Footnotes

[1] Much of the background information in this section has been drawn from Submission No.77 (IOGTR), the Explanatory Memorandum and Explanatory Guide to the Gene Technology Bill, and the Parliamentary Library Bills Digest No.11 2000-01.

[2] Submission No.77, p.24 (IOGTR) and Explanatory Memorandum, p.36.

[3] The IOGTR was established in May 1999 within the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care to oversee the development of the legislation to implement a national regulatory system and work with GMAC.

[4] Explanatory Memorandum, pp.37-41. More detailed information about the consultation process and changes made to the draft legislation arising from the process may be found in Submission No.77 (IOGTR), additional information dated 18 September, pp.8-11 and Attachments C and D.

[5] Submission Nos.84 (Mr Peter Beattie, Qld); 91 (Mr Richard Court, WA); 110 (Mr John Olsen, SA); 115 (Mr Steve Bracks, Vic).

[6] Committee Hansard, 14.8.00, p.23 (Dr Meek).

[7] Submission No.89 (Tasmanian Government, Mr Jim Bacon, Premier).

[8] Submission No.77, p.25 (IOGTR).

[9] Explanatory Guide to the Gene Technology Bill, July 2000, pp.81-2.

[10] Submission No.77, pp.20-21 (IOGTR).

[11] Note: some people consider gene technology to be a form of biotechnology, with biotechnology to refer to techniques including cross-breeding, as well as those usually associated with modern gene technology, such as recombinant DNA. See for example, Submission No.8 (Serve-Ag Pty Ltd) which states: ‘Biotechnology includes harnessing the natural biological processes of microbes, plant and animal cells for the benefit of humans. GM is a branch of biotechnology.’

[12] See Therapeutic Goods Administration, Genes, genetics and transgenics, p.2 [website: http://www.health.gov.au/tga/gene/genetech/genetics.htm].

[13] Genes, genetics and transgenics, p.5.

[14] Viruses are comprised of a ‘nucleic acid genome surrounded in a protein coat’. Viruses are parasites which use the host (infected) cell’s replication apparatus and ability to synthesize protein. Bacteria can also be infected by specific viruses called bacteriophages.

[15] The term ‘deoxyribonucleic acid’ describes certain characteristics of the molecule.

[16] Generally a small piece of circular DNA called a plasmid, found in bacteria, is used to introduce the desired gene into the host cell, usually the bacterium E. coli. Certain properties of the plasmid enable numerous copies of the desired gene to be copied and subsequently isolated for further analysis. Many plasmids contain antibiotic resistance genes which make it possible to identify those plasmids that have taken up the desired gene (see section on selectable markers). Plasmids are also used to direct the expression of desired proteins in E.coli, used to produce most of the recombinant proteins.

Viruses that infect insects, called baculoviruses, have also been used as vectors to introduce the desired gene into the insect host cell. This technique is used to produce the hormone erythropoietin and the anti-virus agent b interferon.

Some recombinant proteins used for the treatment of human diseases must be expressed in mammalian cells. Specific DNA sequences, derived from bacteria, are manipulated and propogated in bacteria before being transferred to an animal cell for protein expression. Human recombinant drugs produced with this technique include growth hormone, blood clotting protein and erythropoeitin. Some recombinant proteins used for the treatment of human diseases must be expressed in mammalian cells. Specific DNA sequences, derived from bacteria, are manipulated and propogated in bacteria before being transferred to an animal cell for protein expression. Human recombinant drugs produced with this technique include growth hormone, blood clotting protein and erythropoeitin. (Instant Notes in Genetics, pp.325-330).

[17] Instant Notes in Genetics, pp.325-330.

[18] Dr Rod Panter, Biotechnology in Australia, Parliamentary Library, Current Issues Brief 16, 1998-99, p.4.

[19] Websites that include arguments for and against gene technology include:
http://genetech.csiro.au/debate1.htm; http://www.afaa.com.au/paper_01.asp; http://203.89.217.15/pages/fact_sheets/fs10_public_consultation.htm

[20] Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, pp.285-6 (AWB Ltd).

[21] Committee Hansard, 14.08.00, p.3 (Dr T J Higgins).

[22] Submission No.88, Attachment, p.3 (National Farmers’ Federation).

[23] Huppatz, JL and Fitzgerald, PA. ‘Gene technology is a new form of biotechnology with much greater potential applications’, MJA, 2000, 172: 170-173.

[24] Submission No.88, Attachment, p.3 (National Farmers’ Federation).

[25] Biotechnology Australia, Background Information: Biotechnology in Medicine, June 2000.

[26] Submission No.54, p.3 (Organic Federation of Australia Inc).

[27] See also Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.265 (National Genetic Awareness Alliance) who advised that ‘there is evidence that GM crops with BT toxins-that is, Bacillus thuringiensis-kill beneficial insects such as bees and lacewings.’

[28] Submission No.77, p.17 (IOGTR).

[29] Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.155 (OFA).

[30] Ruibal-Mendieta, NL and Lints, FA (1998). ‘Novel and transgenic food crops: overview of scientific versus public perception’, Transgenic Research, 1998, 7: 379-386.

[31] Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.331 (ACF GeneEthics Network).

[32] Rubial-Mendieta & Lints (1998).

[33] Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.337 (Florigene Ltd).

[34] Committee Hansard, 25.08.00, p.429 (Professor A Gibbs).

[35] Huppatz and Fitzgerald (2000).

[36] Huppatz and Fitzgerald (2000).

[37] Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.242 (Dr Tribe). Dr Tribe referred to ANZFA’s Occasional Paper Series- No. 1: GM Foods and the Consumer-ANZFA’s Safety Assessment Process for Genetically Modified Foods, June 2000 which, he argued, presents ‘a much more reasoned and understandable description of the antibiotic resistance issue’ [see ANZFA website: http://www.anzfa.gov.au/].

[38] Committee Hansard, 25.08.00, p.419 (CSIRO).

[39] See for example Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.152, 157 (OFA).

[40] Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.355 (Florigene Ltd).

[41] Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.194 (Serve-Ag).

[42] Committee Hansard, 22.08.00, pp.57-8 (SA Farmers Federation).

[43] Committee Hansard, 14.08.00, pp.8-9 (Dr T J Higgins).

[44] See for example, Committee Hansard, 22.08.00, pp.109-110 (Ms E Attwood); Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.192 (Serve-Ag).

[45] Huppatz and Fitzgerald (2000).

[46] Huppatz and Fitzgerald (2000).

[47] Committee Hansard, pp.403-4 (AFGC).

[48] Committee Hansard, 25.08.00, pp.407-8 (AFGC).

[49] Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.175 (GE-Free Tasmania).

[50] Submission No.9, p.5 (Heritage Seed Curators Australia Inc).

[51] Bacteria and their relatives.

[52] Non-bacterial organisms, including plants and animals.

[53] Circular DNA present in bacteria.

[54] Submission No.51, p.2 (Friends of the Earth (Fitzroy)).

[55] Committee Hansard, 22.08.00, p.122 (Aventis).

[56] Cells of the body rather than ova or sperm.

[57] A list of organisms not considered to be GMOs under the Gene Technology Bill is included in the draft regulations, p.3.

[58] Explanatory Guide to the Draft Commonwealth Gene Technology Regulations 2000, August 2000, p.19.

[59] Explanatory Memorandum, Gene Technology Bill 2000, p.45.

[60] IOGTR, Fact Sheet 7: A National Regulatory Framework for Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), p.1.

[61] Submission No.77, p.18 (IOGTR).

[62] Safety with respect to the effects of biological research on humans and the environment.

[63] Organisms that are not likely to occur through natural processes, which includes processes other than natural selection (for example, cross-breeding).

[64] Submission No.77, p.19 (IOGTR).

[65] IOGTR Quarterly Report, June 2000.

[66] IOGTR, Fact Sheet 3: About the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee (GMAC), p.2.

[67] Explanatory Guide, pp.9-10.

[68] Submission No.77, p.20 (IOGTR).

[69] See for example Submission No.40, p.1 (Australian Conservation Foundation); Submission No.34, p.3 (Australian Centre for Environmental Law); Submission No.54, p.4 (Organic Federation of Australia Inc); Submission No.86, p.3 (World Wide Fund for Nature and the Humane Society International); Submission No.85, p.8 (ACF GeneEthics Network); Submission No.35, p.6 (GE-Free Tasmania); Submission No.11, p.3 (Canberra Consumers Inc); Submission No.20, p.5 (Ms L McDermott); Submission No.38, p.1 (Mr J Sleeman); Submission No.75, p.1 (Ms N George).

[70] The concept is said to have developed from the 1930s German concept of Vorsorgeprinzip (foresight planning). ‘The Precautionary Principle-“Nothing ventured, nothing gained”?’ Avcare Insights Vol.1, 2000, p.2 [website: http:www.avcare.org.au/documents/insights.pdf].

[71] Wybe Th. Douma, TMC Asser Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands at website: http://www.asser.nl/EEL/virtue/precprin.htm#N_9_.
Other websites that discuss the precautionary principle include: http://www.icclaw.com/devs/uk/ev/ukev_047.htm; http://europa.eu.int/comm/off/com/health_consumer/precaution_en.pdf; http://www.mem.dk/faktuelt/fak15_eng.htm;
http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1999/107-12/editorial.html;
http://www.info-france-usa.org/ppseminar/transcript.htm.

[72] Review of the Canadian Environment Protection Act (CEPA Review) [website: http://www.ec.gc.ca/cepa/ip18/e18_01.html].

[73] Quoted sections are from the CEPA Review or Avcare Insights. Other references to the precautionary principle in international conventions, declarations and treaties are listed in Appendix 4.

[74] Information for Germany is not available, however, it has been argued that Germany’s ‘overall regulatory approach might be described as a moderate version of the precautionary principle’ See CEPA Review.

[75] IOGTR, Overview of International Regulatory Systems for Gene Technology, August 2000.

[76] See for example, the Final Declaration of the Third North Sea Conference, in Appendix 4.

[77] See for example, the 1990 Bergen Declaration, in Appendix 4.

[78] Compare the 1972 London Convention in Appendix 4 and the 1992 Rio Declaration stated above.

[79] CEPA Review.

[80] CEPA Review.

[81] CEPA Review.

[82] CEPA Review. Similar points were made by the Wingspread Conference referred to in ‘The Precautionary Principle’, Rachel’s Environment & Health Weekly, No. 586, 19 February 1998, Environmental Research Foundation [website: http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/REHW586.html].

[83] Referred to in Submission No.85, p.2 (ACF GeneEthics Network).

[84] See for example, Submission No.34, p.4 (Australian Centre for Environmental Law); Submission No.40, p.2 (Australian Conservation Foundation); Submission No.13, p.1 (Mr A Walker-Morison); Submission No.19, pp.1-2 (The Environment Centre of WA); Submission No.22, p.4 (Mr G Whitten); Submission No.85, p.8 (ACF GeneEthics Network); Submission No.35, p.7 (GE-Free Tasmania); Submission No.6, p.3 (Consumers’ Association of SA Inc); Submission No.5, p.1 (National Council of Women of Australia); Submission No.106, p.1 (GeneEthics Network); Submission No.16, p.1 (Mr A Ward); Submission No.87, p.1 (Mr & Mrs Underwood); Submission No.66, p.1 (Strider); Submission No.31, p.1 (J Grevillea); Submission No. 30, p.1 (Mr J Langmead); Submission No. 28, p.1 (Ms P Hemsworth); Submission No.15, p.2 (Mr B Holderness-Roddam).

[85] Submission No.9, p.3 (Heritage Seed Curators Australia Inc). See also Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.264 (NGAA) who stated ‘Even if no adverse effects have been reported, this does not mean that these will not emerge in the future’.

[86] Cited in Submission No.34, p.4 (Australian Centre for Environmental Law).

[87] Committee Hansard, 22.08.00, p.78 (Mrs L Huebner). See also, Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.162 (Mr A Macintosh).

[88] Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.315 (ACF).

[89] Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.246 (Australian Biotechnology Association).

[90] Avcare Insights, p.2. See also, for example, R Horton, ‘Genetically modified food: consternantion, confusion, and crack-up’, MJA 2000, 172:148-149 [Article published on the Internet by The Medical Journal of Australia website: http://www.mja.com.au].

[91] Committee Hansard, 22.08.00, p.65 (Heritage Seed Curators Australia Inc).

[92] Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.188 (Serve-Ag). See also Submission No.9, p.3 (Heritage Seed Curators Australia Inc). Cf. Submission No.93, p.1 (Dr K Clinch-Jones) who argued that commercial interests should come second to the protection of humans and the environment.

[93] Submission No.42, p.4 (Florigene Limited and Nugrain Pty Ltd). See also, for example Submission No.105, p.1 (Australian Cotton Cooperative Research Centre).

[94] Submission No.100, pp.1-2 (Professor P Gresshoff). See also, Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.283 (AWB Ltd).

[95] World Charter for Nature, UN GA Resolution 37/7 (1982), 11(b) [See website http://sedac.ciesin.org/pidb/texts/world.charter.for.nature.1982.html].

[96] Committee Hansard, 24.8.00, p.264 (National Genetic Awareness Alliance). Other cases include the introduction or use of organochlorins, asbestos, and DES - diethylstilboestrol - which had been used in medicine and agriculture for 30 and 25 years respectively. Avcare Insights, p.1; See also Submission No.113, p.1 (Ms M Sculthorp); Committee Hansard, 23.8.00, p.142 (OFA); Committee Hansard, 23.8.00, p.165 (Mr G Whitten); Committee Hansard, 24.8.00, p.309 (ACF GeneEthics Network).

[97] Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.246 (Australian Biotechnology Association). See also Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.186 (Serve-Ag).

[98] Submission No.77, p.74 (IOGTR).

[99] Submission No.77, p.74 (IOGTR).

[100] See for example, Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.180 (GE-Free Tasmania); Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.305 (ACF); Submission No.54, p.6 (Organic Federation of Australia Inc).

[101] Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.305 (Australian Conservation Foundation); Committee Hansard, 25.08.00, pp.357, 371 (ACEL).

[102] Committee Hansard, 22.08.00, p.62 (Heritage Seed Curators Inc); Committee Hansard, 25.08.00, p.371 (ACEL). See also Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.222 (Tasmanian Government).

[103] Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.309 (ACF GeneEthics Network).

[104] Lay Panel Report, First Australian Consensus Conference on Gene Technology in the Food Chain [website: http://www.austmus.gov.au/consensus]

[105] CSIRO, Additional Information dated 25.August 2000, p.3.

[106] Work in Progress: Proceed with Caution, Report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services, June 2000, p.29.

[107] Committee Hansard, 25.08.00, p.426 (CSIRO); Submission No.90, p.1 (Du Pont Technical Centre). See also Submission No.94, p.2 (Monsanto Australia Ltd); Submission No.98, p.2 (Novartis Australia Pty Ltd); Submission No.104, p.1 (Dow AgroSciences).

[108] Committee Hansard, 25.08.00, p.381 (Avcare).

[109] Committee Hansard, 25.08.00, p.426 (CSIRO).

[110] Submission No.42, p.4 (Florigene Limited and Nugrain Pty Ltd). See also, Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.184 (Serve-Ag Pty Ltd) for support for a ‘responsible and regulated’ cautious approach to use of gene technology.

[111] Avcare Insights, p.5.

[112] IOGTR, Gene Technology Bill 2000, Questions and Answers, p.14.

[113] See for example, Submission No.89, p.3 (Tasmanian Government); Submission No.105, p.1 (Australian Cotton Co-operative Research Centre); Submission No.8, p.2 (Serve-Ag Pty Ltd); Submission No.71, p.11 (Australian Food and Grocery Council); Submission No.63, p.5 (AWB Ltd); Submission No.102, p.2 (CSIRO).

[114] Submission No.41, p.1 (Grains Research and Development Corporation).

[115] Submission No.88, pp.1-2 (National Farmers’ Federation).

[116] Submission No.78, p.1 (Institute of Public Affairs Ltd).

[117] Submission No.101, p.1 (Ms F Murrell). See also, Submission No.64, p.1 (Mr P Hockey).

[118] Submission No.20, p.1 (Ms L McDermott).

[119] See for example, Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.268 (NGAA) who stated that ‘industry concerns should not override health and safety concerns’.

[120] Submission No.34, p.3 (Australian Centre for Environmental Law); Submission No.86, p.3 (World Wide Fund for Nature and The Humane Society International); Submission No.54, p.4 (Organic Federation of Australia Inc); Submission No.79, p.1 (Mr K Healy).

[121] Submission No.75, p.1 (Ms N George).

[122] Submission No.73, p.1 (Ms J Ablitt).

[123] The Committee notes, for example, the recommendation that the objective of the Act should be amended to add, ‘but with an overall priority being given to public health and occupational health’. See Submission No.111, p.4 (Dr I Furzier).

[124] Submission No.40, p.2 (Australian Conservation Foundation). See also Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.308 (ACF).

[125] Submission No.51, p.3 (Friends of the Earth (Fitzroy)); Submission No.73, p.2 (Ms J Ablitt); Submission No.79, p.1 (Mr K Healy).

[126] Submission No.49, pp1-2 (Mr I Dowden & Ms K Canning).

[127] Submission No.86, p.2 (World Wide Fund for Nature and the Humane Society International). See also, Submission No.28, p.1 (Ms P Hemsworth).

[128] Committee Hansard, 25.08.00, p.367 (ACEL).

[129] IOGTR, Gene Technology Bill 2000, Questions & Answers, p.13.

[130] Submission No.32, p.5 (Avcare Limited).

[131] Consultation Draft Gene Technology Bill 2000, sub-clause 3(2).

[132] Committee Hansard, 22.08.00, p.48 and Submission No.81, p.1 (South Australian Farmers Federation); Committee Hansard, 22.08.00, p.127 (Aventis Crop Science Pty Ltd).

[133] Committee Hansard, 22.08.00, p.50 (South Australian Farmers Federation).

[134] Committee Hansard, 22.08.00, p.53 (SA Farmers Federation).

[135] Submission No.6, p.2 (Consumers’ Association of SA Inc).

[136] See for example, Committee Hansard, 22.08.00, p.53 (South Australian Farmers Federation) Committee Hansard, 22.08.00, p.109 (National Council of Women of Australia Ltd).

[137] Gene Technology Bill 2000, clause 23.

[138] Submission No.45, p.3 (Ms K Liddell). See also Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.312 (ACF GeneEthics Network) who expressed concern about ‘human genetic engineering’ and the need for it to be regulated by the Gene Technology Bill.

[139] Submission No.11, p.4 (Canberra Consumers Inc).

[140] Body cells as opposed to sperm and ova.

[141] IOGTR, Additional Information dated 25 August 2000, Attachment D.

[142] IOGTR, Additional Information dated 25 August 2000, p.9.

[143] Explanatory Memorandum, Gene Technology (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2000, p.1.

[144] See Submission No.116 (Mr N Tonti-Filippini). Submission 65 (Mr A McKinley) also stated that the Government should legislate against human cloning.

[145] Submission No.84, p.2 (Queensland Government).

[146] Organisms that have had a foreign gene inserted into them.

[147] See for example Submission No.38 (Mr J Sleeman) and Submission No.75 (Ms N George). Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.322 (ACF). See also Submission No.35, p.15 (GE-Free Tasmania).

[148] Submission No.25, p.16 (Mr Andrew Macintosh).

[149] Lay Panel Report, First Australian Consensus Conference on Gene Technology in the Food Chain.

[150] Submission No.77, p.120 (IOGTR).

[151] IOGTR, Gene Technology Bill 2000, Questions and Answers, p.7.

[152] Submission No.51, p. 3 (Friends of the Earth (Fitzroy)). Re biological diversity, see also Submission No.73, p.2 (Ms J Ablitt).

[153] Submission No.32, p.5 (Avcare Limited).

[154] IOGTR, Additional Information dated 3 October 2000. [For a copy of the Code, see NHMRC’s website http://www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/publicat/ea-home.htm].

[155] Synopsis of NHMRC code (see website).

[156] Synopsis of NHMRC code (see website).

[157] IOGTR , Additional Information dated 3 October 2000.

[158] IOGTR , Additional Information dated 3 October 2000.

[159] IOGTR, Gene Technology Bill 2000, Questions & Answers, p.15.

[160] IOGTR , Additional Information dated 3 October 2000.

[161] Submission No. 41, pp.1-2 (Grains Research and Development Corporation).

[162] Submission No.34 (Australian Centre for Environmental Law).

[163] Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.305 (ACF). See also, for example Submission No.25, p.3 (Mr A Macintosh); Submission No.22, p.2 (Mr G Whitten); Submission No.35, p.6 (GE-Free Tasmania).

[164] Submission No.54, p.3 (Organic Federation of Australia Inc); Submission No.51 (Friends of the Earth (Fitzroy)), p.1. See also Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.267 (NGAA) who recommended a ban on ‘foods made by genetically modified organisms in artificial formulas and in baby foods’ and pp.271 (NGAA) who also recommended a moratorium on patenting of GMOs.

[165] See for example, Submission No.4 (Mrs S Stafford); Submission No.5 (National Council of Women of Australia); Submission No.69 (Friends of the Earth (Perth WA Group)); Committee Hansard, 22.08.00, pp.64, 91 (Heritage Seed Curators Australia Inc); Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.161 (GE-Free Tasmania); Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.138 (Organic Federation of Australia Inc).

[166] Submission No.24 (Bio-Dynamics Tasmania), p.2.

[167] Committee Hansard, 22.08.00, p.65 (Heritage Seed Curators Inc). See also Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.161 (GE-Free Tasmania).

[168] Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.138 (Organic Federation of Australia Inc).

[169] Submission No.21, p.1 (Mrs U Mueller).

[170] Committee Hansard, 22.08.00, p.88 (Ms L Huebner). Ms Huebner also stated re the type of legislation that required amendment: ‘There is the plant breeders patenting act and allied acts, and also the privacy acts...they relate to commercial confidentiality. (p.78).’ See also, Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.266 (NGAA) who argued that a moratorium would allow a ‘social and economic assessment, assessing of patenting, strict legal liability, can the law keep up with technology, prevention of genetic pollution, and greater public involvement and awareness of gene technology’.

[171] Submission No.35, p.14 (GE-Free Tasmania). See also, for example, Submission No.114, pp.1-2 (Ms B Rosser).

[172] Submission No.3, p.1 (NT Bio Dynamic Network). See also Submission No.48, p.1 (Ms S Kyriacou).

[173] Submission No.27, p.8 (Ms V Brooke).

[174] Submission No.68, p.3 (Ms H Swainston).

[175] Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.254 (ABA).

[176] IOGTR, Gene Technology Bill 2000, Questions and Answers, p.13.

[177] Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.293 (AWB Ltd).

[178] Bid to turn sugar a whiter shade of pale, AAP, 4 July 2000.

[179] Submission No.76, p.2 (NSW Farmers’ Association).

[180] See for example, Submission No.99, p.3 (Ms K Harris) and Submission No.51, p.9 (Friends of the Earth (Fitzroy)).

[181] Submission No.60, p.1 (District Council of Grant).

[182] Submission No.35, p.9 (GE-Free Tasmania).

[183] Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.216 (Tasmanian Alkaloids Pty Ltd).

[184] Submission No.88, p.2 (National Farmers’ Federation). See also Submission No.32, p.7 (Avcare); Submission No.42, p.6 (Nugrain and Florigene); Submission No.76, p.4 (NSW Farmers’ Association).

[185] Submission No.98, p.2 (Novartis Australia Pty Ltd). See also Submission No.90, p.1 (Du Pont Technical Centre); Submission No.94 (Monsanto Australia Ltd); Submission No.104 (Dow AgroSciences); Submission No.32, p.7 (Avcare Limited). See also Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.187 (Serve-Ag).

[186] Submission No.20, p.2 (Ms L McDermott).

[187] See Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.217 (Tasmanian Alkaloids Pty Ltd) who states that ‘damaging things is not the right way to conduct a debate’.

[188] Submission No.32, p.7 (Avcare Limited). See also Submission No.98, p.3 (Novartis Australia Pty Ltd); Submission No.90, p.1 (Du Pont Technical Centre).

[189] Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p. 146 (Organic Federation of Australia Inc).

[190] Submission No.82, pp.7-8 (Environs Kimberley). See also, Submission No.21, p.1 (Ms U Mueller); Submission No.95, p.1 (Mr D Adams MP).

[191] Submission No.70, pp.2-3 (Professor A Gibbs).

[192] Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.340 (Nugrain Pty Ltd).

[193] Submission No.79, p.1 (Mr K Healy).

[194] IOGTR , Additional Information dated 25 August 2000, Attachment D.

[195] See for example, Submission No.58, p.1 (Australian Biotechnology Association); Submission No.71, p.11 (Australian Food and Grocery Council).

[196] Gene Technology Bill 2000, ss.136-7.

[197] Gene Technology Bill 2000, s.76.

[198] Gene Technology Bill 2000, s.138.

[199] IOGTR , Additional Information dated 5 October 2000.

[200] Submission No.35, pp.10-11 (GE-Free Tasmania).

[201] Submission No.40, pp.6-7 (ACF).

[202] IOGTR , Additional Information dated 3 October 2000.

[203] IOGTR , Additional Information dated 3 October 2000.

[204] Submission No.22, p.14 (Mr G Whitten). See also Submission No.35, p.8 (GE-Free Tasmania).

[205] Submission No.96, p.1 (Ms F Murdoch).

[206] Committee Hansard, 25.08.00, p.363 (ACEL).

[207] Committee Hansard, 22.08.00, p.48 (SA Farmers Federation).

[208] IOGTR, Additional Information dated 25 August 2000, Attachment D.

[209] IOGTR, Additional Information dated 25 August 2000, p.3.

[210] See for example, Committee Hansard, 25.08.00, p.392 (Avcare) and pp.405-6 (AFGC).

[211] IOGTR Quarterly Report, June 2000.

[212] See for example, Submission No.109, p.1 (Dr A Campbell).

[213] Committee Hansard, 25.08.00, p.397 (Australian Food and Grocery Council).

[214] See for example, Submission No.36, p.3 (Valley Seeds Pty Ltd). See also, Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.236 (Tasmanian Government).

[215] See for example, Submission No. 32, pp.6-7 (Avcare Limited); Submission No.88, p.7 (National Farmers’ Federation); Submission No.89, pp.3-4 (Tasmanian Government); Submission No.91, p.1 (Western Australian Government).

[216] Submission No.102, p.3 (CSIRO). See also Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.242 (Dr Tribe) who argued consumer confidence in GMOs was low because ‘there is a huge amount of misinformation being spread by people who are against GMOs for reasons that are not really scientifically well explained and who wish to portray, in order to achieve their political objectives, this technology as being morally dubious’.

[217] Submission No.36, p.3 (Valley Seeds Pty Ltd).

[218] Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, pp.190-1 (Serve-Ag).

[219] Submission No.95, p.44 (Mr D Adams, MP).

[220] Committee Hansard, 22.08.00, p.63 (Heritage Seed Curators Australia Inc). See also Committee Hansard, 25.08.00, pp.429-430 (Professor A Gibbs).

[221] Quoted in Government launches national biotech strategy, AAP, 3 July 2000.

[222] Committee Hansard, 25.08.00, p.421 (CSIRO).

[223] See Submission No.61, p.5 (Aventis CropScience Pty Ltd).

[224] Submission No.35, p.14 (GE-Free Tasmania).

[225] Submission No.68, p.2 (Ms H Swainston).

[226] Mendiata, NL and Lints FA. ‘Novel and transgenic food crops: overview of scientific versus public perception’, Transgenic Research, 1998, 7:379-386.

[227] Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.185 (Serve-Ag).

[228] Mendiata, NL and Lints FA (1998). For information on public consultation on biotechnology in OECD countries, see [http://www.oecd.org/dsti/sti/s_t/biotech/act/consultations.htm].

[229] Gene technology and food, National Science & Industry Forum Report, Australian Academy of Science, April 1999, p.10.

[230] Lay Panel Report, First Australian Consensus Conference on Gene Technology in the Food Chain.

[231] Submission No.56, p.1 (Australian United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association Ltd and Fresh Produce Watch).

[232] See Biotechnology Australia’s website [http://www.isr.gov.au/ba/].

[233] See the BA website under Education, Factsheets. See for concerns about BA’s pro-GM bias, see for example, Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.280 (NGAA).

[234] Submission No.95, p.44 (Mr D Adams, MP).

[235] National Science & Industry Forum Report, April 1999, p.15.

[236] See for example, Committee Hansard, 25.08.00, p.410 (Australian Food and Grocery Council).

[237] Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.280 (Australian Lactation Consultants Association). See also, Committee Hansard, 25.08.00, p.436 (Professor A Gibbs) who argues for a ‘plurality of sources of information’.

[238] Submission No.20, p.4 (Ms L McDermott).

[239] Committee Hansard, 25.08.00, p.436 (Professor A Gibbs).

[240] See for example Agrifood Awareness Australia [http://www.afaa.com.au/], an industry initiative with the following members: the Australian Biotechnology Association, Avcare, the Grains Research and Development Corporation, the National Agricultural Commodities Marketing Association, the National Farmers’ Federation and the Seed Industry Association of Australia; See also the Food Science Bureau [http://www.foodsciencebureau.com.au/], an initiative of the Australian Food and Grocery Council. See http://genetech.csiro.au/sites.htm for a listing of Australian and overseas gene technology sites and http://www.icgeb.trieste.it/~bsafesrv/ for biosafety webpages].

[241] Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.280 (NGAA).

[242] Submission No.89, p.4 (Tasmanian Government).

[243] Submission No.107, p.20 (Food Industry Council of Tasmania).

[244] Submission No.78, p.1 (Institute of Public Affairs Ltd).

[245] Submission No.76, p.3 (NSW Farmers’ Association).

[246] Submission No.107, pp.20-1 (Food Industry Council of Tasmania).

[247] Submission No.107, p.12 (Food Industry Council of Tasmania). Concerns were also expressed about US GM wheat in Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Bangladesh and Egypt, reported in Wheat industry promises to segregate biotech wheat, AAP, 30 June 2000.

[248] Submission No.88, Attachment 3, p.17 (National Farmers’ Federation).

[249] Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.259 (ABA).

[250] See for example results of 1998 Consumer Science Program survey discussed in the National Science & Industry Forum Report, April 1999, p.15. See also, Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, pp.258-9 (ABA).

[251] Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.138 (Organic Federation of Australia). See also Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.233 (Tasmanian Government); Committee Hansard, 24.08.00, p.276 (NGAA).

[252] See for example, Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.174 (GE-Free Tasmania); p.193 (Serve-Ag).

[253] Committee Hansard, 23.08.00, p.158 (OFA).

[254] Committee Hansard, 22/08/00, p.57 (SA Farmers Federation).

[255] Submission No.88, Attachment 3, p.17 (National Farmers’ Federation).

[256] See for example, the comments in Submission No.115, p.1 (Victorian Government). See also Submission No.110, p.2 (South Australian Government) which also refers to the opportunity for future review of the legislation.

[257] Submission No.77, p.132 (IOGTR).

[258] IOGTR, Additional Information dated 26 September 2000.

[259] Explanatory Memorandum, Gene Technology Bill 2000, p.55.

[260] Submission No.77, p.53 (IOGTR).

[261] Submission No.41, p.6 (Grains Research & Development Corporation).

[262] Department of the Parliamentary Library Bills Digest No 11 2000-01, Gene Technology Bill 2000, dated 16 August 2000, p.11. See also Submission No.77, pp.53-7 (IOGTR).

[263] Submission No.110, p.2 (South Australian Government); Submission No.70, p.1 (Professor Gibbs); Committee Hansard, 25.8.00, p.399 (AFGC).

[264] Committee Hansard, 25.8.00, p.399 (AFGC).

[265] Submission No.34, p.6 (ACEL); Committee Hansard, 25.8.00, pp.358-9 (ACEL) See also Submission No.9, p.7 (HSCA).

[266] Submission No.32, p.9 (Avcare Ltd); Submission No.71, p.9 (AFGC).

[267] Submission No.85, p.13 (ACF GeneEthics Network); Submission No.70, p.1 (Professor Gibbs).

[268] Submission No.70, p.1(Professor Gibbs).

[269] Work in Progress: Proceed with Caution, Report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services, June 2000, p.139.

[270] Submission No.88, p.3 (NFF); Submission No.71, p.6 (AFGC).

[271] Submission No.50, p.2 (Consumer Food Network). See also Submission No.6, Appendix 1 (Consumers’ Association of SA).

[272] Submission No.77, p.53 (IOGTR).

[273] Submission No.110, p.2 (South Australian Government).

[274] Submission No.77, p.73 (IOGTR).

[275] Submission No.77, p.53 (IOGTR).

[276] Submission No.71, p.6 (AFGC).

[277] Explanatory Memorandum, p.18.

[278] Committee Hansard, 24.8.00, p.265 (NGAA); Committee Hansard, 24.8.00, p.287 (AWB Ltd); Committee Hansard, 24.8.00, p.306 (ACF); Submission No.6, p.3 (Consumers’ Association of SA); Submission No.85, p.10 (ACF GeneEthics Network); Submission No.34, p.3 (ACEL); Submission No.54, p.22 (OFA); Submission No.88, Attachment 2 (NFF); Submission No.63, p.7 (AWB Ltd); Submission No.59, p.2 (MLA).

[279] Submission No.34, pp.3-4 (ACEL).

[280] Submission No.51, p.10 (Friends of the Earth (Fitzroy)).

[281] Submission No.50, p.1 (Consumer Food Network).

[282] Submission No.85, p.10 (ACF GeneEthics Network). See also Submission No.35, p.7 (GE-Free Tasmania).

[283] Submission No.34, p.3 (ACEL); Submission No.54, p.22 (OFA).

[284] Submission No.85, p.10 (ACF GeneEthics Network).

[285] Submission No.59, p.2 (MLA).

[286] Explanatory Memorandum, pp.18-19.

[287] Submission No.85, pp.9-11 (ACF GeneEthics Network); Submission No.6, pp.1-4 (Consumers’ Association of SA). See also Explanatory Memorandum, p.20.

[288] Submission No.77, p.71 (IOGTR).

[289] Committee Hansard, 14.8.00, p.31 (IOGTR).

[290] The Attorney-General’s Department operates a database of Acts which is updated regularly. There are also legal updating services that update legislation and there are tables that accompany Acts indicating where amendments to the relevant Acts have been made.

[291] Explanatory Memorandum, Gene Technology (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2000.

[292] Department of the Parliamentary Library Bills Digest No 10 2000-01, Gene Technology (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2000, p.2.

[293] Parliamentary Library, pp.2-3.

[294] Explanatory Memorandum.

[295] Parliamentary Library, p.2.

[296] Parliamentary Library, pp.3-4.

[297] IOGTR, Additional Information dated 11October 2000.

[298] Committee Hansard, 14.8.00, p.32 (IOGTR).

[299] Committee Hansard, 14.8.00, p.32 (IOGTR).

[300] Parliamentary Library, p.5.

[301] Parliamentary Library, p.5.

[302] Submission No.77, p.71 (IOGTR).

[303] Submission No.77, p.72 (IOGTR). See also IOGTR, Additional Information dated 18 September 2000.

[304] Explanatory Memorandum, Gene Technology Bill 2000, p.63.

[305] Submission No.77, pp.57-8 (IOGTR).

[306] Explanatory Memorandum, p.63; Parliamentary Library, Bills Digest No 11 2000-01, Gene Technology Bill 2000, p.14.

[307] Parliamentary Library, p.15.

[308] Submission No.77, pp.66-7 (IOGTR).

[309] Submission No.77, pp. 69-70 (IOGTR).

[310] Committee Hansard, 24.8.00, p.308 (ACF); Submission No.51, p.5 (Friends of the Earth (Fitzroy)); Submission No.40, p.4 (ACF).

[311] Committee Hansard, 24.8.00, pp.305-6 (ACF); Committee Hansard, 25.8.00, p.357 (ACEL); Submission No.34, p.5 (ACEL); Submission No.51, p.4 (Friends of the Earth (Fitzroy)); Submission No.40, pp.1-2 (ACF); Submission No.54, p.6 (OFA); Submission No.85, p.7 (ACF GeneEthics Network); Submission No.6, pp.7-8 (Consumers’ Association of SA).

[312] Submission No.34, p.5 (ACEL).

[313] Submission No.85, p.7 (ACF GeneEthics Network).

[314] Submission No.34, p.5 (ACEL); Submission No.51, pp.4-5 (Friends of the Earth (Fitzroy)); Submission No.85, p.7 (ACF GeneEthics Network).

[315] Committee Hansard, 25.8.00, p.381 (Avcare Ltd).

[316] Submission No.32, p.4 (Avcare Ltd).

[317] Committee Hansard, 25.8.00, p.381 (Avcare Ltd).

[318] Committee Hansard, 25.8.00, p.381 (Avcare Ltd).

[319] Submission No.77, p.74 (IOGTR).

[320] Submission No.77, p.74 (IOGTR); IOGTR, Additional Information dated 18 September 2000. See also Committee Hansard, 25.8.00, p.381 (Avcare Ltd).

[321] Submission No.86, p.1 (WWF & HSI); Submission No.69, p.3 (Friends of the Earth (Perth, WA Group)); Submission No.34, pp.5-6 (ACEL); Submission No.40, p.2 (ACF); Submission No.50, p.6 (Consumer Food Network); Committee Hansard, 24.8.00, pp.306-7, 328-9 (ACF); Committee Hansard, 25.8.00, pp.358, 367, 373-4 (ACEL).

[322] Environmental Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms - Draft Amendments to the EPBC Act 1999.

[323] IOGTR, Additional Information dated 18 September 2000.

[324] Submission No.86, Addendum (WWF & HSI).

[325] Submission No.34, p.6 (ACEL).

[326] Submission No.34, p.6 (ACEL).

[327] Submission No.86, p.1 (WWF & HSI). See also Submission No.85, p.8 (ACF GeneEthics Network).

[328] Submission No.86, p.2 (WWF & HSI); Submission No.85, p.8 (ACF GeneEthics Network).

[329] Submission No.40, pp.4, 9-13 (ACF).

[330] Explanatory Guide to the Draft Commonwealth Gene Technology Regulations 2000, August 2000, pp.25-6.

[331] Explanatory Guide to the Draft Regulations, p.26.

[332] Submission No.40, pp.3-4 (ACF); Submission No.51, p.5 (Friends of the Earth (Fitzroy)).

[333] Submission No.77, p.59 (IOGTR).

[334] Submission No.77, p.69 (IOGTR).

[335] Submission No.34, p.5 (ACEL); Submission No.40, p.4 (ACF); Submission No.51, p.5 (Friends of the Earth (Fitzroy)).

[336] Submission No.82, p.7 (Environs Kimberley). See also Submission No.35, p.9 (GE-Free Tasmania); Submission No.69, p.2 (Friends of the Earth (Perth, WA Group)).

[337] Submission No.82, p.7 (Environs Kimberley).

[338] Parliamentary Library, p.24.

[339] Parliamentary Library, p.24. See also Explanatory Memorandum, p.61.

[340] Submission No.77, pp.83-4 (IOGTR).

[341] Submission No.34, p.7 (ACEL); Committee Hansard, 25.8.00, pp.369-70 (ACEL).

[342] Submission No.34, p.7 (ACEL); Committee Hansard, 25.8.00, pp.369-70 (ACEL).

[343] Committee Hansard, 25.8.00, p.370 (ACEL).

[344] Explanatory Guide to the Draft Regulations, p.22. Exempt GMOs are those that are set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Regulations.

[345] Explanatory Guide to the Draft Regulations, p.39.

[346] Explanatory Guide to the Draft Regulations, p.39.

[347] Explanatory Guide to the Draft Regulations, pp.27-8.

[348] Submission No.77, p.75 (IOGTR).

[349] Submission No.40, p.5 (ACF); Submission No.51, p.11 (Friends of the Earth (Fitzroy)); Committee Hansard, 24.8.00, p.308 (ACF).

[350] Submission No.77, pp.75-6 (IOGTR).

[351] Submission No.77, p.76 (IOGTR).

[352] Submission No.34, p.12 (ACEL).

[353] Submission No.34, p.12 (ACEL); Submission No.40, p.4 (ACF). See also Submission No.51, p.5 (Friends of the Earth (Fitzroy)).

[354] Submission No.54, p.9 (OFA); Committee Hansard, 23.8.00, p.150 (OFA).

[355] IOGTR, Additional Information dated 25 August 2000.

[356] Parliamentary Library, pp.16-17.

[357] IOGTR, Additional Information dated 25 August 2000.

[358] Submission No.77, p.84 (IOGTR).

[359] Submission No.51, p.6 (Friends of the Earth (Fitzroy)); Submission No.40, pp.4-5 (ACF).

[360] Submission No.40, pp.4-5 (ACF).

[361] Submission No.77, p.84 (IOGTR).

[362] Parliamentary Library, p.23.

[363] Parliamentary Library, pp.23, 41.

[364] Parliamentary Library, p.30.

[365] Parliamentary Library, p.23.

[366] Submission No.77, p.85 (IOGTR).

[367] Submission No.77, pp.84-5 (IOGTR).

[368] Submission No.17, p.3 (NGAA); Submission No.102, p.4 (CSIRO).

[369] Submission No.71, p.13 (AFGC).

[370] Submission No.77, p.85 (IOGTR).

[371] Submission No.77, p.85 (IOGTR).

[372] Submission No.77, pp.86-7 (IOGTR).

[373] Submission No.77, p.87 (IOGTR).

[374] Submission No.77, p.87 (IOGTR).

[375] Submission No.23, p.2 (ALRC).

[376] Submission No.40, p.8 (ACF); Submission No.51, p.13 (Friends of the Earth (Fitzroy)); Submission No.34, pp.13-14 (ACEL); Committee Hansard, 24.8.00, pp.308-9 (ACF).

[377] Submission No. 40. p.8 (ACF); Submission No.51, p.13 (Friend of the Earth (Fitzroy)).

[378] Submission No.40, p.8 (ACF).

[379] Submission No.51, p.13 (Friends of the Earth (Fitzroy)).

[380] Submission No.17, p.3 (National Genetic Awareness Alliance).

[381] Parliamentary Library, p.30.

[382] Parliamentary Library, p.44. See also Submission No.82, p.5 (Environs Kimberley).

[383] Parliamentary Library, pp.30, 44. See also Submission No.82, p.5 (Environs Kimberley).

[384] Parliamentary Library, p.30.

[385] Submission No.77, p.94 (IOGTR).

[386] See, for example, Submission No.6, p.4 (Consumers’ Association of SA); Submission No.17, p.3 (National Genetic Awareness Alliance); Submission No.36, p.3 (Valley Seeds Pty Ltd); Submission No.44, p.3 (Seed Industry of Australia); Submission No.58, pp.1-2 (Australian Biotechnology Association); Submission No.71, p.8 (AFGC); Submission No.61, p.5 (Aventis CropScience Australia Pty Ltd). See also Committee Hansard, 24.8.00, pp.335, 344-5,349-50 (Florigene Ltd); Committee Hansard, 25.8.00, pp.375, 379-80 (Avcare); Committee Hansard, 25.8.00, p.400 (AFGC); Committee Hansard, 25.8.00, pp.414, 417 (CSIRO).

[387] CSIRO, Additional Information dated 20 September 2000.

[388] Submission No.102, p.4 (CSIRO).

[389] Submission No.36, pp.3-4 (Valley Seeds Pty Ltd).

[390] Submission No.91, p.2 (Western Australian Government). See also Submission No.89, p.6 (Tasmanian Government).

[391] Submission No.32, p.9 (Avcare Ltd).

[392] Submission No.50, p.5 (Consumer Food Network).

[393] Submission No.71, p.10 (AFGC). See also Submission No.32, p.9 (Avcare Ltd).

[394] Submission No.50, p.5 (Consumer Food Network).

[395] Submission No.102, p.4 (CSIRO). See also Submission No.71, p.14 (AFGC); Submission No.58, p.2 (ABA); Committee Hansard, 28.8.00, p.400 (AFGC).

[396] Submission No.50, p.5 (Consumer Food Network). See also Submission No.85, p.12 (ACF GeneEthics Network); Submission No.54, p.20. (Organic Federation of Australia).

[397] Submission No.54, p.20 (Organic Federation of Australia); Submission No.85, p.12 (ACF GeneEthics Network).

[398] KPMG Consulting, A model for cost-recovery in the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, September 2000, p.30.

[399] KPMG Report p.41.

[400] KPMG Report, p.35. See also Submission No.42, p.8 (Florigene Ltd & Nugrain Pty Ltd). See also Committee Hansard, 24.8.00, p.335 (Florigene Ltd).

[401] Submission No.77, p.92 (IOGTR).

[402] Submission No.77, pp.92-3 (IOGTR).

[403] Submission No.32, p.9 (Avcare Ltd). See also Submission No.71, p.14 (AFGC); Submission No.59, p.4 (MLA).

[404] Submission No.88, p.3 (NFF). See also Submission No.76, p.5 (NSW farmers’ Association) .

[405] Submission No.32, p.9 (Avcare Ltd). See also Submission No.42, p.8 (Florigene Ltd & Nugrain Pty Ltd).

[406] Submission No.76, p.5 (NSW Farmers’ Association).

[407] Submission No.42, p.8 (Florigene Ltd & Nugrain Pty Ltd).

[408] Submission No.91, p.2 (Western Australian Government). See also Committee Hansard, 14.8.00, p.28 (Western Australian Government).

[409] Submission No.89, p.6 (Tasmanian Government).

[410] Submission No.103, pp.9-10 (NHMRC).

[411] Submission No.77, pp.97-103 (IOGTR).

[412] KPMG Report p.ii.

[413] KPMG Report, p.iii.

[414] KPMG Report, p.iii.

[415] KPMG Report, p.i.

[416] KPMG Report, pi.

[417] KPMG Report, p.i.

[418] The levy has three rates: research/universities - $4000; small companies - $20 000; large companies -$200 000.

[419] KPMG Report, p.iii; Part 2, p.15.

[420] KPMG Report, p.ii.

[421] Explanatory Memorandum, Gene Technology Bill 2000, pp.78-9.

[422] Explanatory Memorandum, p.78.

[423] Explanatory Memorandum, pp.78-9.

[424] Submission No.35, p.20 (GE-Free Tasmania); Submission No.25, p.10 (Mr A Macintosh); Submission No.70, p.2 (Professor A Gibbs); Committee Hansard, 25.8.00, p.430 (Professor A Gibbs).

[425] Submission No.40, p.6 (ACF). See also Submission No.70, p.2 (Professor A Gibbs); Submission No.69, p.3 (Friends of the Earth (Perth, WA Group)).

[426] Submission No.77, p.113 (IOGTR).

[427] Submission No.77, p.113 (IOGTR).

[428] Submission No.77, p.113 (IOGTR).

[429] Submission No.70, p.2 (Professor A Gibbs); Submission No.85, p.13 (ACF GeneEthics Network).

[430] Submission No.85, p.13 (ACF GeneEthics Network).

[431] Submission No.11, p.17 (Canberra Consumers Inc).

[432] Submission No.54, p.19 (OFA).

[433] Submission No.85, p.13 (ACF GeneEthics Network). See also Submission No.70, p.2 (Professor A Gibbs).

[434] Submission No.11, p.16 (Canberra Consumers Inc).

[435] Submission No.77, p.113 (IOGTR).

[436] Submission No.54, p.19 (OFA); Submission No.11, p.17 (Canberra Consumers Inc)..

[437] Committee Hansard, 14.8.00, pp.45-6 (IOGTR).

[438] Submission No.35, p.20 (GE-Free Tasmania); Submission No.17, p.4 (National Genetic Awareness Alliance); Submission No.25, p.10 (Mr A Macintosh).

[439] Draft Regulations, Part 4, Division 1.

[440] Submission No.70, p.2 (Professor A Gibbs); Committee Hansard, 25.8.00, p.430 (Professor A Gibbs); Submission No.35, p.20 (GE-Free Tasmania).

[441] Explanatory Guide to the Draft Commonwealth Gene Technology Regulations 2000, August 2000, p.32.

[442] Explanatory Memorandum, p.80.

[443] Submission No.77, p.115 (IOGTR).

[444] Explanatory Memorandum, p.80.

[445] Explanatory Memorandum, p.81.

[446] Submission No.77, p.117 (DHAC). See also Explanatory Memorandum, p.80.

[447] Submission No.40, p.6 (ACF); Submission No.54, p.18 (OFA); Submission No.69, p.3 (Friends of the Earth (Perth, WA Group)).

[448] Submission No.35, p.20 (GE-Free Tasmania); Submission No.9, pp.13-14 (HSCA).

[449] Submission No.35, p.20 (GE-Free Tasmania).

[450] AGN, Additional Information dated 11 September 2000, p.4.

[451] Department of the Parliamentary Library Bills Digest No 11 2000-01, Gene Technology Bill 2000, dated 16 August 2000, p.12.

[452] Submission No.54, p.19 (OFA).

[453] Submission No.77, p.116 (IOGTR). See also Committee Hansard, 14.8.00, p.45 (IOGTR); Committee Hansard, 25.8.00, p.454 (IOGTR).

[454] Submission No.77, pp.116-17 (IOGTR).

[455] Submission No.77, p.117 (IOGTR).

[456] Submission No.54, p.20 (OFA); Submission No.9, p.14 (HSCA); AGN, Additional information dated 11 September 2000, p.4.

[457] Submission No.54, p.20 (OFA).

[458] Submission No.60, p.3 (District Council of Grant).

[459] Submission No.70, p.2 (Professor A Gibbs); Submission No.40, p.6 (ACF); Submission No.35, p.20 (GE-Free Tasmania).

[460] Explanatory Memorandum, p.82. See also DHAC, Additional Information dated 18 September 2000.

[461] Submission No.77, pp.120-21 (IOGTR).

[462] Explanatory Memorandum, p.82.

[463] Submission No.9, pp.14-15 (HSCA). See also Submission No.40, p.6 (ACF); Submission No.50, p.5 (Consumer Food Network).

[464] Submission No.102, p.5 (CSIRO).

[465] Submission No.77, p.120 (IOGTR). See also DHAC, Additional Information dated 18 September 2000.

