|
senate vote 2016-02-03#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2016-07-07 14:51:57
|
Title
Bills — Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment (Forum on Food Regulation and Other Measures) Bill 2015; in Committee- Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment (Forum on Food Regulation and Other Measures) Bill 2015 - in Committee - Gene Technology Regulator
Description
<p class="speaker">Fiona Nash</p><p>I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government's amendments to be moved to this bill.</p><p>By leave—I move government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet GB124 together:</p>- The majority voted against an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2016-02-03.27.1) that would have included the [Gene Technology Regulator](https://www.ausgovboards.gov.au/boards/gene-technology-regulator) as an appropriate government agency in the bill.
- The amendment was introduced by Greens Senator [Rachel Siewert](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/rachel_siewert), who explained:
- > *We are deeply concerned about what impact removing the Gene Technology Regulator as an appropriate government agency would have in decision making and, in particular, in the process of how GM [[genetic modification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering)] and GMO [[genetically modified organism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism)] products are addressed by FSANZ [[Food Standards Australia New Zealand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Standards_Australia_New_Zealand)] and by the OGTR [[Office of the Gene Technology Regulator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Gene_Technology_Regulator)].*
- ### Motion text
- > *(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 13), after paragraph (b) of the definition of appropriate government agency, insert:*
- >> *(ba) the Gene Technology Regulator; or*
- > *(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (lines 24 to 29), omit the item, substitute:*
- >> *4 Subsection 4(1) (definition of New Zealand lead Minister on the Council )*
- >> *Repeal the definition.*
<p class="italic">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item, substitute:</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 2, heading, page 21 (lines 1 and 2), omit "commencing 1January 2016", substitute "relating to Board".</p><p>This is procedural in nature, as the bill was due to be debated towards the end of last year but that did not proceed. This amendment changes the commencement date for the amendments to immediately after the day after this act receives royal assent, which will align with the other amendments in schedule 1, instead of commencing 1 January 2016.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>The opposition will be supporting this amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>As the minister said, these are procedural. We will be supporting these amendments. However, that is with the proviso that our other amendments get supported when we come to make a decision on the third reading.</p><p>The CHAIRMAN: The question is that government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet GB124 be agreed to.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p><p>by leave—I move Greens amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 7774 together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 13), after paragraph (b) of the definition of appropriate government agency, insert:</p><p class="italic">  (ba) the Gene Technology Regulator; or</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (lines 24 to 29), omit the item, substitute:</p><p class="italic">4 Subsection 4(1) (definition of <i>New Zealand lead Minister on the Council</i> )</p><p class="italic">  Repeal the definition.</p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 1, item 11, page 4 (lines 25 and 26), to be opposed.</p><p>I have covered the details of these amendments, so I do not intend to delay the chamber too long in explaining these again. I did cover the reasons for these amendments in my second reading contribution. We are deeply concerned about what impact removing the Gene Technology Regulator as an appropriate government agency would have in decision making and, in particular, in the process of how GM and GMO products are addressed by FSANZ and by the OGTR. These amendments, we believe, are important amendments that maintain the integrity of the current process. I do also appreciate that we will have to put them separately to the chamber.</p><p>I want to take a minute while I am on my feet to address some comments that Senator Macdonald made during his—let's say—wide-ranging contribution to this debate. It crossed my mind to raise a point of order because he went so far off the reservation and, in fact, so far away from the intent of this particular bill, to once again have a go at the Pew organisation and to have yet another go at marine protection, making completely false statements about the Greens position on fishing. I would clearly like to say that he was clearly making false statements and what he said was in fact not true—particularly the comments that he made about the Greens position on GMOs. Let me just be really clear that he was in fact not quoting Senator Di Natale correctly, and let me make sure that people are aware that the Greens' policy was amended last year. There will not be any further amendments and we are not in any discussions about any changes to our current policy on this matter. Let me reassure the community on that, and let Senator Macdonald know that he has it wrong.</p><p>Having said that, this matter does particularly relate to the protections and measures that need to be maintained in order to ensure that GMO content of our foods is properly regulated. I do commend these amendments to the chamber.</p> <p class="speaker">Fiona Nash</p><p>I can indicate to the chamber that the government does not support these amendments. I certainly appreciate the detail with which Senator Siewert has applied herself to this piece of potential legislation. But the issue at hand is that the Gene Technology Regulator is not removed as an appropriate government agency. I think we need to be very clear about that. Of course, in the appropriate circumstances when there are issues that are related to the Gene Technology Regulator, FSANZ will still do that. Part of the new definition states:</p><p class="italic">any other body or officer of the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or New Zealand that the Authority considers has a particular interest in the relevant matter.</p><p>That would clearly call the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator into any of those issues surrounding GMO, GM and indeed—as I indicated in my comments earlier—would future-proof any related matter, rather than having it restricted to those two fields.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>The opposition will not be supporting these amendments either, largely for the reasons that the minister has just outlined. We are satisfied that the provisions contained in the government's bill provide for the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator to be informed of relevant FSANZ decisions. We understand that should the OGTR request FSANZ inform it of all decisions there would be no reason why this does not occur. In its submission to the Senate inquiry into the bill, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator said:</p><p class="italic">The OGTR does not operate in isolation from other product regulators and works closely with those agencies to ensure regulatory coverage but prevent duplication of oversight in relation to GMOs and GM products. Under the GT Act, I am required to seek advice from Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) on risk assessments for environmental release of GMOs (sections 50 and 52).</p><p class="italic">The requirement for the Gene Technology Regulator to seek advice from FSANZ is not affected by the FSANZ Bill.</p><p>The gene technology regulator reaffirmed:</p><p class="italic">Interaction between OGTR and FSANZ is not limited to legislative requirements …</p><p>The two organisations exchange advice and information regularly, and a memorandum of understanding between the two agencies addresses the needs of the agencies to share information.</p><p>Labor was initially concerned by the provisions in the bill to remove the definitions related to GM from the act, which is why Labor specifically sought input on this through the Senate committee inquiry process. These provisions in the bill will not have any substantive change to the nature of regulation of GM foods or gene technology regulation.</p><p>The CHAIRMAN: The question is that Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7774 be agreed to.</p><p>The CHAIRMAN: The question now is that item 11 of schedule 1 stand as printed.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p>
|