Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill stand as printed. Senator Siewert, I suggest that we deal with Greens amendments (2) to (4) together before we deal with amendment (1). Are you agreeable to that?

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

Yes.

The Temporary Chairman:

We are therefore not going to deal first with amendment (1), which is actually an item to be opposed. We are going to deal with Greens amendments (2), (3) and (4) together.

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

I seek leave to move Greens amendments (2) and (3) together because I would appreciate an opportunity to review the guidelines that Senator Mason just tabled.

Leave granted.

I move:

(2)    Schedule 1, item 10, page 7 (after line 27), at the end of section 72B, add:

        (5)    For the purpose of this Act, an emergency dealing determination may only be made in respect of a medical emergency.

(3)    Schedule 1, item 10, page 7 (lines 15 to 19), omit paragraphs 72B(3)(a) to (c), substitute:

             (a)    a threat from the outbreak of human disease;

             (b)    a threat from an industrial spillage.

Greens amendment (2) relates to limiting the emergency dealing provisions to medical emergencies. As I articulated in my speech on the second reading, we have very deep concerns about the scope that these provisions may relate to. I was very pleased to hear Senator Mason say that the government does not see that these would be used for economic reasons. The reason I brought that up was that, very clearly, when we looked into this bill in the committee inquiry the agency representatives said that this may be used in economic circumstances. That is extremely concerning for us because we are deeply concerned about the release of organisms into the environment, and we are deeply concerned that economic reasons may be justification for releasing these organisms. I would like to clarify that to confirm what triggers would invoke the use of these provisions.

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

Economic consequences, of themselves, are not sufficient to trigger these provisions. It is true, however, that it is possible that, for example, a threat to human health, such as from a flu pandemic, clearly has an economic consequence, but an economic consequence of itself is not sufficient. This bill is about strong scientific guidelines rather than economic, social or cultural ones. We have tried to narrow it right down to things that we can quantify scientifically rather than on cultural or economic grounds. So, no, economic consequences alone will not trigger it.

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

The bill talks about human disease, but it also talks about plant and animal diseases. I am wondering what the circumstances are under which a plant or animal disease would trigger the provisions. Would the economic considerations be taken into consideration? The Greens have a great deal of difficulty understanding what would be a plant and animal threat that was imminent and would trigger these provisions which would circumvent a lot of the assessment process.

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

There could be an issue where there is a threat to livestock or a threat to human life caused by, say, a virus where a cure involves a genetically modified organism which has not gone through the normal processes. That is why it might be necessary for the minister to move very quickly to introduce that to solve the problem. I would add that the idea of an emergency determination is not unusual in this regulatory context. For example, in the areas of the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority—they are complementary regulatory agencies—there is also an allowance for emergency determinations. I accept that there is always a risk in any of these contexts, but it really is only based on threats to human life, threats to livestock, industrial spillage and so forth. Economic consequences are merely a potential threat, but they are not used to assess an emergency.

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

My understanding from what you have just said is that particularly with animal diseases—I am having a bit more trouble understanding plant diseases—I cannot see why bird flu, to use a classic example of a disease that impacts on human health, would not fall into the definition of what we are proposing, which is ‘a medical emergency’. So it is limited basically to the impact on human health and that would then incorporate an animal disease that had a potential to impact on human health. If there were an emergency that we needed to deal with there, it would be accommodated in that definition. That is why I would prefer to go with ‘a medical emergency’, which then clearly limits it to human health, and you do not bring in the economic consequences that way.

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

The legislation encompasses both human health and the environment. The words of the bill are that there is an actual or imminent threat to the health or safety of people or the environment. It is fairly clear what that means. A threat may include, but is not limited to, any of the following: a threat from the outbreak of a plant, animal or human disease; a threat from a particular plant or animal; or a threat from an industrial spillage.

It is too difficult simply to talk about medical emergencies relating to human beings because an industrial spillage may not, for example, impact on human beings immediately but could in the very short term. The government would not want to cut off options to deal with an industrial spillage by not having the power to introduce a GMO in certain emergency contexts.

Progress reported.