Ian Gilfillan: Australian Democrats in the SA Parliament

	Extract from Hansard Legislative Council 4 April 2001

Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council		Parliament Index 2001 Autumn Sitting Index Browse by Subject Search all Democrats material About the SA Parliament Hansard on line

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to regulate the possession and use of genetically modified plant material. Read a first time.

In moving the second reading of this bill, I remind the Council that I introduced a similar but not identical bill on 28 June last year. I spoke at some length on the bill that I introduced at that time and I do not intend to go through all that material again. However, I recommend that members of the Council refer to it because a lot of the argument and comments included in my second reading explanation are just as valid now as they were then, if not more so.

As an introduction, I highlight the simple description of the bill. The bill is a move to declare South Australia, or areas of South Australia, free of genetically modified material for a period of five years. A sunset provision is built into the bill, and this has been done deliberately because I believe that the situation may well change in various ways so that what is appropriate now may not be appropriate in five years. Therefore, I think it is sensible to have this five year sunset clause built into the bill.

I have varied the bill from the one introduced last year in several ways, and the first is the definition of `genetically modified'. Clause 2(2) provides:

(a) its genetic material has been modified by recombinant DNA technology or any other similar technique specified in the regulations; or

Clause 3 is the second area in which I have varied this bill from the original so as to enable the minister to declare an area rather than the whole state as a GM-free zone and to also empower a local government council to have the same power. Clause 3 provides:

(a) declare the whole or a specified part of its area to be a prohibited area; or

Those are the variations made to the original bill. Members may recall-although I do not necessarily expect them to-that I have continued to have serious concern about open-air trial pots, because they are as dangerous in destroying the international reputation of parts of South Australia as being a GM-free zone as the broader acre planting of genetically modified crops.

The international market is extraordinarily sensitive: even a rumour will put at risk markets of grain and livestock that have purportedly fed on genetically modified fodder. Already there are examples of that sensitivity having impacted on Australian and South Australian markets. One case in particular was a beef order from Japan for the South-East and the other, for New South Wales, was, I am led to believe, for rice-or it may have been canola on the basis that canola is a genetically modified crop that has been planted quite widely in New South Wales.

However, in South Australia, where this legislation applies, we have been given the opportunity to follow this legislative track by the federal Gene Technology Act 2000. In the interpretation and operation of the act, part 2-Provisions to facilitate a nationally consistent scheme, Division 4, section 19, page 17 provides:

1. The ministerial council may issue policy principles in relation to the following:

(aa) recognising areas, if any, designated under state law for the purpose of preserving the identity of one or both of the following:

This provision specifically foresees a situation where a state will take this opportunity to declare itself totally free, and I believe that Tasmania is considering that option, and I would urge that South Australia also considers it. However, if they are to stop short of that the state can determine that certain zones are declared GM free. Personally, I am aware-and I am sure others are, too-that already there are groups that are agitating for GM-free status in virtually very broad acre area of South Australia, including the West Coast through the Mid North, the Hills and down to the South-East where people are principally concerned about the impact on markets. However, I emphasise that it is not just the markets that are causing concern, because there are people who have justifiable grounds for concern that the technology itself has not yet been firmly proved up in the wide range of areas where we must be apprehensive. Even if it is a long shot, if something goes wrong the consequences can be quite devastating. I will refer to some of that later.

So as to indicate to the Council how involved the commonwealth has been in dealing with gene technology in legislation, I have a copy of the gene technology regulations 2000, which carries a date of January 2001. It is a very good reference to see what has been worked through already as to the potential of licensing and information on how to handle GMOs. I will not go through that because there is little point to us at this stage, but any legislation that we pass in this state will integrate with the commonwealth legislation.

It is a matter of some urgency because, although a draft paper was presented to the South Australian Farmers Federation at its annual conference last year, it quickly became plain that the farming community-embracing both the cereal farming and livestock sections, not to mention the horticulture, viticulture and floriculture areas of primary production-is divided. Some people feel quite strongly that we will miss the bus if we do not jump into gene technology as soon as we can. Equally strong views are held by people who are far from happy about that and who believe that it is extraordinarily dangerous to jump into the technology, who believe that there is very little evidence to prove that there will be a financial advantage to the producers who use genetically modified material, and who have serious concerns about the market, with a lot of justification.

Interestingly enough, no-one is denying that the current world market, particularly in Europe and Japan, and increasingly in the USA and Australia, is becoming hypersensitive to genetically modified product to the extent that premiums will be paid for product that can be guaranteed to be GM free; and there will be penalties, if not cancellations of orders, for product that does not have that guarantee. Not surprisingly, that sensitivity has spread to the tuna aquaculture industry, which is a multimillion dollar export earner for South Australia. These tuna are currently fed largely on frozen imported pilchards but, increasingly, they are fed with pellets from land-based cereal and other ingredients. Because it is such a delicacy and such a highly priced gourmet food product, it will be extraordinarily vulnerable even to suspicions that genetically modified ingredient has been added to the manufactured food being fed to these tuna.

