Page 1152 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 8 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
recommendations of the review. The review recommended a number of administrative changes intended to improve the operation of the act. ACT officials participated in a working group of the Gene Technology Standing Committee, which advised the ministerial council on an intergovernmental response to the review’s recommendations. In March 2007, the ministerial council gave out-of-session approval for the Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2007 and the explanatory memorandum.
Some people have questioned why this legislation lies within the health portfolio in the ACT, as in some states the responsibility for this issue lies with the agriculture minister. It should be noted that at a federal level this issue and the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator lie within the Department of Health and Ageing.
Arguably the most significant amendment made by this bill is the introduction of emergency powers which give the commonwealth minister the ability to make an emergency dealing determination to expedite the approval of a GMO in an emergency. This would allow an identified GMO to be used quickly in response to an emergency without going through the lengthy licensing application process. The commonwealth minister is, of course, required to obtain scientific advice before making such determination, and this advice must state that there is an emergency, that an identified GMO can be of assistance and that the GMO can be appropriately managed. States and territories must also have been consulted about any proposed emergency determination. Some examples of where it may be appropriate to use these powers are where there is threat of a disease, where there is threat from an animal or plant such as a pest or alien invasive species or where there is a threat from industrial spillage.
At 6.00 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.
MS GALLAGHER: These emergency powers were enacted in 2007 when an emergency determination was issued to allow for the introduction into Australia of a live genetically modified vaccine to address the equine influenza outbreak. Earlier this year, the amendments were again enacted, following extensive consultation with all jurisdictions, to allow the extension of this determination to ensure effective administration of the vaccine beyond the initial six-month licence period.
The bill gives examples of conditions that may be imposed upon a determination relating to factors such as the quantity of GMO, the scope of the dealings and the identity of the person who may deal with the GMO. Additional information may be required by the Gene Technology Regulator, such as matters relating to distribution, containment, storage and disposal of the GMO.
The second key area of change relates to improvements which have been made to the mechanisms for providing advice to the Gene Technology Regulator and the Gene Technology Ministerial Council on ethics and community consultation. The two relevant committees, namely the Gene Technology Ethics Committee and the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee, have been amalgamated into the Gene Technology Ethics and Community Consultative Committee to reduce what the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .