Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 30 May 2003, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Friday 30 May 2003
______

Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Joseph Aquilina) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Bills: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Mr NEWELL (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.00 a.m.]: I move:

Mr TINK (Epping) [10.00 a.m.]: I am disgusted by the program today. I have spoken to a number of Independent members and other honourable members who agree with me. What are we doing here today? The program includes three second reading speeches, plus the Gene Technology (New South Wales) Bill but no private members' statements. Why are we sitting on a Friday? Does the Government just want to boost its statistics to show that we sat for 60 days? This program is an absolute disgrace. Notices of Motions and Orders of The Day shows that private members have more pending business in the Fifty-third Parliament than the Government. There are four orders of the day for the Government and an equal number for private members. The Government has gone to sleep. It has brought us here on a Friday to debate the second reading of three bills that could have been done at another time, and has not provided an opportunity for private members statements. What is this Government doing? Why are we here? We have plenty of work that the public wants us to do. What is the problem with the Government? I saw some crook programs from the former Leader of the House but this one is a lulu. It is an absolute disgrace that the Government does not have more business or, at least, does not bring forward and debate private members' bills from yesterday.

Mr SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Roads, and Minister for Housing) [10.04 a.m.], by leave: That is an appalling contribution. Yesterday afternoon the Opposition asked about the business program for today. We indicated that we have the second reading debate on the Gene Technology (New South Wales) Bill and a number of bills, and the House would adjourn early. If the Opposition wants me to abolish private members' day to avoid this situation this morning, I am happy to do so.

Mr Tink: No, bring on some private members' business today. Give the Parliament something to do.

Mr SCULLY: You have made your contribution. In a spirit of co-operation in managing the business of the House, I have endeavoured to ensure that the Opposition maintains its private members' day. If the honourable member for Epping continues with this sort of performance we will abolish private members' day.

Mr Tink: Give private members some more business, if the Government can't come forward with its own.

Mr SCULLY: This is a disgraceful performance by the honourable member for Epping.

Motion agreed to.

GENE TECHNOLOGY (NEW SOUTH WALES) BILL

GENE TECHNOLOGY (GM CROP MORATORIUM) BILL

Bills received and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr NEWELL (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary), on behalf of Mr Campbell [10.06 a.m.]: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.
Gene technology is a powerful new technology which is developing at a rapid rate. Gene Technology is now broadly acceptable as a vital scientific procedure in human medicine, providing methodologies for tackling a vast range of afflictions impacting on humans. Gene technology involves the modification of living organisms by incorporating or deleting one or more genes to introduce or modify specific characteristics of the organisms. Potential benefits from the use of the technology may include improved health, a safer and more secure food supply, new food products, and a more sustainable environment. While the development and use of some genetically modified organisms and genetically modified products have been regulated by a variety of Commonwealth, State and Territory laws and administrative bodies, there have been gaps in the regulatory scheme.

The States, Territories and the Commonwealth have been working together over a number of years to establish a co-operative and nationally consistent regulatory scheme for gene technology that is not already regulated. In this respect, we have signed an inter-governmental agreement with the Commonwealth and all other States and Territories to pass complementary legislation to the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The new regulatory scheme is a national scheme, not a Commonwealth scheme. It involves the adoption and application of the Commonwealth gene technology laws by the States and Territories. The Commonwealth's Gene Technology Act 2000 and the Gene Technology (Licence Charges) Act 2000 commenced on 21 June 2001. The Gene Technology (New South Wales) Bill before the House provides the New South Wales component of the new nationally consistent regulatory scheme. It applies the Commonwealth gene technology laws as laws of New South Wales.

The passage of the bill will ensure that the national regulator of gene technology, established by the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000, has the power to act in all circumstances in this State wherever gene technology is used. The new regulatory scheme is designed to protect public health and safety and to protect the environment. Section 56 of the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2001 requires that "the Regulator must not issue the licence unless the Regulator is satisfied that any risks posed by the dealings proposed to be authorised by the licence are able to be managed in such a way as to protect the health and safety of people and the environment." To reiterate, the two key elements of gene technology impacts are a Commonwealth responsibility. The scheme provides for independent, legally enforceable, auditing and monitoring of compliance. It provides for community consultation and transparency in decision making.

A Gene Technology Ministerial Council has been established. It consists of Ministers from the Commonwealth and each participating State and Territory. The council will oversee the operation of the Gene Technology Regulator and issue policy principles, policy guidelines and codes of practice. Policy principles may be issued by the Ministerial Council to deal with ethical issues, to recognise areas for genetically modified crops, or non-genetically modified crops, being areas designated under State laws for marketing purposes, such as is proposed under the Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Bill, and for other purposes that may be specified by regulation. The legislation uses a range of regulatory tools to control activities with genetically modified organisms based on the level of risk posed by the proposed activity.

All activities with genetically modified organisms are prohibited unless the activity is an exempt dealing, a notifiable low-risk dealing or licensed by the regulator. The Commonwealth gene technology laws provide for the establishment of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator [OGTR]. This is a statutory position, the holder of which reports directly to the Commonwealth Parliament. The OGTR is an independent decision-maker on licence applications. Nevertheless, the OGTR may not issue a genetically modified organism licence where this would be inconsistent with a policy principle issued by the Ministerial Council.

In considering licence applications the OGTR will undertake scientific risk assessments on the risks that each application may pose to human health and the environment and consult with the statutory advisory committees, governments and the public. All applications for genetically modified organisms to be released into the environment and all decisions by the regulator are made available to the public. They will also be forwarded to each State and Territory Government for advice and comment. The regulator may also undertake or commission research on risks posed by genetically modified organisms. The OGTR is also responsible for monitoring activities involving genetically modified organisms. The OGTR has a broad range of enforcement powers, including the ability to issue directions, cancel or suspend licences and seek injunctions. Stringent penalties are provided for breaches of the legislation. The OGTR maintains a GMO record for the assistance of the public. This is a centralised database recording of all licences of genetically modified organisms and genetically modified products approved in Australia. The OGTR also reports annually to the Federal Parliament, with copies of reports provided to the States and Territories for reporting to their Parliaments.

The gene technology legislation establishes three key advisory groups to assist the Ministerial Council on Gene Technology and the OGTR. The principal functions of these committees are as follows. The Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee will provide scientific and technical advice to the OGTR on each licence application. The Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee will provide community views. The Gene Technology Ethics Committee will provide advice on the ethics of gene technology, appropriate ethics guidelines and any necessary prohibitions. Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia have already passed legislation for their participation in the national scheme regulating gene technology. Western Australia introduced similar legislation into Parliament in 2001. It has passed through the Legislative Assembly and was introduced into the Legislative Council 26 June 2002.

This Government believes that the proposed national scheme has significant advantages over each State and Territory establishing its own regulatory system. The Gene Technology (New South Wales) Bill will ensure that New South Wales is a part of the co-operative and national regulatory scheme. It will ensure consistency of decision making across Australia resulting in increased protection of public health and safety and the environment. Other regulatory bodies also have a role in this area, including Food Standards Australia and New Zealand in the labelling of food products, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority on the registration and conditions of use of pesticides where the GM crop involves a new use pattern for a pesticide, and the Therapeutic Goods Administration where the GM involves medical use. However, it is important to appreciate that the OGTR has statutory authority over the human health and environment implications of dealings with GMOs. It cannot consider the marketing implications of the commercial release of GM food crops. This is where the second bill I have introduced comes into the picture.

The Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Bill is intended to implement the Premier's announcement on 3 March 2003 that the Government would ban the commercial production of certain genetically modified or GM crops in New South Wales for three years. This was to provide the community with time to evaluate the impacts of the introduction of GM crops on the marketing of non-GM crops. As I indicated earlier, the application of biotechnology to genetic modification of plants and other organisms has tremendous potential for the improvement of human health, the environment and commercial agriculture. Already we have the situation where all the insulin required for diabetics in Australia is produced by a GM micro organism. This has resulted in a purer, safer and a cheaper product for diabetics. In Tasmania, genetic modification is being used to improve the value and use of the opium poppy for human medication. Many medical diagnostic tests depend on a reagent produced by GM technology. In agriculture, the development of cotton, genetically modified to produce a toxin active against its main insect pest has led to a reduction of 50 per cent in the application of insecticides. This is clearly to the benefit of the environment and hence the community.

There is a great deal of research worldwide directed at the development of GM plants which produce pharmaceuticals or other products which will have considerable advantages for human health. For example, rice with higher levels of iron and vitamins for people who depend heavily on rice for their nutrition have been developed. There are also products under development which will produce new or modified products which will lead to new food products such as oilseeds with modified fatty acid composition for health, or feedstock for industrial products like biodegradable plastics. It is also realistic to hope for plants which will either cope with environmental stresses such as soil and water salinity, or even improve the environment in terms of competing better with severe environmental weeds, or the bioremediation of contaminated land. In the medical area, the potential for biotechnology and genetic modification to cure diseases or address the health problems of both affluence and poverty are enormous. So the potential for the betterment of mankind and the environment from the application of this exciting new technology is so large that we cannot afford to miss out. However, we must make every effort to ensure that this potential is achieved with an absolute minimum adverse impact.

While the potential benefit is enormous, there are risks if the technology is not contained and managed appropriately. I indicated earlier the strength and transparency of the regulatory regime implemented by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. However despite this, there remains public concern over the use of GM technology. Most of the concerns in the community are based on the practical use of this technology and its impact on human health, the environment and marketing of agricultural products, especially non-GM products. As indicated earlier, the potential impact of particular GM plants or animals on human health and the environment is the responsibility of the OGTR. It has the legislative power and the resources, to address those areas of concern, and the New South Wales Government has confidence in the mechanisms and processes it has developed to ensure that any research or commercial release of GMOs will not adversely impact on human health or the environment.

In terms of the impact on agriculture, there has been a great deal of effort undertaken to identify and address the impact that the introduction of GM canola would have on the farming production systems of New South Wales and Australia. This is because GM canola is the next GM crop likely to be approved by the OGTR for commercial release, and because canola is an important component of the cropping rotations of New South Wales. It needs to be recognised that GM cotton has been produced commercially in Australia for some years. A further GM plant that has also been released for commercial production is GM carnation.

Protocols have been developed to address on-farm management issues such as the development of so called "super weeds" through crossing of the GM canola with related weed species, and the potential for the development of resistance in other weed species due to excessive reliance on the one herbicide for weed control. These protocols are also intended to address the final area of concern, which is that of marketing of non-GM canola. This concern arises through the potential for crossing between GM canola and nearby non-GM crops, and hence the hence the introduction of the GM gene into the non-GM crop, or through physical contamination during the seed production, commercial production, handling, transport, and processing chain.

However these supply chain protocols are untested, and there is some controversy over whether they can achieve the intended outcome of separate and segregated production and handling chains for GM and non-GM canola. It is these concerns that have led to uncertainty about the impact of GM canola on the marketing of the New South Wales non-GM canola crop, and hence to the need for this legislation. However there should be no doubt that such protocols can work. For example, we imported red wheat during the drought in the mid nineteen nineties, and the protocols that were developed at that time ensured that there was no contamination or introduction of disease with these importations. Further, GrainCorp currently segregates 10 to 12 different categories of wheat for marketing purposes. They manage this routinely and very well, so there is no doubt that protocols can work.

This legislation has been introduced to allow more time for the New South Wales farming and the broader community to be assured that the introduction of GM canola will not adversely impact on the marketing, both domestically, but more importantly overseas, of non-GM canola. New South Wales Agriculture will continue to participate in the development of robust protocols for identity preservation by the Gene Technology Grains Committee and its various working parties. The New South Wales Government will use the three-year moratorium to collate and analyse all available data in order to make a considered judgement on the costs and benefits associated with the adoption of GM crops. This will include looking at further information in relation to international markets for GM produce and the likely impacts of the adoption of GM crops in Australia.

The Government is proposing that under this bill the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries will have the power to impose an order prohibiting the cultivation of certain genetically modified crops intended primarily for human consumption until 3 March 2006. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries gave a commitment in the other place that he would make an order creating a moratorium on CM canola as soon as practically possible after the Governor has passed this bill into law. It is the role of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator [OGTR] to determine whether a particular crop is safe for human consumption, and I do not intend to duplicate the role of the OGTR.

The Minister will have power to grant exemptions from prohibition, such as exemptions for research trials, after seeking advice from the Agricultural Advisory Council set up under the bill. It is clearly inappropriate to attempt to incorporate into legislation complex details concerning the design of research trials. For example, trial design depends on the sort of trial and will vary with climate, soil type, varieties, and topography. This is clearly the role of experts, and the Agricultural Advisory Council is the best source of advice for the Minister on these issues. Such exemptions will be critical to enable important research into GM products to continue. This bill, as amended, establishes the New South Wales Agricultural Advisory Council on Gene Technology to provide the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries with advice and recommendations on the important issues arising from the moratorium. These issues include the Minister seeking the advice of the Agricultural Advisory Council when making an exemption order for research trials for GM food plants.

The council will have a membership of ten including an independent chair and will comprise a person appointed on the nomination of the Director-General of the Department of Agriculture, a person appointed on the nomination of the New South Wales Farmers Association, a person appointed on the nomination of the Network of Concerned Farmers, a person appointed on the nomination of the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales Incorporated, a person appointed on the nomination of Graincorp Ltd, a person appointed on the nomination of the Australian Wheat Board Pty Ltd, a person appointed on the nomination of the Chief Executive of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, a person appointed on the nomination of the chair of Avcare Limited, a person appointed on the nomination of the Chair of the Grains Research and Development Corporation, and a person appointed to be the independent chairperson of the advisory council.

The functions of the Agricultural Advisory Council are to investigate any matter referred to the council by the Minister, to provide advice in relation to proposed research trials for GM food plants referred by the Minister, to provide advice on current developments and issues in relation to GM technology and its application to agriculture, and to provide policy advice in relation to licences issued under the Gene Technology Act 2000 of the Commonwealth that relate to GM food plants.

The Premier announced a three-year moratorium. The science is moving so fast, as is the world situation in regard to the importation of GM crops and food products, and food labelling regimes, that three years is an adequate time to stop and take stock. A moratorium lasting any longer would pose a substantial risk of New South Wales farmers and consumers potentially missing out on the economic and other benefits promised by this technology. The bill also gives the Minister power to look for and investigate possible breaches of the legislation, and for courts to impose penalties where a breach has been proved.

