James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the motion moved by the member for McMillan. The government recognises there is concern in the community about the safety of GM crops and food and about the adequacy of Australia’s regulatory processes. I would like to assure the House that Australia has robust frameworks for regulating GM crops and food and for ensuring that risks to human health or the environment are identified and managed. The national framework for management and regulation of gene technology, which came into effect in 2001, includes: the Gene Technology Agreement, which was signed by the Commonwealth and all state and territory governments in 2001; the Gene Technology Act; the Gene Technology Ministerial Council; and the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator and its current powers. This framework regulates the use of gene technology by identifying risks posed by or as a result of gene technology and by managing those risks through regulating the use of gene technology.

The Gene Technology Regulator assesses all applications for approval of GM crops to ensure that any risks to human health and the environment have been identified and can be managed. Approvals are based on rigorous science, and the regulators will examine all available information when undertaking assessments. The regulation of GM foods and organisms, including GM crops, involves all Australian governments, overseen by the Gene Technology Ministerial Council and the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council. Food Standards Australia New Zealand has rigorous and transparent processes for assessing the safety of GM foods, undertaken in accordance with internationally established scientific principles and guidelines. I am advised that this includes a rigorous process of peer review.

I would also like to assure the House that the government supports the existing national framework for management and regulation of gene technology and that the government believes the current regulatory framework provides adequate safeguards to assess and consider environmental and food safety risks. I also remind the House that GM crops and the protective framework in place have the support of the bulk of industry. Perhaps the member for McMillan has not consulted widely enough with the industry on this issue. The industry is certainly not saying to stop planting.

Canegrowers, the peak body that represents 80 per cent of Queensland’s sugarcane growers—sugarcane being an important industry in my electorate of Dawson—support GM use. This is what Chairman Alf Cristaudo had to say on 27 August 2007:

As an industry that embraces innovation and best practice in our farming systems it is appropriate that we have a strategy within the sugar industry to promote the introduction of GM canes. The new technologies promise to deliver lower costs and higher production using less inputs, providing gains for growers and the environment.

I have had consultations with Canegrowers Proserpine Chairman, Peter Quod; Canegrowers Inkerman District Manager, Jim Collins; and Canegrowers Mackay Chairman, John Eden. They all spoke to me about the positive future of cane, about the need for them to have the science available to produce the best crop and about getting the best possible crop returns now and into the future. They spoke about value-adding to the industry, including producing fibre from the crop and the future of furfural. They all speak about the long term, and under a Rudd Labor government the sugar industry will have a long term, whether the member for McMillan and the Liberal Party like it or not. The member’s motion seeking to ban the planting of crops is not about the long term of the industry; it is short term, knee-jerk and out of touch with what is in place now.

Notwithstanding the measures and safeguards in place and the support for GM crops from the majority of industry bodies, the government believes that genetically modified crops should not be approved for commercial release unless they are safe to health and the environment and beneficial to the economy. The government understands that safe and beneficial standards must be established beyond reasonable doubt and that standards must be met to the satisfaction of the government, the scientific community, the consumer community and the farming community. The government also ensures that the process for assessment of GM crops includes careful consideration of health and environmental risks.

ABARE found in its latest report Economic impacts of GM crops in Australia, released earlier this month, that there would be significant economic costs to Australia from delays in adopting GM crops and significant economic benefits—potentially $8.5 billion over ten years—from growing these crops. Criticisms of the report by the Australian Greens and others are unfounded. ABARE has surveyed and cited international experience and Australian trial results in preparing this report. I encourage people, especially the member for McMillan, to read the report in full to understand the context for its findings. I seek leave to present the report.

Leave granted.

Thank you. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Tony Burke, has said he believes GM crops will provide ‘a piece of the jigsaw in tackling climate change’, and I agree with that. GM crops will help farmers mitigate climate change effects by enabling increased uptake and improved management of minimal tillage systems that increase soil carbon sequestration and help them adapt by improving drought tolerance and resistance to changing weed, pest and disease pressures.

What is more exciting about GM crops is that they can also play an important part in helping Australian farmers increase their productivity and remain competitive in export markets. The ABARE report entitled GM crops in emerging economies: impacts on Australian agriculture, released in March 2008, reinforces ABARE’s earlier findings that if Australian farmers do not adopt this technology they will fall behind their international competitors. I seek leave to present the report.

Leave granted.

Thank you. On the matter of sequestration and the coexistence of GM and conventional products, the $6 billion Australian grains industry believes it is possible to keep non-GM grains separate from GM grains throughout the supply chain in Australia. ABARE, in its 2006 report GM grains in Australia: identity preservation, concluded that the cost of segregating GM and non-GM canola would be modest and manageable at four to six per cent of the average farm gate price. I seek leave to present a third report.

Leave granted.

Thank you. In conclusion, I affirm to the House that the government supports the national framework for managing and regulating gene technology.

See this speech in context