David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2015 addresses a classic case of unfinished business which is finally coming to conclusion. This issue of gene technology regulation has bounced around the parliament since 2011 and 2012, and I am pleased to see that this amendment bill is finally putting into effect recommendations that have floated in this space since then.

Gene technology is very important because it is at the forefront of improving agricultural productivity, medicines development, chemicals development and products for our foods. So it is a very regulated space. To put things in perspective, there is a whole network of legislation and regulation—both at the state and federal level—and an intergovernmental agreement which controls this. There was a Legislative and Governance Forum on Gene Technology, which was mandated by the intergovernmental agreement. That started back in 2011 and 2012. Here, we are now putting effect to its recommendations.

As well as the Gene Technology Regulator and his office, which is a federal body, there are other federal bits of legislation and bodies with their own sets of legislation. These also form part of the matrix governing gene technology regulation. These are: the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, and associated legislation; the Therapeutic Goods Administration and its relevant legislation; Food Standards Australia New Zealand; and the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme. So, as you can see, it is a highly regulated space. As you know, the coalition government are committed to red tape reduction and efficiency manoeuvres that we can employ in the federally-regulated space. This is part of our red tape reduction, and it follows the recommendations from the forum.

There are very substantial duplications between all these various authorities and the regulator. There are a variety of amendments which address many issues in this space. First of all, they cover issues such as how to manage inadvertent dealings and facilitate the removal of genetically modified organisms and products—whether they were with the intention to be released, incidental observations or without the aim or intention of releasing the products into the agricultural or food space. It looks at the issue of licence variations, low-risk work, the reporting requirements, inadvertent dealings, the requirements for public consultation and how much of the GMO record has to be duplicated. These interventions are very inefficient. They are a direct cost to the departments, which require buildings, staff, and lots of web and bureaucratic activity to do work which is already delivered by other bureaucracies that are in place—namely, the ones that I mentioned earlier. So, if we can streamline that process, happy days for the people that rely on these products, because the space that they occupy requires cost to comply with all of these things. It also reduces the cost to taxpayers, because there are less bureaucrats involved double-regulating the one issue or the one product. So—whether it is vaccines; things like insulin; or genetically modified cotton, canola or soy beans—this space will be much more efficiently administered.

In the licence variation space, this legislation still maintains the requirement to meet your regulatory confines but it simplifies it so that the person applying for a licence variation cannot unreasonably extend the coverage of the existing licence. It also still requires a risk assessment to be made, but it allows existing risk assessments for similar products that would intersect with that variation so that it is not duplicated. You will still have to assess the GMO safety to environments and humans. That goes without saying. The annual reports will be simplified from quarterly to annually. All of these manoeuvres, again, reduce costs. So far we have achieved almost $2½ billion in red-tape reduction manoeuvres over our red-tape reduction program. That is real efficiency for our economy, and for the people who rely on government regulation to get their products to market or into market.

The future of this bill is encouraging, because, I understand, there was bipartisan support and involvement at the state levels and by the other bureaucracies in the forum. So, all in all, it is a sensible bit of legislation which is technical and, essentially, pretty straightforward. I cannot see it as being controversial. I recommend this bill to the House.

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2015 is a very interesting piece of legislation. I just want to affirm that I support the concept of genetic modification of plant life. We have, over the course of our civilisation, been very actively engaged in the breeding of plants. Indeed, to a very large extent it is that work that has driven civilisation and the whole notion of the production of surplus and the freeing up that that does so that labour can create many other things—some negative but many, obviously, positive.

I certainly do not want to put myself in the anti-GM camp. Nevertheless, I do want to say that I would not be wholeheartedly embracing this legislation at this point. In my view, the legislation contains some potential to reduce the amount of information and understanding we have about genetically modified crops. If we are going to get support for genetically modified crops, I think it is incredibly important that we ensure that there is a very transparent process and that the use of genetically modified crops is able to be properly tracked and analysed. I think there is enormous potential to increase the nutritional value of food through genetic modification. I am also particularly interested in the work that has been done in taking the genes from plants in very arid areas in Africa and marrying those with our crops. As our climate dries, particularly in southern Australia and the south-west of Western Australia, this could be a very positive modification. But I am disappointed that much of that work, from the research that I have seen, seems to be tied up with the herbicide-resistant and insect-resistant genetic modification. Those are the areas that have created concern.

