Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Mental Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition on this bill. The Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2015 makes some technical changes to the Gene Technology Act 2000. The act is the Commonwealth legislation that states and territories have committed to maintaining corresponding legislation so that we have a system of regulation of genetically modified organisms in this country. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Gene Technology, or the forum, which has ministerial representations from the nine Australian jurisdictions, ordered an independent review in 2011 of the Gene Technology Act. The review made 16 recommendations, 14 of which have been accepted by the forum.

This bill implements a number of recommendations as agreed to by the forum. They include discontinuing quarterly reporting to the minister, clarifying the dealings that may be authorised by inadvertent dealings licences and updating advertising requirements for public consultations. They also remove duplicate information about genetically modified products authorised by other agencies from the Record of GMO and GM Product Dealings maintained by the Gene Technology Regulator. This will have the effect of no longer tracking, I understand, the GM products that are approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the Australian Pests and Veterinary Medicines Authority, Food Standards Australia and New Zealand and NICNAS, which is the chemical regulator in our country. The information will need to be sought directly from the approving agency.

The bill also changes licence variation requirements to give greater flexibility to licence holders. It updates considerations required before dealings may be scheduled as notifiable low-risk dealings. It requires emergency dealings determinations to be entered onto the GMO Record as soon as practicable, but removes the requirement that information on GM products be entered as soon as practicable, and it clarifies ambiguous wording. The bill reduces the restrictions on licence variations. The regulator is restricted in how licences can be varied. This is so variations cannot be used to extend the coverage of licences unreasonably. The changes proposed in this legislation will amend the current restrictions on the regulator, which currently may only consider an extension to a licence if the risk assessment and risk management plan for the original licence would still be valid for the new extended licence. In other words, a licence may only be extended if the original risk management plan remains valid.

The new system will also permit the use of risk assessment and risk management plans which had been prepared and used for the permit of a licence rather than the one that is being amended. This will have the effect of an applicant not needing to seek a new licence. The regulator, however, must consider whether the two licences involve similar GMOs or other similar dealings. The modification to the licence variations would give the OGTR, the office, the authority to initiate licence variations. This is a deficiency in the current legislation, as the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator does not currently have authority to amend a licence if it does become aware of any new risks to health, safety or the environment that are not covered by the management plan.

There are also changes to the list of factors the regulator must consider before the dealings can be declared a notifiable low-risk dealing by the Governor-General. This includes removing the requirement that the GMO be biologically contained so that it is not able to survive or reproduce without human intervention. A more effective and efficient way of dealing with this is adopted by the bill and involves looking at the risk profile of dealings on a case-by-case basis, rather than biological containment. This is more reflective of modern scientific understanding and practice than when the provision was first implemented.

When first raised in the House of Representatives, Labor had not formed a view on the elements of the bill due to the technical nature of the issues covered. We therefore sought the views of scientists, industry, the government and the regulator. We were given briefings by the department and the shadow minister's office wants to put on record their thanks to Minister Nash. We have been pleased to hear from stakeholders and the bill includes some incremental and positive changes.

The bill was referred to a Senate inquiry and that report was brought down this week. I want to thank the five submitters who made submissions to the committee—CSIRO, the Office of Gene Technology Regulator, the Australian Academy of Science, CropLife Australia and Food Standards Australia and New Zealand. The Academy of Science said that the amendments are 'conservative and justified' and we agree with that assessment. I can indicate to the chamber that Labor will be supporting this bill.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak briefly on the Gene Technology Amendment Bill. The Australian Greens have long been concerned about the role that genetically engineered organisms play in our modern agricultural system. Despite decades of research and commercialisation, doubt remains over aspects of the safety of genetically modified foods and the advertised benefits of GM crops are largely yet to be seen globally. We are also concerned about the environmental impacts that genetically modified organisms can have on the environment. Crop yields, although much touted around the world, are not dealing with global hunger and poverty and we have seen an escalation in the use of pesticides on our food, which proponents of GMO claim will reduce the use of chemicals. Certainly, the main organisations profiting from GMOs are large GMO companies.

While the Australian Greens do not oppose the amendments proposed in this bill, which are technical in nature with an emphasis on improving the clarity of the scheme, a large number of concerns about the assessment of GMOs in Australia remain including that the bulk of the information relied on for assessment is provided by the companies and industry themselves and we do not do independent analysis and testing.

The following principles have not yet been fully enshrined in legislation including an assessment of GM crops. That assessment must include careful consideration of health and environmental risks. Consumers have the right to know what is in the food they are eating—in other words, foods containing genetically modified organisms and processes should have them listed on the label so that people can make a choice. There is no doubt that globally there is a strong consumer move for GM-free, clean, green produce. It is the opinion of the Australia Greens that Australia still has a long way to go in terms of its safety assessment as it relates to GMO in agriculture or genetically engineered products or materials in products. That goes back to the fact that we are reliant largely on the information the industry itself develops.

A number of concerns have been raised in earlier inquiries, but particularly concerning are those that highlight the need to better address both GMO labelling and GMO contamination. I have spoken a lot about that in this chamber. The onus is on those who are contaminated and not on those who caused the contamination.

I recently moved a successful motion in the Senate calling on the government to investigate the creation of an insurance scheme for those growers whose crops are contaminated by GMOs. I also previously introduced a private members bill that sought to properly label GMOs. Despite these initiatives, successive governments have failed to fully grasp the challenges that GMOs present to both our environment and our health and also communities' understanding of GMOs and their desire to have clean, green produce—and to have a choice about what they are eating.

These larger issues remain part of the ongoing debate around GMOs and need to be taken into consideration during further legislative reform around GM technology. The Greens will not be opposing these particular amendments to the legislation.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased today to have opportunity to sum up debate on the Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2015. As we have discussed, this bill amends the Gene Technology Act 2000 to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the National Regulatory Scheme for Genetically Modified Organisms. 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 and that a number of changes would improve the operation of the scheme. The amendments decrease regulatory burden for regulated organisations and help ensure that regulatory burden remains commensurate with risk in 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 these high standards will continue in future.

I thank senators for their contributions to debate on this bill and I thank the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for their consideration of this legislation. I would also like to thank the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator and the Department of Health for their work on preparing this legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.