Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the explanatory memorandum to the Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2007 and I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill I am introducing today strengthens the Australian government’s component of the nationally consistent, gene technology regulatory scheme. This scheme protects the health and safety of people and the environment from any risks that may be posed by genetically modified organisms. The bill will make amendments to the Gene Technology Act 2000 to ensure the regulatory burden is commensurate with risk, introduce provisions to deal with the unexpected situations and ensure the smooth operation of the scheme. These changes proposed will not make any significant changes to the strong scientific assessment framework of the act, which has been working well over the past six years. This bill is the response to the statutory review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 and the Gene Technology Agreement 2001 conducted in 2005-06.

I would like to thank the review panel, chaired by Ms Susan Timbs, and the secretariat for such a comprehensive review. The review panel concluded that the gene technology regulatory system was working well and recommended a number of changes intended to improve the operation of the regulatory scheme. The recommended changes are implemented by the bill. To ensure that regulatory burden is commensurate to risk, provisions in the bill will differentiate between limited and controlled release of genetically modified organisms and commercial releases. This split will allow different time frames and consultation requirements for the assessment of applications for these types of dealings to be set. This change will allow researchers to get on with the job of testing in the field genetically modified organisms that could result in agricultural and environmental benefits while ensuring that the health and safety of people and the environment is properly protected. Gene technology holds great potential for Australia and there may be circumstances where a genetically modified organism is uniquely capable of dealing with health or environmental emergency. This bill introduces emergency provisions that will more ably allow a genetically modified organism to be used in an emergency. However, we consider it appropriate that, even in an emergency, there be strong safeguards in place to ensure the genetically modified organism is used appropriately.

Another issue that this bill addresses is that where a person finds themselves dealing inadvertently with an unlicensed genetically modified organism, the gene technology regulator may issue a licence to allow that person to appropriately dispose of the organism. The gene technology framework provides for extensive consultation with experts on ethics, scientists, state and territory governments, other regulatory agencies and the wider community. This consultation would be enhanced as a result of the establishment of the Gene Technology Ethics and Community Consultation Committee that would be established by this bill.

The bill also proposes a number of procedural and technical changes that would improve the ongoing operation of the scheme. The act is a part of a wider intergovernmental scheme in which the states and territories have agreed to introduce corresponding legislation for the regulation of genetically modified organisms. The quality of this bill is shown by the strong support it has received from the states and territories and the approval of the bill by the Gene Technology Ministerial Council.

This is a great example of Australian governments working collectively to ensure that Australia has a world-class regulatory system that protects the health and safety of people and the environment as well as promoting research in this growing industry. This bill represents amendments preferred by states and territories and any amendments to the proposed bill may not be supported by states and territories. I commend this bill to the House.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2007. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources has indicated, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Gene Technology Act 2000, the Commonwealth legislation which regulates genetically modified organisms in Australia. The act is the Commonwealth component of the nationally consistent regulatory scheme for gene technology. Under the Gene Technology Agreement of 2001, all states and territories have committed to maintaining corresponding legislation. The object of the Gene Technology Act is to protect the health and safety of people and the environment by identifying risks posed by or as a result of gene technology, and by managing those risks through regulating certain dealings with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

This bill amends the Gene Technology Act for a range of purposes, including the introduction of emergency powers to give the minister the ability to expedite the approval of a dealing with a genetically modified organism in an emergency, the creation of the Gene Technology Ethics and Community Consultative Committee, and amendments to the process for assessing applications for GMO licences. Labor will support the passage of the bill through the parliament. We do understand that there are strong views in the community both for and against gene technology; however, the debate on this bill is not a debate on the merits or otherwise of gene technology. Rather, the amendments to the act proposed by the bill are by and large designed to improve the operation of the act and the system that it regulates and do not change its underlying policy intent or the overall legislative framework. Further, the amendments proposed by the bill also represent the culmination of a long public consultation process and an independent statutory review process. They are also supported by the intergovernmental Gene Technology Ministerial Council. For all these reasons Labor will be supporting the bill.

The bill implements the recommendations from an independent review of the act and the gene technology agreement undertaken by Susan Timbs in 2005-06. The review concluded that the act and the national regulatory scheme had worked well in the five years following their introduction. The review recommended a number of changes aimed at improving the operation of the regulatory scheme. The amendments contained in this bill reflect the ministerial council’s response to that statutory review and have been agreed by the states and territories.

I now turn to the specific amendments proposed by the bill and the new emergency powers that are the most contentious aspect of the bill. The new powers will give the minister power to expedite an approval of a dealing with a genetically modified organism in an emergency in recognition of the fact that situations may arise in which approval of a dealing with a GMO may be required in a limited time. The issue of emergency powers was considered at length in the Senate committee’s report into the bill. Some witnesses before the inquiry, including Gene Ethics and Greenpeace, expressed concern about the proposed new emergency powers and whether they were really necessary. Our Greens Senate colleagues share these groups’ concerns and unsuccessfully moved amendments to this effect in the other place.