The bill contains appropriate enforcement and penalty provisions for offences where there is a failure to comply with an order, including but not limited to powers of entry and inspection, powers of seizure and destruction, powers to order testing, and power to place a restriction or prohibit the use of land. Heavy penalties are proposed to apply for offences under the Act including fines of up to $55,000 and/or two years imprisonment. Fines for corporations will be up to $137,500. In addition, this bill proposes that a person convicted of an offence is to be liable to pay the costs of any cleanup necessitated by a breach of the Act. Gene technology is a contentious issue, with lots of public debate, characterised by considerable misunderstandings and suspicion. Our approach provides a very sensible way forward to allow informed public debate and discussion, while not committing the farming or the broader community to commercial production of GM food crops. I commend the bills to the House.

Mr STONER (Oxley—Leader of the National Party) [10.25 a.m.]: The National Party supports the broad thrust of the Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Bill because it will put in place important National Party policy. This is policy that we spent a lot of time developing before the last election because of the significance of the issue to our constituency—a policy that was subsequently plagiarised by the Carr Government. It was the National Party that first released a genetically modified organisms [GMO] policy in the lead-up to the March State election. On 28 February, after much consultation, we called for a moratorium on the commercial release of GM food crops in New South Wales until the marketing impact, environmental concerns and contamination issues had been fully investigated.

The National Party did not include a time frame for the moratorium in its policy. A time frame made no sense whatsoever. We did not know how long it would take to work out the potential commercial impact of GM food crops on our international markets. The Australian Wheat Board, for example, says its $4 billion to $5 billion annual export wheat program is at risk from GM food contamination. Would we need six months, or a year, or how about three years? Somebody else said, "Why not make it five years?" It quickly became obvious that an open-ended time frame was the only sensible approach, with a commitment to progress the issues as quickly as possible.

In response to the widespread media scrutiny that the National Party's GM policy release created, the Government could no longer get away with its policy-free zone on GM food crops. The Premier's advisers read a few newspapers, talked to a few of its Green mates, and realised the National Party's policy on GM crops was the only sensible way forward on this sensitive issue. So, a week later, the Labor Party released its GM policy. And what a surprise! It was the same as the National Party's—except the Premier plucked a figure out of the air and promised a three-year moratorium. Why three years? What the Government will do to address the concerns of the farming community of New South Wales about food crops during that three-year period remains a mystery.

While the National Party does not oppose this bill, we believe it was hastily drafted because time had run out to fulfil the Premier's moratorium election promise. Because of that, the gene technology bill is a less than effective piece of legislation, and it is lacking in important detail. It is ambiguous and vague on the issue of trials and exemptions under the moratorium—even after a series of amendments in the upper House. We wonder whether the Government is serious about a moratorium on the commercial release of GM food crops. In the upper House the Opposition proposed amendments that would have ensured the legislation could not be misused by the big multinational companies, which stand to make a lot of money out of commercial release of GM food crops in Australia.

We remain very concerned that GM crops will make it into the Australian food chain by stealth. Large-scale commercial trialling, without the stringent controls proposed by the Opposition, is a sure way to "let the genie out of the bottle", as last week's Land newspaper put it. Under this legislation, the Minister has the power to hand out an exemption from the moratorium, with no conditions attached. There is no appeal process against the Minister granting an exemption. Furthermore, the serious issue of liability for accidental or deliberate release of GM food crops is not covered by the legislation. Given the lack of detail about how contamination is to be prevented, this is of grave concern to farmers across New South Wales who face the prospect of large-scale trials just over their fence.

In his press release of 15 May the Minister promised to establish an advisory council—a worthwhile initiative, we thought. However, when the legislation was presented to the House the advisory council idea had fallen off the agenda. The Opposition proposed that the structure and functions of the advisory council be provided for in legislation. This was not supported, but subsequently the Government supported an amendment proposed by the Christian Democratic Party that provided in the legislation for a watered-down advisory council with only limited functions. Notwithstanding these matters, the National Party does not oppose the Gene Technology (New South Wales) Bill, which will adopt in New South Wales a uniform Australian approach to the regulation of genetically modified organisms.

It is a great pity that the State Government has taken so long to introduce this bill, because the farming sector has been operating for two years under Commonwealth laws that required complementary State legislation. The Carr Government's slow response imposed on the farming sector yet another unresolved problem and provided even more uncertainty. The National Party has never unilaterally opposed the future commercial release of GM food crops, and it still does not oppose it. There is potential for properly harnessed and regulated gene technology to help farmers improve productivity—as it has helped in the cotton industry—while providing consumers with improved food and fibre products at a reduced cost. For these reasons the National Party supports the continued research and trialling of GM food crops.

However, the farming community in New South Wales is divided over the benefit of releasing GM food crops commercially at this time. The National Party believes there needs to be greater agreement within the farming sector in Australia before we can move into the brave new world of GM food crops, so the National Party is saying "not yet" to commercial GM food crops in New South Wales. There are too many unanswered questions. Let us hope that the Government's vague and ambiguous Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Bill provides the opportunity for these questions to be adequately addressed before GM food crops are planted across New South Wales, because if we get it wrong there will be no chance to turn back the clock.

Before I conclude I foreshadow that the National Party will move amendments to the cognate bill. One amendment will specify appeal procedures for owners or occupiers of land adjoining land on which a GM crop will be cultivated under an exemption order. One of the fundamental flaws in this legislation is that there is simply no appeal process for adjoining owners or occupiers against an exemption order that will allow the cultivation of GM material. In other words, neighbours will have no say at all about whether a GM crop can be planted next door to their conventional, non-GM crop. Our amendment will remedy that anomaly. It will insert into the legislation an appeal right for an owner or occupier of land adjoining land on which a GM food plant may be cultivated. This is an important appeal right that is limited to adjoining landowners or occupiers, and does not extend to other third parties: appeals against the granting of an exemption order cannot be lodged or sought by anti-GM lobbyists or groups who are against GM crops. The appeal right is about giving neighbours their chance to object to a process that they disagree with. I commend the amendment for the consideration of members in Committee.

We will also move an amendment relating to the membership of the advisory council. The National Party believes that while the structure of the council is largely acceptable, a representative of the Australian Grain Harvesters Association [AGHA] should be included on the council. The AGHA represents more than 600 grain harvesters nationally, and its members know exactly what needs to be done to minimise any potential contamination by GM material. Therefore I would have thought it essential that the association have representation on the council. The Government somehow suggests that the AGHA is against GM crops, and that its representation on the council would unbalance the deliberations. That is not true. I quote directly from the association's web site:

• AGHA is neither for, or against, GM crops.

• Farmers & consumers will ultimately decide on the fate of GM crops.

• Contract harvesters business viability is dependant on the harvesting of all crops.

• Contract harvesters must be able to work without restrictions or the worry of liability.

One of the main concerns expressed by farmers is that GM contamination may be spread through the movement of machinery such as harvesters. The AGHA represents those concerns, and therefore I ask: Who better to sit on the advisory council to work through these issues than an AGHA representative? The Government is ignoring a large body of professional knowledge in rejecting the AGHA's membership on the council, and I urge it to reconsider its decision. The National Party will also move an amendment to set in place a formal trigger for the review of the moratorium that will be enacted under this legislation. Rather than the Act simply being repealed on 3 March 2006, the amendment will require the advisory council to provide to Parliament, at least six months before that date, a report recommending whether the Act should expire on that date.

Over the period of operation of the moratorium the advisory council will evaluate and make recommendations on exemption orders, and will consider changes in gene technology. Therefore the council will have the knowledge and expertise to make such a recommendation to the Parliament on the future of the Act. This provides a sound process. It reflects the fact that technology changes may mean that community attitudes towards, and acceptance of, GM crops will be at a level where commercial release is warranted. I look forward to further consideration of these issues in Committee.

Mr PEARCE (Coogee) [10.36 a.m.]: I support the Gene Technology (New South Wales) Bill and the cognate bill. The primary objective is to impose a three-year moratorium on the commercial release of genetically modified food plants, as defined in clause 5 of the Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Bill. Clause 15 sets out penalty provisions for those who knowingly or recklessly cultivate a genetically modified plant in contravention of a moratorium order. Members of this House would be aware of my deep concern about the potential impact of the introduction of genetically modified species on human health, biodiversity, and the broader environment—a concern that is widely held in our community and, indeed, worldwide amongst consumers who are appropriately informed.

This concern forced a very reluctant Federal Government to agree to labelling requirements for foodstuffs containing genetically modified ingredients. It is no accident that when there are no labelling requirements, there is a low level of consumer resistance. I cite the United States of America as an example. The role of State governments in controlling the release of genetically modified crops is limited to marketing aspects, but the primary role in the assessment of the environmental and health impacts is vested in the Federal Government. I call on the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator to acknowledge the community's concern and to adopt the recommendation of its Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee, dated 20 February 2003, in response to the Bayer Cropscience application DIR 021. The recommendation reads:

The Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee expresses concern that a state of community unreadiness exists concerning the risks to the environment of the commercial release of GM canola, so significant that the applications should be declined at this time.

Other reputable bodies have a similar view. The British Medical Association made the following comments in a paper addressing the health impact of GM crop trials in Britain that was published in 1999 and is to be updated towards the end of this year:

Further research is required into the health and environmental effects of GMOs before they can be permitted to be freely cultivated. This must be executed in such a way so as not to expose the population to possible irreversible environmental risk, which may, in turn, have as yet unquantified public health implications. Dr Charles Saunders, the Chairman of the Scottish Committee for Public Health Medicine and Community Health, stated:

A paper prepared by the Soil Association in Britain dated 17 September 2000 made the following observations:

The evidence we have gathered demonstrates that GM food crops are far from a success story. It is clear that they have not realised most of the claimed benefits and have been a practical and economic disaster. Widespread GMO contamination has severely disrupted GM-free production including organic farming, destroyed trade and undermined the competitiveness of North American agriculture overall. GM crops have increased the reliance of farmers on herbicides and lead to legal problems.

The report went on to make the following observations:

• The impact of farmers in North America include lower profitability of GM crops due to the extra cost of the seed and lower market prices;

• increased yields have generally not eventuated except for a small increase in Bt Maize yield

• GM herbicide tolerant crops have made farmers more reliant on herbicides and new weed problems have emerged.

• Contamination has caused the loss of a significant percentage of the organic rape (canola) sector in the province of Saskatchewan, at the potential cost of millions of dollars.

• All non-GM farmers are finding it very hard or impossible to grow GM-free crops.

• GM crops have become a market failure internationally. Because of the lack of segregation they have caused the collapse of entire exports to Europe.

A recent study by the United States Department of Agriculture, referred to in the recent report prepared by Innovest, questioned the economic benefits of GE soya and corn, the two largest GE crops in North America. A report dated May 2000 and prepared for the European Union discusses the problems of contamination of non-GM crops, identifying the sources as seed impurities, spread of pollen and seeds from field to field by wind, insects and machines. In modelling carried out for the study, the cost implications to achieve a very low, or 0.1 per cent, threshold concluded that the organic production of GMO-free crops would not be feasible in a region with GM crop production. Compliance with a 1 per cent threshold would result in additional costs from changed farming practices, monitoring systems, and insurance of between 1 per cent and 9 per cent for maize and potato. For oilseed rape/canola seed production, the equivalent costs would be 10 per cent to 41 per cent of the current price. In relation to all oilseed rape/canola the report continued:

Given the issues I have raised, the question must be asked: Who would benefit from the commercial introduction of GM crops into Australia? The answer, of course, is the major international biotechnology companies that have developed and hold the international patents to both the genetic modifications introduced and the herbicides and pesticides in which these modified plants thrive. Within the Australian context the major promoters are Bayer and Monsanto. As I have already stated, Monsanto is locked into a number of significant legal battles in Canada. However, the recent report prepared by Innovest Strategic Value Advisers, an international financial services firm, indicates that Monsanto may have a range of other problems to deal with. The report analysed investor risks relating to Monsanto's genetic engineering strategy. It gave Monsanto a CCC ecovalue rating, which is not good. This implies that the firm has above-average risk exposure and less sophisticated management than its peers. The report makes the following conclusions:

• The inevitability of environmental contamination and concerns about human health impact has caused GE crops and food products containing GE ingredients to be one of the most widely rejected product groups ever. Monsanto withdrew its GE potatoes from the market in 2001 after companies, including McDonald's, Burger King, McCains and Pringles, refused to buy them.

• Foreign markets, especially those with labelling requirements, have seen strong market rejection. Over 35 countries have enacted or announced laws that restrict GE imports and/or require labelling of goods containing GE ingredients.

• The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (likely to come into force in 2004) will impose substantially greater documentation and risk assessment costs on GE exporters. The protocol will also likely hold GE seed manufacturers liable for contamination and other problems caused by GE seed use. The StarLink corn contamination has cost Aventis nearly $1 billion to date.

• GE contamination is inevitable because it is impossible to completely prevent GE pollen and seeds from being carried by wind and other vectors to non-GE field and natural areas. Contamination costs could put Monsanto and other firms into bankruptcy, leaving society to deal with GE contamination problems.

• Monsanto, in an apparent acknowledgement of the inevitability of contamination by GE food crops, is now seeking regulations that would allow it.

I understand that the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is unlikely to be signed by either Australia or the United States of America. In its strategy risk the report makes the following points for potential investors:

The other major player and the current applicant for unrestricted commercial release of several varieties of genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant canola throughout Australia is Bayer CropScience. Many members in this place may recently have received a substantial pile of documents from Bayer CropScience. I suspect the folder had to be delivered by forklift. I have perused the documentation, and as I was reading it the old saying came to mind: If you can't dazzle them with the brilliance, baffle them with the bull.

However, I digress. The applicable Federal legislation is the Gene Technology Act 2000. Under section 57 (2) and section 58 of the Act the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator is required to fully assess the suitability of applicants to hold licences. License holders are required to meet contemporary standards of probity, good standing, and ethical behaviour. In a submission prepared by the GeneEthics Network, Bayer's performance worldwide was reviewed. I shall not repeat all the breaches of appropriate behaviour listed. However, they would lead me to question whether this company would meet the standards under the Act. [Extension of time agreed to.]

I will cite a couple of examples in Australia. It mismanaged, through its Aventis division, its Mount Gambier sites, with GE canola dumped in roadside bins and on the local tip. It failed to advise its contractors what it was dealing with and, consequently, the contractors did not deal with it appropriately. Their behaviour was so unacceptable that the then Minister for Health, Dr Michael Wooldridge, commented:

I am not used to quoting Dr Michael Wooldridge, but when he says something sensible I am quite happy to go along with it. In 2002 the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator ordered the destruction of 40 hectares of a crop in Tasmania where canola volunteers from plants trialled five years before had germinated. Worldwide Bayer has been involved in a $257 million fraud settlement in the United States of America over a scheme to overcharge for its antibiotic Cipro; it has suffered a substantial fine in Norway over pollution of the Oslo Fjord with polychlorinated biphenyls; and there is evidence of criminal responsibility for the poisoning of 42 children in a village in Peru in October 1999. The list goes on.