[466] Submission No.70, p.2 (Professor A Gibbs); Submission No.40, p.6 (ACF); Submission No.35, p.20 (GE-Free Tasmania).

[467] Submission No.35, p.20 (GE-Free Tasmania); Submission No.40, p.6 (ACF).

[468] Submission No.9, p.15 (HSCA).

[469] Parliamentary Library, p.12.

[470] Committee Hansard, 22.8.00, p.101 (Dr Roush).

[471] Submission No.70, p.2 (Professor A Gibbs); Submission No.40, p.6 (ACF); Submission No.35, p.20 (GE-Free Tasmania).

[472] Submission No.77, p.108 (IOGTR).

[473] Submission No.77, p.109 (IOGTR).

[474] Submission No.77, p.109 (IOGTR).

[475] Parliamentary Library, pp.11-12; Submission No.77, p.110 (IOGTR).

[476] Submission No.40, p.6 (ACF); Submission No.85, p.14 (ACF GeneEthics Network).

[477] Submission No.17, p.4 (National Genetic Awareness Alliance); Submission No.54, p.6 (OFA).

[478] Submission No.77, p.111 (IOGTR).

[479] Submission No.71, p.14 (AFGC).

[480] Submission No.77, p.111 (IOGTR).

[481] Submission No.77, p.111 (IOGTR).

[482] Submission No.54, p.6 (OFA); Submission No.6, p.4 (Consumers’ Association of SA).

[483] Submission No.54, p.6 (OFA).

[484] Submission No.88, p.3 (NFF).

[485] Submission No.76, p.6 (NSW Farmers’ Association).

[486] Submission No.71, p.15 (AFGC).

[487] Committee Hansard, 14.8.00, p.44 (IOGTR).

[488] Committee Hansard, 14.8.00, p.45 (DHAC).

[489] Submission No.6, p.4 (Consumers Association of SA); Submission No.85, p.14 (ACF GeneEthics Network Submission); Submission No.35, p.21 (GE-Free Tasmania); Committee Hansard, 25.8.00, pp.360-61 (ACEL).

[490] Certification of a facility to a certain containment level is required under the Bill of any organisation who wishes to undertake notifiable low risk dealings, or who holds a licence for dealings with GMOs where the licence includes a condition that the work with the GMO be conducted in a facility certified to a particular containment level. See Explanatory Memorandum, p.74.

[491] Submission No.77, p.129 (IOGTR).

[492] Submission No.77, p.129 (IOGTR).

[493] Submission No.77, pp.129-30 (IOGTR).

[494] Submission No.77, p.130 (IOGTR).

[495] Submission No.77, p.130 (IOGTR).

[496] Submission No.6, p.4 (Consumers Association of SA); Submission No.85, p.14 (ACF GeneEthics Network); Submission No.35, p.21 (GE-Free Tasmania).

[497] Submission No.34, p.14 (ACEL).

[498] Submission No.34, p.15 (ACEL).

[499] Submission No.35, p.21 (GE-Free Tasmania). See also Submission No.17, p.5 (NGAA).

[500] Submission No.32, p.12 (Avcare Ltd); Submission No.88, p.4 (NFF); Committee Hansard, 24.8.00, pp.347-8. (Florigene Ltd).

[501] Submission No.32, p.12 (Avcare Ltd); Submission No.59, p.5 (MLA).

[502] Submission No.32, p.12 (Avcare Ltd). An interlocutory injunction is an injunction ordered by a court before the court makes a final order in the proceedings. An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must establish that there is a serious question to be tried; that he or she will suffer irreparable injury for which damages will not be an adequate compensation unless an injunction is granted; and that the balance of convenience favours the grant of relief. Interlocutory injunctions are granted to ensure that the purpose of an action is not frustrated by the dissipation of property the subject of the dispute.

[503] Submission No.59, p.4 (MLA).

[504] Submission No.59, p.5 (MLA).

[505] Submission No.77, pp.131-32 (IOGTR). See also IOGTR, Additional Information dated 18 September 2000.

[506] Submission No.77, p.139 (IOGTR).

[507] The Bill Part 4 - Regulation of dealings with GMOs and Part 10 - Enforcement. See Explanatory Memorandum pp. 55-8, 90-1 and Explanatory Guide pp.33-6, 61-3.

[508] Submission No.77, pp.140-1 (IOGTR).

[509] Committee Hansard, 24.8.00, p.309 (ACF).

[510] Submission No.25, pp.11, 18 (Mr Andrew Mcintosh).

[511] Submission No.85, p.16 (ACF GeneEthics Network).

[512] Submission No.25, p.19 (Mr Andrew Mcintosh).

[513] Submission No.59, p.5 (Meat and Livestock Australia).

[514] For example Committee Hansard, 22.8.00, p.61 (Heritage Seed Curators Australia)

[515] Committee Hansard, 24.8.00, pp.318, 332 (ACF GeneEthics Network).

[516] Submission No.1, pp.1-2 (Insurance Council of Australia).

[517] Submission No.32 (Avcare), Additional Information dated 8 September 2000. Serve-Ag also noted that in the opinion of the Company and the Company’s insurance broker it is adequately insured for any potential liability - Submission No.8 (Serve-Ag), Additional Information dated 21 September 2000.

[518] Work in Progress: Proceed with Caution, Report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services, June 2000, p.159.

[519] Committee Hansard, 24.8.00, p.308 (ACF).

[520] Department of the Parliamentary Library Bills Digest No. 11 2000-01, Gene Technology Bill 2000, dated 16 August 2000, p.31. The Digest notes at Endnote 112 that statutory liability currently exists in areas such as criminal injuries compensation and civil aviation carriers' liability, both in relation to personal injury or death and property damage. The rationale behind such schemes is that it is desirable that persons who suffer loss or damage be compensated for their loss, however, it is also desirable that the level of liability be capped.

[521] This section is drawn from Submission No.77, pp.146-151 (IOGTR). A brief summary of the approaches adopted by each of the countries examined by the IOGTR is included in these pages.

[522] Submission No.77, p.155 (IOGTR).

[523] Submission No.77, pp.153, 156-7 (IOGTR).

[524] Submission No.77, p.158 (IOGTR).

[525] Much of the comment in this section is from the Department of the Parliamentary Library Bills Digest No. 11 2000-01, Gene Technology Bill 2000, dated 16 August 2000, pp.9, 26-27.

[526] Explanatory Memorandum, p.51.

[527] Submission No.89, p.2 (Tasmanian Government).

[528] Submission No.89, p.9 (Tasmanian Government).

[529] Submission No.77, p.161 (IOGTR).

[530] Submission No.89, p.7 and Committee Hansard, 23.8.00, p.230 (Tasmanian Government).

[531] Committee Hansard, 23.8.00, p.150 (Organic Federation of Australia).

[532] Submission No.77, p.207 (IOGTR). The advice ‘The establishment of genetic engineering free zones: WTO aspects’ is provided in full at Attachment F to the submission.

[533] Submission No.77, pp.161-2 (IOGTR). The Tasmanian Government advised the Committee that the advice ‘only deals with the WTO implications of GM-free zones on market image grounds, not environment and health and safety as stated in the IOGTR submission. No determination was ever signalled by Tasmania that we would not be pursuing this option’. Committee Hansard, 23.8.00, p.221.

[534] Submission No.115, p.2 (Victorian Government, Mr Steve Bracks, Premier).

[535] Submission No.77, pp.158-9 (IOGTR).

[536] Submission No.89, pp.12-13 (Tasmanian Government).

[537] Submission No.25, pp.23-4 (Mr Andrew Mcintosh).

[538] Department of the Parliamentary Library Bills Digest No. 11 2000-01, Gene Technology Bill 2000, dated 16 August 2000, p.31.

[539] Submission No.77, p.159 (IOGTR).

[540] Department of the Parliamentary Library Bills Digest No. 11 2000-01, Gene Technology Bill 2000, dated 16 August 2000, p.44 Endnote 100.

[541] Submission No.89, p.14 (Tasmanian Government).

[542] Submission No.77, p.160 (IOGTR). The advices are provided in full at Attachments D and E to the submission.

[543] Submission No.89, p.15 (Tasmanian Government) and Submission No.39 (Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment).

[544] Submission No.89, p.16 (Tasmanian Government).

[545] Committee Hansard, 23.8.00, p.232 (Minister David Llewellyn).

[546] Submission No.54, p.18 (OFA).

[547] Committee Hansard, 23.8.00, p.220 (Tasmanian Government).