While Labor are somewhat cautious about the proposed emergency powers, on balance we agree with the view of the majority of the Senate Community Affairs Committee that there will be sufficient checks and balances in place to ensure that emergency powers are used cautiously. The safeguards on the emergency powers that will be in place include that the minister will be required to have a recommendation from the Chief Medical Officer and/or the Chief Veterinarian before invoking the powers, and the minister will be required to consult with the states and territories before invoking the powers. We also note that the guidelines for the administration of the emergency dealing provisions have been developed through a process of consultation with the states and territories. So, on the strength of these provisions, Labor are satisfied that the minister will not be able to act unilaterally and that the powers will be used with sufficient circumspection. However, Labor’s strong view is that the powers should only be used as an absolute last resort.

The bill also establishes a Gene Technology Ethics and Community Consultative Committee, an amalgamation of two existing committees: the Gene Technologies Ethics Committee and the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee. The new single committee will provide advice to the Gene Technology Regulator and the Gene Technology Ministerial Council on ethics and community consultations. The combined committee will also provide advice on risk communication and community consultation around intentional release licence applications. During the Senate inquiry into the legislation, most stakeholders commented favourably upon the proposed amalgamation of the ethics committee and the consultative committee into the one body.

The bill also proposes amendments to the process for assessing applications for GMO licences. There are two sets of amendments in this section of the bill. The first set will alter the order of events during the initial licence consultation process so that the regulator would no longer be required to consider whether an application poses a significant risk to the health and safety of people or the environment before developing a risk assessment and risk management plan. This amendment is designed to improve the process by which licences are initially considered and to give the regulator more time to consider whether dealings pose a significant risk.

The second set of amendments will introduce a new category of licence for GMOs to distinguish between licences for a limited and controlled release and licences for intentional release. The object of these amendments is to increase the efficiency of the regulatory system by streamlining the processes for these different types of applications. The issue of the new limited and controlled release licences was the topic of some discussion at the Senate committee’s hearing into the bill. Some stakeholders expressed concern about the proposed new assessment processes as they relate to limited and controlled release. However, the Senate committee supported the passing of the relevant provisions without amendment.

The bill will also make a number of other amendments to the act and the gene technology regulatory scheme, including the streamlining of the process for the initial consideration of licences and the reduction of the regulatory burden for low-risk dealings; clarification of the circumstances in which licence variations can be made and clarification of the circumstances under which the regulator can direct a person to comply with the act; the provisions of power to the regulator to issue a licence to protect the person inadvertently dealing with GMOs so as to enable appropriate disposal of such organisms; and, finally, the making of technical amendments as proposed by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.

As I said at the outset, Labor support this bill. While the proposed emergency powers are somewhat contentious, we are satisfied that there will be sufficiently robust safeguards in place to ensure that these powers will not be used unwisely. Although the issue of GMOs is always a contentious one in the community, the vast remainder of the other changes in this bill are focused on improving the systems rather than the broader debate that will no doubt be ongoing in the community. In that context these changes are relatively uncontroversial and Labor are happy to support their passage through the parliament.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister and I am certain all members of the House feel for her as she struggles with a cold in making speech after speech.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I know what it is like to try to work through those conditions and I think we all feel for members suffering with a cold. The last couple of weeks have seen quite an outbreak of that in this parliament, and I think that is partly to do with the air-conditioning system that mixes it all around the place. To come back to the Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2007 that we are debating, I and other members of the House of Representatives Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Committee initiated an inquiry into GM technology. We started that in 1999 and finished it in early 2000. We went all over Australia and made a very comprehensive report on GM technology. It was the unanimous decision of members of that committee—Labor, Independent, Liberal Party or National Party—to support the introduction of gene technology but, on top of that, to have the Gene Technology Regulator, which is what the amendments in this bill are all about. From memory, there were 108 recommendations in that report, which showed how complex the idea of gene technology was and that there was a need to have the regulator in place.

It still surprises me to this day that some people suggest there are inherently very dangerous ideas about gene technology. They seem to be suggesting that it is a technology we should not be using in Australia, and they come up with all sorts of arguments. I make the point in relation to GM foods, though, that if there had ever been a case of a death or near death from the consumption of a GM food product I think we would have heard about it by now. It is interesting to note that people in Australia who are diabetics have been using GM insulin for 25 years. This is a product that is ingested into the body. For 25 years, diabetics here and all over the world have been using GM insulin with no effects except good ones. Many people in Australia would also not realise that for at least 15 years virtually all yeast used in our bread, wine and beer has been genetically modified. It is GM yeast, yet we do not hear people saying we should not be drinking beer or wine or eating bread because it is using GM yeast. So it is a very proven technology. I think people sometimes forget that this is a technology that can speed up the genetic process.

I remember a period in the sixties when some people were running a scare campaign against homogenisation and pasteurisation of milk. Of course, now I do not think we would actually accept milk that has not been pasteurised and homogenised. In actual fact, they were using the same arguments against pasteurisation and homogenisation that people have been using now against GMs. It is interesting. You tend to get groups like the Greens opposed to gene technology without actually looking into the science. If you really want to look at the science of gene technology, I certainly do not think we have anything to fear from it. In fact, I think we can only really gain benefits out of it. If we could put vitamins, for example, via gene technology into our foodstuffs, especially for starving populations who obviously have vitamin deficiencies, we would be better off using that technology for the poor and starving in this world. I also refer to the example of the traditional breeding of wheat—and it is something I know a little bit about being a wheat grower for virtually all my life—and 150 years ago to when Mendel was talking about genetics. People probably said, ‘That was pretty crazy stuff,’ but of course it is not. Traditional breeding has been used for well over a century now. If you want to breed wheat in the so-called traditional way, you are actually mixing up 30,000 genes and it is so much harder to get the accuracy in the outcome that you want. However, with gene technology, you can actually transfer one gene and obviously have a far greater ability to measure what that gene does to that wheat. Wouldn’t it be great, for example, for Australia if we could breed, through gene technology, a wheat that is drought resistant using genetic modification?

I have also heard arguments about the so-called danger of gene technology and the viruses that are used. I have actually transferred genes myself at the CSIRO facility in Canberra, and I can tell you I have never felt safer in my life. So to suggest that it is a dangerous process is beyond reality; it is an absolute joke.

GM cotton, for example, has reduced the need to spray with insecticides. Again, I know something about insecticides because, as a farmer, I have been using them all my life. I am always very careful with insecticides, and look at the old measure of LDs—the lethal dose levels—and make sure that I wear gloves and respirators, depending on what the chemical is. Obviously in most cases insecticides tend to be a bit more dangerous than herbicides. But with GM cotton, they have reduced the amount of insecticide required by up to 80 per cent. That is great for the environment—absolutely great for the environment—and it is great for the farmer, because they are reducing the cost and reducing the amount of chemicals going into the ground. With GM cotton they are able to release their own pyrethrin, which of course we use in flysprays and have been using for I do not know how many decades all over the world. There are some real benefits from gene technology.

It goes without saying that GMOs and GM products have increased in stature. It is clearly important that the Gene Technology Act 2000 is reviewed and amended where necessary. In fact, that was one of the recommendations that the agricultural committee made. We need to amend it where necessary to keep up with the changes and ensure the health and safety of everyone—growers, producers, manufacturers and, in the end, community members—to make sure that they are protected.

The ultimate outcome from this amendment bill will be an improvement in the operation of the act, without changing its underlying policy intent—or, for that matter, the overall legislative framework of the gene technology regulatory scheme. The current act regulates all dealings. By this I mean the research, manufacture, production, propagation, commercial release and import of live viable GMOs that have been modified by technique or gene technology. This also includes the progeny of such GMOs which share the genetically modified trait. I have often described GMOs this way: when you look at it we had the industrial revolution and then we had the computer revolution, and now, with gene technology, we have the biotechnology revolution. I notice the member for Moore coming into the chamber. He was very much a valuable part of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, which looked into gene technology. He certainly had some of his own personal experiences and a wealth of knowledge to give to that committee.

I think that one of the failings of our federal system is that, whilst we have the gene technology here in Australia and we have the regulator, we now have states that have the planning powers and we have moratoriums all over Australia. I think it is an absolute joke that they could not make up their minds five years ago. They have been too scared to take the step based on rational logic because of the fear campaigns that have been put out there by gene technology. That has been an inherent weakness of the system—that whilst we, as a federal government, have given the go-ahead, with very strict regulations and controls, the states have put on their own moratoriums. I do hope and encourage the states to review that, and I believe that the states of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland are reviewing that now on the basis that we have now got over the state elections in all of those states and they can get on with governing. Let us hope that we get some commonsense out of those governments.

The present gene technology regulatory scheme allows for the regulation of gene products where they are not regulated by another regulatory scheme. To explain this further, GM medicines are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration and foods by Food Standards Australia New Zealand. Of course, long ago they accepted GM insulin. The Gene Technology Act is the government’s component of the nationally consistent regulatory scheme for gene technology. The signing of the Gene Technology Agreement 2001 enabled the commitment of all states and territories to enact corresponding legislation.

It was the mid-1970s when the oversight of gene technology in Australia began on a voluntary basis. However, significant advances ensued and this, in turn, prompted significant community concern about GMOs. This was particularly so in the late 1990s, and it was 1998 when states, territories and the Australian government worked together to establish, for the first time, a uniform national approach to the regulation of gene technology. Consultation followed, before the act, and the Gene Technology Regulations 2001 came into effect.

