❓ Hon Giz Watson asks about GM canola contamination, and Hon Kim Chance responds, detailing testing procedures and expressing concern over the lack of a robust legal framework to address liability issues related to GM technology.
AnsweredQoN 507Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Given the recent report of contamination of genetically modified canola in Western Australia, what is the minister doing to establish the source of contamination? (2) What are the penalties if the source of the contamination is identified? (3) Can the minister assure the house that no further contamination will occur? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Giz Watson for her question without notice. (1) The initial information we received that there may have been contamination in the Australian canola crop came from Victoria when, using the technology available at the time, it was indicated that there was the possibility of a level of contamination by a specific GM construct of canola at a level of 0.01 per cent. That obviously caused concern. It raised concerns by our grain handler and marketer in Western Australia that the conditions in Victoria probably also existed in WA, and we needed to test our own canola in store. That test was carried out by Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd’s grain pool. CBH tested 12 representative samples in store, which basically covered samples from across the state. My understanding is that the same testing technology that was used in Victoria gave a similar result; that is, some of those 12 samples - I think three - indicated that there may have been a trace. Whilst this testing technology is fast and useful, it is slightly unreliable. It can let one know that there is cause for concern, but it cannot confirm the presence, particularly at those very low levels. Unfortunately, it is also prone to throw false positive results. I presume the Victorians did the same thing, but that does not relate to the honourable member’s question. As a result of that, CBH went to the next level of investigation, which is an expensive and more time-consuming process, but is less likely to throw false positives and is overall more reliable. This is where I am in a bit of difficulty: I understand that CBH will be making a statement on Friday of this week about the results from that more rigorous testing, so I should not pre-empt its announcement. I have had discussions with CBH on the first tranche of results it received from that more rigorous testing. CBH was awaiting a second tranche and that is why it will not be making a statement until later this week when it receives those results. I cannot comment further. (2)-(3) As to penalties, I have said in relation to the commercial release of GM organisms in Western Australia that one of the limitations on a decision of this type is a lack of confidence by farmers and the general community that we have a sufficiently robust legal framework to handle the introduction of this organism. While the issue in Victoria, and possibly in WA, raised awareness about reliability, it has been a matter of discussion for some years now and it has concerned me. I have put the view that even the proponents of GM technology should support a more robust legal framework, because I do not think any responsible government could possibly accept responsibility for the introduction of this technology unless it was satisfied that there was a proper legal liability framework around GM technology. Frankly, when the Grains Council of Australia and others say that there is plenty of liability law and, when that is lacking, people can go to common law, they are living in a fool’s paradise, and they will never convince any government with any level of responsibility in Australia. It just will not happen. I have heard some scientists, respected in other regards, say that it is no different from spraying crops: spray drift is the same thing as the drift of genetic material. Surprise, surprise: we have very clear statutory law to deal with the spraying of crops. I question whether we should be looking at whether there are deficiencies in our legal framework to address these liability questions. Unfortunately, the answer is there would be no penalty. If it were found that there was an infusion or contamination of our canola sample by a GM construct and if it were assumed that that was done innocently, that is without malice, then there would be no prospect of any penalty at all. That indicates to me, and it should indicate to everybody, that we have gaping holes in our liability laws about how we can handle this technology.