In this overview I hope I have demonstrated the importance of this bill, which will place a three-year moratorium on the commercial release of genetically modified food crops in New South Wales. As members would be aware from debate in the other place, some discussion has taken place as to the detail. Whilst this was valid—and it is, of course, appropriate for elected members to question and challenge—the essence of this bill, the three-year moratorium of genetically modified food crops deserves the full support of this House. Let us take this opportunity and ensure that Australian agriculture does not rush down the same dead-end street that agriculture in North America has gone. Let us pass this bill and make it law in New South Wales.

Mr MARTIN (Bathurst) [10.50 a.m.]: I would like to speak about the possibility of segregation of GM and non-GM products. It has been claimed that it will be impossible to maintain the segregation of genetically modified and non-genetically modified products during production, handling, transportation and processing. One of the main reasons for the Government imposing this moratorium on the commercial production of GM food crops is to allow time for these issues to be resolved. The New South Wales Agricultural Advisory Council on Gene Technology will advise the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries on this issue. However, grain and oilseed are already routinely segregated into different classes and categories in the bulk handling system in New South Wales.

Graincorp, the company that owns and operates the silo system in New South Wales, segregates a number of classes and categories of wheat, barley and canola every season, and also receives and segregates a number of other crops such as oats and triticale. In some seasons there may be 10 or 12 different categories of wheat alone. Graincorp is experienced in this task; in principle, it would have no difficulty in keeping GM and non-GM canola segregated in its handling and transport systems. However, additional difficulties may arise in maintaining completely separate production, handling, transport and processing streams of GM and non-GM canola in New South Wales because Food Standards of Australia and New Zealand set stringent labelling standards for GM food products. Quality assurance schemes must be implemented to meet market segregation and food-labelling requirements. The New South Wales Agricultural Advisory Council on Gene Technology will investigate the segregation of GM and non-GM production streams, including quality assurance schemes.

The Government is confident that the New South Wales Agricultural Advisory Council on Gene Technology will develop protocols and procedures that will meet the requirements of the market for segregated production, handling, and processing streams for GM and non-GM products. Between 1997 and 2002, 149 GM canola field trials were conducted in New South Wales that were approved by the Office of Gene Technology Regulator [OGTR], or its predecessor. Problems were identified by the OGTR in the conduct of only two of those trials. These two trials involved inadequate pollen traps and the trials were completely destroyed. Contrary to claims, these trials are not secret, as all trials approved by the OGTR are listed on the relevant web site, including a description of their locations with GPS readings.

There is also concern about the potential for contamination of non-GM crops through the use of contract headers previously used on GM crops, a concern also expressed by the Australian Grain Harvesters Association. This is often used as a reason why GM crops should not be sown. It is claimed it will be difficult or impossible to adequately clean headers after they have harvested GM crops and before they move on to non-GM crops of the same species. While it is not easy to clean large commercial headers of crop, weed seeds and other harvesting debris, it is not impossible to achieve acceptable levels of cleanliness. For example, headers coming into New South Wales from Queensland have to be cleaned at the border for parthenium weed. The fact that parthenium weed has not become established in New South Wales, as it has in Queensland, indicates that this program and the cleaning protocols have been successful.

Headers also have to be cleaned between crops of different species, for example, wheat and barley, wheat and canola, et cetera. However, since only research trials are the subject of exemption orders, this is not significant. Those crops will mostly be harvested by small plot headers, which are designed for easy cleaning. Some opponents of GM technology demand a guarantee of zero risk of contamination of non-GM crops by GM trials or crops. Claims for absolute guarantees are not met in any other area of human endeavour. I remind honourable members of the famous quote of Benjamin Franklin—with which I am sure the member for East Hills would be aware—that the only absolute guarantees are death and taxes, although some people would add the Coalition being in opposition in New South Wales.

Every day people willingly accept risk, such as driving motor vehicles, swimming in the ocean, investing money—and many people would be aware of the recent risks—and even undergoing an operation. Many endeavours in human life do not allow for absolute guarantees. Food labelling regimes throughout the world allow small tolerances for unintended GM content. Even the most restrictive regime in the European Union allows 0.9 per cent tolerance for unintended GM contamination. It is unrealistic to expect perfection from a biological system such as farming. The Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Bill is sensible and practical in that it gives the public three years to obtain further information on the impact and marketing of GM food crops while allowing further research. The bill is a measured and sensible response and I am sure the Parliament will support it.

Mr GREENE (Georges River) [10.57 a.m.]: As the Minister has said, gene technology is a rapidly developing field with enormous potential for benefits to mankind. Governments recognised some years ago that there had to be effective and stringent regulation of the use of this powerful technology. The Commonwealth Government took the lead, as it should, with the objective of developing a national regulatory scheme. Significant discussion took place between the States, the Territories and the Commonwealth during the development of a regulatory framework that would meet the needs of the Australian community.

The outcome was an intergovernmental agreement under which the States and the Territories agreed to introduce complementary legislation to ensure a consistent and uniform regulatory scheme. The outcome has been the formation of the Office of Gene Technology Regulator [OGTR], which is located in the Commonwealth Department of Health. Its power rests on the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000, which establishes a stringent and transparent regulatory regime for those areas for which the Commonwealth has jurisdiction. This includes corporations and those engaged in interstate or international trade.

The Gene Technology (New South Wales) Bill is complementary legislation that applies to those outside the reach of the Commonwealth Act. These individuals operate only in New South Wales. The bill essentially applies the Commonwealth Act to New South Wales law. I turn now to the operation of the OGTR, which is the keystone of the national regulatory scheme. Its responsibility is to assess applications and the potential impact of genetically modified organisms [GMO] on human health and the environment.

The OGTR must do a risk assessment on each application, and develop a risk management program if risks are identified to human health and the environment. The OGTR will issue a licence for that dealing only if it considers that risks to human health and the environment either do not exist or can be reduced to a minimal level. It is critical to appreciate that the OGTR has the task of protecting human health and the environment, but it has no other responsibility. Assessing the impact of GM products on the marketing of non-GM products is clearly the role of the States. The OGTR has no responsibility for this area. This is the reason for the second of these two bills, the Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Bill.

As honourable members would be aware, the Premier announced on 3 March that the Government would impose a moratorium on the commercial production of GM food crops for three years. Members should be assured that the OGTR has the legislative authority, the resources, the staff, and the procedures to undertake its role properly. The OGTR is an independent office, which, while reporting to the Commonwealth Minister for Health, will also also report directly to Parliament. It is supported by three advisory committees: the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee, the Gene Technology Gene Ethics Committee and the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee. The Gene Technology Advisory Committee will assess each application and advise on the potential issues affecting human health and the environment. Each issue is then pursued in depth in a stringent risk analysis process and the Gene Technology Advisory Committee will then consider the outcome—all from an expert perspective.