At the time, the community wanted protection and information. In the end, if people demand that information, I think we inherently have a duty to provide it. The object of this act has always been, and should continue to be, to protect the health and safety of the Australian people. It should correspondingly protect the environment by identifying risks posed by, or as a result of, gene technology and manage those risks through regulation of certain dealings with GMOs. This has been achieved through the establishment of an independent statutory office holder, the Gene Technology Regulator, which has been charged with the responsibility of administering the act and making decisions about the development and use of GMOs under the act.

When the act was passed it was stipulated that an independent review of its operations, including the structure of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, be undertaken and tabled in parliament at the fifth anniversary of it having come into force on 21 June 2006, which of course is tomorrow. In accordance with this requirement, an independent review of the act and the intergovernmental Gene Technology Agreement 2001 was conducted. An independent panel of three people considered almost 300 submissions from members of the public, industry and other stakeholders. These were assessed by the panel and developed into issue papers. A period of nationwide consultations followed whereby public forums were held at locations right around Australia. This meant the review panel heard firsthand a range of views from interested parties, including from state governments, industry, researchers, farm groups, non-governmental organisations—NGOs—and consumers. I commend the panel for its conduct within my electorate of Barker, where I believe it was very thoroughly and comprehensively undertaken.

Once this review was completed, there was a period of explicit consultation with states and territories on how best to implement the recommendations. This led to the draft Gene Technology Amendment Bill, which was finally agreed to by all states and territories after a further consultation period. This review found the act and the national regulatory scheme had worked well in the previous five years and that no major changes were required. It did, however, suggest a number of minor changes which would ultimately improve the operation of the act, and I note that the shadow minister supported those changes. Until now the key components of the act provided, among many things, for the establishment of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator as an independent statutory office holder with responsibility for implementing the legislation. It also established three key advisory committees to provide scientific, ethical and policy advice to the regulator of the ministerial council in relation to GMOs—the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee, the Gene Technology Ethics Committee and the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee.

Regulations give effect to the objectives of the act by providing further information about definitions within the act, describing exemptions under the legislation, setting out the dealings with GMOs that are exempt dealings or notifiable low-risk dealings and the conditions that will apply to such dealings, describing the types of information required of an applicant for a GMO licence, and setting out details of the operation of the three committees established under the act. Licence applications are considered on a case-by-case basis by the regulator, who must consider whether the risk posed by the dealing can be managed in such a way to protect human health and safety and, of course, the environment. The regulator must make a decision on whether to issue the licence or allow the conduct of that dealing and the management conditions to be imposed to manage any risk, however small it may be.

Beyond what already exist within the boundaries of the act are a number of recommendations that have been agreed to by the GTMC and which we are here to discuss today. The bill proposes to implement the recommendations requiring legislative change which include, firstly, a proposal to introduce emergency provisions into the act giving the minister the ability to expedite the approval of a dealing with a GMO in an emergency. The object is to increase the responsiveness of the gene technology regulatory system. It recognises that situations may arise where approval of a dealing with a GMO may be required within a limited amount of time. It furthers the object of the act which, as I have highlighted, is to protect the health and safety of people and to protect the environment. This is of paramount importance. I would suggest that the introduction of this provision into the act would improve consistency between regulatory schemes. Other relevant product regulators for vaccines, like the Therapeutic Goods Administration for example, already possess the ability to expedite approvals in an emergency.

The second proposed amendment will see the combining of the Gene Technology Ethics Committee and the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee into one advisory committee. This committee will adopt the name of ‘Gene Technology Ethics and Community Consultative Committee’ and its role will be to carry out the combined functions of both committees and provide advice on risk communications and community consultations regarding intentional release licence applications. In this day and age time is of the essence. This amendment will increase efficiency by addressing the overlaps between the roles of the existing committees. I must also mention that the GTMC will review the new advisory committee and its performance after 18 months.

This bill will effectively streamline the process for the initial consideration of licences for the release of GMOs into the environment. In altering the order of events during the initial licence consultation process, the regulator has given more time to consider whether or not dealings pose a significant risk. It would no longer be required to consider whether an application poses a significant risk to the health and safety of people or the environment before preparing a risk assessment and risk management plan. As part of this particular amendment, a new category of licence will be introduced, effectively splitting licensing for dealings involving intentional releases, to distinguish between licences for limited and controlled release—like experimental field trials—and licences for intentional release.

I am impressed with the changes proposed in this bill. It will make it easier for stakeholders to comply with the act and to encourage a system of cooperative compliance. However, I stress that any licence applications that deal with a GMO will still most definitely be subject to thorough scrutiny, and the harsh penalties for breach of the provisions of the act have been retained. If the bill is passed, the majority of amendments will be effected on 1 July 2007.