(2) What are the penalties if the source of the contamination is identified? (3) Can the minister assure the house that no further contamination will occur? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for her question without notice. (1) The initial information we received that there may have been contamination in the Australian canola crop came from Victoria when, using the technology available at the time, it was indicated that there was the possibility of a level of contamination by a specific GM construct of canola at a level of 0.01 per cent. That obviously caused concern. It raised concerns by our grain handler and marketer in Western Australia that the conditions in Victoria probably also existed in WA, and we needed to test our own canola in store. That test was carried out by Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd’s grain pool. CBH tested 12 representative samples in store, which basically covered samples from across the state. My understanding is that the same testing technology that was used in Victoria gave a similar result; that is, some of those 12 samples - I think three - indicated that there may have been a trace. Whilst this testing technology is fast and useful, it is slightly unreliable. It can let one know that there is cause for concern, but it cannot confirm the presence, particularly at those very low levels. Unfortunately, it is also prone to throw false positive results. I presume the Victorians did the same thing, but that does not relate to the honourable member’s question. As a result of that, CBH went to the next level of investigation, which is an expensive and more time-consuming process, but is less likely to throw false positives and is overall more reliable. This is where I am in a bit of difficulty: I understand that CBH will be making a statement on Friday of this week about the results from that more rigorous testing, so I should not pre-empt its announcement. I have had discussions with CBH on the first tranche of results it received from that more rigorous testing. CBH was awaiting a second tranche and that is why it will not be making a statement until later this week when it receives those results. I cannot comment further. (2)-(3) As to penalties, I have said in relation to the commercial release of GM organisms in Western Australia that one of the limitations on a decision of this type is a lack of confidence by farmers and the general community that we have a sufficiently robust legal framework to handle the introduction of this organism. While the issue in Victoria, and possibly in WA, raised awareness about reliability, it has been a matter of discussion for some years now and it has concerned me. I have put the view that even the proponents of GM technology should support a more robust legal framework, because I do not think any responsible government could possibly accept responsibility for the introduction of this technology unless it was satisfied that there was a proper legal liability framework around GM technology. Frankly, when the Grains Council of Australia and others say that there is plenty of liability law and, when that is lacking, people can go to common law, they are living in a fool’s paradise, and they will never convince any government with any level of responsibility in Australia. It just will not happen. I have heard some scientists, respected in other regards, say that it is no different from spraying crops: spray drift is the same thing as the drift of genetic material. Surprise, surprise: we have very clear statutory law to deal with the spraying of crops. I question whether we should be looking at whether there are deficiencies in our legal framework to address these liability questions. Unfortunately, the answer is there would be no penalty. If it were found that there was an infusion or contamination of our canola sample by a GM construct and if it were assumed that that was done innocently, that is without malice, then there would be no prospect of any penalty at all. That indicates to me, and it should indicate to everybody, that we have gaping holes in our liability laws about how we can handle this technology.
(3) Can the minister assure the house that no further contamination will occur? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for her question without notice. (1) The initial information we received that there may have been contamination in the Australian canola crop came from Victoria when, using the technology available at the time, it was indicated that there was the possibility of a level of contamination by a specific GM construct of canola at a level of 0.01 per cent. That obviously caused concern. It raised concerns by our grain handler and marketer in Western Australia that the conditions in Victoria probably also existed in WA, and we needed to test our own canola in store. That test was carried out by Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd’s grain pool. CBH tested 12 representative samples in store, which basically covered samples from across the state. My understanding is that the same testing technology that was used in Victoria gave a similar result; that is, some of those 12 samples - I think three - indicated that there may have been a trace. Whilst this testing technology is fast and useful, it is slightly unreliable. It can let one know that there is cause for concern, but it cannot confirm the presence, particularly at those very low levels. Unfortunately, it is also prone to throw false positive results. I presume the Victorians did the same thing, but that does not relate to the honourable member’s question. As a result of that, CBH went to the next level of investigation, which is an expensive and more time-consuming process, but is less likely to throw false positives and is overall more reliable. This is where I am in a bit of difficulty: I understand that CBH will be making a statement on Friday of this week about the results from that more rigorous testing, so I should not pre-empt its announcement. I have had discussions with CBH on the first tranche of results it received from that more rigorous testing. CBH was awaiting a second tranche and that is why it will not be making a statement until later this week when it receives those results. I cannot comment further. (2)-(3) As to penalties, I have said in relation to the commercial release of GM organisms in Western Australia that one of the limitations on a decision of this type is a lack of confidence by farmers and the general community that we have a sufficiently robust legal framework to handle the introduction of this organism. While the issue in Victoria, and possibly in WA, raised awareness about reliability, it has been a matter of discussion for some years now and it has concerned me. I have put the view that even the proponents of GM technology should support a more robust legal framework, because I do not think any responsible government could possibly accept responsibility for the introduction of this technology unless it was satisfied that there was a proper legal liability framework around GM technology. Frankly, when the Grains Council of Australia and others say that there is plenty of liability law and, when that is lacking, people can go to common law, they are living in a fool’s paradise, and they will never convince any government with any level of responsibility in Australia. It just will not happen. I have heard some scientists, respected in other regards, say that it is no different from spraying crops: spray drift is the same thing as the drift of genetic material. Surprise, surprise: we have very clear statutory law to deal with the spraying of crops. I question whether we should be looking at whether there are deficiencies in our legal framework to address these liability questions. Unfortunately, the answer is there would be no penalty. If it were found that there was an infusion or contamination of our canola sample by a GM construct and if it were assumed that that was done innocently, that is without malice, then there would be no prospect of any penalty at all. That indicates to me, and it should indicate to everybody, that we have gaping holes in our liability laws about how we can handle this technology.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for her question without notice. (1) The initial information we received that there may have been contamination in the Australian canola crop came from Victoria when, using the technology available at the time, it was indicated that there was the possibility of a level of contamination by a specific GM construct of canola at a level of 0.01 per cent. That obviously caused concern. It raised concerns by our grain handler and marketer in Western Australia that the conditions in Victoria probably also existed in WA, and we needed to test our own canola in store. That test was carried out by Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd’s grain pool. CBH tested 12 representative samples in store, which basically covered samples from across the state. My understanding is that the same testing technology that was used in Victoria gave a similar result; that is, some of those 12 samples - I think three - indicated that there may have been a trace. Whilst this testing technology is fast and useful, it is slightly unreliable. It can let one know that there is cause for concern, but it cannot confirm the presence, particularly at those very low levels. Unfortunately, it is also prone to throw false positive results. I presume the Victorians did the same thing, but that does not relate to the honourable member’s question. As a result of that, CBH went to the next level of investigation, which is an expensive and more time-consuming process, but is less likely to throw false positives and is overall more reliable. This is where I am in a bit of difficulty: I understand that CBH will be making a statement on Friday of this week about the results from that more rigorous testing, so I should not pre-empt its announcement. I have had discussions with CBH on the first tranche of results it received from that more rigorous testing. CBH was awaiting a second tranche and that is why it will not be making a statement until later this week when it receives those results. I cannot comment further. (2)-(3) As to penalties, I have said in relation to the commercial release of GM organisms in Western Australia that one of the limitations on a decision of this type is a lack of confidence by farmers and the general community that we have a sufficiently robust legal framework to handle the introduction of this organism. While the issue in Victoria, and possibly in WA, raised awareness about reliability, it has been a matter of discussion for some years now and it has concerned me. I have put the view that even the proponents of GM technology should support a more robust legal framework, because I do not think any responsible government could possibly accept responsibility for the introduction of this technology unless it was satisfied that there was a proper legal liability framework around GM technology. Frankly, when the Grains Council of Australia and others say that there is plenty of liability law and, when that is lacking, people can go to common law, they are living in a fool’s paradise, and they will never convince any government with any level of responsibility in Australia. It just will not happen. I have heard some scientists, respected in other regards, say that it is no different from spraying crops: spray drift is the same thing as the drift of genetic material. Surprise, surprise: we have very clear statutory law to deal with the spraying of crops. I question whether we should be looking at whether there are deficiencies in our legal framework to address these liability questions. Unfortunately, the answer is there would be no penalty. If it were found that there was an infusion or contamination of our canola sample by a GM construct and if it were assumed that that was done innocently, that is without malice, then there would be no prospect of any penalty at all. That indicates to me, and it should indicate to everybody, that we have gaping holes in our liability laws about how we can handle this technology.
I thank Hon Giz Watson for her question without notice. (1) The initial information we received that there may have been contamination in the Australian canola crop came from Victoria when, using the technology available at the time, it was indicated that there was the possibility of a level of contamination by a specific GM construct of canola at a level of 0.01 per cent. That obviously caused concern. It raised concerns by our grain handler and marketer in Western Australia that the conditions in Victoria probably also existed in WA, and we needed to test our own canola in store. That test was carried out by Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd’s grain pool. CBH tested 12 representative samples in store, which basically covered samples from across the state. My understanding is that the same testing technology that was used in Victoria gave a similar result; that is, some of those 12 samples - I think three - indicated that there may have been a trace. Whilst this testing technology is fast and useful, it is slightly unreliable. It can let one know that there is cause for concern, but it cannot confirm the presence, particularly at those very low levels. Unfortunately, it is also prone to throw false positive results. I presume the Victorians did the same thing, but that does not relate to the honourable member’s question. As a result of that, CBH went to the next level of investigation, which is an expensive and more time-consuming process, but is less likely to throw false positives and is overall more reliable. This is where I am in a bit of difficulty: I understand that CBH will be making a statement on Friday of this week about the results from that more rigorous testing, so I should not pre-empt its announcement. I have had discussions with CBH on the first tranche of results it received from that more rigorous testing. CBH was awaiting a second tranche and that is why it will not be making a statement until later this week when it receives those results. I cannot comment further. (2)-(3) As to penalties, I have said in relation to the commercial release of GM organisms in Western Australia that one of the limitations on a decision of this type is a lack of confidence by farmers and the general community that we have a sufficiently robust legal framework to handle the introduction of this organism. While the issue in Victoria, and possibly in WA, raised awareness about reliability, it has been a matter of discussion for some years now and it has concerned me. I have put the view that even the proponents of GM technology should support a more robust legal framework, because I do not think any responsible government could possibly accept responsibility for the introduction of this technology unless it was satisfied that there was a proper legal liability framework around GM technology. Frankly, when the Grains Council of Australia and others say that there is plenty of liability law and, when that is lacking, people can go to common law, they are living in a fool’s paradise, and they will never convince any government with any level of responsibility in Australia. It just will not happen. I have heard some scientists, respected in other regards, say that it is no different from spraying crops: spray drift is the same thing as the drift of genetic material. Surprise, surprise: we have very clear statutory law to deal with the spraying of crops. I question whether we should be looking at whether there are deficiencies in our legal framework to address these liability questions. Unfortunately, the answer is there would be no penalty. If it were found that there was an infusion or contamination of our canola sample by a GM construct and if it were assumed that that was done innocently, that is without malice, then there would be no prospect of any penalty at all. That indicates to me, and it should indicate to everybody, that we have gaping holes in our liability laws about how we can handle this technology.
(1) The initial information we received that there may have been contamination in the Australian canola crop came from Victoria when, using the technology available at the time, it was indicated that there was the possibility of a level of contamination by a specific GM construct of canola at a level of 0.01 per cent. That obviously caused concern. It raised concerns by our grain handler and marketer in Western Australia that the conditions in Victoria probably also existed in WA, and we needed to test our own canola in store. That test was carried out by Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd’s grain pool. CBH tested 12 representative samples in store, which basically covered samples from across the state. My understanding is that the same testing technology that was used in Victoria gave a similar result; that is, some of those 12 samples - I think three - indicated that there may have been a trace. Whilst this testing technology is fast and useful, it is slightly unreliable. It can let one know that there is cause for concern, but it cannot confirm the presence, particularly at those very low levels. Unfortunately, it is also prone to throw false positive results. I presume the Victorians did the same thing, but that does not relate to the honourable member’s question. As a result of that, CBH went to the next level of investigation, which is an expensive and more time-consuming process, but is less likely to throw false positives and is overall more reliable. This is where I am in a bit of difficulty: I understand that CBH will be making a statement on Friday of this week about the results from that more rigorous testing, so I should not pre-empt its announcement. I have had discussions with CBH on the first tranche of results it received from that more rigorous testing. CBH was awaiting a second tranche and that is why it will not be making a statement until later this week when it receives those results. I cannot comment further. (2)-(3) As to penalties, I have said in relation to the commercial release of GM organisms in Western Australia that one of the limitations on a decision of this type is a lack of confidence by farmers and the general community that we have a sufficiently robust legal framework to handle the introduction of this organism. While the issue in Victoria, and possibly in WA, raised awareness about reliability, it has been a matter of discussion for some years now and it has concerned me. I have put the view that even the proponents of GM technology should support a more robust legal framework, because I do not think any responsible government could possibly accept responsibility for the introduction of this technology unless it was satisfied that there was a proper legal liability framework around GM technology. Frankly, when the Grains Council of Australia and others say that there is plenty of liability law and, when that is lacking, people can go to common law, they are living in a fool’s paradise, and they will never convince any government with any level of responsibility in Australia. It just will not happen. I have heard some scientists, respected in other regards, say that it is no different from spraying crops: spray drift is the same thing as the drift of genetic material. Surprise, surprise: we have very clear statutory law to deal with the spraying of crops. I question whether we should be looking at whether there are deficiencies in our legal framework to address these liability questions. Unfortunately, the answer is there would be no penalty. If it were found that there was an infusion or contamination of our canola sample by a GM construct and if it were assumed that that was done innocently, that is without malice, then there would be no prospect of any penalty at all. That indicates to me, and it should indicate to everybody, that we have gaping holes in our liability laws about how we can handle this technology.
