June 27, 2002

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt—Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Corrective Services) [3.36 p.m.]: The issue of genetically engineered food crops has surfaced in the media in recent weeks, with proponents on both sides of the debate making various statements. Some statements were quite reasonable and some were quite wide of the mark. The debate on genetically modified [GM] crops can be split into two main areas of concern: first, food safety and, second, market opportunities for our farmers. First, I will canvass the food safety issue. I was most impressed by the balanced approach of one writer, Mr Simon Benson, in the Daily Telegraph on Monday. His article stated:

Some lobby groups will never be satisfied by any level of food safety …
There are also philosophical and religious reasons why people might be opposed to [genetic modification], but they have little to do with science and food safety …
A great misconception is that eating a genetically modified food will have some Frankenstein effect on a human.
When you eat chicken, you are consuming all the DNA and hence the genes of chicken.
You don't start laying eggs and growing feathers.

The national regulatory regime for the use of gene technology is complemented by a national regulatory regime for food safety, which specifically addresses genetically modified foods. The national food standards code prohibits the sale or use as an ingredient food produced using gene technology unless it has been assessed by the Australia and New Zealand Food Authority and found to be safe under the authorities approved safety assessment criteria. I will now canvass the second issue, market opportunities for farmers. In Australia new plant varieties are now being developed by this technology. The first release was bacillus tahuringensis cotton, known as BT cotton, which gave the cotton plant a useful level of resistance to the most serious cotton insect pest. It substantially reduced the level of pesticide use on cotton. That was a significant environmental outcome.

Herbicide-resistant canola is next in the pipeline, and has been widely grown in the United States of America and Canada for some years without the devastating consequences predicted by the opponents of that technology. It has also been extensively trialled in Australia for some years. I understand that the Office of Gene Technology Regulator has received an application for the commercial production of Roundup Ready canola next year. This variety is resistant to the very valuable herbicide, glyphosate, known as Roundup. There have been calls for the banning of that technology, or for a moratorium on the testing or commercial release of plants developed by that technology. The organic food production industry has been specifically vocal on that matter. I am a strong supporter of the organic industry. Recently I opened the Centre for Organic Farming in the NSW Agriculture office at Bathurst.

Several organic farming activities are under way in NSW Agriculture, including research programs into evaluating the environmental benefits of alternative farming systems, breeding disease-resistant crops and the development of biological agents for weed control. Organic farming, conventional farming and genetically modified plant varieties can co-exist and each can find its own niche in the Australian and global food market. The key to co-existence is the regulatory regime that has been developed in Australia, together with the use of crop management plans, and to identity preservation schemes. The regulatory regime is in place, with the passage of the Commonwealth Government's Gene Technology Act 2000 and complementary Acts in each State. This tight and transparent regime regulates all activities using gene technology that are not covered by other legislation.

Crop management plans address any on-farm issues, such as the development of weed or insect resistance, or cross-pollination with non-GM or organic crops. Identity preservation schemes keep non-GM and GM grain or oilseeds separate during the handling, transport and processing chain to ensure that food manufacturers can meet market demands, such as the labelling requirements for GM food. Feasibility studies conducted in Victoria have suggested that GM-free zones are unworkable. Recently the Sydney Morning Herald published an article which contained, I am sure, an unintentional misrepresentation of the New South Wales Government's position on GM-free zones. The article stated that I had ruled out such zones. Let me correct that: I did not rule them out. I simply conveyed the fact that nobody is in a position to rule them in.

Australia and New South Wales should not be denied the great benefits that the sensible use of this technology can bring to the whole community, including to the environment. I can inform the House that my office is in touch with the New South Wales Farmers Association on this issue and I have read the association's policy. It is a sensible one. In a nutshell, the association supports the continued research into and the trialling and testing of individual GM agricultural products. It also supports the release of GM products provided that, first, the appropriate regulatory authority stringently assesses all possible food safety and environmental risks and, second, the release offers substantial benefits to Australia's agricultural industries. I believe that is a reasonable approach to a complex issue. The crux of the market access issue is that the market will lead our farmers in the right direction. If consumers, both in Australia and overseas, decide that they will pay for a particular type of farmed product, Australian farmers will produce it and they will continue to be among the best farmers in the world. I am pleased to contribute to this ever-expanding public debate.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [3.41 p.m.]: This is a most interesting debate. Genetic modification is obviously in the embryonic stage. There is a considerable lack of knowledge in this country it. There are also a considerable number of inaccuracies in the definitions of genetic modification. Having passed the technical aspects, the emphasis is on the benefits genetic modification will bring to production. I question whether the Government has spoken to the retailers and wholesalers in the marketplace. I have spoken to McDonald's, Woolworths and Mr Doug Sheers of ICM, the former owner of Uncle Tobys. They are diametrically opposed to GM foods in this country at this stage. It is all very well for the Minister for Agriculture to talk about the advantages genetic modification will bring in the marketplace, but if our major retailers are not prepared to retail the products, there will be somewhat of an impasse.

Japan, our largest single customer in this area, is also totally opposed to GM foods. Before we get too excited about the potential benefits for growers—reducing costs, increasing production, and improving the climatic properties of plants—we should look at who wants to buy GM foods and what markets we are likely to win or lose. Then we can have a definitive opinion. Genetic breeding of plants and animals is not new. One of the classic examples is corn, which has been genetically bred for the past 60-odd years. I refer to the days of De Kab Shand in the Tamworth district. My colleague the honourable member for Tamworth would be well aware that De Kab Shand was one of the leaders after World War II in the management of genetic breeding of corn or maize, as it is professionally known.

In the animal world there have been enormous changes. Whilst there has not been genetic modification in a technical sense, genes have been used to change the genetic characteristics of particular animals and plants. Our highly successful lamb industry has gone through an extraordinary transformation in the past 15 years. We have gone from lambs dressing at an average of 17 to 18 pounds to lambs now dressing at 44 to 48 pounds. They are attractive on the American market. I use the word "pounds" because they are sold to the American market. It is a major tribute to our animal breeders in this country. The Minister has told us about some of the benefits of genetic modification. I do not dispute his technical advice or knowledge. Certainly, plant disease resistance in cotton has been well demonstrated. But some of the other information coming forward is contradictory.

It has been said that we cannot have a GM-free zone. For example, in a single day bees will fly up to six kilometres backwards and forwards carrying pollen. According to members of the Apiarists Association who were here this morning, bees can sometimes fly up to eight kilometres. To impose a regulation of two kilometres as the perimeter around a GM zone would be futile. Bees which are necessary for the fertility of many of our crops and are the greatest cross-pollinators, If they can fly up to eight kilometres in a day, to introduce GM-free zones would be a fruitless exercise. I also compliment the Daily Telegraph on its articles last week about GM foods and modifications. Those articles were succinct and probably as well researched as any I have seen in the public arena so far. We must obtain further scientific evidence and compile chronologies of practical references that are obtainable in the field. This debate has a long way to go before we, either Government or Opposition, can make firm and absolute recommendations on genetic modification.

I refer the Parliament to some of the work that has been done in Tasmania over the years. Tasmania has been a leader in this field, particularly with small crops, for the past 50 years. For example, I refer to the product known as canola, which was formerly called rape. It is a somewhat newer crop up here, having been introduced in the last 15 to 20 years. Tasmania was successfully growing rape back in the early 1950s. My colleague the honourable member for Murray-Darling mentioned poppies. Opium poppies have been grown successfully for the pharmaceutical trade in Tasmania for many years. A great deal of genetic management is necessary for that crop. Tasmania is a leader in growing those small crops and in the use of that type of genetics. I urge the New South Wales Department of Agriculture and the Government to gather information from Tasmania so that we can be better informed before coming to a final decision on the imposition of GM-free zones. The question is still open and should remain open until we have further information on the matter.