Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering the Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2007 and Australian Greens amendments (2) and (3) on sheet 5247 moved by Senator Siewert.

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

I thank the senator for tabling the guidelines—it was very helpful. I am seeking some further clarification around certain issues that relate to the amendments that I am moving. I want to go to the issue of threat again. I am trying to seek some clarification around the definition of threat—imminence, severity and scale. Let me use an example. In the guidelines they use the example of an oil spill. We have had many oil spills in Australia, and I would hate to think that a genetically modified organism would have been released in relation to any of these oil spills. I have a level of nervousness, as do I think a number of people, around what you would define as an imminent threat in relation to an oil spill or an industrial spillage, and I seek some guidance around those issues. It is not contained in the guidelines and, while the guidelines clarify some detail, they do not clarify that level of detail.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable senator raises an interesting point. The word ‘threat’ is not defined in the legislation—you are quite right. It is an everyday, ordinary English usage term and it is simply to be read as that. In relation to the relationship with the emergency, if you are looking at section 72B(2)(a), it says:

... that there is an actual or imminent threat to the health and safety of people or the environment ...

We are talking about imminent threat to the health and safety of people or to the environment. Subsection (3) talks about, among other things, a threat from industrial spillage. It all has to relate back to the head provision, which is ‘an imminent threat to the health and safety of people or the environment’. Clearly, a threat from industrial spillage would be a threat to the environment. It would be imminent and it would be actual. You are quite right to raise the question about whether a genetically modified organism would assist in that process. It may or it may not but, if it is a possibility and would assist in that sort of emergency, the government would like to be able to use it.

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

I have articulated in my speech on the second reading debate the concern we have about the release of an unassessed genetically modified organism into the environment. The issue of scale and severity goes specifically to the issue around industrial spillages. When does an industrial spillage such as an oil spill become such a threat that it requires these extraordinary provisions? That is what I am seeking to clarify and get some guidance on because I cannot think of a spill—and I come from a very strong environmental background—in Australia that I have been involved with in some form or another that I would think would be severe enough to trigger these amendments. I am not aware of any where I would think that the threat was so severe that you would release untested—and here we are talking about potentially untested and unassessed—GMOs.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is fair to say that an example might be if for some reason, hypothetically, an oil tanker was wrecked off the Great Barrier Reef and half a million tons of oil leached out onto the reef. That would qualify as an emergency under the legislation—that is the first issue; that is an example. You raise a question about unlicensed GMOs. As I have said—and I know we are going to come back to this later in terms of your amendments—it is only in highly prescribed circumstances that the minister can seek a licence. We will come back in a minute to have that debate but there may, for example, be examples where a GMO has been tested in another country and for various reasons it has not been tested in Australia. The emergency is appalling. It is a shocking oil leak but, for example, they have used a GMO to combat the spillage in, let us say, the United States. Sometimes governments have to act very quickly. All this legislation is about is the capacity to act very quickly to stop huge environmental damage.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is important that I should state at the outset that the guidelines, which I tabled earlier today, are simply guidelines. They do not have any legal status per se; they are simply an aide-memoire for consultation. The bill provides the legislative framework for ministerial discretion. It is probably best just to refer to the bill as it is at the moment because that will simplify our discussion.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A GMO is a GMO. It is as simple as that.

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

I appreciate I am talking about the guidelines—the point is that if it is open for misinterpretation at the ministerial council level, it is open to misinterpretation elsewhere. Is the only thing we are talking about here, in terms of threat, a GMO? Is it to be declared a GMO for the object of it being dealt with under this act?

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not mean to obstruct but I do not quite understand the question. I am struggling with the question; I am not trying to be obstructive.

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

It says:

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 ...

I interpret that to mean that we are not now talking about the GMO that is used to deal with the threat, which is why I am confused. It is actually defining the threat or the thing that is causing the threat as a GMO.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was going to ask Senator Siewert where she read that from.

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

It is on page 3 of the guidelines.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, I think that in your reference to the guidelines you are referring to recommendation 9.3 of the review which recommends:

... the IGA be amended to provide capacity for the Commonwealth to declare a thing to be a GMO by regulation for a limited period in an emergency. This would be notified to—

the ministerial council—

in the first instance. It is recommended—

in the review, that the ministerial council—

must agree to the Regulations—

to the regulations, not the bill—

before they are submitted to the Executive Council for renewal.

So declaring by regulation a thing to be a GMO is an existing provision at the moment.

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

I was actually referring to the guidelines. It says:

The minister may declare a thing ...

