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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3222 ..

consultation. Our consultation with the community leads us to believe that this is a balancing item that will put some of the onus back on to the community. It makes the minister refer certain items, and licensing, to the community. The minister can, of course, reject that but must give reasons for why that has occurred. With those points, we will be supporting the amendment.

MS TUCKER (9.31): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name to amend proposed new clause 10A [see schedule 7 at page 3245].

This amendment would slightly change the composition of the proposed advisery council. I am at a loss to understand why two positions on this committee have been reserved for nominees of local rural landholders. I am aware that one of those groups contains three or four farmers, most of whom are in negotiation to surrender their leases and are presumably leaving farming in the ACT altogether.

It is beyond me to understand why one position should go to that group rather than to someone who represents organic or non-GM farming. It has been put to me that the council should only be concerned with marketing. Even in the context of the government’s fairly limited approach, one would think it would have slightly broader concerns. Coexistence springs to mind. Even in regard to marketing alone, organic and non-GM farmers have a very sophisticated understanding of markets and would make an important contribution.

I wonder what theory the government—and, indeed, the opposition—have about including a nominee from the conservation council and why they should be opposed to bringing on someone with a legal perspective. As I understand it, there are real limits to the council in New South Wales, and a number of experts that my office consulted, not simply anti-GE activists, were quite emphatic about the need for a council with diverse perspectives putting on one member to be the nominal community representative.

MS DUNDAS (9.32): These amendments, both Ms Tucker’s and Mr Wood’s, go to the make-up of the advisery council on gene technology. As Ms Tucker has already outlined, it is important that the council is able to give a balanced viewpoint on these issues coming from a number of different stakeholders with an interest in the use of technology. The proposal from the government appears to deviate from standard practice in specifying representatives of particular organisations rather than, as you would expect, specifying a particular type of pool required.

I think that the Greens’ proposal is more useful in relation to the minister having access to a range of opinions. I will be supporting Ms Tucker’s amendment, but I am also supportive of the government’s original amendment.

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (9.33): The Liberal Party ends up being the only consistent group in the Assembly over a period of time. We have always been opposed to giving specific seats to specific bodies on specific boards. People should go to these boards because they possess the highly informed and scientific advice that the minister needs, not because they are a member of a certain organisation that has a certain bent that meets a certain need at the time. We will oppose this amendment.

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