David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2015 addresses a classic case of unfinished business which is finally coming to conclusion. This issue of gene technology regulation has bounced around the parliament since 2011 and 2012, and I am pleased to see that this amendment bill is finally putting into effect recommendations that have floated in this space since then.

Gene technology is very important because it is at the forefront of improving agricultural productivity, medicines development, chemicals development and products for our foods. So it is a very regulated space. To put things in perspective, there is a whole network of legislation and regulation—both at the state and federal level—and an intergovernmental agreement which controls this. There was a Legislative and Governance Forum on Gene Technology, which was mandated by the intergovernmental agreement. That started back in 2011 and 2012. Here, we are now putting effect to its recommendations.

As well as the Gene Technology Regulator and his office, which is a federal body, there are other federal bits of legislation and bodies with their own sets of legislation. These also form part of the matrix governing gene technology regulation. These are: the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, and associated legislation; the Therapeutic Goods Administration and its relevant legislation; Food Standards Australia New Zealand; and the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme. So, as you can see, it is a highly regulated space. As you know, the coalition government are committed to red tape reduction and efficiency manoeuvres that we can employ in the federally-regulated space. This is part of our red tape reduction, and it follows the recommendations from the forum.

There are very substantial duplications between all these various authorities and the regulator. There are a variety of amendments which address many issues in this space. First of all, they cover issues such as how to manage inadvertent dealings and facilitate the removal of genetically modified organisms and products—whether they were with the intention to be released, incidental observations or without the aim or intention of releasing the products into the agricultural or food space. It looks at the issue of licence variations, low-risk work, the reporting requirements, inadvertent dealings, the requirements for public consultation and how much of the GMO record has to be duplicated. These interventions are very inefficient. They are a direct cost to the departments, which require buildings, staff, and lots of web and bureaucratic activity to do work which is already delivered by other bureaucracies that are in place—namely, the ones that I mentioned earlier. So, if we can streamline that process, happy days for the people that rely on these products, because the space that they occupy requires cost to comply with all of these things. It also reduces the cost to taxpayers, because there are less bureaucrats involved double-regulating the one issue or the one product. So—whether it is vaccines; things like insulin; or genetically modified cotton, canola or soy beans—this space will be much more efficiently administered.

In the licence variation space, this legislation still maintains the requirement to meet your regulatory confines but it simplifies it so that the person applying for a licence variation cannot unreasonably extend the coverage of the existing licence. It also still requires a risk assessment to be made, but it allows existing risk assessments for similar products that would intersect with that variation so that it is not duplicated. You will still have to assess the GMO safety to environments and humans. That goes without saying. The annual reports will be simplified from quarterly to annually. All of these manoeuvres, again, reduce costs. So far we have achieved almost $2½ billion in red-tape reduction manoeuvres over our red-tape reduction program. That is real efficiency for our economy, and for the people who rely on government regulation to get their products to market or into market.

The future of this bill is encouraging, because, I understand, there was bipartisan support and involvement at the state levels and by the other bureaucracies in the forum. So, all in all, it is a sensible bit of legislation which is technical and, essentially, pretty straightforward. I cannot see it as being controversial. I recommend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context