The guidelines may be wrong but you tabled them earlier in the day. It is on page 3 directly under the heading ‘Emergency regulation declaring a thing to be a GMO’, which I presume relates to this. You are shaking your head. Can we clarify then whether this is the thing that we are talking about that will be a threat?

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have found your reference to the second paragraph on page 3 of the guidelines. That is currently in the legislation so that is not in the bill we are debating; that is the current law.

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

I accept that but, while it is currently in the law, the emergency dealing provisions are not. That is what is going into the legislation. So is the thing that can already be declared a GMO because of its threat the thing that the emergency dealing provisions also deal with?

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the debate has concluded between Senator Siewert and Senator Mason, I should indicate that Labor will not be supporting the amendments moved by the Greens—that is, amendments (2) and (3) on the sheet we are dealing with. The condition that the bill requires, which I think is particularly relevant here, is that the states and territories will be consulted before these emergency provisions are enacted. That gives me some comfort that, if someone spills a can of oil, we are not going to release a whole heap of GMOs. There is going to be a proper process of analysis, finding out, and doing the balancing act. We will have answers to questions such as: is the loss of the Great Barrier Reef a bigger risk when compared to that of the release of these GMOs, given they have been tested in these ways? I feel confident that the sort of decision-making processes that would be applied in that circumstance, which I certainly hope will never have to be contemplated, are in place in the legislation. We also note that the states and territories agree with the guidelines as have been tabled. I want to put that on the record.

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

I would like to clarify if there is the potential that these organisms will not have been assessed or tested—which is why we wanted to put some boundaries and definitions around severity, scale and imminence. There are also scales of threat. For example, the guidelines say that the states and territories will be given 48 hours, I think, to respond. Depending on the scale of the threat, that time line may be essential. It may not be, though. That is why we would prefer to see a clearer definition of ‘threat’ in the guidelines in the regulations or in the bill. The other issue in defining the threat is that the bill says:

An actual or imminent threat of a kind mentioned in paragraph 2(a) or (b) may include, but not be limited to ...

So while we have talked about the examples that are in subsection (3) it is not limited to that. That gives us some concern, which is again why we were trying to limit this provision specifically to medical emergencies.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that by picking up on Senator McLucas’s point I am traversing some of your other proposed amendments, but can I do that just briefly, because it is important to do this and to go through section 72B, which outlines the discretion. It is highly prescriptive. As I mentioned in the debate this morning, it is not unusual for regulatory bodies of this nature to have an emergency dealing provision. The difference in this particular bill is that it is far more prescriptive than usual. It is not a discretion that a minister can unilaterally take up. Moreover, it is not one of those discretions that are simply subject to consultation—and we have all seen them. This is far more prescriptive than that.

To make an emergency dealing determination the minister responsible must follow the processes set out in the bill and the minister must have received advice from the Chief Medical Officer, the Chief Veterinary Officer, the Chief Plant Protection Officer or a person prescribed by regulations that there is an actual or imminent threat and that the proposed dealings of the GMO are likely to adequately address that threat. If the minister does not receive that advice from the CMO, the Chief Veterinary Officer or the Chief Plant Protection Officer then the minister cannot exercise that discretion for that emergency licence.

Secondly, the minister must also have received advice from the regulator that any risks posed by the proposed dealings are able to be managed safely. So again—and Senator McLucas touched on this—if there is a horrible oil spill on the Great Barrier Reef, the regulator would have to be satisfied that the risks posed by the proposed dealings of the GMO are able to be managed safely. Again, it is another safeguard. Again, it is not the exercise of unilateral discretion by a minister.

Thirdly, before issuing a determination the minister must be satisfied that there is an actual or imminent threat, that the proposed dealings would help to respond to the threat and that any risks can be managed safely. Finally—and it is the point that Senator McLucas made—in addition, the states and territories must have been consulted before the emergency dealing determinations are made in any case.

If you compare these provisions with other emergency provisions in similar regulatory bodies, these are far more prescriptive in outlining the consultation procedures. I just want to make the point that this is not a discretion that can be exercised by a minister unilaterally. It is highly prescribed and a minister must abide by that advice.

