Questions on notice asked by Senator Brown of Senator Herron yesterday

Why has the Government turned down the Tasmanian Government's request for an opt-out clause in the gene technology bill?

There are a range of legal risks associated with an explicit opt-out in the Commonwealth legislation. These include constitutional risks, risks in terms of Australia's international obligations and risks regarding national consistency. Recognising these legal risks, the Commonwealth has not adopted a policy of an explicit opt-out in the Commonwealth legislation.

Why has the Government not responded to requests from the Tasmanian Minister for Agriculture, Mr Llewellyn, that there be no further field trials in Tasmania in the near future?

There is currently no legislation in Australia that prohibits the growing of genetically modified field trials: neither Tasmanian State legislation (which the Tasmanian Government could have developed at any time over the past 10 years if it wished) or Commonwealth legislation.

I note that this is why Mr Llewellyn's own Department is able to auspice field trials of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Tasmania, in collaboration with Glaxo Wellcome Australia Ltd.

The Commonwealth is, however, actively engaged in the development of a national regulatory system for GMOs, which would prohibit all GMOs unless a license has been issued by an independent regulator, based on an assessment of the risk.

If Tasmania is concerned about the risks with GMOs, I would urge the Tasmanian Government to be a party to this rigorous regulation, which will be fully operational by 3 January 2001.

Thirdly, why is the location of the genetically engineered crops in Tasmania and elsewhere not made available?

The location of field trials in Tasmania and elsewhere, down to the level of identifying the local government area, is information that is made available to local and State Governments and to any interested member of the Australian community on two separate occasions for each and every field trial. In fact this information is made available on two separate occasions during the approval process.

There are issues of commercial confidentiality which precludes further information beyond this. We are, however, addressing this under the new regulatory system, which is based on a policy of the release of all information unless a case, based on strict criteria, can be made for withholding it. This highlights the need to have the new regulatory system introduced as soon as possible.

Finally, will the Government emulate New Zealand in establishing a Royal Commission to look into this matter?

No. The focus of the Commonwealth Government's efforts is on the introduction of the new GMO regulatory system. This has been developed through extensive consultation, and with the highest level of input and cooperation with all State and Territory Government representatives.

We believe that this regulation represents international best practice in the regulation of GMOs.

Supplementary questions

I ask further specifically about the failure of the Minister to respond to his Tasmanian counterpart's request that there be no further field trials at this stage - a moratorium on field trials.

The Government as a whole has taken the decision that a moratorium on GMOs is not warranted. Genetically modified products in Australia are extensively controlled by existing regulators including the National Registration Authority (for agricultural and veterinary chemicals), the Therapeutic Goods Administration (for medicines), the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (for food) and the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (for imports).

All of these systems draw on the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee (GMAC) for advice on biosafety matters. In the light of the effectiveness and rigour of these bodies, a moratorium is not supported by this Government. Rather, what we need is the strong new regulatory system the Government will introduce shortly

Is the Government going to consider the New Zealand option - that is, while their royal commission takes place, there is a 12 month voluntary moratorium on further crops and experimentation?

My earlier responses on moratoriums in this country refer.

Finally, in view of the fact that there is not a Royal Commission in Australia, would the Government facilitate by mutual convenience, if it is so, the Royal Commission in New Zealand, headed by former Chief Justice Sir Thomas Eichelbaum, to sit in Australia and take evidence?

The purpose of the New Zealand Royal Commission is to recommend changes to New Zealand's current legislative, regulatory, policy or institutional arrangements for addressing genetic modification technologies and products in New Zealand.

The New Zealand Government has not asked for Australian assistance in the conduct of their inquiry and I have no reason to anticipate such a request.