Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Throsby for his support and that of the Labor Party for what are, essentially, a very minor raft of alterations to existing legislation. As with all things though, they should be overhauled and looked at in time. The Gene Technology Amendment Bill reforms were telegraphed in the autumn repeal day bills. Of course, one of the government's very great commitments to the Australian people is that we will reduce unnecessary red tape and regulation on the population. We will continuously reassess the impact of government regulation. With the repeal days, $1 billion a year is the aim. We believe that up until now, including the last autumn repeal day, that total is at about $2.45 billion—well on track.

These bills, as I said, are relatively small reforms. The member for Throsby has just run through the effects of them in some detail. Amongst other things, they convert quarterly reporting to the minister to annual reports, because information and technology does not change that fast. Once a year is often enough to report to the minister. Also, it creates flexibility between licence holders. It is essentially good legislation. It is a non-controversial bill tidying up legislation that is now 15 years old. It is about making a system that is efficient and delivers a minimum of government interference to business trying to get about its work. It gives me a chance to talk about a few other things, too.

I am the current Chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry. We have just announced a new inquiry into the role of technology in increasing agricultural productivity in Australia. Before my time in parliament—almost eight years now—I was a farmer. I am amazed at the speed of technological change in just those eight years with modern guidance systems, mapping and the ability to deliver fertiliser at variable rates, which was around when I entered parliament but has been adopted on a wide scale now. So there is much change afoot in the agricultural industry, and it is thirsty for new technologies. I am looking forward to that inquiry.

Another area where I have seen great advances is animal husbandry. The ability of modern sheep farmers and cattle farmers now to lift fertility rates through stock testing and weeding unproductive animals out of their flocks is making a remarkable difference. As we gear ourselves for the opportunities this century will offer in Asia with quality green, clean food, these technologies—in this case, this added fertility in livestock industries—is very important. In fact there is a conference in Western Australia today, in Perth, entitled Innovation in Agriculture—Opportunities and Constraints. I will be looking very closely at the contributions that are made on this day. Unfortunately I could not be there, because of parliamentary commitments.

This bill is about gene technology. Gene technology is not the only tool available to farmers but it is one of the sharpest tools. As a wise old farmer once said to me when we were talking about ways in which we could increase our agricultural productivity, 'You never want to underestimate the amount of technology in one little grain.' He was so right. The breeding of grains and new cultivars for our farmers is nowadays intrinsically linked with our ability to read the gene sequences and then try to reach an alteration in those sequences. It might be achieved by artificial means or it might be achieved, as has always been done, by traditional breeding techniques. I have always been very puzzled by the green Left's attack on genetic modification technology. It is like being opposed to explosives because you can make weapons out of them—but of course you can build bridges and mines, things that are good for humanity. It is like being opposed to motor cars because they kill people—but of course the motor car is essential to our modern existence. We are often lectured by groups from the Left who say to us, particularly on the issue of climate change, 'Listen to the science.' But when the science does not coincide with their point of view, of course, they come to the conclusion that those scientists would not know anything at all. They say, 'Just listen to us' in that case.

Obviously anything coming out of the gene technology pool should be monitored and approved on a case by case basis. That is why we have regulation. It is like a new chemical, for instance. We should approve the use of a good new chemical. If it is going to cause extensive environmental harm or kill the crops, obviously we will not approve it. I am given to reflect on quite a famous case in South Australia back in the sixties, when a new clover was bred for Kangaroo Island. It was bred by traditional means. There was no GMO technology in those days. It actually sterilised the flocks. It was a disaster. That shows that it can happen under any technology. Every item that is registered for use should be perused and properly checked, and of course gene technology is no different.

Dr Patrick Moore is the co-founder of Greenpeace. Greenpeace is implacably opposed to the use of GMOs around the world. Dr Patrick Moore, after founding Greenpeace, actually quit the organisation because he became offended by Greenpeace's commitment to politics rather than science. The reason I raise that is that Dr Patrick Moore and others are champions of a GMO product called golden rice. Golden rice was developed with the support of Bill and Melinda Gates through the Gates Foundation, which is normally applauded around the world for the wonderful things it does for deserving and needy communities. Golden rice is a vitamin-A-rich rice. There are 250 million children in the world who suffer from vitamin A deficiency. Each year between 250,000 and half a million of them become blind. Half of them die within 12 months. Golden rice has the ability, at least in the cultures that use rice as a staple, to address that issue. Yet it is opposed by champions of the Left who are just opposed to GMO technology. It is a disgrace of the first order. I wonder what they think GMOs are. Is golden rice developed using monkeys' livers? Is it developed using spiders' eyes? After all, it is to help you see better; perhaps spiders' eyes help. But, no, it is a gene lifted out of maize, another grass—from one grass to another. It is impossible to understand how people can with a clear conscience deny the half a million children a year who are going blind, the 250,000 a year who are dying, access to this commodity.

That brings me to some other GMOs that are enormously successful, now embedded in our society and accepted. Worldwide, including in Australia, the use of Bt cotton, or GM cotton, has reduced pesticide and herbicide use by more than 50 per cent. This makes a significant contribution to looking after our environment. Given the debates that surround this place at the moment we might consider how many skinks and ornamental snakes may be saved by not pumping pesticides into the environment. Bt cotton is an outrageous success. It has been taken on worldwide and has had an enormous environmental impact. The cottonseed, the remnants, is used for stockfeed, and we do not have any problems in that area either. A Chinese study completed in 2012 found that the use of GM cotton, or Bt cotton, halved the amount of chemical application and—get this—doubled the number of ladybirds. It is a good-news story.

Another GMO that has gained widespread acceptance in Australia and worldwide is canola. Unfortunately my state has an attitude that I think belongs in the dark ages. It has categorically ruled out, at least for some years, the use of GM products in South Australia. I believe we should be looking at the products product by product as they are presented. There were all kinds of scare stories around canola at one stage: 'Countries won't buy your canola' and 'You'll be able to get a premium for GM-free canola'. In fact that is not the case. There is no premium. People are not prepared to pay extra for GM free, because it is a perfectly safe and environmentally friendly cultivar and so it has been adopted on a worldwide basis.

So I urge those who run unreasonable debates in this area to think about what it is they are opposing. So many people are influenced by low-grade and low levels of information that they make sweeping statements on. If you care about our environment, if you care about our society, if you care enough to lodge a protest vote, care enough to find out what it is you are protesting about.

With those remarks, I conclude my comments and come back to the original premise. I support the legislation of course.

See this speech in context