Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 9 Hansard (26 August) . . Page.. 3215 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

council is to oversee the operation of the scheme, to issue policy principles and policy guidelines and to advise on codes of practice and standards for persons conducting dealings with GMOs. I am the ACT's representative on that council.

The Commonwealth act established the Gene Technology Regulator as a statutory office holder to administer the legislation. I am sure members are familiar with the roles and the activities of the regulator. A gene technology ethics committee provides advice on the ethics of gene technology, appropriate ethical guidelines and any necessary prohibitions. A gene technology community consultative committee provides advice on community concerns regarding gene technology as well as the development of policy documents.

Mr Speaker, this bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Health when it was introduced into the Assembly in February last year and the committee presented its report to the Assembly in December last year. The government tabled its response in June and is in the process of implementing the commitments the government made in its response.

I would like to address some points prior to responding to some other points made by Mr Smyth. Of particular note was the government's response to recommendation 3 of the committee's report. In recommendation 3 the committee advocated the introduction of a moratorium on dealings with genetically modified organisms in the ACT similar to that in place in Tasmania. As the government has explained in its response, a broad moratorium on GMOs in the ACT is not supported at this time as such an action could significantly undermine the strong biotechnology research base in the ACT.

As Ms Dundas points out, further research is important as we continue to understand and develop our responses to the use of GMOs and such a moratorium could significantly threaten the research base in the ACT if it were as broad ranging as the committee recommended. It is also worth noting that the value of the biotechnology research sector to the ACT is of the order of $180 million per year, so it is not an insignificant industry in the ACT.

However, in line with New South Wales, the ACT government has declared a three-year moratorium on the commercial release of GM food crops and it is proposing to introduce legislation to that effect. Given the geographical location of the ACT and the nature of the region's agriculture industry, the government is of the view that it is appropriate for the ACT to be consistent with New South Wales on this issue. I am obliged to ACT Health for providing me-a bit of colour and movement, Mr Speaker-with this map of "capital country"which shows a canola crop near Young.

Clearly, canola is one of the first commercial crops GMO approved for use and it is important in this context, I think, that the ACT is supportive of a moratorium consistent with that in New South Wales, which prevents contamination which could otherwise occur if we did not have a moratorium in place. That is an example of the fact that we do live in a region where canola, which is the topical crop at the moment, could otherwise be affected.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .