Mr IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware of the 2008 International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development report, which drew upon the expertise of 400 scientists, 60 countries, the World Bank and most United Nation bodies? I ask whether the Minister noted that the executive report summary of the synthesis report adopted the following position:

Assessment of modern biotechnology is lagging behind development; information can be anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty on benefits and harms is unavoidable. There is a wide range of perspectives on the environmental, human health and economic risks and benefits of modern biotechnology, many of which are as yet unknown.

Are there any circumstances under which the Minister would revoke the approval of Roundup Ready canola and InVigor Hybrid canola that he gave on 14 March?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I need to point out something important to assist Mr Ian Cohen's understanding of this matter. The decision I made earlier this year in relation to canola and the growing of a commercial-scale food crop in New South Wales was based upon legislation that was passed almost unanimously by this House. Only four Greens voted against the legislation. I make it very clear that all the decisions I have made in relation to this matter fall squarely within the framework of that legislation, which was agreed to by this House last year.

The legislation sets out the procedures I must follow with regard to any proposition put before the GM Technology Committee by any proponent. That procedure is set out very plainly. What it means is that in New South Wales—unlike, say, in Victoria—all proposals to commercialise GM technology are examined by an expert panel. The composition of that expert panel—despite the bleatings of some of Mr Cohen's friends—has not substantially changed since it was established in 2003: its membership has not changed. In fact, two people who are stridently anti-GM remain members of the committee.

The Hon. Rick Colless: But you don't tell them when—

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: They know precisely.

The Hon. Rick Colless: They don't.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The member does not believe their nonsense. That committee has met and under the terms of the legislation has considered the proposition and referred the matter with a recommendation. I had some questions—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Prove it! The question is whether, if you had further information, you would change it.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Listen to me! In relation to the matter then being put forward I sought further advice from the committee, which it subsequently provided and then made the recommendation. I endorsed the committee's recommendation. It was a very simple, straightforward process. I do not intend to change my position on the matter. If the committee advises me to do so I will reconsider the decision. I have seen heaps of information about this issue and it is highly charged. The evidence that persuades me is that this is important and useful technology and that it will expand greatly over future years to encompass other forms of agricultural product.

At the bottom of this debate is a disconnection in the heads of the Greens and their supporters. We are prepared to support gene technology and all of its benefits for humankind. Most learned journals published over the past few years include many proposals about gene technologies and their implementation to assist humans in offsetting the impact of disease. This is done openly, and there is no doubt that what is involved is gene modification, to rectify genetic defects. However, the Greens and their small gaggle of supporters have come to the conclusion that we cannot genetically modify a plant or an animal. I find that an appalling disconnection, but they might get their heads around it philosophically at some stage. [Time expired.]

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I suggest that if honourable members have further questions, they place them on notice.