[548] Submission No.25, Appendix A: Reasons for an Opt-Out Clause and a GE-Free Tasmania, p.33 (Mr Andrew Mcintosh). See also Submission No.35, pp.25-6 (GE-Free Tasmania) and Submission No.107, pp.23-6 (Food Industry Council of Tasmania).

[549] Committee Hansard, 23.8.00, pp.160-1 (GE-Free Tasmania).

[550] Committee Hansard, 23.8.00, p.195 and Submission No.8, attached Position Paper - GM in Tasmania (Serve-Ag).

[551] Submission No.10, pp.1-3 and Committee Hansard, 23.8.00, pp.208-9 (Tasmanian Alkaloids).

[552] Submission No.89, p.1 (Tasmanian Government).

[553] Submission No.107 (Food Industry Council of Tasmania).

[554] Committee Hansard, 23.8.00, p.225 (Tasmanian Government, Minister Llewellyn).

[555] Submission No.61, p.5 and Committee Hansard, 22.8.00, p.123 (Aventis).

[556] Committee Hansard, 23.8.00, p.151 (OFA).

[557] PR-62 Development of glufosinate ammonium tolerant canola cultivars, GMAC advice notified 25 June 1996.

[558] PR-63 Field evaluation of a genetically modified canola (Brassica napus) with a new hybridization system, GMAC advice notified 25 June 1996.

[559] PR-85 Small and large scale seed increase of a genetically modified canola (Brassica rapa) with a new hybridisation system, GMAC advice notified September 1997.

[560] A summary of these breaches/incidents as described in GMAC Annual Reports between 1985-1999 is in Submission No.77, Table K1, p.166 (IOGTR). The ACF GeneEthics Network noted that the Mount Gambier incident was ‘only the latest in a long line of releases outside GMAC guidelines and advices over the past decade’, Submission No.85, p.17.

[561] Submission No.77, p.169 (IOGTR).

[562] This overview is based on a chronology from Submission No.77, pp.171-5 (IOGTR) with further information added from other submissions and evidence. The Committee notes that there was some dispute in evidence as to the detailed timing of when certain events occurred (see especially Submission No.55, supplementary submission, dated 12 September 2000).

[563] Submission No.77, p.175 (IOGTR).

[564] Submission No.61, p.9 (Aventis).

[565] Submission No.77, p.176 (IOGTR). The findings in relation to each breach are described in detail on pp.177-8 of the submission.

[566] Submission No.61, pp.9-10 (Aventis).

[567] Submission No.77, p.177 (IOGTR).

[568] Submission No.77, pp.178-181 (IOGTR).

[569] Committee Hansard, 25.8.00, p.389 (Dr Blowes, Monsanto).

[570] Committee Hansard, 25.8.00, p.451 (IOGTR).

[571] Committee Hansard, 25.8.00, pp. 449-51 (IOGTR) and p.390 (Dr Blowes).

[572] Submission No.61, pp.7-8 (Aventis).

[573] Submission No.9, p.17 (Heritage Seed Curators Australia); Committee Hansard, 22.8.00, p.76 (Ms Huebner), p.82 (Mr Rankin) and 23.8.00, p.161 (GE-Free Tasmania).

[574] Committee Hansard, 22.8.00, pp.96, 102 (Professor Roush).

[575] Committee Hansard, 22.8.00, pp.125, 130 (Aventis). Aventis tabled at the hearing the standard form of licence agreement from September 1999 and June 2000 to show the evolution.

[576] Submission No.61, p.10 (Aventis).

[577] Committee Hansard, 22.8.00, p.82 (Ms Huebner).

[578] AGS to IOGTR, dated 1 August 2000 (in Submission No.77 additional information provided 25.8.00).

[579] Committee Hansard, 24.8.00, p.300 (AWB Ltd).

[580] Work in Progress: Proceed with Caution, Report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services, June 2000, p.129.

[581] Submission No.110, p.2 (South Australian Government - Mr John Olsen, Premier).

[582] It is recognised that concern was expressed in the Committee to the terminology used to describe the science and techniques developed to manipulate an organisms genome. While quotes, excerpts from Committee submissions, and past Democrat releases and statements on the subject use varying terms, ‘gene technology’ will be used generally in the following paper as it is the title of the Bill referring to genetic modification, genetic manipulation, genetic engineering and transgenic processes rather than drawing distinctions between the terms.

[583] M Wooldridge, Gene Technology Bill 2000 Explanatory Memorandum, at page 7.

[584] Refuge zones are expanses of farm land of traditional crops designed to prevent the development of pesticide resistant organisms.

[585] Buffer zones are expanses of land designed to prevent cross pollination of genetically modified crops.

[586] Bt Cotton is a genetically modified cotton species produced by Monsanto which carries a gene (including Bt - Cry1Ac or Bt - Cry2A) derived from a baterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, that produces a Bt toxin killing pests of the crop.

[587] [1]Nuttal N, ‘Bees spread genes from GM crops’, The Times, 15 April 1999.

[588] N Stott Despoja, Submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Producer and Regional Services’ Inquiry into primary producer access to gene technology, June 1999, at page 5.

[589] Chair's Report, Preface, at page 1

[590] Alleles are different types of a gene for a particular trait which produce differing outcomes. To use the Mendelian example, one allele of a gene will produce a wrinkled seed whereas another allele of the same gene will produce round smooth seeds.

[591] Rissler J & Mellon M, Perils Amidst the Promise: Ecological Risks of Trangenic Crops in a Global Market, Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge MA, 1993 at page 4 of 8.

http://binas.unido.or.at/binas/Library/ucs/section5.2.html accessed 1 June 1999.

[592] Gray AJ & Raybould A F, ‘Reducing transgene escape routes’, Nature Vol 392 16 April 1998 at page 654.

[593] Brookes M, ‘Running Wild’, New Scientist, 31 October 1998 at page 41

[594] Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, Advice for the Secretary of State, 23 June 1998: Genetically Modified maize in National List Trials Adjacent to an Organic Farm in Devon. http://www.environment.detr.gov.uk/acre/advice01.htm, accessed 8 March 1999

[595] s3 at page 2.

[596] N Stott Despoja, Matter of Public Interest: Genetically Modified Organisms, Senate Hansard, 21 June 2000 at pager 15318

[597] G Strong, ‘GM-food tests ‘inadequate’, The Age 28 October, 2000.

http://theage.com.au/news/2001029/A13301-2000Oct28.html

[598] Submission No 42, p.4 (Floringene Limited and Nugrain Pty Ltd). See also, Committee Hansard, 23.08.00 p.184

[599] Including, N Stott Despoja, Press Release 00/357: Democrats call for ANZFA labs not just glossy PR, 19 June 2000. http://www.democrats.org.au/media/display.htm?id=659

[600] Australia New Zealand Food Authority Application A346, Food produced from insect-protected corn line MON 810. Draft risk analysis report at: http://www.anzfa.gov.au/documents/gen10_00.htm

[601] Australia New Zealand Food Authority Application A362, Food derived from glyphosate-tolerant corn line GA21, Draft risk analysis report at: http://www.anzfa.gov.au/documents/gen12_00.htm.

[602] Australia New Zealand Food Authority Application A363, Food produced from glyphosate-tolerant canola line GT73. Draft risk analysis report at: http://www.anzfa.gov.au/documents/gen13_00.htm

[603] Reports state that test replication for canola line GT73 was too small to constitute a statistically significant sample size. The composition of only two samples were analysed. Scientists from the Public Health Association of Australia stated “with such low numbers it is almost a foregone conclusion that a statistically significant difference will not be found between the GM food and the non-GM food”. See G Strong, ‘GM Food tests ‘inadequate’, The Age, 28 October 2000 http://www.theage.com.au/news/20001029/A13301-2000Oct28.html.

[604] N Stott Despoja, Press Release 00/357 'Democrats call for ANZFA labs not just glossy PR', 19 June 2000. http://www.democrats.org.au/media/display.htm?id=659

[605] IOGTR, Submission No.77 at page 159

[606] Tasmanian Government, Submission 89 at page 12-14.

[607] A Gibbs, submission 70 at page 2.

[608] A Gibbs, Submission No 70, at page 2.

[609] Ibid.

[610] Submission No.1, p.2 (Insurance Council of Australia)

[611] All extracts from A taken from the CEPA website: http://www.ec.gc.ca/cepa/ip18/e18_01.html#J11).

[612] Extracts Nos.1-4 from B taken from the CEPA website: http://www.ec.gc.ca/cepa/ip18/e18_01.html#J11) and No.5 taken from Avcare Insights, p.3.