The Community Consultative Committee will provide input in OGTR decision making from a community perspective. It is there to ensure that community concerns are identified and addressed. The Gene Technology Ethics Committee will provide independent advice to the OGTR on ethical considerations and ensure that decisions are made in a consistently ethical way. Once licences are issued, the OGTR, through a compliance process, will ensure that the conditions it imposes on licences to deal in GMOs are met by the licencee. It will have 10 staff devoted to this important area. It will visit laboratories, glasshouses and field trials to make certain the appropriate research is conducted. In assessing potential threats to human health and the environment, the OGTR has a large checklist of issues that it will investigate.

The application for the commercial release of InVigor canola involved a detailed analysis of each new protein produced by the GM crop and a search for all scientific records on whether it causes allergenic reaction in human beings; the level of GM pollen in honey and its potential danger; any risks of occupation exposure to pollen; the toxicity of the pollen and the new proteins produced by the GM crop to other organisms, including insects, soil biota, birds, fish and domestic animals; its potential for extra weediness, especially in environmental areas such as undisturbed natural habitats; its potential for transferring the GM genes to other plants, including a detailed assessment of potential gene flows to all other potential brassica plants; and an assessment of the potential for horizontal gene flow to other animals and other organisms, including bacteria and fungi.

This risk assessment and risk management plan for InVigor runs to 156 pages, and is available for all to read and study. It includes a detailed list of references to hundreds of published scientific papers. Also, the OGTR regulatory process is transparent. Effectively every document is published on its Internet site and available for all to see. Individuals or organisations with a particular interest can register it, and be placed on specific mailing lists for OGTR material. In summary, this bill ensures there is complete and uniform coverage for a nationally uniform, stringent and transparent regulatory regime for GM technology. It applies the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000 to New South Wales law. It establishes the OGTR as the independent decision maker. The OGTR's legislative responsibility rests with ensuring that all dealings with GMOs pose no danger to human health and the environment. It plays no role in the impact that GM products have on the marketing of non-GM products. I support the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Corrigan.

BAIL AMENDMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary), on behalf of Mr Debus [11.07 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Government is pleased to introduce the Bail Amendment Bill, which amends the Bail Act 1978 to provide for three things: first, to prevent a person who is accused of murder from being granted bail other than in exceptional circumstances; second, to prevent a person who is accused of a serious personal violence offence and who has previously been convicted of a serious personal violence offence from being granted bail other than in exceptional circumstances; and, third, to introduce a procedure whereby a decision of a magistrate or an authorised justice to grant bail to a person accused of a serious offence is stayed or deferred pending a review of that decision by the Supreme Court.

This bill continues our ongoing reform of bail law, which began last July with the introduction of the Bail (Repeat Offenders) Act. These amendments build on those reforms to further protect victims and the community, and particularly women, from serious personal violence offenders. Honourable members will remember the tragic murder of Patricia van Koeverden at Newcastle in April this year by her estranged husband. The community was rightly outraged that Toni Bardakos should have been granted bail and, tragically, the fears of those who knew him were realised. This bill has been drafted with the input of police and the Attorney General's Department. It will ensure that the court's attention is focused on the elements of serious personal violence in future cases providing greater protection for victims and the community in general. Domestic violence is an endemic problem in our community: a great many cases of domestic assault come before the courts every day.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that domestic violence represents more than 30 per cent of Local Court and police time. In 2002 in New South Wales 24,667 domestic violence assaults were recorded. Across Australia, for the period 1989 to 1999, male offenders were responsible for killing approximately 94 per cent of adult female victims, and 61 per cent of those killings occurred in an intimate relational context. Approximately 90 per cent of adult women victims of lethal violence who were killed within an intimate context were killed as a result of altercations of a domestic nature, referring to general domestic arguments, desertion or termination of an intimate relationship, and jealousy and/or rivalry. Many researchers have reported that women who attempt to terminate relationships with men are at a greater risk of becoming homicide victims.

To ensure that proper regard is had to matters of domestic violence it is now proposed to amend the Bail Act to strengthen the provisions in relation to personal violence offences. The tragic van Koeverden case has accelerated our bail reform program in relation to serious violent offenders in two respects. Schedule 1 [2] of the bill inserts two new sections into the Bail Act. New section 9C provides that bail should not be granted to any person charged with murder unless there are exceptional circumstances. New section 9D further provides that bail should not be granted to any person with a previous conviction of a serious personal violence offence who is subsequently charged with a further serious personal violence offence unless there are exceptional circumstances.

A serious personal violence offence will include a personal violence offence with the same meaning as that in the Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. It will include manslaughter, kidnapping, sexual assault and serious assaults. Exceptional circumstances will be left to the court to decide on an individual case-by-case basis. However, as a general guide it might include cases involving a battered wife, or a strong self-defence case or a weak prosecution case. It might also include a case in which the defendant is in urgent need of medical attention or who has an intellectual disability, or a case in which the court is satisfied that the offender poses no further threat to the victim or the community.

To ensure sufficient coverage of offences committed outside New South Wales, the definition will extend to include a similar offence under the law of the Commonwealth or of another State or Territory or of another country. In addition, police are developing a domestic violence checklist for bail which will be handed up to the court when bail is sought in cases involving alleged domestic violence. The checklist will provide a history of the offender that will offer more information than the standard criminal record of the offender and will provide a more comprehensive basis for risk assessment to the court. The checklist will be developed with experts in domestic violence to particularly highlight the risk of harm to the complainant.

Factors that might be included are, first, criminal record or intelligence, including whether any previous convictions of assault were for domestic violence; second, number and frequency of apprehended violence orders made; third, indications of escalating violence; fourth, threats to harm themselves, their partner or their children; fifth, possession of firearms; sixth, mental health issues; seventh, drug, and alcohol issues; and eighth, whether the victim is particularly vulnerable, for example, due to pregnancy or recent separation. Those matters will greatly enhance the court's ability to make a more accurate assessment of the history of the offender and the risk of re-offending whilst on bail. The above proposal does not dilute or replace the existing factors which must currently be considered by the court under section 32 of the Bail Act when determining bail. It is in addition to those factors.

Section 32 criteria must still be considered, including the probability of the accused appearing at court, the interests of the accused and the likelihood of the accused committing another serious offence. If people charged with assault are deemed to be at risk of committing more violent offences, this will be captured in the assessment of the person against the present section 32 criteria. I turn now to the provisions for a stay of proceedings. The Government's second major reform in this bill is to introduce a stay of proceedings to allow bail decisions of magistrates to be suspended until the Supreme Court has reviewed the magistrate's decision. Those stays will only be available in relation to certain serious charges. That reform fulfils an election commitment announced by the Premier on 2 May 2003.

Schedule [3] of the bill inserts a new section 25A in the Bail Act to stay or defer a defendant's release pending review by a Supreme Court judge when a defendant comes before the Local Court on his or her first appearance for a charge of murder, an offence carrying a life penalty, or a serious child sex offence; or when the magistrate or authorised officer decides to release that person on bail; or when a member of the police force or counsel appearing on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] immediately indicates to the court that an application for review of the decision will be made under this part. Serious child sex offences are defined as sexual offences that relate to children under the age of 16.

The period of deferral ends when the review by the Supreme Court is completed, or a member of the police force or the DPP files with the bail authority a notice that the prosecution does not desire to proceed with the review; or three business days have elapsed from the commencement of the stay, whichever first occurs. If a person is released because the prosecution does not pursue the review or because of the lapse of time the conditions of bail are those that would have applied had the person's release not been deferred. That is, the magistrate or authorised justice's original determination stands. Police must seek prior written approval from the Commissioner of Police or his delegate to seek a review if bail is granted.

A protocol between the police and the DPP will be developed whereby the DPP becomes involved in the original bail application wherever possible. This will ensure not only that the best possible case is made for refusal of bail but also that the DPP has prior warning that the matter might be stayed pending a review in the Supreme Court. The duration of the stay will be three business days. This will balance the rights of the person to have a swift bail review with the needs of NSW Police, the DPP and the Supreme Court to expedite the hearing. The three-business-day proviso overcomes problems that might be caused by weekends and public holidays while still having a set and certain time period.

The stay procedure will be available only for the first time bail is granted. That is, if the Supreme Court upholds the bail decision and the person later breaches his or her bail condition or fresh evidence is found, police will be required to go through normal bail review channels and a stay will not be allowed again. The Supreme Court will be able to expedite a bail review in those circumstances. The Government will not simply throw a blanket over the whole issue of bail, as the Coalition's bill attempted to do. It is my view and the view of the Government that the Opposition's proposals were blunt and essentially unworkable. In addition, there was no guarantee under the Coalition's proposals that bail would have been refused in circumstances such as the tragedy that eventually involved the death of Patricia van Koeverden.

The Government's bail reforms are underpinned by the principle that the more serious the alleged offence the harder it will be to secure bail. The bill addresses this issue more directly by concentrating on people who have been charged with serious violence and who have a history of serious violence or have committed another offence and are believed to be likely to do so again. The community is right to expect that it will be protected but, as I said elsewhere, that has to be done in a framework that continues to observe fundamental principles, such as the presumption of innocence.

It is impossible to provide a system of bail determinations that is failsafe unless one dispenses with the presumption of innocence altogether and equates any charge with guilt. That type of injustice would undoubtedly produce effects that would significantly outweigh any narrow benefit. Charges are not convictions. Not everybody charged with an offence is found guilty. Some charges do not even proceed. This bill will balance the tensions that are evident in any bail reform process. As I said earlier, this bill continues our ongoing reform of bail law, which began in 1998 to tighten bail criteria in relation to serious offenders and was further built upon last July with the introduction of the successful Bail (Repeat Offenders) Act 2002.

The reforms proposed in the present bill do not address the same concerns as last year's successful repeat offender bail laws, which especially targeted offenders who committed frequent but generally less serious offences. Those offenders generally fitted within the presumption in favour of bail category and therefore were often granted bail. Our repeat offender provisions removed that presumption in favour, irrespective of the type of offence, if the offender had a previous history. The rise in the remand population and other anecdotal evidence indicate that those changes are having a strong impact. For instance, the number of accused persons on remand has risen by 300 since July 2002. In the six years to the end of 2001 there was a 97 per cent rise, or virtual doubling, in the number of people whose bail was refused in the Local Court.

Bail remains a matter of ongoing community concern. The proper balance between the protection of the community and the rights of the accused, who is legally presumed to be innocent, is an important matter that warrants regular monitoring. The Bail Act has undergone several piecemeal changes since 1978, and has become a complex piece of legislation. In January 2003 the Bail Interdepartmental Working Party was reconvened by officers in my department to examine the operation of the Bail Act. Members of the working party include representatives from NSW Police, the Legal Aid Commission, the Ministry for Police, the New South Wales Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Defenders, the New South Wales Law Society, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Deputy Chief Magistrate and senior registry officials from the Supreme Court.

The working party is currently preparing a discussion paper that will explore proposals on how to improve the Bail Act, including the simplification and rationalisation of the Act, specific bail provisions relating to juveniles and other vulnerable categories of defendants, and bail regimes in other jurisdictions. The working party is closely scrutinising proposals to amend the laws pertaining to bail to ensure that the basic principles of justice are adhered to, with a particular emphasis on simplifying the operation of the legislation and improving police procedures. This rationalisation of the Bail Act will also assist the community in understanding bail determinations by the court, and will lead to greater transparency to bail determinations. It is expected that the working party will report its findings in July 2003, with further substantive amendments to the Bail Act to be progressed in the 2003 spring session. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Maguire.

NURSES AMENDMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Miss BURTON (Kogarah—Parliamentary Secretary), on behalf of Mr Iemma [11.23 a.m.]: I move:

I have pleasure in introducing the Nurses Amendment Bill for the Parliament's consideration. The purpose of the bill is to update the regulatory system pertaining to nurses and midwives in New South Wales in accordance with the recommendations of the recent review of the Nurses Act 1991. The review of the Nurses Act, from which this bill emanates, was conducted by the Department of Health under the auspices of the competition principles agreement. That review has provided an excellent opportunity to review both the objectives that underpin the regulation of nurses and midwives and the mechanisms that are used to implement that regulation. The review concluded that the public interest is served by the regulation of nurses and midwives, and that the regulatory system established by the Nurses Act 1991 is largely effective in ensuring that nurses and midwives are fit to practise and provide top-quality health care services to the people of New South Wales.

However, the review also identified a number of areas in which the regulatory system can be updated and improved. Areas in which improvement is warranted include improving the powers of the board to register or enrol a person subject to conditions—increased flexibility in this area will allow the board to be far more proactive in protecting the public in comparison to current arrangements that largely limit the board to a reactive role—amendments to allow the board to appoint inspectors, amendments to the mechanisms for the enrolment of nurses to afford applicants the same natural justice considerations as apply to applicants for registration, and updating the board's powers with respect to the emergency suspension of a practitioner when such action is necessary to protect the health or safety of a person, and with respect to impaired practitioners in the same manner as amendments to the Medical Practice Act.

Under the current Act, recognition of competence to practise midwifery is by way of an additional authority granted to a registered nurse. Therefore, all midwives must be registered nurses and are correctly known as registered nurses authorised to practise midwifery, rather than registered midwives. During the course of the review strong representations were received for greater recognition of the professional status of midwifery within the Act. Whilst a wide range of views have been expressed about the form such recognition should take, the majority of practitioners, at the very least, see nursing and midwifery as linked by common education, philosophies and history. The outcome of the review acknowledged the benefits of nursing and midwifery being professionally linked in this way whilst recommending that midwifery be accorded a distinct status within the legislation.

Given this, and taking account of the increasing numbers of midwives from overseas who have training in midwifery alone without an underlying comprehensive nursing education—in other words, direct entry midwives—the bill establishes two separate registers, one for nurses and one for midwives. A person who is qualified as both a nurse and a midwife will, as a condition of registration as a midwife, also hold registration as a nurse. This will ensure that there is no reduction in the flexibility within the workplace which dual qualifications in nursing and midwifery affords, particularly in rural and regional New South Wales. It is also important that I place on the record the fact that all practitioners will continue to pay the same annual registration fee, irrespective of whether they are registered as a nurse or as a midwife, or both.

In keeping with this development, midwives who have demonstrated appropriate advanced practice to become eligible to be authorised nurse practitioners will now be able to apply to be authorised midwife practitioners. The same criteria will apply to the approval by the board of people to practise as nurse practitioners and midwife practitioners, and all such practice will continue to be under guidelines approved by the Director-General of Health. These developments have the support of the New South Wales Nurses Association and the New South Wales Midwives Association. The majoprity of the amendments contained in the bill are designed to implement this development.

