Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to address the Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2007, the purpose of which is to amend the Gene Technology Act 2000 for a range of purposes. Included amongst those purposes is the introduction of emergency powers to give the relevant minister the ability to expedite the approval of a dealing with a genetically modified organism in an emergency. The bill also creates the Gene Technology Ethics and Community Consultation Committee and amends the process for assessing applications for genetically modified organism licences. Joining the ethics and consultative committees into one body does streamline a process and should ensure that clear advice will be provided to the regulator and to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council.

Labor supports the amendments to the Gene Technology Act proposed by this bill. We note that these amendments arise from an independent statutory review into the act and are supported by the intergovernmental Gene Technology Ministerial Council and consequently represent an agreed position with the states and territories. We also understand and acknowledge that the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs has conducted an inquiry into the bill and recommended that it be passed, stating that it strikes ‘an appropriate balance in managing the potential harms and benefits of developing gene technology’.

We acknowledge that there are strong views in the community regarding genetically modified organisms. This is a particularly sensitive issue and it does need to be addressed carefully, and those concerns need to be both acknowledged and taken on board. I want to identify a number of the concerns that have been expressed in relation to this bill by a number of community organisations. It is important that we are able to put those concerns on the record and ensure that they will be taken into consideration as a consequence of these amendments being passed. And I will come to those views in a minute. Notwithstanding that, the debate on this bill is not specifically a debate about the merits or otherwise of gene technology—I have my own views about gene technology—but the amendments contained in the bill relate primarily to processes for assessing applications under the act. As a consequence, Labor is supporting the bill.

I did refer to some of the concerns and issues that were expressed in the consideration of this legislation, particularly the proposal for new emergency powers that would be exercised by minister. These powers will give the minister the power to expedite an approval for a GMO in an emergency. It remains the case that the bill does not contain a definition of what constitutes an emergency. What is identified is that the minister must be satisfied that there is an actual or an imminent threat, but this concept is not defined. I think there is an anticipation that when the review of this legislation is undertaken, given that it will come into force, then, if there has actually been an emergency that has been identified, we will get some clarity from the minister as to the precise definitions of actual or imminent threat and what the circumstances that attach to them may actually be.

We do note that proposed subsection 72B(2) sets out the conditions under which the minister is permitted to make an emergency dealing determination. It is the case that, before making an emergency dealing determination, the minister must have received advice from the Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer, the Commonwealth Chief Veterinary Officer, the Commonwealth Chief Plant Protection Officer or a person specified in the regulations that there is an actual or imminent threat to the health and safety of people or the environment and that the dealings proposed to be specified in the emergency dealing determination would or would be likely to adequately address the threat. So it does provide some comfort that the minister will be in receipt of advice which has given consideration to that specific identified issue. Additionally, the minister must be satisfied that there is an actual or imminent threat as described above; be satisfied that the risks posed by proposed dealings can be managed safely; have received advice from the regulator to that effect; and have consulted state and territory governments.

Submissions were made to the Senate inquiry from a number of parties—including, amongst others, the organisation Gene Ethics. Their submission stated:

For example, ‘threat’ includes ‘pests and diseases’ but there is no requirement that the threat be of a particular imminence, severity or scale. The word ‘threat’ is not explicitly defined yet the Bill proposes that the Minister merely be satisfied that a ‘threat’ is imminent without requirements or procedures to prove that a ‘threat’ of the sort envisaged really exists.

I think this does raise one of the grey issues in respect of the amendments that are before us. It will be the way in which the minister conducts their determination under these amendments which will give some clarity as to whether or not that concern that has been raised will stand. Certainly under legislation, the minister can vary the conditions of an emergency dealing determination by a non-disallowable legislative instrument. So it does provide for some flexibility in that area. Greenpeace was another organisation which made a submission to the Senate inquiry. This included the point:

... while extension provisions of the emergency dealing determinations are detailed at length, any mention of a remedy for a State ... to revoke the emergency dealing determination is completely absent. Ironically, a majority of jurisdictions must agree to an extension of the emergency dealing determination, while the agreement of a majority of jurisdictions is not explicitly required to implement an emergency dealing determination ...

I think there is a point there to be considered. Again our view very strongly is that, once we have an opportunity to examine the way in which the amendment to this legislation is given effect to, and the review that is provided therein, we will be able to have a clearer sense of the way in which the minister can actually exercise their responsibility. Certainly it is important that the emergency powers be used only as a last resort, and Labor will be closely monitoring the implementation of the provisions as a matter of consequence.

I want to make a couple of brief points more broadly about the issue of genetically modified organisms and reflect on the comments of previous speakers. I note the comments made by leading environmental lawyer Don Anton at the ANU College of Law when he made a submission to the 2001 Senate inquiry into the original legislation, the Gene Technology Bill. He made the point, I think fairly:

The precautionary principle has particular application to GMOs. Not only could direct damage be serious, but ongoing and extensive because of irreversibility. Once released freely to the environment, a living organism, or a novel gene that has transferred to an unintended host, cannot be “recalled”. A cautious and conservative approach to risk should be followed where there is insufficient scientific confidence of safety. Successful application of the principle will mean that Australia avoids expensive failures.

There is certainly no shortage of examples in the natural landscape—not necessarily directly concerning GMOs, but certainly concerning the introduction of new technologies, new breeds or new species that have an intended benefit but which actually end up having a completely unintended consequence and causing harm. One such example is rabbits—which you, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, would be intimately familiar with—and many others also come to mind.

Labor’s position on genetically modified organisms is outlined in our platform, which was endorsed by Labor’s national conference in April 2007. The platform states:

Genetically modified (GM) crops will not be released unless they are safe to health, safe to the environment and beneficial to the economy. Safe and beneficial standards must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Standards must be met to the satisfaction of the government and also of the scientific community, the consumer community and, in the case of GM crops, to the satisfaction of the farming community.

Accurate information on GM products must be provided to consumers and the community. The onus of proof that a product is ‘safe and beneficial’ lies with its developers.

GM crops should not be introduced unless there is a whole of community consensus.

So the precautionary principle underpins Labor’s approach to environmental protection and the licensing and release of GM products. In particular, in relation to GMOs this precautionary principle needs to be underlined and given effect at every period of the application, decision making and approvals process.

The precautionary principle has an additional weight given the context of climate change that the farming communities in particular are facing at this time. We have an impact on farming communities in relation to the current drought in southern Australia, in particular, and there is the likelihood over time of additional hotter and drier days and, as a consequence, in any future droughts, regrettably, a greater intensification.

There can be no question that plant species in particular are now coming under increasing stress as a result of climate change. It is important that the risk to our biodiversity from climate change is not overlaid with additional and unpredictable risks. Certainly when we look at Australia’s endangered and vulnerable species we can see the effect of low and variable rainfall, inland aridity and the considerable between-year variation in climate, in part due to El Nino southern oscillation. There is extensive and ongoing degradation, loss and fragmentation of terrestrial and aquatic habitats and the presence of invasive weeds and pests. Flora and fauna in our country includes very high levels of endemicity and the geographic and climate range that a number of species inhabit is narrow. All of these add up to the fact that in the release of any organisms into the natural environment the precautionary principle will need to be given the fullest effect.

This is a sensitive issue which needs to be addressed with great care, and the most rigorous of standards need to be observed. But Labor supports the bill, recognising that there are safeguards in place to ensure that the powers are used in a way that is appropriate and that the provisions we are giving effect to will only be utilised if the threat is considered serious or immediate. Labor also recognises that there is a review process in place to see that these amendments are actually carried out to the effect of the legislation.

See this speech in context