Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (17 June) . . Page.. 1918 ..
MR CORBELL
: In February 2002, the previous minister for health introduced the Gene Technology Bill 2002 to the Assembly, following the signing of the Intergovernmental Gene Technology Agreement. The agreement recognises the need for a cooperative national legislative scheme protecting the health and safety of people and the environment. It advised the ACT to introduce nationally consistent legislation within the scheme that is intended to provide a national regulatory system for the application of gene technologies.On 7 March 2002, the Assembly resolved that the Standing Committee on Health inquire into and report on the operation of the Gene Technology Bill 2002. The committee tabled its report on 12 December last year, making 25 recommendations. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for its work on this difficult and complex issue. The report has prompted the government to consolidate its thinking and position on many of the complex issues surrounding the regulation of gene technology in Australia, and in particular the impact of the national regulatory system on the ACT.
The government has given careful consideration to the recommendations of the committee, supports three recommendations and agrees in principle with a further 10. In response to these recommendations, the government will:
promote a range of activities across the ACT community to increase levels of awareness, knowledge and understanding of gene technology;
continue dialogue with New South Wales about cross-border issues;
recommend that the federal government move responsibility for gene technology to the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio, to better represent the cross-portfolio nature of the issues; and
approach the appropriate agencies, in particular, the regulator, requesting that they consider particular concerns and issues raised by the committee.
Mr Speaker, the government, while noting the issues raised by the committee, agrees in part with one of the recommendations and does not agree with 11 of the other recommendations.
Of particular note is the government's response to recommendation 3. In recommendation 3, the committee advocates the introduction of a moratorium on dealings with genetically modified organisms in the ACT, similar to that in place in Tasmania. It is the government's view that the establishment of a broad moratorium in the ACT, such as that in place in Tasmania, is not warranted at this point in time. The government has confidence in the strict regulation of gene technology provided by the national regulatory scheme, administered by the Gene Technology Regulator.
The research base in biotechnology in the ACT, which is amongst the most talented in Australia, risks being severely undermined by such a moratorium. A broad moratorium could significantly curtail the research activity of organisations such as the CSIRO, the ANU, the University of Canberra, the Cooperative Research Centre for Pest Animal Control and the Canberra Hospital, and the ability of developing biotechnology business opportunities in the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .