❓ A parliamentary question regarding the WA government's stance on genetically modified (GM) canola, specifically concerning its potential use as a biofuel crop and the environmental impact of reduced herbicide applications. The Minister defends the moratorium, citing concerns about contamination and legal frameworks.
AnsweredQoN 1254Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
GENETICALLY MODIFIED CANOLA
I refer to the decision of the governments of Victoria and New South Wales to lift their moratoria on genetically modified canola following the findings of the state government-appointed panel headed by eminent scientist Gustav Nossal. (1) Will the minister finally admit that the government’s opposition to GM canola is not evidence based? (2) Will the minister concede that there is an opportunity for GM canola to be purpose grown as a biofuel crop without impacting our export markets or our consumers? (3) Will the minister concede that reduced harmful herbicide applications for GM canola would have a positive environmental impact when used as a strategic weed management tool? Hon KIM CHANCE
I refer to the decision of the governments of Victoria and New South Wales to lift their moratoria on genetically modified canola following the findings of the state government-appointed panel headed by eminent scientist Gustav Nossal. (1) Will the minister finally admit that the government’s opposition to GM canola is not evidence based? (2) Will the minister concede that there is an opportunity for GM canola to be purpose grown as a biofuel crop without impacting our export markets or our consumers? (3) Will the minister concede that reduced harmful herbicide applications for GM canola would have a positive environmental impact when used as a strategic weed management tool? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his question. I do note that New South Wales and then later Victoria have announced their decisions to lift the moratoria on GM crop production that existed to varying extent in those two states. I think the moratorium in Victoria applied to canola only, whereas in New South Wales it applied to all food crops but not cotton. New South Wales was already a GM state. (1) The first question asked whether I concede that the Western Australian position and, indeed, the position shared by the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory - in other words, the majority of jurisdictions around Australia - is not evidence based. No, I do not. The moratorium is justified in this jurisdiction, and I believe in the others from the comments that I have heard from them, on the basis that this jurisdiction and the others are seeking to buy a little time to try to learn more about the technology. It frightens me when politicians confuse rashness with leadership. The New South Wales government did two things at the same time. First, it advised that it intended to lift the moratorium. I think the effective date for the lifting is 29 February next year. In the same legislation that lifts the moratorium, it advised that it will establish an expert committee. The expert committee will provide advice to the government to determine whether segregation of GM and non-GM lines is possible. What happens if the answer is no? What happens if the expert committee says, “No, we wouldn’t do that” and it has already been done? This is the absurdity of it. Why would that question not be resolved first? Why would the NSW government not resolve the question of legal issues? Hon Norman Moore : That’s what we’ve been saying in here for the past two weeks, and you did nothing about it. Hon KIM CHANCE : I wish my comrades in New South Wales had been listening to the arguments because they may have learnt something. In terms of the legal issues, how is the state of New South Wales, or the state of Victoria for that matter, proposing to deal with the issues when one farmer sues his neighbour for the contamination and economic damage that is caused? What will happen then? We have certainly asked that question of the federal government, and it said it had taken legal advice on it and the legal advice was that the common law can look after that. That is amazing. The common law can look after a question as complex as genetic modification but when it comes to something as simple as the use of agricultural chemicals, we need a veritable mountain of statutory law. Why do we not rely on the common law for chemical use? It is an absurd proposition. This country is not ready for GM. It does not have the legal frameworks in place. Setting aside all the other arguments from the point of view of public administrative processes, we are not ready. Hon Ken Travers : We wouldn’t need the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act. We could just rely on the common law. Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, we could rely on the common law. Why do we need road traffic legislation? We can rely on the common law. (2) Do I believe there is opportunity for GM canola in biofuels? Yes, there probably is. There are probably opportunities for a range of industrial plants for the biofuel industry but GM canola carries with it all those same issues, being an open pollinator. As an open pollinator, it will pollinate crops alongside where that particular crop is grown. How big a buffer zone do we need? We already know that open pollination in canola goes out to 3 000 metres. That is a serious issue if someone is growing a food consumption crop alongside. How will we deal with that? It might be possible; I do not know. A range of crops provide opportunities for biofuel. It is not necessary for those crops to be defined by their GM and non-GM base. A whole range of crops are suitable. Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
(1) Will the minister finally admit that the government’s opposition to GM canola is not evidence based? (2) Will the minister concede that there is an opportunity for GM canola to be purpose grown as a biofuel crop without impacting our export markets or our consumers? (3) Will the minister concede that reduced harmful herbicide applications for GM canola would have a positive environmental impact when used as a strategic weed management tool? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his question. I do note that New South Wales and then later Victoria have announced their decisions to lift the moratoria on GM crop production that existed to varying extent in those two states. I think the moratorium in Victoria applied to canola only, whereas in New South Wales it applied to all food crops but not cotton. New South Wales was already a GM state. (1) The first question asked whether I concede that the Western Australian position and, indeed, the position shared by the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory - in other words, the majority of jurisdictions around Australia - is not evidence based. No, I do not. The moratorium is justified in this jurisdiction, and I believe in the others from the comments that I have heard from them, on the basis that this jurisdiction and the others are seeking to buy a little time to try to learn more about the technology. It frightens me when politicians confuse rashness with leadership. The New South Wales government did two things at the same time. First, it advised that it intended to lift the moratorium. I think the effective date for the lifting is 29 February next year. In the same legislation that lifts the moratorium, it advised that it will establish an expert committee. The expert committee will provide advice to the government to determine whether segregation of GM and non-GM lines is possible. What happens if the answer is no? What happens if the expert committee says, “No, we wouldn’t do that” and it has already been done? This is the absurdity of it. Why would that question not be resolved first? Why would the NSW government not resolve the question of legal issues? Hon Norman Moore : That’s what we’ve been saying in here for the past two weeks, and you did nothing about it. Hon KIM CHANCE : I wish my comrades in New South Wales had been listening to the arguments because they may have learnt something. In terms of the legal issues, how is the state of New South Wales, or the state of Victoria for that matter, proposing to deal with the issues when one farmer sues his neighbour for the contamination and economic damage that is caused? What will happen then? We have certainly asked that question of the federal government, and it said it had taken legal advice on it and the legal advice was that the common law can look after that. That is amazing. The common law can look after a question as complex as genetic modification but when it comes to something as simple as the use of agricultural chemicals, we need a veritable mountain of statutory law. Why do we not rely on the common law for chemical use? It is an absurd proposition. This country is not ready for GM. It does not have the legal frameworks in place. Setting aside all the other arguments from the point of view of public administrative processes, we are not ready. Hon Ken Travers : We wouldn’t need the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act. We could just rely on the common law. Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, we could rely on the common law. Why do we need road traffic legislation? We can rely on the common law. (2) Do I believe there is opportunity for GM canola in biofuels? Yes, there probably is. There are probably opportunities for a range of industrial plants for the biofuel industry but GM canola carries with it all those same issues, being an open pollinator. As an open pollinator, it will pollinate crops alongside where that particular crop is grown. How big a buffer zone do we need? We already know that open pollination in canola goes out to 3 000 metres. That is a serious issue if someone is growing a food consumption crop alongside. How will we deal with that? It might be possible; I do not know. A range of crops provide opportunities for biofuel. It is not necessary for those crops to be defined by their GM and non-GM base. A whole range of crops are suitable. Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
(2) Will the minister concede that there is an opportunity for GM canola to be purpose grown as a biofuel crop without impacting our export markets or our consumers? (3) Will the minister concede that reduced harmful herbicide applications for GM canola would have a positive environmental impact when used as a strategic weed management tool? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his question. I do note that New South Wales and then later Victoria have announced their decisions to lift the moratoria on GM crop production that existed to varying extent in those two states. I think the moratorium in Victoria applied to canola only, whereas in New South Wales it applied to all food crops but not cotton. New South Wales was already a GM state. (1) The first question asked whether I concede that the Western Australian position and, indeed, the position shared by the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory - in other words, the majority of jurisdictions around Australia - is not evidence based. No, I do not. The moratorium is justified in this jurisdiction, and I believe in the others from the comments that I have heard from them, on the basis that this jurisdiction and the others are seeking to buy a little time to try to learn more about the technology. It frightens me when politicians confuse rashness with leadership. The New South Wales government did two things at the same time. First, it advised that it intended to lift the moratorium. I think the effective date for the lifting is 29 February next year. In the same legislation that lifts the moratorium, it advised that it will establish an expert committee. The expert committee will provide advice to the government to determine whether segregation of GM and non-GM lines is possible. What happens if the answer is no? What happens if the expert committee says, “No, we wouldn’t do that” and it has already been done? This is the absurdity of it. Why would that question not be resolved first? Why would the NSW government not resolve the question of legal issues? Hon Norman Moore : That’s what we’ve been saying in here for the past two weeks, and you did nothing about it. Hon KIM CHANCE : I wish my comrades in New South Wales had been listening to the arguments because they may have learnt something. In terms of the legal issues, how is the state of New South Wales, or the state of Victoria for that matter, proposing to deal with the issues when one farmer sues his neighbour for the contamination and economic damage that is caused? What will happen then? We have certainly asked that question of the federal government, and it said it had taken legal advice on it and the legal advice was that the common law can look after that. That is amazing. The common law can look after a question as complex as genetic modification but when it comes to something as simple as the use of agricultural chemicals, we need a veritable mountain of statutory law. Why do we not rely on the common law for chemical use? It is an absurd proposition. This country is not ready for GM. It does not have the legal frameworks in place. Setting aside all the other arguments from the point of view of public administrative processes, we are not ready. Hon Ken Travers : We wouldn’t need the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act. We could just rely on the common law. Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, we could rely on the common law. Why do we need road traffic legislation? We can rely on the common law. (2) Do I believe there is opportunity for GM canola in biofuels? Yes, there probably is. There are probably opportunities for a range of industrial plants for the biofuel industry but GM canola carries with it all those same issues, being an open pollinator. As an open pollinator, it will pollinate crops alongside where that particular crop is grown. How big a buffer zone do we need? We already know that open pollination in canola goes out to 3 000 metres. That is a serious issue if someone is growing a food consumption crop alongside. How will we deal with that? It might be possible; I do not know. A range of crops provide opportunities for biofuel. It is not necessary for those crops to be defined by their GM and non-GM base. A whole range of crops are suitable. Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
(3) Will the minister concede that reduced harmful herbicide applications for GM canola would have a positive environmental impact when used as a strategic weed management tool? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his question. I do note that New South Wales and then later Victoria have announced their decisions to lift the moratoria on GM crop production that existed to varying extent in those two states. I think the moratorium in Victoria applied to canola only, whereas in New South Wales it applied to all food crops but not cotton. New South Wales was already a GM state. (1) The first question asked whether I concede that the Western Australian position and, indeed, the position shared by the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory - in other words, the majority of jurisdictions around Australia - is not evidence based. No, I do not. The moratorium is justified in this jurisdiction, and I believe in the others from the comments that I have heard from them, on the basis that this jurisdiction and the others are seeking to buy a little time to try to learn more about the technology. It frightens me when politicians confuse rashness with leadership. The New South Wales government did two things at the same time. First, it advised that it intended to lift the moratorium. I think the effective date for the lifting is 29 February next year. In the same legislation that lifts the moratorium, it advised that it will establish an expert committee. The expert committee will provide advice to the government to determine whether segregation of GM and non-GM lines is possible. What happens if the answer is no? What happens if the expert committee says, “No, we wouldn’t do that” and it has already been done? This is the absurdity of it. Why would that question not be resolved first? Why would the NSW government not resolve the question of legal issues? Hon Norman Moore : That’s what we’ve been saying in here for the past two weeks, and you did nothing about it. Hon KIM CHANCE : I wish my comrades in New South Wales had been listening to the arguments because they may have learnt something. In terms of the legal issues, how is the state of New South Wales, or the state of Victoria for that matter, proposing to deal with the issues when one farmer sues his neighbour for the contamination and economic damage that is caused? What will happen then? We have certainly asked that question of the federal government, and it said it had taken legal advice on it and the legal advice was that the common law can look after that. That is amazing. The common law can look after a question as complex as genetic modification but when it comes to something as simple as the use of agricultural chemicals, we need a veritable mountain of statutory law. Why do we not rely on the common law for chemical use? It is an absurd proposition. This country is not ready for GM. It does not have the legal frameworks in place. Setting aside all the other arguments from the point of view of public administrative processes, we are not ready. Hon Ken Travers : We wouldn’t need the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act. We could just rely on the common law. Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, we could rely on the common law. Why do we need road traffic legislation? We can rely on the common law. (2) Do I believe there is opportunity for GM canola in biofuels? Yes, there probably is. There are probably opportunities for a range of industrial plants for the biofuel industry but GM canola carries with it all those same issues, being an open pollinator. As an open pollinator, it will pollinate crops alongside where that particular crop is grown. How big a buffer zone do we need? We already know that open pollination in canola goes out to 3 000 metres. That is a serious issue if someone is growing a food consumption crop alongside. How will we deal with that? It might be possible; I do not know. A range of crops provide opportunities for biofuel. It is not necessary for those crops to be defined by their GM and non-GM base. A whole range of crops are suitable. Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his question. I do note that New South Wales and then later Victoria have announced their decisions to lift the moratoria on GM crop production that existed to varying extent in those two states. I think the moratorium in Victoria applied to canola only, whereas in New South Wales it applied to all food crops but not cotton. New South Wales was already a GM state. (1) The first question asked whether I concede that the Western Australian position and, indeed, the position shared by the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory - in other words, the majority of jurisdictions around Australia - is not evidence based. No, I do not. The moratorium is justified in this jurisdiction, and I believe in the others from the comments that I have heard from them, on the basis that this jurisdiction and the others are seeking to buy a little time to try to learn more about the technology. It frightens me when politicians confuse rashness with leadership. The New South Wales government did two things at the same time. First, it advised that it intended to lift the moratorium. I think the effective date for the lifting is 29 February next year. In the same legislation that lifts the moratorium, it advised that it will establish an expert committee. The expert committee will provide advice to the government to determine whether segregation of GM and non-GM lines is possible. What happens if the answer is no? What happens if the expert committee says, “No, we wouldn’t do that” and it has already been done? This is the absurdity of it. Why would that question not be resolved first? Why would the NSW government not resolve the question of legal issues? Hon Norman Moore : That’s what we’ve been saying in here for the past two weeks, and you did nothing about it. Hon KIM CHANCE : I wish my comrades in New South Wales had been listening to the arguments because they may have learnt something. In terms of the legal issues, how is the state of New South Wales, or the state of Victoria for that matter, proposing to deal with the issues when one farmer sues his neighbour for the contamination and economic damage that is caused? What will happen then? We have certainly asked that question of the federal government, and it said it had taken legal advice on it and the legal advice was that the common law can look after that. That is amazing. The common law can look after a question as complex as genetic modification but when it comes to something as simple as the use of agricultural chemicals, we need a veritable mountain of statutory law. Why do we not rely on the common law for chemical use? It is an absurd proposition. This country is not ready for GM. It does not have the legal frameworks in place. Setting aside all the other arguments from the point of view of public administrative processes, we are not ready. Hon Ken Travers : We wouldn’t need the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act. We could just rely on the common law. Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, we could rely on the common law. Why do we need road traffic legislation? We can rely on the common law. (2) Do I believe there is opportunity for GM canola in biofuels? Yes, there probably is. There are probably opportunities for a range of industrial plants for the biofuel industry but GM canola carries with it all those same issues, being an open pollinator. As an open pollinator, it will pollinate crops alongside where that particular crop is grown. How big a buffer zone do we need? We already know that open pollination in canola goes out to 3 000 metres. That is a serious issue if someone is growing a food consumption crop alongside. How will we deal with that? It might be possible; I do not know. A range of crops provide opportunities for biofuel. It is not necessary for those crops to be defined by their GM and non-GM base. A whole range of crops are suitable. Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his question. I do note that New South Wales and then later Victoria have announced their decisions to lift the moratoria on GM crop production that existed to varying extent in those two states. I think the moratorium in Victoria applied to canola only, whereas in New South Wales it applied to all food crops but not cotton. New South Wales was already a GM state. (1) The first question asked whether I concede that the Western Australian position and, indeed, the position shared by the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory - in other words, the majority of jurisdictions around Australia - is not evidence based. No, I do not. The moratorium is justified in this jurisdiction, and I believe in the others from the comments that I have heard from them, on the basis that this jurisdiction and the others are seeking to buy a little time to try to learn more about the technology. It frightens me when politicians confuse rashness with leadership. The New South Wales government did two things at the same time. First, it advised that it intended to lift the moratorium. I think the effective date for the lifting is 29 February next year. In the same legislation that lifts the moratorium, it advised that it will establish an expert committee. The expert committee will provide advice to the government to determine whether segregation of GM and non-GM lines is possible. What happens if the answer is no? What happens if the expert committee says, “No, we wouldn’t do that” and it has already been done? This is the absurdity of it. Why would that question not be resolved first? Why would the NSW government not resolve the question of legal issues? Hon Norman Moore : That’s what we’ve been saying in here for the past two weeks, and you did nothing about it. Hon KIM CHANCE : I wish my comrades in New South Wales had been listening to the arguments because they may have learnt something. In terms of the legal issues, how is the state of New South Wales, or the state of Victoria for that matter, proposing to deal with the issues when one farmer sues his neighbour for the contamination and economic damage that is caused? What will happen then? We have certainly asked that question of the federal government, and it said it had taken legal advice on it and the legal advice was that the common law can look after that. That is amazing. The common law can look after a question as complex as genetic modification but when it comes to something as simple as the use of agricultural chemicals, we need a veritable mountain of statutory law. Why do we not rely on the common law for chemical use? It is an absurd proposition. This country is not ready for GM. It does not have the legal frameworks in place. Setting aside all the other arguments from the point of view of public administrative processes, we are not ready. Hon Ken Travers : We wouldn’t need the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act. We could just rely on the common law. Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, we could rely on the common law. Why do we need road traffic legislation? We can rely on the common law. (2) Do I believe there is opportunity for GM canola in biofuels? Yes, there probably is. There are probably opportunities for a range of industrial plants for the biofuel industry but GM canola carries with it all those same issues, being an open pollinator. As an open pollinator, it will pollinate crops alongside where that particular crop is grown. How big a buffer zone do we need? We already know that open pollination in canola goes out to 3 000 metres. That is a serious issue if someone is growing a food consumption crop alongside. How will we deal with that? It might be possible; I do not know. A range of crops provide opportunities for biofuel. It is not necessary for those crops to be defined by their GM and non-GM base. A whole range of crops are suitable. Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
(1) The first question asked whether I concede that the Western Australian position and, indeed, the position shared by the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory - in other words, the majority of jurisdictions around Australia - is not evidence based. No, I do not. The moratorium is justified in this jurisdiction, and I believe in the others from the comments that I have heard from them, on the basis that this jurisdiction and the others are seeking to buy a little time to try to learn more about the technology. It frightens me when politicians confuse rashness with leadership. The New South Wales government did two things at the same time. First, it advised that it intended to lift the moratorium. I think the effective date for the lifting is 29 February next year. In the same legislation that lifts the moratorium, it advised that it will establish an expert committee. The expert committee will provide advice to the government to determine whether segregation of GM and non-GM lines is possible. What happens if the answer is no? What happens if the expert committee says, “No, we wouldn’t do that” and it has already been done? This is the absurdity of it. Why would that question not be resolved first? Why would the NSW government not resolve the question of legal issues? Hon Norman Moore : That’s what we’ve been saying in here for the past two weeks, and you did nothing about it. Hon KIM CHANCE : I wish my comrades in New South Wales had been listening to the arguments because they may have learnt something. In terms of the legal issues, how is the state of New South Wales, or the state of Victoria for that matter, proposing to deal with the issues when one farmer sues his neighbour for the contamination and economic damage that is caused? What will happen then? We have certainly asked that question of the federal government, and it said it had taken legal advice on it and the legal advice was that the common law can look after that. That is amazing. The common law can look after a question as complex as genetic modification but when it comes to something as simple as the use of agricultural chemicals, we need a veritable mountain of statutory law. Why do we not rely on the common law for chemical use? It is an absurd proposition. This country is not ready for GM. It does not have the legal frameworks in place. Setting aside all the other arguments from the point of view of public administrative processes, we are not ready. Hon Ken Travers : We wouldn’t need the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act. We could just rely on the common law. Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, we could rely on the common law. Why do we need road traffic legislation? We can rely on the common law. (2) Do I believe there is opportunity for GM canola in biofuels? Yes, there probably is. There are probably opportunities for a range of industrial plants for the biofuel industry but GM canola carries with it all those same issues, being an open pollinator. As an open pollinator, it will pollinate crops alongside where that particular crop is grown. How big a buffer zone do we need? We already know that open pollination in canola goes out to 3 000 metres. That is a serious issue if someone is growing a food consumption crop alongside. How will we deal with that? It might be possible; I do not know. A range of crops provide opportunities for biofuel. It is not necessary for those crops to be defined by their GM and non-GM base. A whole range of crops are suitable. Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
Hon Norman Moore : That’s what we’ve been saying in here for the past two weeks, and you did nothing about it. Hon KIM CHANCE : I wish my comrades in New South Wales had been listening to the arguments because they may have learnt something. In terms of the legal issues, how is the state of New South Wales, or the state of Victoria for that matter, proposing to deal with the issues when one farmer sues his neighbour for the contamination and economic damage that is caused? What will happen then? We have certainly asked that question of the federal government, and it said it had taken legal advice on it and the legal advice was that the common law can look after that. That is amazing. The common law can look after a question as complex as genetic modification but when it comes to something as simple as the use of agricultural chemicals, we need a veritable mountain of statutory law. Why do we not rely on the common law for chemical use? It is an absurd proposition. This country is not ready for GM. It does not have the legal frameworks in place. Setting aside all the other arguments from the point of view of public administrative processes, we are not ready. Hon Ken Travers : We wouldn’t need the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act. We could just rely on the common law. Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, we could rely on the common law. Why do we need road traffic legislation? We can rely on the common law. (2) Do I believe there is opportunity for GM canola in biofuels? Yes, there probably is. There are probably opportunities for a range of industrial plants for the biofuel industry but GM canola carries with it all those same issues, being an open pollinator. As an open pollinator, it will pollinate crops alongside where that particular crop is grown. How big a buffer zone do we need? We already know that open pollination in canola goes out to 3 000 metres. That is a serious issue if someone is growing a food consumption crop alongside. How will we deal with that? It might be possible; I do not know. A range of crops provide opportunities for biofuel. It is not necessary for those crops to be defined by their GM and non-GM base. A whole range of crops are suitable. Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
Hon KIM CHANCE : I wish my comrades in New South Wales had been listening to the arguments because they may have learnt something. In terms of the legal issues, how is the state of New South Wales, or the state of Victoria for that matter, proposing to deal with the issues when one farmer sues his neighbour for the contamination and economic damage that is caused? What will happen then? We have certainly asked that question of the federal government, and it said it had taken legal advice on it and the legal advice was that the common law can look after that. That is amazing. The common law can look after a question as complex as genetic modification but when it comes to something as simple as the use of agricultural chemicals, we need a veritable mountain of statutory law. Why do we not rely on the common law for chemical use? It is an absurd proposition. This country is not ready for GM. It does not have the legal frameworks in place. Setting aside all the other arguments from the point of view of public administrative processes, we are not ready. Hon Ken Travers : We wouldn’t need the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act. We could just rely on the common law. Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, we could rely on the common law. Why do we need road traffic legislation? We can rely on the common law. (2) Do I believe there is opportunity for GM canola in biofuels? Yes, there probably is. There are probably opportunities for a range of industrial plants for the biofuel industry but GM canola carries with it all those same issues, being an open pollinator. As an open pollinator, it will pollinate crops alongside where that particular crop is grown. How big a buffer zone do we need? We already know that open pollination in canola goes out to 3 000 metres. That is a serious issue if someone is growing a food consumption crop alongside. How will we deal with that? It might be possible; I do not know. A range of crops provide opportunities for biofuel. It is not necessary for those crops to be defined by their GM and non-GM base. A whole range of crops are suitable. Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
Hon Ken Travers : We wouldn’t need the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act. We could just rely on the common law. Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, we could rely on the common law. Why do we need road traffic legislation? We can rely on the common law. (2) Do I believe there is opportunity for GM canola in biofuels? Yes, there probably is. There are probably opportunities for a range of industrial plants for the biofuel industry but GM canola carries with it all those same issues, being an open pollinator. As an open pollinator, it will pollinate crops alongside where that particular crop is grown. How big a buffer zone do we need? We already know that open pollination in canola goes out to 3 000 metres. That is a serious issue if someone is growing a food consumption crop alongside. How will we deal with that? It might be possible; I do not know. A range of crops provide opportunities for biofuel. It is not necessary for those crops to be defined by their GM and non-GM base. A whole range of crops are suitable. Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, we could rely on the common law. Why do we need road traffic legislation? We can rely on the common law. (2) Do I believe there is opportunity for GM canola in biofuels? Yes, there probably is. There are probably opportunities for a range of industrial plants for the biofuel industry but GM canola carries with it all those same issues, being an open pollinator. As an open pollinator, it will pollinate crops alongside where that particular crop is grown. How big a buffer zone do we need? We already know that open pollination in canola goes out to 3 000 metres. That is a serious issue if someone is growing a food consumption crop alongside. How will we deal with that? It might be possible; I do not know. A range of crops provide opportunities for biofuel. It is not necessary for those crops to be defined by their GM and non-GM base. A whole range of crops are suitable. Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
