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

I do take your point but the question remains nevertheless because for me it is a bit unclear. A thing can be defined as a GMO even if it is not, so therefore it technically comes under the bill. One of the issues I raised during my speech in the second reading debate was the fact that we believe that some of these provisions could be outside the object of the act. Therefore, if a thing is described as a GMO even if it is not, it brings that into the act.