GMOs are gaining prominence on a national level and this bill will ensure this country is best placed to encourage ongoing research and development in an industry that I believe is only going to get bigger and better. Most importantly, this bill protects the health and safety of Australian people and the environment.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to address the Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2007, the purpose of which is to amend the Gene Technology Act 2000 for a range of purposes. Included amongst those purposes is the introduction of emergency powers to give the relevant minister the ability to expedite the approval of a dealing with a genetically modified organism in an emergency. The bill also creates the Gene Technology Ethics and Community Consultation Committee and amends the process for assessing applications for genetically modified organism licences. Joining the ethics and consultative committees into one body does streamline a process and should ensure that clear advice will be provided to the regulator and to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council.

Labor supports the amendments to the Gene Technology Act proposed by this bill. We note that these amendments arise from an independent statutory review into the act and are supported by the intergovernmental Gene Technology Ministerial Council and consequently represent an agreed position with the states and territories. We also understand and acknowledge that the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs has conducted an inquiry into the bill and recommended that it be passed, stating that it strikes ‘an appropriate balance in managing the potential harms and benefits of developing gene technology’.

We acknowledge that there are strong views in the community regarding genetically modified organisms. This is a particularly sensitive issue and it does need to be addressed carefully, and those concerns need to be both acknowledged and taken on board. I want to identify a number of the concerns that have been expressed in relation to this bill by a number of community organisations. It is important that we are able to put those concerns on the record and ensure that they will be taken into consideration as a consequence of these amendments being passed. And I will come to those views in a minute. Notwithstanding that, the debate on this bill is not specifically a debate about the merits or otherwise of gene technology—I have my own views about gene technology—but the amendments contained in the bill relate primarily to processes for assessing applications under the act. As a consequence, Labor is supporting the bill.

I did refer to some of the concerns and issues that were expressed in the consideration of this legislation, particularly the proposal for new emergency powers that would be exercised by minister. These powers will give the minister the power to expedite an approval for a GMO in an emergency. It remains the case that the bill does not contain a definition of what constitutes an emergency. What is identified is that the minister must be satisfied that there is an actual or an imminent threat, but this concept is not defined. I think there is an anticipation that when the review of this legislation is undertaken, given that it will come into force, then, if there has actually been an emergency that has been identified, we will get some clarity from the minister as to the precise definitions of actual or imminent threat and what the circumstances that attach to them may actually be.

We do note that proposed subsection 72B(2) sets out the conditions under which the minister is permitted to make an emergency dealing determination. It is the case that, before making an emergency dealing determination, the minister must have received advice from the Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer, the Commonwealth Chief Veterinary Officer, the Commonwealth Chief Plant Protection Officer or a person specified in the regulations that there is an actual or imminent threat to the health and safety of people or the environment and that the dealings proposed to be specified in the emergency dealing determination would or would be likely to adequately address the threat. So it does provide some comfort that the minister will be in receipt of advice which has given consideration to that specific identified issue. Additionally, the minister must be satisfied that there is an actual or imminent threat as described above; be satisfied that the risks posed by proposed dealings can be managed safely; have received advice from the regulator to that effect; and have consulted state and territory governments.

Submissions were made to the Senate inquiry from a number of parties—including, amongst others, the organisation Gene Ethics. Their submission stated:

For example, ‘threat’ includes ‘pests and diseases’ but there is no requirement that the threat be of a particular imminence, severity or scale. The word ‘threat’ is not explicitly defined yet the Bill proposes that the Minister merely be satisfied that a ‘threat’ is imminent without requirements or procedures to prove that a ‘threat’ of the sort envisaged really exists.

I think this does raise one of the grey issues in respect of the amendments that are before us. It will be the way in which the minister conducts their determination under these amendments which will give some clarity as to whether or not that concern that has been raised will stand. Certainly under legislation, the minister can vary the conditions of an emergency dealing determination by a non-disallowable legislative instrument. So it does provide for some flexibility in that area. Greenpeace was another organisation which made a submission to the Senate inquiry. This included the point:

... while extension provisions of the emergency dealing determinations are detailed at length, any mention of a remedy for a State ... to revoke the emergency dealing determination is completely absent. Ironically, a majority of jurisdictions must agree to an extension of the emergency dealing determination, while the agreement of a majority of jurisdictions is not explicitly required to implement an emergency dealing determination ...

I think there is a point there to be considered. Again our view very strongly is that, once we have an opportunity to examine the way in which the amendment to this legislation is given effect to, and the review that is provided therein, we will be able to have a clearer sense of the way in which the minister can actually exercise their responsibility. Certainly it is important that the emergency powers be used only as a last resort, and Labor will be closely monitoring the implementation of the provisions as a matter of consequence.

