Parliamentary Speeches
GM CROP MORATORIUM ( 05/12/2007)
Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina) [11.01 a.m.]: My contribution on the Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Amendment Bill 2007 will be brief. At the outset I make it very plain that I am opposed to lifting the moratorium on GM food products. I believe that the reasons behind the moratorium being put in place in 2003 still apply. The trials that were supposed to have taken place for GM canola in New South Wales following the 2003 legislation have not taken place. Furthermore, there are no long-term health studies that show that the consumption of GM foods is perfectly safe and that there are no downstream consequences. Indeed, some of the studies indicate that whilst rats, for example, that consume GM product are not adversely affected, the progeny of those rats are adversely affected with early deaths and deformities and so on.
So there are some issues that I believe are not yet resolved with regard to the long-term consequences of GM food products. The precautionary principle is something we often talk about: in fact, it is embedded in legislation in this place. We need to distinguish between GM food products and GM fibre products. Cotton is a fibre product: people do not eat it. Food is a different ball game. A higher level of care is needed in relation to possible consequences of the legislation.
Given a choice, 90 per cent of people will avoid eating GM food. That has been confirmed by the Coles survey. If people do not want to eat GM foods, and we have primary industries that have switched over to GM foods, there has to be a question about whether this is the right way to go purely from a marketing perspective, quite apart from any long-term health concerns.
This is difficult legislation in that if something is not put in place before March 2008 when the moratorium expires there will be no controls whatsoever on the introduction of GM crops in New South Wales. However, whilst what is being put in place is better than nothing, and for that reason is not able to be opposed, it is inadequate—notwithstanding some good amendments initiated by the shadow Minister for Primary Industries, the member for Coffs Harbour, and passed in the Legislative Council last night.
So if the bill is not passed there will be no regulatory regime in place. If the bill is passed a pretty ordinary regulatory regime will be put in place that will end the moratorium on GM canola and let the GM genie out of the bottle, with unknown and potentially disastrous consequences for Australian agriculture and consumers down the track. As labelling laws are tightened in Australia and overseas consumers will become more aware of the dangers of eating GM food and will shy away from it even more.
Australia has a clean, green image and we should try to keep it. The experience in Canada and elsewhere is that it is impossible to segregate GM product from non-GM product, especially canola, the seeds of which are so fine as to be like water to handle. Contamination is inevitable, and farmers who want to produce GM-free product will not be able to give the zero content of GM product in GM-free markets that is required. Currently $60 per tonne more is being paid for GM-free canola over GM canola. So this segregation issue is important from a marketing and equity perspective, but I believe it is also important from a liability perspective. Why should a grower of GM-free food be held liable for contamination that occurs from a neighbour when the contamination occurred without their concurrence? I refer members to the excellent speech made by the Hon. Rick Colless on this bill, and on the subject of segregation in particular, in the Legislative Council last night.
In summary, whilst we have no option but to allow this legislation through so that at least we have some regulatory regime in place, with some checks in relation to GM canola and other products being grown in New South Wales down the track, I am still concerned about going down the GM track—for health and toxicology reasons, for marketing reasons, for contamination reasons, and for economic reasons. I point out that only 25 per cent of farmers are in favour of the release of GM food products.
I have heard both sides of the GM debate, and I like to think of myself as a fairly rational person, but I am not persuaded that the moratorium should be lifted. As I said at the outset, in my view the reasons that underpinned the legislation in 2003 have not changed. Having said that, I congratulate the shadow Minister for Primary Industries, the member for Coffs Harbour, on the considerable work he has done on this legislation and on the amendments he has negotiated with the Government to put in place a stricter and fairer regulatory regime for the release and control of GM products.