At the annual general meeting of the South Australian Farmers Federation 2000, a paper about this issue, which virtually sat on the fence, was presented. It was ambivalent about whether GM crops were good or bad and suggested that people should have the opportunity to do whatever they want. As a member of SAFF, I was successful in moving that the draft not be received and that it be referred back to the committee for reconsideration. A GM task force within the South Australian Farmers Federation has been working on a revised paper over the past year, and last week it presented an alternative position paper on the same matter.

Sadly, I still cannot accept this paper because I believe that it contains contradictions and it does not identify clearly a procedure that we should be following in South Australia to make sure that we do not shoot ourselves in the foot by allowing a stampede into GM products.

I point out to the chamber, because I think it is reflective of where this debate is going, the consumer demands. The main point of the position paper is gene technology and it can be broken down into four areas: first, legislation and regulation; secondly, research and development; thirdly, education; and, fourthly, consumer demand. The paper refers to the main points and then there is a series of dot points. The second to last dot point states:

SAFF believes that within the legislative and regulatory framework it is each individual producer's decision as to whether they choose to use gene technology.

The point is the freedom to choose: an individual can choose. The last dot point states:

Importantly, all producers have the right to farm without being affected positively or negatively by another producer's choice in regard to the use of gene technology.

I am not sure how it would be affected positively. However, the fact is that this dot point says that people should be protected from being negatively affected by another producer's choice in regard to the use of technology.

However, the facts are-and no-one denies these facts-that, if your next-door neighbour is planting a genetically modified crop, there is very strong evidence that there is the chance of cross-pollination and a hybridisation of crops on the property, which is not deliberately planting genetically modified crops. That is point one. Secondly, if the area or the farmer who is not using the GM crop wants to be part of an area that is GM free, by having a next-door neighbour who is planting GM crops, then automatically that producer is negatively affected by the choice of his or her neighbour to use gene technology. So, in my view, the issue is not resolved by the SAFF paper and, although I did try to have it presented again for further consideration on a range of grounds, one of them being the precautionary principle-and I will come to the science as I can understand it at this stage a little later-I do not believe the science is in any form definitive.

The least I can say is that there was quite a strong body of opinion which supported me, but the majority did carry this as a position paper, so it is now a position paper for the Farmers Federation. However, the chair of the committee-Richard Waye from Port Vincent-who looked at it, kept emphasising that it is a starting point for the debate, so I believe that the discussion will still go on in the Farmers Federation. One point that is important to pick up from the position paper is that in several places it is claimed that the decisions will be influenced by market demands.In fact, it also assumes that that decision will be primarily influenced by market demands and it makes a further reference to the dominance of the market as being the determinant on whether genetically modified crops will be widely used.

The trouble with that is that, although I agree with the position, for the time being the market is definitely a predominant factor and must be heeded: it is no good growing product if we cannot sell it. Therefore, the SAFF position does fully recognise that. Although it may well be a predominant factor, maybe even the predominant factor, other factors must also be taken into consideration. They are the scientific and ethical issues and those matters which cannot be ignored.

Turning but briefly to the scientific aspect, I think somewhat unfortunately Biotechnology Australia-which was set up by the government for an educative role-as with other people who are quite close to the technology, becomes very enthusiastic to the point of becoming promoters rather than debaters of the pros and cons of the issue and, at times, it is very hard to pick the authority who is speaking to the group or writing the article that one is reading to determine their total detachment from having a personal bias in this issue.

I have said publicly-and I do not resile from it-that I believe the federal minister, Senator Minchin, and the state minister, Rob Kerin, have some enthusiasm for the genetically modified GM technology to be introduced into South Australia with minimum restraint and fuss; and I have spoken to people who are members of SAFF who hold the same view. Certainly, the ones to whom I have spoken in SAFF are very conscious that not 100 per cent of the membership holds that view, and I commend them for being understanding, tolerant and wanting to explore it so that, as far as one can, we will be able to get some sort of unanimity in South Australia about it.

I briefly refer to two scientific works, partly to illustrate some of the concerns that are circulating. Because canola is the one furthest down the track and the one on which Aventis and Monsanto have been attempting to have field trials so that it can be introduced into South Australia, it is of interest to read material that was published in the Plant Protection Quarterly , Volume 15(2) 2000, under the heading `Managing herbicide resistance in weeds from use of herbicide tolerant crops'. The scientists involved are Christopher Preston and Mary A. Rieger, CRC for Weed Management Systems and Department of Applied and Molecular Ecology, Waite Campus, University of Adelaide.

If members look at this paper, they will realise that this is an objective and genuine scientific research paper with some interesting conclusions drawn at the end of it. The last sentence states:

The future challenge is to determine strategies that will introduce herbicide-tolerant crop varieties in an effective way while minimising the development of herbicide resistant weed populations.