I want to make a couple of brief points more broadly about the issue of genetically modified organisms and reflect on the comments of previous speakers. I note the comments made by leading environmental lawyer Don Anton at the ANU College of Law when he made a submission to the 2001 Senate inquiry into the original legislation, the Gene Technology Bill. He made the point, I think fairly:

The precautionary principle has particular application to GMOs. Not only could direct damage be serious, but ongoing and extensive because of irreversibility. Once released freely to the environment, a living organism, or a novel gene that has transferred to an unintended host, cannot be “recalled”. A cautious and conservative approach to risk should be followed where there is insufficient scientific confidence of safety. Successful application of the principle will mean that Australia avoids expensive failures.

There is certainly no shortage of examples in the natural landscape—not necessarily directly concerning GMOs, but certainly concerning the introduction of new technologies, new breeds or new species that have an intended benefit but which actually end up having a completely unintended consequence and causing harm. One such example is rabbits—which you, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, would be intimately familiar with—and many others also come to mind.

Labor’s position on genetically modified organisms is outlined in our platform, which was endorsed by Labor’s national conference in April 2007. The platform states:

Genetically modified (GM) crops will not be released unless they are safe to health, safe to the environment and beneficial to the economy. Safe and beneficial standards must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Standards must be met to the satisfaction of the government and also of the scientific community, the consumer community and, in the case of GM crops, to the satisfaction of the farming community.

Accurate information on GM products must be provided to consumers and the community. The onus of proof that a product is ‘safe and beneficial’ lies with its developers.

GM crops should not be introduced unless there is a whole of community consensus.

So the precautionary principle underpins Labor’s approach to environmental protection and the licensing and release of GM products. In particular, in relation to GMOs this precautionary principle needs to be underlined and given effect at every period of the application, decision making and approvals process.

The precautionary principle has an additional weight given the context of climate change that the farming communities in particular are facing at this time. We have an impact on farming communities in relation to the current drought in southern Australia, in particular, and there is the likelihood over time of additional hotter and drier days and, as a consequence, in any future droughts, regrettably, a greater intensification.

There can be no question that plant species in particular are now coming under increasing stress as a result of climate change. It is important that the risk to our biodiversity from climate change is not overlaid with additional and unpredictable risks. Certainly when we look at Australia’s endangered and vulnerable species we can see the effect of low and variable rainfall, inland aridity and the considerable between-year variation in climate, in part due to El Nino southern oscillation. There is extensive and ongoing degradation, loss and fragmentation of terrestrial and aquatic habitats and the presence of invasive weeds and pests. Flora and fauna in our country includes very high levels of endemicity and the geographic and climate range that a number of species inhabit is narrow. All of these add up to the fact that in the release of any organisms into the natural environment the precautionary principle will need to be given the fullest effect.

This is a sensitive issue which needs to be addressed with great care, and the most rigorous of standards need to be observed. But Labor supports the bill, recognising that there are safeguards in place to ensure that the powers are used in a way that is appropriate and that the provisions we are giving effect to will only be utilised if the threat is considered serious or immediate. Labor also recognises that there is a review process in place to see that these amendments are actually carried out to the effect of the legislation.

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just let the member for Kingsford Smith know that many states have bans on GM crops and that in the west, where we have increasing salinity and drought is a problem, there are a number of good varieties of genetically modified wheat that are drought and saline resistant that we cannot plant because of that blanket ban. I would also like to acknowledge one of the previous speakers, the member for Barker, for the work he did with me on a committee some years ago looking into these issues.

The Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2007 has been introduced to implement recommendations put forward by the statutory review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 and the Gene Technology Agreement 2001. This bill has been referred by the Senate to the Standing Committee on Community Affairs for inquiry. The committee tabled its report on 1 May, with the sole recommendation that the bill be passed without amendment. It was concluded that the bill ‘strikes an appropriate balance in managing the potential harms and benefits in developing gene technology’.

The Gene Technology Act 2000 protects the health and safety of people and the environment by identifying any risk posed by, or as a result of, gene technology and by managing those risks through the regulation of certain dealings with genetically modified organisms or GMOs. Proposed amendments to the Gene Technology Act 2000 put forward by this bill include the introduction of emergency powers, giving the minister the ability to expedite the approval of a dealing with a GMO in a defined emergency; the replacement of the two current committees, the Gene Technology Ethics Committee and the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee, with the one new committee, the Gene Technology Ethics and Community Consultative Committee. This new committee will provide advice to the Gene Technology Regulator and the Gene Technology Ministerial Council on ethics and community consultations. Proposed amendments in this bill also include streamlining the process for the initial consideration of licences and the reduction of the regulatory burden for low-risk dealings; clarification of the circumstances under which the Gene Technology Regulator can direct a person to comply with the act; providing the regulator with the power to issue a licence to protect persons inadvertently dealing with GMOs to enable appropriate disposal of such organisms; and, implementing technical amendments proposed by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.