Some of the concerns are, in fact, legal in nature. I am not confident that we really have our legal institutional framework right concerning GM licensing, the impact of the spread of GM into non-GM areas and the rather bizarre and perverse consequences that can occur to a non-GM farmer. Not only does a non-GM farmer find their ability to market their goods as 'GM-free' compromised but also they might find themselves, inadvertently, on the receiving end of an action by the GM seed grower in that they have improperly utilised that seed without a licence, even though it is quite unwitting and, indeed, something that they would not want to have happened. I still think that we do have a major problem around this area.

I have been to some presentations regarding some of the alleged biological problems that might emerge from using, particularly, some of the insect-resistant GM and the impact that this might have on our biology and the biology of the plants. I am not in a position to judge whether the scientists who are putting these views out are totally legitimate. I have certainly had some very vigorous correspondence from people in my electorate on both sides of the story. It may well be that in the case of a scientist such as Emeritus Professor Don Huber from Purdue University his science is not as rigorous as one might like. Nevertheless, I do think we have to keep an open mind here. I am very mindful of a piece of research I read in the last week about the impact that lots of our current plant breeding has had on the nutritional value of crops. In our quest to make fruit and vegetables less bitter, sweeter, because we have not fully understood the biological mechanism and the chemical actions that are precipitated by eating fruit and vegetables, what we are doing has inadvertently resulted in a very significant drop in the nutritional values of those foods. We have been breeding in order to make these goods superficially more desirable but in the process have inadvertently compromised the nutritional value of those foods. So, while people are very quick to jump on the work of Professor Huber, I caution that we must in this area be constantly prepared to research these matters and to keep a watchful eye on the implications of the modifications that we are making.

It is very important for us to ensure that the science is not compromised by the power of the seed companies. As I said, I find it somewhat disappointing that, from what I can see, the vast majority of the genetic modification that is going on is very much led by companies like Monsanto that are also sellers of the herbicides that are being made more usable by these genetic modifications. We accept that genetic modification can be a very positive way of improving the crops that we have available to us, particularly at a time of rapidly changing climate and rapidly increasing populations. As the amount of agricultural area available is contracting and populations are growing, quite clearly we have to do something better and smarter. But I would be very concerned if we were too readily scaling back keeping track of what we are doing. We need to make sure that we do fund independent—truly independent—research into genetically modified products and the impact they may be having, whether it is on our gut flora or on the nutritional value of those crops. And of course we need to ensure that we have a fair legal framework in place so that farmers who do not want to be GM farmers are not finding themselves inadvertently caught up in the legal process. I think it is important at this stage that in our community we ensure there is some reasonable labelling of GM food, because there are people out there who believe that this is important. Just as there as people out there who believe that it is important that halal be notified on products, there are consumers for whom GM is equally important. I think it is good business practice for us to ensure that that market is provided for.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Perth and others who have spoken on the Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2015 for their very careful submissions. I am very pleased that I am here to sum up on this bill. As we have discussed, it amends the Gene Technology Act 2000 to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the genetically modified organisms regulatory scheme. The amendments do not significantly change the framework or policy settings of the act. These amendments were recommended by an independent review of the regulatory scheme, which concluded that the gene technology regulatory system is working well but that a number of changes would improve the operation of the scheme. The amendments decrease the regulatory burden for regulated organisations and help ensure that the regulatory burden remains commensurate with risk into the future. Australia's gene technology regulatory scheme is recognised throughout the world for its rigorous science-based risk assessments and open and transparent approach. The scheme also provides an efficient and effective system for the application of gene technology. These amendments maintain the scheme to ensure that these high standards continue into the future. I commend the bill once again to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.