(2) Do I believe there is opportunity for GM canola in biofuels? Yes, there probably is. There are probably opportunities for a range of industrial plants for the biofuel industry but GM canola carries with it all those same issues, being an open pollinator. As an open pollinator, it will pollinate crops alongside where that particular crop is grown. How big a buffer zone do we need? We already know that open pollination in canola goes out to 3 000 metres. That is a serious issue if someone is growing a food consumption crop alongside. How will we deal with that? It might be possible; I do not know. A range of crops provide opportunities for biofuel. It is not necessary for those crops to be defined by their GM and non-GM base. A whole range of crops are suitable. Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
(3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
(1) Will the minister finally admit that the government’s opposition to GM canola is not evidence based? (2) Will the minister concede that there is an opportunity for GM canola to be purpose grown as a biofuel crop without impacting our export markets or our consumers? (3) Will the minister concede that reduced harmful herbicide applications for GM canola would have a positive environmental impact when used as a strategic weed management tool? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his question. I do note that New South Wales and then later Victoria have announced their decisions to lift the moratoria on GM crop production that existed to varying extent in those two states. I think the moratorium in Victoria applied to canola only, whereas in New South Wales it applied to all food crops but not cotton. New South Wales was already a GM state. (1) The first question asked whether I concede that the Western Australian position and, indeed, the position shared by the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory - in other words, the majority of jurisdictions around Australia - is not evidence based. No, I do not. The moratorium is justified in this jurisdiction, and I believe in the others from the comments that I have heard from them, on the basis that this jurisdiction and the others are seeking to buy a little time to try to learn more about the technology. It frightens me when politicians confuse rashness with leadership. The New South Wales government did two things at the same time. First, it advised that it intended to lift the moratorium. I think the effective date for the lifting is 29 February next year. In the same legislation that lifts the moratorium, it advised that it will establish an expert committee. The expert committee will provide advice to the government to determine whether segregation of GM and non-GM lines is possible. What happens if the answer is no? What happens if the expert committee says, “No, we wouldn’t do that” and it has already been done? This is the absurdity of it. Why would that question not be resolved first? Why would the NSW government not resolve the question of legal issues? Hon Norman Moore : That’s what we’ve been saying in here for the past two weeks, and you did nothing about it. Hon KIM CHANCE : I wish my comrades in New South Wales had been listening to the arguments because they may have learnt something. In terms of the legal issues, how is the state of New South Wales, or the state of Victoria for that matter, proposing to deal with the issues when one farmer sues his neighbour for the contamination and economic damage that is caused? What will happen then? We have certainly asked that question of the federal government, and it said it had taken legal advice on it and the legal advice was that the common law can look after that. That is amazing. The common law can look after a question as complex as genetic modification but when it comes to something as simple as the use of agricultural chemicals, we need a veritable mountain of statutory law. Why do we not rely on the common law for chemical use? It is an absurd proposition. This country is not ready for GM. It does not have the legal frameworks in place. Setting aside all the other arguments from the point of view of public administrative processes, we are not ready. Hon Ken Travers : We wouldn’t need the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act. We could just rely on the common law. Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, we could rely on the common law. Why do we need road traffic legislation? We can rely on the common law. (2) Do I believe there is opportunity for GM canola in biofuels? Yes, there probably is. There are probably opportunities for a range of industrial plants for the biofuel industry but GM canola carries with it all those same issues, being an open pollinator. As an open pollinator, it will pollinate crops alongside where that particular crop is grown. How big a buffer zone do we need? We already know that open pollination in canola goes out to 3 000 metres. That is a serious issue if someone is growing a food consumption crop alongside. How will we deal with that? It might be possible; I do not know. A range of crops provide opportunities for biofuel. It is not necessary for those crops to be defined by their GM and non-GM base. A whole range of crops are suitable. Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