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

Except that there are stronger guidelines in this legislation than in other pieces of legislation that relate to emergency powers—and I would hope so, given that you are potentially releasing an untested, unassessed genetically modified organism into the environment and potentially giving it to humans. I accept that—which is why we are concerned that they still do not go far enough. Yes, they have to seek advice, but we are not entirely convinced that the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator have the necessary experience or expertise to advise on some of the issues that may potentially come up, particularly as they relate to untested or unassessed organisms. They may not have the information to make those assessments. That is why we would like to be provided with further guidance on what basis the Chief Medical Officer, the Chief Veterinary Officer and the Chief Plant Protection Officer, for example, provide advice on the degree of threat around imminence, severity and scale. We do accept that there are strong provisions here; we just do not think they go far enough because of the potential, literally, for disastrous outcomes if it goes wrong.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me refer you again to the legislation. If the regulator must be satisfied before recommending an emergency dealing determination that the risks are able to be managed in such a way as to protect the health and safety of people and to protect the environment and if the regulator is not satisfied that those risks are able to be managed in such a way—if the regulator does not know about the GMO sufficiently—then the regulator is not able to give the minister that advice and the minister could not exercise his discretion in favour of an emergency declaration.

Question negatived.

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

I move Greens amendment (4) on sheet 5247:

(4)    Schedule 1, item 10, page 12 (after line 12), after section 72E, insert:

72F Guidelines for emergency response

                 The Minister must, by legislative instrument, issue guidelines for emergency responses under the Gene Technology Act 2000 and the Gene Technology Agreement.

The guidelines for emergency response have been tabled, as we know. These guidelines from the ministerial council came up during the Senate committee hearings; they had been developed to give some clarification to how these provisions would be implemented. The Greens believe that these should be stronger than guidelines, that they should be a legislative instrument. That is why we are moving this amendment—to in fact require the guidelines to be developed further because we are a little concerned that they do not provide some of the information that we believe is needed. We would like to see these guidelines become a legislative instrument for emergency response under the Gene Technology Act. They need to be beyond guidance; they would be requirements to be met when the emergency dealing provisions are in fact invoked.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I make a few points about the guidelines. I thank Senator Siewert for raising the issue. The guidelines that I tabled this morning work alongside the provisions of the act, and they set the administrative procedures for implementing the emergency dealing determinations—in particular, as you pointed out, Senator Siewert, the consultative process that the minister and the government must go through. As the bill is already very prescriptive about the process for making an emergency dealing determination—and I went through that before—the government does not believe that there is any need for the guidelines to be a legislative instrument. In other acts that I have referred to in relation to other regulatory bodies, there are no such guidelines for emergency response—and, as you say, perhaps in this case, given the great seriousness of the issue, that is appropriate. But these guidelines really are a technical document subject to practical implementation in the workings of the legislation. They really tease out the procedural process. I am not sure, from reading the guidelines, that they are appropriate for legislation. They really are an aide-memoire to consultation rather than strictly a legislative document.

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

I am sorry; I may have slightly misled you. I do not think that these precise guidelines should necessarily be the guidelines that become a regulatory instrument. Our amendment says that ‘the minister must, by legislative instrument, issue guidelines’. I would hope that they would be more prescriptive than these guidelines here. They should be more along the lines of helping to define the scale of the threat in terms of severity, which we have already been over, and providing perhaps more detailed examples of when and in what situations these emergency provisions would be implemented—oil spills et cetera or where emergencies occur in environmentally sensitive areas, for example—so that there is more guidance provided through a legislative instrument.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I now understand your point more fully, Senator Siewert, but the government believes the process outlined in the bill for an emergency dealing determination is very prescriptive. And, as I mentioned before in relation to the other amendment, not only is it very prescriptive but I do not think that anyone could argue that the minister could exercise any unilateral discretion. It is highly circumscribed and prescribed, and the government does not believe that any further consultative pro-cess per se needs to be put into legislation. I think it is fair enough to raise the argu-ment—and you have, Senator—that it is good to have the guidelines there, and I think you are right. But I do not think they need to be fleshed out, teased out or, in any case, reformed for a legislative purpose. I think they better serve their purpose as an aide-memoire.

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

I think we may have to agree to disagree on that one.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I should indicate that the Labor Party will not be supporting Greens amendment (4). I think that the explanation from the parliamentary secretary is quite clear. Given that the bill itself—and, if passed, the act itself—has a very clear explanation of what would occur, the status quo is quite supportable. We have had arguments in this place about legislation being put into regulations that should have been in the act, but I think in this case the legislation is in the act and these guidelines are simply a working document to tell people how the emergency response would in fact occur. Therefore we will not be supporting Greens amendment (4).

