Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House:

(1)

urges the Australian Government to act to restrict any further planting of genetically modified crops in Australia, the use of genetically modified products in the manufacture of food in Australia and the sale in Australia of food products containing genetically modified material until a full, independent, scientific investigation is carried out to determine:

(a)

the level of risk to health of foodstuffs containing genetically modified organisms; and

(b)

the threat of contamination posed by genetically modified crops already planted under relaxed provisions in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria to crops and the food chain as it relates to livestock production in general on neighbouring properties; and

(2)

calls on the Australian Government, in considering its course of action, to take into consideration the commitments made by the current Prime Minister on this issue in the lead up to the 2007 Federal Election.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I respond to two things in this motion. The first is representations from my constituency, which are always very important to all members of this House on both sides. The second is a profound disappointment with regard to genetically modified products and crops which the community that I have met with in the last few weeks believed the federal government had promised to them before the election. That promise is unfulfilled. It is not fulfilled. It was a profound disappointment in the community, but we began a process after the representations, and what a process and what a journey that turned out to be. That journey was one of consultation with my community. The journey was one of not driving the process but listening to the community as they came to their elected member and spoke to me about the issues that were of concern to them. Those people were keen that we take a direct interest. In this whole process there was not only I who took the journey but also my staff. I have never mentioned my staff before, but Ken Mitchell, Jennifer Paproth, Kevin Carmody, Margaret Burridge and Millie Maclean took an interest in this whole process of consultation about genetically modified crops and the concerns that our community has.

Who did we meet with? Of course, we went not just to a town hall for a visit but into the kitchens and the homes and onto the beef farms and the dairy farms. We met with people from all walks of life and with all sorts of characters. From Kardella to Tarwin Lower, we met with interested parties. I said I would not drive the process, but I was keen that, if it were going to be a worthwhile process, it be driven by the participants: Jessica Harrison, Bev Mustchin, Robert Vickers, Yvonne McRae, Elly Wishart, Jo Hogan, Mary, Lyn Chambers, Syd White, Lee Storti, Jim Seabrook, Brian Enborn and Colin and Jenny Dowel, who had a great story about their own dairy farm. They found that they had calf losses that were not usual to their 120-year-old dairy stud farm, so they began to look at the changes that had taken place on the property and the changes they needed to make to look after the farm in a more natural way. They have completely reversed the loss of their calves on that property. It is a great story. We met with Julie-Anne Trease—her interest in sustainable agriculture extends to the leadership group that I spoke to a few weeks ago—councillors like Nigel Hutchinson-Brooks, Meredith and Gil Freeman of Kardella, Becky Banks, Rosemary and Graeme Trease, Suzanne Wightman, John Beamish, Ron and Bev Smith, on their organic dairy farm down at Fish Creek, Shelley Riddle, Bernice Mook, Emma Mook, Tim and Liz Farrell, Sue Svenson, Carylon Johns, Jackie Dargaville, Rob Roberson, and Shane and Ann Bundy. What an experience it was to go to Shane and Ann’s beef farm and to listen to their presentation.

It is important as we raise the issue to hear what the constituents are saying. When we came to this place for ‘Science meets Parliament’ we met some very pro GM professors. Immediately, we asked them to return to the electorate with us. We said to the professor from Monash: ‘Come with us back to the electorate. Come with us to a vegetable property on the peninsula.’ We probably should have told Greg Hunt before we went down there. We said: ‘Come with us. Look at how we grow the vegies and then meet the people who have these concerns.’ We went from the peninsula all the way down to the Koonwarra Sustainable Communities Centre at Koonwarra and met with another 30 people. We had interaction between the scientists and the people so that their concerns could go straight to the scientists.

On that day, Robert Shepherd actually joined us. He was in his lab at Monash University with his white jacket on and I said, ‘There is a seat in the car for you; do you want to come?’ He hopped straight in the car and came with us for the day. It was really great to have someone that young with us. I have to say that meeting those amazing young honours students at Monash University working in this area of gene technology was a great eye-opener for me.

Where are we now on the election promises? One of the questions was: why was the issue of gene technology and chemical residue regulation or public health systems excluded from the scope of the inquiry that the government has set up and which the minister has described as a major independent review of Australia’s quarantine and biosecurity arrangements? The message here was that the community believes that the federal government had made a promise to them for a wide-ranging review of the whole GM process—how it affects our soils, how it will affect the interaction between farms. We have written a report on this and it will come out of the office once it is cleaned up. The issue is: where are we going with this whole issue and why wasn’t it included in this review that the government has set up? It is called a major independent review of Australia’s quarantine and biosecurity arrangements, but we have had comments like this from people like Dr Rosemary Stanton on Crikey on 29 February:

Nick Evans, editor of BioTechnology News.net complains that opposition to GM foods is coming from a “hodgepodge of dieticians, geomorphologists, epidemiologists and anti-gm activists”. As a nutritionist who has called for transparency and more appropriate testing of the current crop of GM foods, he may well be including me in his “hodge podge”. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that I am not against GM technology as such. Like three of his four “hodge-podge” groups, I am a scientist, and as a scientist, I object to the method of restricting tests on the current GM crops by claiming they are “substantially equivalent” to other crops and allowing only industry-funded testing (independent scientists have great difficulty obtaining GM seeds for testing). For all we know GM foods may be entirely safe. They obviously don’t kill you, but the fact that the current crops have been released without adequate testing and are unlabelled (so the poor epidemiologists would have little hope of trace any ill effects) means we have no scientifically valid evidence to make such an assumption. Why are GM companies so against independent scientific testing?