That is not an hysterical exclamation from some political, emotional or ideological fanatic: it is actually a sentence summarising the work in this case of two scientists working at Waite Research . They are finding evidence of the actual cross-pollination and the potential for crops resistant to the weedicides to be spread into the weed population.

The same scientists along with Stephen B. Powles have published a paper in the Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 1999, 50, entitled `Risks of gene flow from transgenic herbicide- resistant canola (Brassica napus) to weedy relatives in southern Australian cropping systems'. Once again, I recommend that members who want to follow this more closely get a copy, run their eye through it, realise that this is a scientific work of some integrity and depth, and read the last sentence of the summary, which states:

These populations of weedy B. napus may facilitate crossing with compatible weed species or become invasive themselves. Two of the species pinpointed as having crossing potential with B. napus are not yet widespread weeds of the southern Australian cropping zone, but may become so if they develop the herbicide-resistance trait. R. raphanistrum is already a major weed in southern Australian cropping systems with some populations resistant to ALS herbicides. Information is urgently needed to determine whether gene flow under Australian field conditions can produce successful hybrids between B. napus and R. raphanistrum.

That is a very low key indication of the risks that are identified and quite frequently recognised by people who are doing scientific research in this area.

Another scientist who prepared a paper on the matter is Philip A. Davies. He is working in South Australia and he has a paper entitled `Plant breeding and molecular farming'. In that, he identifies a wider range of concerns that he has with the current state of genetic modification. It is probably appropriate for me just to outline areas of his concern, rather than making extensive quotes from his paper. He notes that herbicide and insect resistance are the two most significant traits introduced into GM crops to date. He then makes some observations about the effectiveness of crop biotechnology and genetic engineering in agriculture and makes the following points.

He states that there have been no examples of outstanding success of transgenic crops compared to conventionally bred crops and that pests have evolved that attack the GM crops modified to produce the BT toxin. In other words, he is identifying that, although certain successes may appear in the first flush, the ability of insects to work their way around it, as has been the case since the dawn of time, quite quickly becomes apparent, so that it is a moving feast.

He notes that resistance to herbicides can and has spread from GM crops to weed populations; that there is uncertain impact on the soil; and that the predictions of yield improvement by those promoting GM crops have not been met. He notes that genes escape to other plants and species and there is no guarantee that an artificial gene could not be transferred to other species, viruses, bacteria, fungi, animals or humans. It is difficult to evaluate the effect of introducing a new gene into a single species, not to mention that that gene is readily transferred to other plants.

On the effect on non-target organisms, he notes that the effect of GM crops on the food chain is unknown and that European corn borer or Egyptian leaf worm raised on BT maize has a significantly higher mortality rate. As to the impact on biodiversity, he notes that, because of the potential for gene escape, the protection of the natural environment's biodiversity may be made more difficult. As to the impact on human health, most new transgenes produce a protein that has no long-term history of consumption in the human diet.

In relation to the socio-economic impact, the terminator gene-that is, the gene that will prevent further reproduction of the crop itself-will produce unfortunate results if these crops are part of aid packages. They will be sent out as aid packages, but the producers will not be able to harvest seed and replant. Modified canola crops aimed at producing oil that can substitute for palm or coconut oil places added pressure on the traditional producers trying to sell these products.

Farmers in any given region who do not wish to grow GM crops are dependent on other farmers in the region. Previously, the intellectual property associated with plant breeding has been diverse. However, genetic engineering brings a more concentrated ownership of this knowledge. There is also the question of the divide between who is taking the risks in GM foods and who is gaining the benefits.

In relation to risk assessment, he notes that until now the assessment of GM crops has been based on a formula that they are safe until proven harmful. A precautionary principle ( which is now widely recognised), means that you do not take the risk unless you can clearly establish that there is no risk or no appreciable risk, no unknown risks in the equation. A precautionary principle approach would be more appropriate. This means that the proponents of GM crops rather than the public should bear the burden of proof.

That is adding a little, at least, to the argument to support the position of this bill which is, in a sense, hasten slowly. There is no persuasive argument that South Australia will be behind-certainly not substantially behind, and I do not believe behind at all-if it delays the introduction of the so-called GM crops until five years down the track. If the game plan changes more quickly than I am anticipating, there is no reason why amending legislation could not be brought into this place in the meantime.

However, the big risk that we take is that if we allow the widespread introduction of GM crops, either in the field trials or broad acre planting, as is at risk of happening almost now, we will have damaged the reputation of South Australia as a GM-free area for ever. I urge members to support the second reading of the bill.

I identify again that the bill will enable the state as a whole, or an area or zone of the state, to be declared GM-free by the state government or a local council. We have seen Grant council in the South-East and councils on Eyre Peninsula that wish to have their areas or part of their areas declared GM free, and that would be enabled through this legislation. With that, I urge members to support this bill.