(2)-(3) As to penalties, I have said in relation to the commercial release of GM organisms in Western Australia that one of the limitations on a decision of this type is a lack of confidence by farmers and the general community that we have a sufficiently robust legal framework to handle the introduction of this organism. While the issue in Victoria, and possibly in WA, raised awareness about reliability, it has been a matter of discussion for some years now and it has concerned me. I have put the view that even the proponents of GM technology should support a more robust legal framework, because I do not think any responsible government could possibly accept responsibility for the introduction of this technology unless it was satisfied that there was a proper legal liability framework around GM technology. Frankly, when the Grains Council of Australia and others say that there is plenty of liability law and, when that is lacking, people can go to common law, they are living in a fool’s paradise, and they will never convince any government with any level of responsibility in Australia. It just will not happen. I have heard some scientists, respected in other regards, say that it is no different from spraying crops: spray drift is the same thing as the drift of genetic material. Surprise, surprise: we have very clear statutory law to deal with the spraying of crops. I question whether we should be looking at whether there are deficiencies in our legal framework to address these liability questions. Unfortunately, the answer is there would be no penalty. If it were found that there was an infusion or contamination of our canola sample by a GM construct and if it were assumed that that was done innocently, that is without malice, then there would be no prospect of any penalty at all. That indicates to me, and it should indicate to everybody, that we have gaping holes in our liability laws about how we can handle this technology.
(2) What are the penalties if the source of the contamination is identified? (3) Can the minister assure the house that no further contamination will occur? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for her question without notice. (1) The initial information we received that there may have been contamination in the Australian canola crop came from Victoria when, using the technology available at the time, it was indicated that there was the possibility of a level of contamination by a specific GM construct of canola at a level of 0.01 per cent. That obviously caused concern. It raised concerns by our grain handler and marketer in Western Australia that the conditions in Victoria probably also existed in WA, and we needed to test our own canola in store. That test was carried out by Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd’s grain pool. CBH tested 12 representative samples in store, which basically covered samples from across the state. My understanding is that the same testing technology that was used in Victoria gave a similar result; that is, some of those 12 samples - I think three - indicated that there may have been a trace. Whilst this testing technology is fast and useful, it is slightly unreliable. It can let one know that there is cause for concern, but it cannot confirm the presence, particularly at those very low levels. Unfortunately, it is also prone to throw false positive results. I presume the Victorians did the same thing, but that does not relate to the honourable member’s question. As a result of that, CBH went to the next level of investigation, which is an expensive and more time-consuming process, but is less likely to throw false positives and is overall more reliable. This is where I am in a bit of difficulty: I understand that CBH will be making a statement on Friday of this week about the results from that more rigorous testing, so I should not pre-empt its announcement. I have had discussions with CBH on the first tranche of results it received from that more rigorous testing. CBH was awaiting a second tranche and that is why it will not be making a statement until later this week when it receives those results. I cannot comment further. (2)-(3) As to penalties, I have said in relation to the commercial release of GM organisms in Western Australia that one of the limitations on a decision of this type is a lack of confidence by farmers and the general community that we have a sufficiently robust legal framework to handle the introduction of this organism. While the issue in Victoria, and possibly in WA, raised awareness about reliability, it has been a matter of discussion for some years now and it has concerned me. I have put the view that even the proponents of GM technology should support a more robust legal framework, because I do not think any responsible government could possibly accept responsibility for the introduction of this technology unless it was satisfied that there was a proper legal liability framework around GM technology. Frankly, when the Grains Council of Australia and others say that there is plenty of liability law and, when that is lacking, people can go to common law, they are living in a fool’s paradise, and they will never convince any government with any level of responsibility in Australia. It just will not happen. I have heard some scientists, respected in other regards, say that it is no different from spraying crops: spray drift is the same thing as the drift of genetic material. Surprise, surprise: we have very clear statutory law to deal with the spraying of crops. I question whether we should be looking at whether there are deficiencies in our legal framework to address these liability questions. Unfortunately, the answer is there would be no penalty. If it were found that there was an infusion or contamination of our canola sample by a GM construct and if it were assumed that that was done innocently, that is without malice, then there would be no prospect of any penalty at all. That indicates to me, and it should indicate to everybody, that we have gaping holes in our liability laws about how we can handle this technology.
(3) Can the minister assure the house that no further contamination will occur? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for her question without notice. (1) The initial information we received that there may have been contamination in the Australian canola crop came from Victoria when, using the technology available at the time, it was indicated that there was the possibility of a level of contamination by a specific GM construct of canola at a level of 0.01 per cent. That obviously caused concern. It raised concerns by our grain handler and marketer in Western Australia that the conditions in Victoria probably also existed in WA, and we needed to test our own canola in store. That test was carried out by Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd’s grain pool. CBH tested 12 representative samples in store, which basically covered samples from across the state. My understanding is that the same testing technology that was used in Victoria gave a similar result; that is, some of those 12 samples - I think three - indicated that there may have been a trace. Whilst this testing technology is fast and useful, it is slightly unreliable. It can let one know that there is cause for concern, but it cannot confirm the presence, particularly at those very low levels. Unfortunately, it is also prone to throw false positive results. I presume the Victorians did the same thing, but that does not relate to the honourable member’s question. As a result of that, CBH went to the next level of investigation, which is an expensive and more time-consuming process, but is less likely to throw false positives and is overall more reliable. This is where I am in a bit of difficulty: I understand that CBH will be making a statement on Friday of this week about the results from that more rigorous testing, so I should not pre-empt its announcement. I have had discussions with CBH on the first tranche of results it received from that more rigorous testing. CBH was awaiting a second tranche and that is why it will not be making a statement until later this week when it receives those results. I cannot comment further. (2)-(3) As to penalties, I have said in relation to the commercial release of GM organisms in Western Australia that one of the limitations on a decision of this type is a lack of confidence by farmers and the general community that we have a sufficiently robust legal framework to handle the introduction of this organism. While the issue in Victoria, and possibly in WA, raised awareness about reliability, it has been a matter of discussion for some years now and it has concerned me. I have put the view that even the proponents of GM technology should support a more robust legal framework, because I do not think any responsible government could possibly accept responsibility for the introduction of this technology unless it was satisfied that there was a proper legal liability framework around GM technology. Frankly, when the Grains Council of Australia and others say that there is plenty of liability law and, when that is lacking, people can go to common law, they are living in a fool’s paradise, and they will never convince any government with any level of responsibility in Australia. It just will not happen. I have heard some scientists, respected in other regards, say that it is no different from spraying crops: spray drift is the same thing as the drift of genetic material. Surprise, surprise: we have very clear statutory law to deal with the spraying of crops. I question whether we should be looking at whether there are deficiencies in our legal framework to address these liability questions. Unfortunately, the answer is there would be no penalty. If it were found that there was an infusion or contamination of our canola sample by a GM construct and if it were assumed that that was done innocently, that is without malice, then there would be no prospect of any penalty at all. That indicates to me, and it should indicate to everybody, that we have gaping holes in our liability laws about how we can handle this technology.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for her question without notice. (1) The initial information we received that there may have been contamination in the Australian canola crop came from Victoria when, using the technology available at the time, it was indicated that there was the possibility of a level of contamination by a specific GM construct of canola at a level of 0.01 per cent. That obviously caused concern. It raised concerns by our grain handler and marketer in Western Australia that the conditions in Victoria probably also existed in WA, and we needed to test our own canola in store. That test was carried out by Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd’s grain pool. CBH tested 12 representative samples in store, which basically covered samples from across the state. My understanding is that the same testing technology that was used in Victoria gave a similar result; that is, some of those 12 samples - I think three - indicated that there may have been a trace. Whilst this testing technology is fast and useful, it is slightly unreliable. It can let one know that there is cause for concern, but it cannot confirm the presence, particularly at those very low levels. Unfortunately, it is also prone to throw false positive results. I presume the Victorians did the same thing, but that does not relate to the honourable member’s question. As a result of that, CBH went to the next level of investigation, which is an expensive and more time-consuming process, but is less likely to throw false positives and is overall more reliable. This is where I am in a bit of difficulty: I understand that CBH will be making a statement on Friday of this week about the results from that more rigorous testing, so I should not pre-empt its announcement. I have had discussions with CBH on the first tranche of results it received from that more rigorous testing. CBH was awaiting a second tranche and that is why it will not be making a statement until later this week when it receives those results. I cannot comment further. (2)-(3) As to penalties, I have said in relation to the commercial release of GM organisms in Western Australia that one of the limitations on a decision of this type is a lack of confidence by farmers and the general community that we have a sufficiently robust legal framework to handle the introduction of this organism. While the issue in Victoria, and possibly in WA, raised awareness about reliability, it has been a matter of discussion for some years now and it has concerned me. I have put the view that even the proponents of GM technology should support a more robust legal framework, because I do not think any responsible government could possibly accept responsibility for the introduction of this technology unless it was satisfied that there was a proper legal liability framework around GM technology. Frankly, when the Grains Council of Australia and others say that there is plenty of liability law and, when that is lacking, people can go to common law, they are living in a fool’s paradise, and they will never convince any government with any level of responsibility in Australia. It just will not happen. I have heard some scientists, respected in other regards, say that it is no different from spraying crops: spray drift is the same thing as the drift of genetic material. Surprise, surprise: we have very clear statutory law to deal with the spraying of crops. I question whether we should be looking at whether there are deficiencies in our legal framework to address these liability questions. Unfortunately, the answer is there would be no penalty. If it were found that there was an infusion or contamination of our canola sample by a GM construct and if it were assumed that that was done innocently, that is without malice, then there would be no prospect of any penalty at all. That indicates to me, and it should indicate to everybody, that we have gaping holes in our liability laws about how we can handle this technology.
I thank Hon Giz Watson for her question without notice. (1) The initial information we received that there may have been contamination in the Australian canola crop came from Victoria when, using the technology available at the time, it was indicated that there was the possibility of a level of contamination by a specific GM construct of canola at a level of 0.01 per cent. That obviously caused concern. It raised concerns by our grain handler and marketer in Western Australia that the conditions in Victoria probably also existed in WA, and we needed to test our own canola in store. That test was carried out by Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd’s grain pool. CBH tested 12 representative samples in store, which basically covered samples from across the state. My understanding is that the same testing technology that was used in Victoria gave a similar result; that is, some of those 12 samples - I think three - indicated that there may have been a trace. Whilst this testing technology is fast and useful, it is slightly unreliable. It can let one know that there is cause for concern, but it cannot confirm the presence, particularly at those very low levels. Unfortunately, it is also prone to throw false positive results. I presume the Victorians did the same thing, but that does not relate to the honourable member’s question. As a result of that, CBH went to the next level of investigation, which is an expensive and more time-consuming process, but is less likely to throw false positives and is overall more reliable. This is where I am in a bit of difficulty: I understand that CBH will be making a statement on Friday of this week about the results from that more rigorous testing, so I should not pre-empt its announcement. I have had discussions with CBH on the first tranche of results it received from that more rigorous testing. CBH was awaiting a second tranche and that is why it will not be making a statement until later this week when it receives those results. I cannot comment further. (2)-(3) As to penalties, I have said in relation to the commercial release of GM organisms in Western Australia that one of the limitations on a decision of this type is a lack of confidence by farmers and the general community that we have a sufficiently robust legal framework to handle the introduction of this organism. While the issue in Victoria, and possibly in WA, raised awareness about reliability, it has been a matter of discussion for some years now and it has concerned me. I have put the view that even the proponents of GM technology should support a more robust legal framework, because I do not think any responsible government could possibly accept responsibility for the introduction of this technology unless it was satisfied that there was a proper legal liability framework around GM technology. Frankly, when the Grains Council of Australia and others say that there is plenty of liability law and, when that is lacking, people can go to common law, they are living in a fool’s paradise, and they will never convince any government with any level of responsibility in Australia. It just will not happen. I have heard some scientists, respected in other regards, say that it is no different from spraying crops: spray drift is the same thing as the drift of genetic material. Surprise, surprise: we have very clear statutory law to deal with the spraying of crops. I question whether we should be looking at whether there are deficiencies in our legal framework to address these liability questions. Unfortunately, the answer is there would be no penalty. If it were found that there was an infusion or contamination of our canola sample by a GM construct and if it were assumed that that was done innocently, that is without malice, then there would be no prospect of any penalty at all. That indicates to me, and it should indicate to everybody, that we have gaping holes in our liability laws about how we can handle this technology.