Other significant changes in the bill include proposed section 2A, which sets out the objectives of the legislation as being, first, to protect the health and safety of the public by providing mechanisms to ensure that nurses and midwives are fit to practice, and, second, to provide mechanisms to enable the public and employers to readily identify nurses and midwives who are fit to practice. Proposed section 4B provides a definition of competence to practice nursing or midwifery that includes adequate physical capacity, mental capacity, knowledge and skill to practice and an adequate command of the English language. This definition is important as it is linked to proposed section 29A, which will allow the board to refuse to register or enrol a person, or register or enrol a person subject to conditions following an inquiry into his or her competence. The procedure for such an inquiry is detailed in proposed schedule 1B. These provisions are in similar terms in all other recent health professional registration Acts and provide a valuable mechanism to help ensure that registered health professionals are competent to practice to the high standards that the community expects of them.

The proposed increase by three in the size of the Nurses and Midwives Registration Board will provide a better balance and mix of skills. The additional positions are for an additional nursing or midwifery academic—required to ensure that the board has adequate academic experience to manage the large amount of work involved in assessing and recognising tertiary education courses; an additional enrolled nurse to be appointed by the Minister, recognising that there are over 15,000 enrolled nurses in New South Wales, who are important and valued members of the health care team; an additional community representative to bring to a total of three the number of community representatives on the board, recognising that the board regulates the nursing and midwifery professions in the public interest and that consumers have an important contribution to make to that process.

The bill will establish the Nurses Practice Committee and the Midwives Practice Committee as standing committees of the board. These committees are charged with advising the board on educational matters to do with nursing and midwifery respectively and such other matters in the practice of nursing and midwifery as the board may determine. Proposed part 4 of division 7 will require nurses and midwives to provide the board with a range of information when they renew their registration or enrolment each year and when charged with a criminal offence involving sex or violence that is committed in the course of practice or involves children. These provisions, which exist in similar terms in all other recent health professional registration Acts, including the Medical Practice Act 1992, are appropriate within a protective jurisdiction and are designed to ensure that nurses and midwives are held to the same high standards of professional accountability as other registered health professionals. Proposed sections 77A and 77B provide for the board to appoint inspectors to investigate offences under the Act and for the powers of those inspectors.

The current Nurses Act includes a restriction on the practice of midwifery, although midwifery is not defined. This restriction recognises that the management of labour and childbirth is a skill that requires specialist training. Under those provisions only certain registered professionals and bona fide students are entitled to undertake midwifery practice. The Nurses Registration Board has been unsuccessful in enforcing this restriction due to the difficulty of proving to the required standard of proof that a person has practised midwifery when the legislation does not include a definition of midwifery. In response to this obvious problem the review recommended that the restriction on midwifery be replaced with a targeted restriction on those essential practices relating to childbirth that are of particular risk to mothers and babies if undertaken by inadequately qualified people.

The bill therefore proposes to amend the Public Health Act by inserting section 10AG into that Act. Section 10AG will restrict the care and management of a pregnant woman during the three stages of labour to the same categories of health professionals and students as the current midwifery practice restriction, namely: registered midwives; registered medical practitioners, registered nurses and medical students acting under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner or a registered midwife; and midwifery students acting under the supervision of a registered midwife. The proposed amendment addresses the problem of enforceability by providing a readily understood definition of the restricted practice, thus providing an effective mechanism to help ensure that women in labour are cared for by appropriately qualified people. I stress that the existing restriction on the use of the title "midwife" will be retained and that title will be available only to registered midwives. These changes have been supported by the Medical Services Committee, the New South Wales Nurses Association and the New South Wales Midwives Association.

There are minor amendments to the disciplinary system relating to nurses and midwives. These amendments do not seek to change the structure of the system, which will continue in its present form, but will update its operation in the same way as the disciplinary system under the Medical Practice Act has been updated. The important role played by the Health Care Complaints Commission, which is the independent complaints investigation body, will not be affected by the amendments introduced by the bill. As honourable members are no doubt aware, nurses and midwives are rightly considered to form the backbone of the hospital system. The New South Wales Government has launched a number of initiatives designed to address the shortage of nurses and midwives, including the successful Nurses Re-connect program that allows nurses to be paid while undertaking an individualised and supported re-education program with the support of nurses already in the system. In this way nurses' skills are updated and recharged and there are no course fees because the scheme is fully funded by the Department of Health.

Honourable members will also be aware that last year the Government announced the creation of further nurse practitioner positions in emergency departments, intensive care units and mental health services in Sydney, the Hunter and the Illawarra. The expansion of nurse practitioner positions will further improve the career path open to nurses in New South Wales and provide additional incentive for senior experienced nurses to stay in the profession providing services to the citizens of New South Wales and passing their expertise and experience on to other nurses and nursing students. The provisions of this bill will help to ensure that the public can continue to have confidence in the professionalism of nurses and midwives, and to expect the highest standards of competence and conduct from them. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Maguire.

VALUATION OF LAND AMENDMENT (VALUER-GENERAL) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary), on behalf of Mr Knowles [11.30 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Valuation of Land Act 1916, which, as honourable members will be aware, provides for the general valuation of land, the establishment of the Office of the Valuer-General and the appointment of contract valuers in New South Wales. The object of the bill is to provide for the establishment and functions of a joint committee of members of this Parliament to oversee the functions of the Office of the Valuer-General and to ensure the independence of that office. Honourable members may be aware that in recent years the quality and independence of valuations undertaken at the direction of the Valuer-General have been open to speculation from some quarters. To ensure the community’s continued confidence in the Office of the Valuer-General, the Premier announced the creation of a joint committee of Parliamentthat will have the power to monitor and review the functions of the Office of the Valuer-General.

The bill provides that the joint committee will have the ability to monitor and to review the exercise of the Valuer-General’s functions with respect to land valuations under the Valuation of Land Act 1916, the Land Tax Management Act 1956 and the Premium Property Tax Act 1998. In particular, the joint committee will have the ability to monitor valuation methodologies, the arrangements under which valuation contracts are negotiated and entered into, and the standard of valuation services provided under such contracts. Land valuation in New South Wales, as defined by the Valuation of Land Act, is based on the sum that vacant land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on reasonable conditions to a bona fide purchaser.

As honourable members will be aware, the land market in Sydney has enjoyed an extended period of growth. More recently, the coastal areas of New South Wales have enjoyed a similar boom. This Government wishes to assure the people of New South Wales that land valuations undertaken by the Valuer-General are sound, well-informed, quality valuations based on reliable information and expertise. This process will ensure that the functions of the Office of the Valuer-General remain open and accountable to the public. The joint committee will not, however, have the ability to review individual valuations or objections to individual valuations. The processing of these issues will remain the responsibility of the statutory officer, the Valuer-General. The existing legislation makes provision for landowners to object to their land valuation on appropriate grounds to support their application. There is also an appeal mechanism to the Land and Environment Court if such further action is deemed necessary.

The joint committee will have a membership of five, with two representatives from the Legislative Council and three members from the Legislative Assembly. The bill outlines certain provisions relating to the operation of the joint committee, including the appointment of the chairperson and vice-chairperson, the committee’s general procedures and how the joint committee shall present its report to the Parliament. These provisions are quite standard and self-explanatory. This legislation will lapse at the end of the current term of Parliament. It is the Government’s belief that this period will be sufficient to address the concerns that have been raised by the community. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Maguire.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Mr Scully agreed to:

The House adjourned at 11.45 a.m.
_______________

Last modified 16/11/2007 08:46:46 : Update this page