Genetically modified organisms are those which have had their genetic make-up modified, an organism being a living thing that has the ability to act or function independently. An organism’s genetic make-up, whether they are bacteria, fungi, plant, animal or human, dictates the traits of that organism—everything from the way they look to how they function. Over the millennia, farmers have understood this by breeding select plants or animals to obtain certain traits. This has also occurred in nature since the beginning of time, with those traits giving the best advantage for survival of a species being carried down from generation to generation.

Gregor Mendel’s studies involving breeding of pea plants in the mid-1800s showed that the inheritance of traits follows particular laws, with specific traits being inherited in an independent manner. We now know that these basic units of inheritance are genes. It was not only 1953 when James Watson, Francis Crick and Rosalind Franklin discovered the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, that we could see what exactly these genes were.

In an organism each cell contains a full copy of its DNA. DNA is composed of a chain of four different chemical compounds called nucleotides, which are adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine. The sequence of these four nucleotides dictates the genetic information, much like letters on a page express words. With DNA however these words are called codons and are three letters or nucleotides long. As there are four different letters or nucleotides, there are 64 different words or combinations available. When the DNA is read by the compound messenger RNA, each word or codon dictates for a particular amino acid to be produced by the cell. It is like there are many individual short stories in a long line of jumbled letters, much of which is simply nonsensical. That is why there are certain codons or words telling the reader when to start or stop reading. These readable sections or short stories of the DNA are the genes.

The amino acids being produced are the building blocks of proteins, so essentially genes dictate particular proteins to be formed. Proteins are essential for life. They are responsible for everything from the structure of an organism to how it functions—essentially, its traits. Traits that are desirable in an organism, such as drought tolerance or an immunity to a disease, can now be selected by finding the gene responsible and inserting it into the genetic material of another organism. It is essentially what has been done for thousands of years through selective breeding of plants and animals, but recombinant DNA technology is a far more precise method. This technology also enables genes to be selected from organisms and placed into other organisms that cannot normally be bred together, such as a cold-tolerant gene from a salmon being used in a strawberry plant.

The range of genetically modified organisms that can be developed from this technology is obviously extremely vast. This is why appropriate legislation is critical in protecting the health and safety of people and the environment whilst allowing Australia to gain the benefits of what this technology can offer. As mentioned earlier, the bill proposes the introduction of emergency powers giving the minister the ability to expedite the approval of dealing with a GMO in a defined emergency. This recognises that situations may arise in which approval of a dealing with a GMO may be required in a limited time. The emergency provisions also further the objective of the act to protect the health and safety of people and the environment. The provision will also improve the consistency between regulatory schemes. Other product regulators of vaccines, such as the Therapeutic Goods Administration and Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, already possess the ability to expedite approvals in an emergency.

The bill proposes conditions under which the minister is permitted to make an emergency dealing determination. Before making such a determination, the minister must: have received advice from the Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer, the Commonwealth Chief Veterinary Officer, the Commonwealth Chief Plant Protection Officer or a person specified in the regulations that there is an actual or imminent threat to the health and safety of people or the environment and that the dealing proposed would, or would be likely to, adequately address the threat; be satisfied there is an actual or imminent threat as just described; be satisfied that any risk posed by proposed dealings can be managed safely and have received advice from the regulator to that effect; and consult the states and territories.

The bill provides a non-exhaustive list of what might constitute an action or imminent threat including: where there is a threat of plant, animal or human disease; where there is a threat from a particular animal or plant, such as a pest or alien invasive species; or where there is a threat from an industrial spillage. For example, if there were a major oil spill and the threat of extreme environmental damage were imminent, the minister could issue an emergency dealing determination in relation to a genetically modified bacterium which breaks down oil. This process, in which micro-organisms such as bacteria, fungi and plants are used to clean up environments altered by contaminants, is called bioremediation. There are a vast array of organisms which are naturally very good at this, including bacteria capable of consuming contaminants such as nuclear waste, oils, solvents, heavy metals and so on.

Current DNA technology can select some of these traits and enhance them by overexpressing the genes responsible, take them to make them more active or move them to other organisms that are tolerant of other conditions. The soil bacterium pseudomonas fluorescens is an example of a genetically modified organism that has been successfully trialled in the US for breaking down toxic polyaromatic hydrocarbons such as naphthalene and benzene. This organism was equipped with extra genes from the soil dwelling cousins and with the bioluminescence gene, lux, from marine bacteria. The lux gene causes the genetically modified organism to glow when it is in the presence of polyaromatic hydrocarbons, making it very effective in detecting these toxins.

Genes with desirable traits for bioremediation are constantly being discovered. Last August the genetic sequence for the marine bacterium alcanivorax borkumensis was reported in Nature Biotechnology. This bacterium uses oil hydrocarbons as its exclusive source of carbon and energy. Although barely detectable in an unpolluted environment it becomes the dominant microbe in oil polluted waters. Research on the genetic sequence will provide an understanding on how this micro-organism avails oil components in the ocean.