(1) The initial information we received that there may have been contamination in the Australian canola crop came from Victoria when, using the technology available at the time, it was indicated that there was the possibility of a level of contamination by a specific GM construct of canola at a level of 0.01 per cent. That obviously caused concern. It raised concerns by our grain handler and marketer in Western Australia that the conditions in Victoria probably also existed in WA, and we needed to test our own canola in store. That test was carried out by Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd’s grain pool. CBH tested 12 representative samples in store, which basically covered samples from across the state. My understanding is that the same testing technology that was used in Victoria gave a similar result; that is, some of those 12 samples - I think three - indicated that there may have been a trace. Whilst this testing technology is fast and useful, it is slightly unreliable. It can let one know that there is cause for concern, but it cannot confirm the presence, particularly at those very low levels. Unfortunately, it is also prone to throw false positive results. I presume the Victorians did the same thing, but that does not relate to the honourable member’s question. As a result of that, CBH went to the next level of investigation, which is an expensive and more time-consuming process, but is less likely to throw false positives and is overall more reliable. This is where I am in a bit of difficulty: I understand that CBH will be making a statement on Friday of this week about the results from that more rigorous testing, so I should not pre-empt its announcement. I have had discussions with CBH on the first tranche of results it received from that more rigorous testing. CBH was awaiting a second tranche and that is why it will not be making a statement until later this week when it receives those results. I cannot comment further. (2)-(3) As to penalties, I have said in relation to the commercial release of GM organisms in Western Australia that one of the limitations on a decision of this type is a lack of confidence by farmers and the general community that we have a sufficiently robust legal framework to handle the introduction of this organism. While the issue in Victoria, and possibly in WA, raised awareness about reliability, it has been a matter of discussion for some years now and it has concerned me. I have put the view that even the proponents of GM technology should support a more robust legal framework, because I do not think any responsible government could possibly accept responsibility for the introduction of this technology unless it was satisfied that there was a proper legal liability framework around GM technology. Frankly, when the Grains Council of Australia and others say that there is plenty of liability law and, when that is lacking, people can go to common law, they are living in a fool’s paradise, and they will never convince any government with any level of responsibility in Australia. It just will not happen. I have heard some scientists, respected in other regards, say that it is no different from spraying crops: spray drift is the same thing as the drift of genetic material. Surprise, surprise: we have very clear statutory law to deal with the spraying of crops. I question whether we should be looking at whether there are deficiencies in our legal framework to address these liability questions. Unfortunately, the answer is there would be no penalty. If it were found that there was an infusion or contamination of our canola sample by a GM construct and if it were assumed that that was done innocently, that is without malice, then there would be no prospect of any penalty at all. That indicates to me, and it should indicate to everybody, that we have gaping holes in our liability laws about how we can handle this technology.
(2)-(3) As to penalties, I have said in relation to the commercial release of GM organisms in Western Australia that one of the limitations on a decision of this type is a lack of confidence by farmers and the general community that we have a sufficiently robust legal framework to handle the introduction of this organism. While the issue in Victoria, and possibly in WA, raised awareness about reliability, it has been a matter of discussion for some years now and it has concerned me. I have put the view that even the proponents of GM technology should support a more robust legal framework, because I do not think any responsible government could possibly accept responsibility for the introduction of this technology unless it was satisfied that there was a proper legal liability framework around GM technology. Frankly, when the Grains Council of Australia and others say that there is plenty of liability law and, when that is lacking, people can go to common law, they are living in a fool’s paradise, and they will never convince any government with any level of responsibility in Australia. It just will not happen. I have heard some scientists, respected in other regards, say that it is no different from spraying crops: spray drift is the same thing as the drift of genetic material. Surprise, surprise: we have very clear statutory law to deal with the spraying of crops. I question whether we should be looking at whether there are deficiencies in our legal framework to address these liability questions. Unfortunately, the answer is there would be no penalty. If it were found that there was an infusion or contamination of our canola sample by a GM construct and if it were assumed that that was done innocently, that is without malice, then there would be no prospect of any penalty at all. That indicates to me, and it should indicate to everybody, that we have gaping holes in our liability laws about how we can handle this technology.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.