Please note: This is an extract from Hansard only. Hansard extracts are reproduced with permission from the Parliament of Western Australia.

GENE TECHNOLOGY BILL 2005
Introduction and First Reading

Bill introduced, on motion by Mr F.M. Logan (Minister for Housing and Works), and read a first time.
Explanatory memorandum presented by the minister.

Second Reading

MR F.M. LOGAN (Cockburn - Minister for Housing and Works) [4.22 pm]: I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill represents the Western Australian component of a national regulatory scheme for gene technology established by commonwealth, state and territory legislation. The scheme as a whole consists of three things: the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000 that came into operation on 21 June 2001; the intergovernmental agreement on gene technology that was signed by the states and territories; and the bills that the states and territories introduce to their Parliaments, as provided for in the intergovernmental agreement. The regulatory framework will operate in conjunction with other commonwealth and state regulatory schemes relevant to genetically modified organisms and GM products. These include the existing schemes for the regulation of foods, therapeutic goods, agricultural and veterinary chemicals and industrial chemicals. Save for a few minor changes, this bill is exactly the same as it was when introduced into and passed without amendment by this house in 2001. The bill was subsequently the subject of a report by the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs. The committee recommended a couple of amendments to the bill, and these have been included in the reprinted bill.
Members may recall that “gene technology”, as defined in the commonwealth act and this bill, means any technique for the modification of genes or any other genetic material. A GMO is an organism that has been modified by gene technology or an organism that has inherited particular traits from an organism, being traits that occurred in the initial organism because of gene technology. A GM product is something - other than a GMO - that is derived or produced from a GMO. In Australia, a range of sectors currently utilise gene technology for research and development purposes and for commercial purposes. These include universities and other public research institutes, state and commonwealth agencies such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, state government Departments of Health and Agriculture, biotechnology companies, pharmaceutical companies and agricultural companies. The object of the legislation is to protect the health and safety of people and to protect the environment by identifying and assessing risks posed by or that arise as a result of gene technology, and by managing those risks through the regulation of certain dealings with GMOs. “Dealings” with GMOs include conducting experiments, making, developing, producing, manufacturing, breeding, propagating, using in the course of manufacturing, growing, raising, culturing or importing. In short, dealing with a GMO means doing anything with a GMO.

The commonwealth act, which states that it is intended to form a component of a nationally consistent scheme, does a number of key things -

it establishes a statutory officer, to be known as the Gene Technology Regulator, for the purposes of performing functions and exercising powers under the legislation;
it establishes three committees - the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee, the Gene Technology Ethics Committee and the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee - to provide scientific, ethical and policy advice respectively to the regulator and/or the ministerial council established under the intergovernmental agreement on gene technology;

it prohibits persons from dealing with GMOs unless the dealing with the GMO is exempt, is a notifiable low-risk dealing, is on the register of GMOs or is licensed by the regulator;

it establishes a scheme for the assessment of risks to human health and the environment associated with various dealings with GMOs, which includes opportunities for extensive public input;

it provides for the certification of facilities to certain containment levels and the accreditation of organisations assessed by the regulator to have a properly constituted and maintained institutional biosafety committee;

it provides for a centralised, publicly available database of all GMO and GM product dealings in Australia; and

it establishes comprehensive auditing, monitoring, inspection and enforcement powers that can be adapted to individual circumstances on a case-by-case basis.

The commonwealth relied on various constitutional powers to enact its legislation. These powers allow it to regulate all imports, all activities by corporations or individuals engaged in interstate trade and commerce, and things done or not done by a person that may cause the spread of disease or pests. However, there are some gaps in the commonwealth’s constitutional coverage. These gaps would include dealings with GMOs by certain individuals, state departments and universities that are not involved in cooperative arrangements with corporations or in interstate trade and commerce. The legislation of the states and territories will fill these gaps to ensure that one regulatory system applies to all persons, things and activities within Australia, as required by the intergovernmental agreement. Therefore, the aim of this bill is to apply precisely the same regulatory system as applies under the commonwealth act in those situations that the commonwealth act is constitutionally unable to reach. To achieve this, with a few exceptions, the bill is identical to the commonwealth act, even to the extent of using the same numbering for sections.
I would like to mention two aspects of the legislation in particular. The first is the issue of designated GM and non-GM areas. The commonwealth act and this bill are designed to protect the health and safety of people and the environment. However, they contain a clear acknowledgment that the regulation of gene technology is also relevant to the marketing of agricultural products. Both pieces of legislation contain provision for policy principles to be issued by the ministerial council, recognising areas designated under state law for the purpose of preserving the identity of GM crops and/or non-GM crops for marketing purposes. Western Australia’s law for this purpose is the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003. An order has been made under this act designating the whole of Western Australia as an area in which genetically modified crops may not be grown. A policy principle has been issued by the Gene Technology Ministerial Council recognising such areas designated under state law. This will prevent a licence being issued that would authorise the growing of a commercial GM crop in Western Australia.

The second issue of which I make particular mention is the availability of information on the location of trial sites. The commonwealth act and this bill provide that a person may request copies of applications, risk assessments and risk management plans, and that the regulator must provide these. The legislation also provides that the regulator must allow any person to inspect the record of GMO and GM product dealings. The exception to these public information provisions is if information is confidential commercial information. Information will be confidential commercial information only if it is declared as such by the regulator. A specific provision states that the regulator must refuse to declare that information is confidential commercial information if it relates to locations at which field trials involving GMOs are occurring or are proposed to occur, unless the regulator is satisfied that significant damage to the health and safety of people, the environment or property would be likely to result if the locations were disclosed. This means that, in general, information about sites where dealings with GMOs are occurring will be required to be disclosed. This is as it should be. A strict national regulatory system with adequate input from all levels of government and the community is the best way to achieve adequate and consistent control of the technology. At the same time, it is necessary that the state retain control of its destiny in this highly sensitive area of technology, and this legislation will enable that to occur.

I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr M.J. Cowper.