Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the senator and I understand the example you are using. I must admit it sends shivers up my spine that at one of the world’s icons we might be releasing untested GMOs. That gives me further cause for concern, but it still relates to the fact that in the guidelines and the bill there is not a boundary around what the scale of the threat is that we are talking about. I appreciate the example that you have used. I would prefer it to be in guidelines, which it is not. I have read them and it is not in the bill, which is why I will be moving amendment (4)—to put some regulations around that. I thank you for giving me some examples.

I have another question, and it also relates to some clarification around a definition. It may be that I do not understand the legislation or have misread it. Am I correct that the guidelines say:

The Minister may declare a thing to be a GMO by regulation for a limited period if the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that the thing is an actual or imminent threat to the health and safety of people or the environment and there is doubt that the thing meets the definition of a GMO in the Act.

Is it designed to ensure that this in fact meets the object of the act and that a thing that causes the damage may not be a GMO but has been declared a GMO for the object of the act? I am seeing some nodding from the advisers box.