Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I know what it is like to try to work through those conditions and I think we all feel for members suffering with a cold. The last couple of weeks have seen quite an outbreak of that in this parliament, and I think that is partly to do with the air-conditioning system that mixes it all around the place. To come back to the Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2007 that we are debating, I and other members of the House of Representatives Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Committee initiated an inquiry into GM technology. We started that in 1999 and finished it in early 2000. We went all over Australia and made a very comprehensive report on GM technology. It was the unanimous decision of members of that committee—Labor, Independent, Liberal Party or National Party—to support the introduction of gene technology but, on top of that, to have the Gene Technology Regulator, which is what the amendments in this bill are all about. From memory, there were 108 recommendations in that report, which showed how complex the idea of gene technology was and that there was a need to have the regulator in place.

It still surprises me to this day that some people suggest there are inherently very dangerous ideas about gene technology. They seem to be suggesting that it is a technology we should not be using in Australia, and they come up with all sorts of arguments. I make the point in relation to GM foods, though, that if there had ever been a case of a death or near death from the consumption of a GM food product I think we would have heard about it by now. It is interesting to note that people in Australia who are diabetics have been using GM insulin for 25 years. This is a product that is ingested into the body. For 25 years, diabetics here and all over the world have been using GM insulin with no effects except good ones. Many people in Australia would also not realise that for at least 15 years virtually all yeast used in our bread, wine and beer has been genetically modified. It is GM yeast, yet we do not hear people saying we should not be drinking beer or wine or eating bread because it is using GM yeast. So it is a very proven technology. I think people sometimes forget that this is a technology that can speed up the genetic process.

I remember a period in the sixties when some people were running a scare campaign against homogenisation and pasteurisation of milk. Of course, now I do not think we would actually accept milk that has not been pasteurised and homogenised. In actual fact, they were using the same arguments against pasteurisation and homogenisation that people have been using now against GMs. It is interesting. You tend to get groups like the Greens opposed to gene technology without actually looking into the science. If you really want to look at the science of gene technology, I certainly do not think we have anything to fear from it. In fact, I think we can only really gain benefits out of it. If we could put vitamins, for example, via gene technology into our foodstuffs, especially for starving populations who obviously have vitamin deficiencies, we would be better off using that technology for the poor and starving in this world. I also refer to the example of the traditional breeding of wheat—and it is something I know a little bit about being a wheat grower for virtually all my life—and 150 years ago to when Mendel was talking about genetics. People probably said, ‘That was pretty crazy stuff,’ but of course it is not. Traditional breeding has been used for well over a century now. If you want to breed wheat in the so-called traditional way, you are actually mixing up 30,000 genes and it is so much harder to get the accuracy in the outcome that you want. However, with gene technology, you can actually transfer one gene and obviously have a far greater ability to measure what that gene does to that wheat. Wouldn’t it be great, for example, for Australia if we could breed, through gene technology, a wheat that is drought resistant using genetic modification?

I have also heard arguments about the so-called danger of gene technology and the viruses that are used. I have actually transferred genes myself at the CSIRO facility in Canberra, and I can tell you I have never felt safer in my life. So to suggest that it is a dangerous process is beyond reality; it is an absolute joke.

GM cotton, for example, has reduced the need to spray with insecticides. Again, I know something about insecticides because, as a farmer, I have been using them all my life. I am always very careful with insecticides, and look at the old measure of LDs—the lethal dose levels—and make sure that I wear gloves and respirators, depending on what the chemical is. Obviously in most cases insecticides tend to be a bit more dangerous than herbicides. But with GM cotton, they have reduced the amount of insecticide required by up to 80 per cent. That is great for the environment—absolutely great for the environment—and it is great for the farmer, because they are reducing the cost and reducing the amount of chemicals going into the ground. With GM cotton they are able to release their own pyrethrin, which of course we use in flysprays and have been using for I do not know how many decades all over the world. There are some real benefits from gene technology.

It goes without saying that GMOs and GM products have increased in stature. It is clearly important that the Gene Technology Act 2000 is reviewed and amended where necessary. In fact, that was one of the recommendations that the agricultural committee made. We need to amend it where necessary to keep up with the changes and ensure the health and safety of everyone—growers, producers, manufacturers and, in the end, community members—to make sure that they are protected.

The ultimate outcome from this amendment bill will be an improvement in the operation of the act, without changing its underlying policy intent—or, for that matter, the overall legislative framework of the gene technology regulatory scheme. The current act regulates all dealings. By this I mean the research, manufacture, production, propagation, commercial release and import of live viable GMOs that have been modified by technique or gene technology. This also includes the progeny of such GMOs which share the genetically modified trait. I have often described GMOs this way: when you look at it we had the industrial revolution and then we had the computer revolution, and now, with gene technology, we have the biotechnology revolution. I notice the member for Moore coming into the chamber. He was very much a valuable part of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, which looked into gene technology. He certainly had some of his own personal experiences and a wealth of knowledge to give to that committee.

I think that one of the failings of our federal system is that, whilst we have the gene technology here in Australia and we have the regulator, we now have states that have the planning powers and we have moratoriums all over Australia. I think it is an absolute joke that they could not make up their minds five years ago. They have been too scared to take the step based on rational logic because of the fear campaigns that have been put out there by gene technology. That has been an inherent weakness of the system—that whilst we, as a federal government, have given the go-ahead, with very strict regulations and controls, the states have put on their own moratoriums. I do hope and encourage the states to review that, and I believe that the states of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland are reviewing that now on the basis that we have now got over the state elections in all of those states and they can get on with governing. Let us hope that we get some commonsense out of those governments.