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question about the guidelines in terms of the process. The parliamentary secretary would be aware that we raised this issue during the committee consultative process. I know that the guidelines were tabled this morning, and we welcome them, be-cause it is fairly important that guidelines in any form come at the same time as the legislation so that we can see the whole pro-cess that will operate. As you would be aware, during the committee hearings people talked consistently about the need for the public to have an understanding of and security in this process, because it has a long history in our community. I would just like to get some clarification of the consultative mech-anisms that were used to develop the guidelines. What knowledge, if any, did the large number of people and stakeholders who have been involved in these consultative processes have of these guidelines before they were tabled today, and do they have access to them now? Will those who raised concerns during the committee hearings about how the process would operate have a chance to question what is in those guidelines?

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The guidelines are of course a result of the review that was undertaken after five years of the Gene Technol-ogy Act being in operation. Senator Siewert raised that question this morning about the guidelines, and it is a fair point. But they were only finally approved last Friday in Brisbane by the ministerial council, and that is why they were not available to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs during your inquiry. I think it is fair to say that there has been exhaustive consultation with the states and territories on the development of these guidelines, simply because it is an aspect of federalism that these potential emergencies cross all boundaries. The document now of course is public and, as a public document, people are quite entitled to comment on it—and I am sure they will.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We acknowledge that the public now have the ability to comment. During the very short time that the committee had to consider this process, we were aware that there were still some concerns amongst some people and consumer groups in the community about how this process would operate. It would be fair to say that the groups that took the time and effort to submit to our committee were those that have concerns about the process. If there are issues about the guidelines that people do not understand, will there be a facility to change the guidelines and not just comment or raise an opinion? What process is there for change?

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a living document so, yes, it can change. It would be done by simply communicating with me and the government. There may be real concerns about the consultative process in relation to the guidelines. We do not want to confuse this. The bill has been out for a while and it is quite clear about what it says. That is a different issue. There is no question about that; it has been a public document for a long time. In relation to the guidelines, you are right. They were approved last week. I have just been informed that the guidelines will go on the Department of Health and Ageing website and also on the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator website. Any issues will be raised through the department and, no doubt, through state and territory governments. If people want to use those mechanisms, they would be able to have some input into the document, and that will hopefully address any concerns.

Question negatived.

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

As I have articulated on several occasions, the Greens have very strong concerns about the emergency dealing determinations. We appreciate the need for them. We think they are, despite the precautions in this legislation, an acknowledgement that they are greater than others. We do not think they go far enough. We think they are too extensive. The threat is not defined enough and neither are the triggers, which is why we sought to limit them to medical emergencies. At this stage we would prefer that these amendments do not proceed and that the provisions that are even tighter are introduced. Therefore the Greens oppose item 10 in schedule 1 in the following terms:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 10, page 5 (line 27) to page 12 (line 12), TO BE OPPOSED.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to indicate that the Labor Party will not be supporting the Greens amendment. Without recanvassing my speech in the second reading debate, I think there are protections in place in the legislation that ensure that, if any emergency dealing were to proceed, the appropriate level of scrutiny would be applied. Here I am speaking personally: I am not a person who thinks that GMOs are the bee’s knees and that we should pursue them in any great way but, if we are faced with the option of using a GMO that could potentially save many lives or the environment, I think we would do our community a disservice by not using that option. I think that allowing this legislation to proceed with the conditions that are applied is the only reasonable thing to do. If there is the potential that a GMO could clean up an oil spill or assist in a pandemic of some sort, and we as a legislature do not allow that opportunity, I do not think we are doing the right thing by our community. But we have to make sure that the protections are in place and that the risks are managed, and I believe that the legislation covers that.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator McLucas for making the point far more eloquently than I could. It is ultimately a balance. Senator Siewert was right to raise the concern, because it is a concern that is reflected right back to the review process in 2005-06. In the end it is a balance, and governments have to make decisions about when they should take difficult action. You may say it is risky, but we tried to minimise risk through the highly prescriptive process. I accept that it is a power that we hope we will never have to use. Secondly, in relation to the environment—and we are recanvassing some of those issues—I understand your point about wishing to limit this to simply human health. But, if there is an oil spill, I think it is incumbent on all of us, particularly someone from the Greens party, to use GMOs if necessary to clean up an oil spill—an environmental disaster. It is a balance, but I think this bill is about as close as we will get to finding that balance.

Sandy Macdonald (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that item 10 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

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

I move Greens amendment (5):

(5)    Schedule 1, item 39, page 22 (line 28), at the end of subsection 50A(1), add:

   ; and (d)    on the basis of a full written assessment, the release of a genetically engineered or genetically modi-fied organism into the environment poses no risk to the environment.

