Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

We just heard it there. 'And they don't,' says the senator. The assertion is simply false. They do mix and they have done so for a very, very long time. The fact is they save lives and they produce food for hungry people. This is not science fiction and it's certainly not the fantasies that are pedalled by those who support this disallowance motion. This is real science, which is why the new regulatory framework has been supported by the Australian Academy of Science and the Australian National University. It is why it's supported by industry bodies such as the Grains Research and Development Corporation. It is why the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator rejects the assertion of Friends of the Earth that the regulations will undermine Australia's status as a world leader in organic food production. It rejects it because it's simply not true. The regulator stated:

Animals modified using all older gene technology techniques and most new genome editing techniques including those using CRISPR will continue to be regulated as GMOs.

They've simply got the facts wrong. In calling for the revision of the regulations that were adopted in 2001, the Academy of Science argued this:

The Australian regulatory framework for gene technology was established at a time when the technology was new, the risks were poorly defined, and there were few commercial products. Consequently, the focus was on ensuring the safety of new work in research facilities and tightly controlled small scale trials.

…   …   …

The Academy takes the position that there are efficiencies to be gained in the legislative and regulatory framework by developing an exemption model for organisms with genetic modifications indistinguishable from those produced by non-genetic modification techniques …

The Academy also recommends a regulatory scheme that is able to adapt to new technological developments, through clear definitions that focus on research outcomes rather than the technology used to achieve them.

The new regulations that Senator Rice and the Friends of the Earth are seeking to overturn do what the academy recommended. Senators should reflect carefully on the advice when they vote on this motion. Does the Senate want to take an evidence based approach to decisions on gene technology, an approach that reflects the development of techniques in genetic science over the last two decades, developments that will continue to allow appropriate regulations to protect human safety, or do we want to succumb to the ideological resistance to genetic technologies being pushed by organisations like Friends of the Earth? If we want to build an enlightened future for this country, a future that does not reject science, we should reject this motion. The new gene technology regulations should be upheld.