The present gene technology regulatory scheme allows for the regulation of gene products where they are not regulated by another regulatory scheme. To explain this further, GM medicines are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration and foods by Food Standards Australia New Zealand. Of course, long ago they accepted GM insulin. The Gene Technology Act is the government’s component of the nationally consistent regulatory scheme for gene technology. The signing of the Gene Technology Agreement 2001 enabled the commitment of all states and territories to enact corresponding legislation.

It was the mid-1970s when the oversight of gene technology in Australia began on a voluntary basis. However, significant advances ensued and this, in turn, prompted significant community concern about GMOs. This was particularly so in the late 1990s, and it was 1998 when states, territories and the Australian government worked together to establish, for the first time, a uniform national approach to the regulation of gene technology. Consultation followed, before the act, and the Gene Technology Regulations 2001 came into effect.

At the time, the community wanted protection and information. In the end, if people demand that information, I think we inherently have a duty to provide it. The object of this act has always been, and should continue to be, to protect the health and safety of the Australian people. It should correspondingly protect the environment by identifying risks posed by, or as a result of, gene technology and manage those risks through regulation of certain dealings with GMOs. This has been achieved through the establishment of an independent statutory office holder, the Gene Technology Regulator, which has been charged with the responsibility of administering the act and making decisions about the development and use of GMOs under the act.

When the act was passed it was stipulated that an independent review of its operations, including the structure of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, be undertaken and tabled in parliament at the fifth anniversary of it having come into force on 21 June 2006, which of course is tomorrow. In accordance with this requirement, an independent review of the act and the intergovernmental Gene Technology Agreement 2001 was conducted. An independent panel of three people considered almost 300 submissions from members of the public, industry and other stakeholders. These were assessed by the panel and developed into issue papers. A period of nationwide consultations followed whereby public forums were held at locations right around Australia. This meant the review panel heard firsthand a range of views from interested parties, including from state governments, industry, researchers, farm groups, non-governmental organisations—NGOs—and consumers. I commend the panel for its conduct within my electorate of Barker, where I believe it was very thoroughly and comprehensively undertaken.

Once this review was completed, there was a period of explicit consultation with states and territories on how best to implement the recommendations. This led to the draft Gene Technology Amendment Bill, which was finally agreed to by all states and territories after a further consultation period. This review found the act and the national regulatory scheme had worked well in the previous five years and that no major changes were required. It did, however, suggest a number of minor changes which would ultimately improve the operation of the act, and I note that the shadow minister supported those changes. Until now the key components of the act provided, among many things, for the establishment of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator as an independent statutory office holder with responsibility for implementing the legislation. It also established three key advisory committees to provide scientific, ethical and policy advice to the regulator of the ministerial council in relation to GMOs—the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee, the Gene Technology Ethics Committee and the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee.

Regulations give effect to the objectives of the act by providing further information about definitions within the act, describing exemptions under the legislation, setting out the dealings with GMOs that are exempt dealings or notifiable low-risk dealings and the conditions that will apply to such dealings, describing the types of information required of an applicant for a GMO licence, and setting out details of the operation of the three committees established under the act. Licence applications are considered on a case-by-case basis by the regulator, who must consider whether the risk posed by the dealing can be managed in such a way to protect human health and safety and, of course, the environment. The regulator must make a decision on whether to issue the licence or allow the conduct of that dealing and the management conditions to be imposed to manage any risk, however small it may be.

Beyond what already exist within the boundaries of the act are a number of recommendations that have been agreed to by the GTMC and which we are here to discuss today. The bill proposes to implement the recommendations requiring legislative change which include, firstly, a proposal to introduce emergency provisions into the act giving the minister the ability to expedite the approval of a dealing with a GMO in an emergency. The object is to increase the responsiveness of the gene technology regulatory system. It recognises that situations may arise where approval of a dealing with a GMO may be required within a limited amount of time. It furthers the object of the act which, as I have highlighted, is to protect the health and safety of people and to protect the environment. This is of paramount importance. I would suggest that the introduction of this provision into the act would improve consistency between regulatory schemes. Other relevant product regulators for vaccines, like the Therapeutic Goods Administration for example, already possess the ability to expedite approvals in an emergency.

The second proposed amendment will see the combining of the Gene Technology Ethics Committee and the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee into one advisory committee. This committee will adopt the name of ‘Gene Technology Ethics and Community Consultative Committee’ and its role will be to carry out the combined functions of both committees and provide advice on risk communications and community consultations regarding intentional release licence applications. In this day and age time is of the essence. This amendment will increase efficiency by addressing the overlaps between the roles of the existing committees. I must also mention that the GTMC will review the new advisory committee and its performance after 18 months.

This bill will effectively streamline the process for the initial consideration of licences for the release of GMOs into the environment. In altering the order of events during the initial licence consultation process, the regulator has given more time to consider whether or not dealings pose a significant risk. It would no longer be required to consider whether an application poses a significant risk to the health and safety of people or the environment before preparing a risk assessment and risk management plan. As part of this particular amendment, a new category of licence will be introduced, effectively splitting licensing for dealings involving intentional releases, to distinguish between licences for limited and controlled release—like experimental field trials—and licences for intentional release.

I am impressed with the changes proposed in this bill. It will make it easier for stakeholders to comply with the act and to encourage a system of cooperative compliance. However, I stress that any licence applications that deal with a GMO will still most definitely be subject to thorough scrutiny, and the harsh penalties for breach of the provisions of the act have been retained. If the bill is passed, the majority of amendments will be effected on 1 July 2007.

GMOs are gaining prominence on a national level and this bill will ensure this country is best placed to encourage ongoing research and development in an industry that I believe is only going to get bigger and better. Most importantly, this bill protects the health and safety of Australian people and the environment.

See this speech in context