In the recent April issue of Applied and Environmental Microbiology the discovery of hundreds of new species of bacteria with unusual properties was reported. These bacteria were discovered in the Rancho La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles, California. They are uniquely adapted to the pits’ oil and natural asphalt and contain three previously undiscovered classes of enzymes that can naturally break down petroleum products. Not only can they survive in heavy oil mixtures containing many highly toxic chemicals, but they do so with no water and little or no oxygen. Obviously these traits have enormous potential in bioremediation applications. Allowing Australia to utilise these scientific advancements in a state of emergency, as outlined in this bill, could have enormous implications in helping us protect our pristine environments.

I noticed that Western Australia, along with Tasmania, did not support the recommendation that the Commonwealth and the states work together towards a national framework for co-existence for non-genetically-modified and genetically modified crops. Both these states expressed a belief that they maintain a commercial advantage by having only non-GM crops. There is much to indicate that this is a false belief.

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications issued a report last year titled GM crops: the first ten years – global socio-economic and environmental impacts. The report compared GM production systems with the most likely conventional alternative. It found:

During the last ten years, this technology has made important positive socio-economic and environmental contributions. These have arisen even though only a limited range of GM agronomic traits have so far been commercialised, in a small range of crops.

These benefits were seen in developed as well as developing countries, and in fact 53 per cent of the total $27 billion farm income benefit gained from using GM crops was for developed countries such as the US and Canada. This financial benefit has arisen from enhanced productivity and efficiency gains.

The environmental gains in using this technology have also been substantial. There has been a 15.3 per cent net reduction in the environmental impact on the cropping area devoted to GM crops since 1996. The total volume of herbicides and pesticides applied to crops has fallen by seven per cent, which means a reduction of 22.43 million tonnes. In the GM canola and maize sectors the environmental impact has also been reduced with the ability to use more environmentally benign herbicides.

There are also positive impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. There is a reduction of fuel usage from less frequent herbicide or insecticide applications and a reduction in energy use in soil cultivation. Cumulatively since 1996, the permanent carbon dioxide savings from reduced fuel consumption since the introduction of GM crops are equal to 2.05 million cars being taken off the road for one year. Farmers using herbicide tolerant crops can adapt reduced tillage or no tillage farming methods as they can effectively control competing weeds. This enhances the soil quality and reduces soil erosion. In turn, more carbon remains in the soil, leading to lower greenhouse gas emissions. The additional probable soil carbon sequestration gains in 2005 alone were equivalent to removing nearly 3.6 million cars from the roads.

What is currently being achieved with GM organisms is mind boggling, from the production of pharmaceuticals to the enhancement of food crops—not only to enhance quality, shelf-life and taste but to add to the nutritional value, such as folate in cereal crops and vaccines for diseases—the development of crops better suited to produce biofuels and the ability to grow crops in inhospitable conditions. This bill will enhance the objective of the Gene Technology Act 2000, which is to protect the health and safety of people and the environment, by allowing us to utilise this incredible technology in a time when we need it most. As I once said, why grow Third World crops in a First World country?

De-Anne Kelly (Dawson, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank all the members who have taken part in the debate on the Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2007. This legislation strengthens the Australian government’s component of the gene technology regulatory scheme. This scheme protects the health and safety of people and the environment from any risks that may be posed by genetically modified organisms.

The amendments in this legislation are in response to the statutory review of the Gene Technology Act 200 and the Gene Technology Agreement 2001 conducted in 2005-06. The review was conducted by an independent panel and considered almost 300 submissions from members of the public, industry and other stakeholders. A period of national consultation followed, during which public forums were held at numerous locations around Australia. This allowed the review to hear firsthand a range of views from interested parties, including state governments, industry, researchers, farm groups, non-government organisations and consumers.

The review concluded that the Australian system is one of the most rigorous, transparent and accessible in the world and that no major changes were required. However, the review suggested a number of minor changes aimed at improving the operation of the act at the margin. These amendments will refine the legislation and ensure that regulatory burden is commensurate to risk, introduce provisions to deal with unexpected situations and ensure the smooth operation of the scheme. The strong scientific assessment framework of the act will be maintained.

These amendments mean that the regulator’s resources may be more efficiently utilised in the evaluation of applications for the intentional release of genetically modified organisms and that the regulatory regime will be more able to respond swiftly to emergency scenarios where the use of a genetically modified organism may be particularly advantageous. These refinements represent the collective input from all states and territories and will ensure that Australia has a world-class regulatory system that protects the health and safety of people and the environment, as well as promoting research in this growing industry.

This bill serves to strengthen this link in the armour of protection afforded to the health of the Australian people and the environment by the Australian government. The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator along with other Australian government regulatory schemes provide a shield that protects the health of the Australian people and the environment. The Australian government must be commended for their initiatives in this important area.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.