Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I am glad that somebody agrees that that is what Monsanto's law could result in and understands the issue.

Beyond the domestic repercussions of this ruling, it could also affect Guatemala's inclusion in the Central American free trade agreement. The free trade agreement between the United States and a group of smaller developing countries includes Guatemala. The plant variety protection law originated back in 2004 when Guatemala signed up to the agreement, and agreeing to Monsanto's law is part of the agreement. Should Guatemala or another nation have to listen to the demands of the US by honouring the free trade agreement laws? Not according to the Natural Society, who say:

Big Ag and Big Biotech would severely threaten international food sovereignty. More than 40 countries have already realized this possibility, banning GMO crops.

There are reports that Monsanto intends to sue the Guatemalan government under the ISDS provisions following this decision. We do not want this to happen in Australia. You only have to look at what could happen in Australia, where we have farmers who wish to grow organic crops; we have farmers who do not wish to grow genetically modified organisms. This law could threaten our ability to make laws to protect farmers from GMO crops, and the Steve Marsh case from Western Australia is a very good example.

You can easily foresee a situation where Monsanto brings a case against Australia if we bring in laws that protect farmers such as Steve Marsh from contamination or, for example, put in place strict liability laws or labelling laws around genetically modified organisms so that people know what food they are eating and can make a choice between genetically modified organisms and organic food. These ISDS provisions could enable US corporations to bring action against not only Australia for some of those other circumstances and impact on growers but also consumers who wish to make decisions about what they eat. This potentially could extend to taking that control away.

I would like to quickly look at food security in the south-west of WA. In the south-west of WA we are being significantly impacted on by climate change already. People are having to make choices about what they wish to grow, and they are looking at those markets which are clean and green. They are looking at the markets that do not want to be consuming genetically modified organisms. They want to capitalise on those markets. So they are starting to make decisions about what they grow and in what circumstances. Again, these particular provisions could significantly impact on their choices about what they grow.

ISDS provisions could also limit farmers' rights with regard to stopping fracking on their land. For example, there are disputes in Canada where investors are challenging measures that were introduced on environmental grounds. One, a claim by Lone Pine Resources, arose out of Quebec's moratorium on hydraulic fracturing or fracking that led to the revocation of the company's gas exploration permits. The ISDS litigation concerning mining has steadily increased over the past decade. OceanaGold, an Australian company, currently has a subsidiary that is suing the El Salvadorian government through ISDS provisions for more than $300 million, almost half the government's annual budget, over the government's refusal to grant a goldmining permit. Do we want that happening in this country?

This bill should be passed to protect the interests of Australian farmers and the Australian community and to make sure we have the ability to make decisions that are in this country's, our people's, our farmers' and our consumers' best interests. Going down the path, in this modern age, of supporting ISDS provisions facilitates global companies, multinational companies, taking over the decision making of the country. If they can bring litigation against environmental standards, provisions that protect our food sovereignty and our decision making on where we choose to mine, we are handing over decision making to unelected, transnational, multinational companies. We do not believe Australians want that. We believe they want those decisions to remain with Australia. We think this is a sensible road to take. We urge the Senate to pass this legislation.