from new technologies are also responsible for any ill effects. We know that these technologies are new and that we cannot possibly know all the future ramifications of utilising them. It is essential that, if we license people to disseminate experimental products in the environment, we ensure that there is someone who will take responsibility for any costs or damage that those technologies entail.

This amendment would ensure that that would occur and that a potential future producer of GM products in the territory will have to commit to rectify any harm associated with their product. This amendment does something that is only fair to the people of the ACT: it ensures that our natural environment is protected from any ill effects. I am happy to support the amendment and would have hoped that other members of this Assembly would have found the same.

Question put:

That Ms Tucker’s amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

MS DUNDAS (9.25): I move amendment No 2 circulated in my name [see schedule 8 at page 3246].

Mr Speaker, this amendment would ensure that an exemption under this act is not granted without the opportunity for the Assembly to disallow it. We have had this discussion a number of times before on different issues—there is not much point in making some instruments disallowable if they can be implemented before the Assembly has had the opportunity to disallow them. In this case, if an exemption is made under this act and this occurs before the Assembly has had the opportunity for disallowance, the environmental release of the GMO will have occurred before the Assembly has the opportunity to debate and overturn the decision

Once again, I point out that this act has extremely restrictive provisions for access to the courts to challenge a decision made by the minister to grant an exemption, meaning there

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