There is a place here for the scientists on one side and the scientists on the other side to come together so that people like me who are not scientists in any of these fields can try to get an understanding of where we are at. Rosemary Stanton also asked, ‘Why was this left out of Australia’s quarantine and biosecurity review? It is a major review and it was left out.’

The chefs of Australia have come out and said in an article titled ‘Chefs boiling mad over GM foods’:

More than 50 of the country’s top chefs, including Neil Perry and Kylie Kwong, have signed a GM Free Chefs’ Charter to protest against the introduction of genetically modified food crops to Australia. They called on the NSW and Victorian governments to reverse their position on growing GM canola and demanded thorough labelling of all food products that contained GM ingredients.

Chefs have also said:

In the US and the EU, and across the world the great growth area is in clean, green food products. We believe that it is not wise to give up our global, unrestricted GM free marketing advantage, particularly when the long term implications of GM food manufacture and consumption are not yet known.

Then we go to the Western Australian Premier, who was so concerned about it. In ‘Gene Ethics backs WA Government call on GM foods’, it said:

The GM giants must prove their GM products are safe before they reach the shelves, so FSANZ should stop all GM food approvals until real safety tests rule out allergies, damage to vital organs and links to cancer.

As Premier Carpenter says it is ‘unbelievable and unacceptable’ that FSANZ relies mostly on GM company data to say GM foods are safe to eat.

There is a real concern about the control of seeds across the world. Who owns the seeds? If you look at the price of Roundup and some fertilisers and how they are controlled around the world—I know you will blame China and India for the use of those—the prices have gone up. The price of Roundup has gone up so substantially in such a short time and it is owned by one company.

As we went on the road, it was hard for us to discern what was truth and what was not. But we did realise this was a grassroots issues for people with genuine concerns. It is up to me and every other member of this House to address those concerns. If I as member do not stand up for those people, I ask you, who will? (Time expired)

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for McMillan for listening so carefully to his local community and for working so hard. This is obviously a very big issue in the electorate of McMillan. The issue of genetic modification, otherwise known as GM food, is also a sensitive one in my electorate of La Trobe. As my electorate is the neighbour to Macmillan, you can imagine this. I have been contacted by many constituents angered by the lack of public debate on GM crops. I therefore support the call of the member for McMillan for the government to conduct an independent, broad-ranging scientific investigation into the genetic modification of food and biotechnology and to assess not only the health of the crops and the food but also the potential for contamination, the commercial implications for Australian primary industries and the benefits and risks associated with genetically modified organisms. Until Australian consumers can be confident of the safety of GM foods, these foods should not be produced or sold in Australia. We need an urgent review.

In my electorate of La Trobe is the Yarra Ranges Shire Council, which has been instrumental in raising public awareness about the potential dangers of GM food. La Trobe is home to several diverse agricultural industries, from orchards and vineyards in the south to livestock grazing in the west. Contamination from GM crops would be disastrous for these industries. The decision of the Victorian government to lift the moratorium on the cultivation of genetically modified crops threatens Australia’s primary industries, particularly organic agriculture. Farmer groups, such as the Berwick farmers market—and I congratulate them for putting on a fantastic market, held in my electorate of La Trobe, on the fourth Saturday of every month—celebrate organic and farm fresh produce. GM contamination of their crops would spell the end of this organic food market.

Contamination can occur in many ways: wind can carry GM organisms from a GM farmer’s crop to a non-GM farmer’s crop or organic produce could come into contact with materials that have previously come into contact with GM produce, such as machinery or grain storage facilities. Once the supply chain has been breached, farmers cannot market their food as organic again. Even more alarming is that such breaches can have legal consequences for farmers as well. As most genetically modified crops are patented, farmers of non-GM crops can potentially be sued for patent infringement and theft of intellectual property if they are found to be cultivating crops with GM organisms belonging to another farmer, even if the cultivation was unintentional. This actually happened to Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, who was successfully sued by biotechnology firm Monsanto for patent breaches of GM canola. Even with 10-kilometre buffer zones surrounding GM farms, there is no fail-safe way to protect GM-free crops against contamination. Seeds can be carried tens of kilometres by wind.

Supporters of genetic modification argue that GM food can eradicate world hunger by drought-proofing crops and making them disease resistant, increasing yields. While there is certainly evidence to suggest that GM has benefits for overall crop yield, it cannot be ignored that almost one-third of all GM maize grown in the United States is used for ethanol production. The maize needed to produce only 95 litres of ethanol would feed one person for a year. When considered in this context, it suggests that the impetus for cultivation of GM crops is not eradication of world hunger. Despite indications that GM crops could prove more profitable than non-GM crops, fears about the potential health risks posed by GM foods mean there is a high demand for non-GM products throughout Europe and Asia. Tasmanian canola farmers recently secured a lucrative contract to supply Japan with GM-free canola, proving that farmers can choose to remain GM free without compromising the profitability of their yield.

While there are many arguments supporting the cultivation of genetically modified crops, the simple fact is that a long-term study needs to be done in Australia to ensure they are safe. Finally, I am not opposed to GM crops, but I want a correct and proper review to make sure everything is done to ensure that these products are actually safe to be used in Australia and to help Australians without endangering our agricultural industry.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.