This amendment adds to section 50A(1) an additional provision for limited and controlled release applications by requiring a full written assessment for the release of a genetically engineered or genetically modified organism before it is released into the environment to ensure that it poses no risk to the environment. We seek to add point (d) to address the requirement for full assessment. If we release a GMO into the environment in non-emergency situations, we believe that we should be very clear about the risk that may pose and ensure that it does not impose a risk.

Again, I repeat: we are dealing with organisms that we do not properly understand that have been genetically modified and we do not know the impact that they are going to have on the environment. I will not bore the Senate with examples, yet again, of the disasters that have occurred with the near release of genetically modified organisms or with issues that we are already seeing with genetically modified organisms. Although I personally have concerns about genetically modified organisms, this is not about trying to stop it; it is about ensuring that if anything is released, it is subject to full assessment. Whether it is a limited and controlled release or a different release, it still needs to be assessed.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The review recommended that dealings involving intentional release licences should be split to distinguish between, on the one hand, field trials and, on the other hand, commercial releases. That is what we are talking about here. I should remind the Senate that the regulator will still need to prepare and consult on a risk assessment and risk management plan for a limited and controlled release. This is provided for under sections 50(1) and 50(2) of the existing act. What are being streamlined are the requirements in section 50(3) of the act. The government simply argues that this amendment is not necessary; it is to streamline field trials and so forth. Nothing is being changed in relation to the commercial releases.

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

I appreciate that and I understand that. Our point is that we do not like the streamline process. Despite what the review said, we believe that the controls need to be as strong as they can be, so we are trying to ensure that through this amendment.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will not be supporting the amendment. I think it goes against the intent of what was proposed in terms of the treatment of an intentional release, which requires the full set of assessments and processes, as opposed to the treatment of an experimental release. The original bill, as I recall from back in 2000—a long time ago—did not make that distinction. I think that was a recommendation from the review: that there be a distinction between the two types of releases that are allowed under the act.

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

I appreciate that that was one of the recommendations. The Greens do not support the scaling down of some of the assessments of limited and controlled releases. I remind the Senate that there have been escapes from trials and from limited releases. There are examples of that which we are very concerned about, and we are concerned about the potential for that to increase if we streamline too much the process for limited and controlled releases.

Question negatived.

The Greens oppose items 34 and 35 in schedule 1 in the following terms:

(6)    Schedule 1, items 34 and 35, page 16 (line 17) to page 21 (line 14), TO BE OPPOSED.

This amendment relates to the consultative and ethics committees. The bill proposes to combine the two committees into one consultative and ethics committee. The Greens believe that it would be more appropriate to continue to have two separate committees. The issues in this area are very significant and we believe that the two committees are more appropriate. Combining the two committees will reduce the number of people involved in the consultative process. By limiting the number of people on the committee to 12, you are basically reducing the number of people involved in those consultative processes. The feedback we have had from stakeholders is that they would rather see the two committees remain. I acknowledge that the stakeholders we have heard from are not all the stakeholders, but they are a significant number of them. They said that they would prefer to see the two committees.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert is right: the bill does combine the Gene Technology Ethics Committee and the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee into one advisory committee. The review recommended the amalgamation of the two committees to increase efficiency by reducing the overlap between the roles of the two existing committees. The experience has been that there is considerable overlap between the two committees. The review did not recommend that any changes be made to the eligibility for membership of the new committee from that of the existing committees. It is desirable that no limits on eligibility be imposed in order to ensure that a cross-section of the community is represented on the new committee. This will ensure that the committee performs its role more effectively and ensure public confidence in the committee and its role in the gene technology regulatory scheme.

The government believes that the amalgamation of the two committees is not a reduction in consultation, given that the review identified that their roles overlap. This remains a critical element to the regulatory scheme. Senator Siewert is quite right to point out that consultation is vital. In fact, the new committee will have an enhanced role with two new functions. The act requires extensive consultation before the minister may appoint members to the statutory committees. These consultation provisions will ensure that a good balance of interests is achieved.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor Party will not be supporting Greens amendment (6). I understand that most submissions to the inquiry process were supportive of the notion of joining the ethics committee and the consultative committee into one body. The reason for that is that the agendas of each overlap quite considerably; that there was no clarity between the roles of the two existing committees as they stood in the original legislation. It is certainly supported by the states and territories. We will not be able to support the amendment.

Sandy Macdonald (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that schedule 1, items 34 and 35 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.