(2) Will the minister concede that there is an opportunity for GM canola to be purpose grown as a biofuel crop without impacting our export markets or our consumers? (3) Will the minister concede that reduced harmful herbicide applications for GM canola would have a positive environmental impact when used as a strategic weed management tool? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his question. I do note that New South Wales and then later Victoria have announced their decisions to lift the moratoria on GM crop production that existed to varying extent in those two states. I think the moratorium in Victoria applied to canola only, whereas in New South Wales it applied to all food crops but not cotton. New South Wales was already a GM state. (1) The first question asked whether I concede that the Western Australian position and, indeed, the position shared by the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory - in other words, the majority of jurisdictions around Australia - is not evidence based. No, I do not. The moratorium is justified in this jurisdiction, and I believe in the others from the comments that I have heard from them, on the basis that this jurisdiction and the others are seeking to buy a little time to try to learn more about the technology. It frightens me when politicians confuse rashness with leadership. The New South Wales government did two things at the same time. First, it advised that it intended to lift the moratorium. I think the effective date for the lifting is 29 February next year. In the same legislation that lifts the moratorium, it advised that it will establish an expert committee. The expert committee will provide advice to the government to determine whether segregation of GM and non-GM lines is possible. What happens if the answer is no? What happens if the expert committee says, “No, we wouldn’t do that” and it has already been done? This is the absurdity of it. Why would that question not be resolved first? Why would the NSW government not resolve the question of legal issues? Hon Norman Moore : That’s what we’ve been saying in here for the past two weeks, and you did nothing about it. Hon KIM CHANCE : I wish my comrades in New South Wales had been listening to the arguments because they may have learnt something. In terms of the legal issues, how is the state of New South Wales, or the state of Victoria for that matter, proposing to deal with the issues when one farmer sues his neighbour for the contamination and economic damage that is caused? What will happen then? We have certainly asked that question of the federal government, and it said it had taken legal advice on it and the legal advice was that the common law can look after that. That is amazing. The common law can look after a question as complex as genetic modification but when it comes to something as simple as the use of agricultural chemicals, we need a veritable mountain of statutory law. Why do we not rely on the common law for chemical use? It is an absurd proposition. This country is not ready for GM. It does not have the legal frameworks in place. Setting aside all the other arguments from the point of view of public administrative processes, we are not ready. Hon Ken Travers : We wouldn’t need the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act. We could just rely on the common law. Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, we could rely on the common law. Why do we need road traffic legislation? We can rely on the common law. (2) Do I believe there is opportunity for GM canola in biofuels? Yes, there probably is. There are probably opportunities for a range of industrial plants for the biofuel industry but GM canola carries with it all those same issues, being an open pollinator. As an open pollinator, it will pollinate crops alongside where that particular crop is grown. How big a buffer zone do we need? We already know that open pollination in canola goes out to 3 000 metres. That is a serious issue if someone is growing a food consumption crop alongside. How will we deal with that? It might be possible; I do not know. A range of crops provide opportunities for biofuel. It is not necessary for those crops to be defined by their GM and non-GM base. A whole range of crops are suitable. Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
(3) Will the minister concede that reduced harmful herbicide applications for GM canola would have a positive environmental impact when used as a strategic weed management tool? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his question. I do note that New South Wales and then later Victoria have announced their decisions to lift the moratoria on GM crop production that existed to varying extent in those two states. I think the moratorium in Victoria applied to canola only, whereas in New South Wales it applied to all food crops but not cotton. New South Wales was already a GM state. (1) The first question asked whether I concede that the Western Australian position and, indeed, the position shared by the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory - in other words, the majority of jurisdictions around Australia - is not evidence based. No, I do not. The moratorium is justified in this jurisdiction, and I believe in the others from the comments that I have heard from them, on the basis that this jurisdiction and the others are seeking to buy a little time to try to learn more about the technology. It frightens me when politicians confuse rashness with leadership. The New South Wales government did two things at the same time. First, it advised that it intended to lift the moratorium. I think the effective date for the lifting is 29 February next year. In the same legislation that lifts the moratorium, it advised that it will establish an expert committee. The expert committee will provide advice to the government to determine whether segregation of GM and non-GM lines is possible. What happens if the answer is no? What happens if the expert committee says, “No, we wouldn’t do that” and it has already been done? This is the absurdity of it. Why would that question not be resolved first? Why would the NSW government not resolve the question of legal issues? Hon Norman Moore : That’s what we’ve been saying in here for the past two weeks, and you did nothing about it. Hon KIM CHANCE : I wish my comrades in New South Wales had been listening to the arguments because they may have learnt something. In terms of the legal issues, how is the state of New South Wales, or the state of Victoria for that matter, proposing to deal with the issues when one farmer sues his neighbour for the contamination and economic damage that is caused? What will happen then? We have certainly asked that question of the federal government, and it said it had taken legal advice on it and the legal advice was that the common law can look after that. That is amazing. The common law can look after a question as complex as genetic modification but when it comes to something as simple as the use of agricultural chemicals, we need a veritable mountain of statutory law. Why do we not rely on the common law for chemical use? It is an absurd proposition. This country is not ready for GM. It does not have the legal frameworks in place. Setting aside all the other arguments from the point of view of public administrative processes, we are not ready. Hon Ken Travers : We wouldn’t need the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act. We could just rely on the common law. Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, we could rely on the common law. Why do we need road traffic legislation? We can rely on the common law. (2) Do I believe there is opportunity for GM canola in biofuels? Yes, there probably is. There are probably opportunities for a range of industrial plants for the biofuel industry but GM canola carries with it all those same issues, being an open pollinator. As an open pollinator, it will pollinate crops alongside where that particular crop is grown. How big a buffer zone do we need? We already know that open pollination in canola goes out to 3 000 metres. That is a serious issue if someone is growing a food consumption crop alongside. How will we deal with that? It might be possible; I do not know. A range of crops provide opportunities for biofuel. It is not necessary for those crops to be defined by their GM and non-GM base. A whole range of crops are suitable. Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his question. I do note that New South Wales and then later Victoria have announced their decisions to lift the moratoria on GM crop production that existed to varying extent in those two states. I think the moratorium in Victoria applied to canola only, whereas in New South Wales it applied to all food crops but not cotton. New South Wales was already a GM state. (1) The first question asked whether I concede that the Western Australian position and, indeed, the position shared by the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory - in other words, the majority of jurisdictions around Australia - is not evidence based. No, I do not. The moratorium is justified in this jurisdiction, and I believe in the others from the comments that I have heard from them, on the basis that this jurisdiction and the others are seeking to buy a little time to try to learn more about the technology. It frightens me when politicians confuse rashness with leadership. The New South Wales government did two things at the same time. First, it advised that it intended to lift the moratorium. I think the effective date for the lifting is 29 February next year. In the same legislation that lifts the moratorium, it advised that it will establish an expert committee. The expert committee will provide advice to the government to determine whether segregation of GM and non-GM lines is possible. What happens if the answer is no? What happens if the expert committee says, “No, we wouldn’t do that” and it has already been done? This is the absurdity of it. Why would that question not be resolved first? Why would the NSW government not resolve the question of legal issues? Hon Norman Moore : That’s what we’ve been saying in here for the past two weeks, and you did nothing about it. Hon KIM CHANCE : I wish my comrades in New South Wales had been listening to the arguments because they may have learnt something. In terms of the legal issues, how is the state of New South Wales, or the state of Victoria for that matter, proposing to deal with the issues when one farmer sues his neighbour for the contamination and economic damage that is caused? What will happen then? We have certainly asked that question of the federal government, and it said it had taken legal advice on it and the legal advice was that the common law can look after that. That is amazing. The common law can look after a question as complex as genetic modification but when it comes to something as simple as the use of agricultural chemicals, we need a veritable mountain of statutory law. Why do we not rely on the common law for chemical use? It is an absurd proposition. This country is not ready for GM. It does not have the legal frameworks in place. Setting aside all the other arguments from the point of view of public administrative processes, we are not ready. Hon Ken Travers : We wouldn’t need the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act. We could just rely on the common law. Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, we could rely on the common law. Why do we need road traffic legislation? We can rely on the common law. (2) Do I believe there is opportunity for GM canola in biofuels? Yes, there probably is. There are probably opportunities for a range of industrial plants for the biofuel industry but GM canola carries with it all those same issues, being an open pollinator. As an open pollinator, it will pollinate crops alongside where that particular crop is grown. How big a buffer zone do we need? We already know that open pollination in canola goes out to 3 000 metres. That is a serious issue if someone is growing a food consumption crop alongside. How will we deal with that? It might be possible; I do not know. A range of crops provide opportunities for biofuel. It is not necessary for those crops to be defined by their GM and non-GM base. A whole range of crops are suitable. Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
I thank Hon Anthony Fels for his question. I do note that New South Wales and then later Victoria have announced their decisions to lift the moratoria on GM crop production that existed to varying extent in those two states. I think the moratorium in Victoria applied to canola only, whereas in New South Wales it applied to all food crops but not cotton. New South Wales was already a GM state. (1) The first question asked whether I concede that the Western Australian position and, indeed, the position shared by the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory - in other words, the majority of jurisdictions around Australia - is not evidence based. No, I do not. The moratorium is justified in this jurisdiction, and I believe in the others from the comments that I have heard from them, on the basis that this jurisdiction and the others are seeking to buy a little time to try to learn more about the technology. It frightens me when politicians confuse rashness with leadership. The New South Wales government did two things at the same time. First, it advised that it intended to lift the moratorium. I think the effective date for the lifting is 29 February next year. In the same legislation that lifts the moratorium, it advised that it will establish an expert committee. The expert committee will provide advice to the government to determine whether segregation of GM and non-GM lines is possible. What happens if the answer is no? What happens if the expert committee says, “No, we wouldn’t do that” and it has already been done? This is the absurdity of it. Why would that question not be resolved first? Why would the NSW government not resolve the question of legal issues? Hon Norman Moore : That’s what we’ve been saying in here for the past two weeks, and you did nothing about it. Hon KIM CHANCE : I wish my comrades in New South Wales had been listening to the arguments because they may have learnt something. In terms of the legal issues, how is the state of New South Wales, or the state of Victoria for that matter, proposing to deal with the issues when one farmer sues his neighbour for the contamination and economic damage that is caused? What will happen then? We have certainly asked that question of the federal government, and it said it had taken legal advice on it and the legal advice was that the common law can look after that. That is amazing. The common law can look after a question as complex as genetic modification but when it comes to something as simple as the use of agricultural chemicals, we need a veritable mountain of statutory law. Why do we not rely on the common law for chemical use? It is an absurd proposition. This country is not ready for GM. It does not have the legal frameworks in place. Setting aside all the other arguments from the point of view of public administrative processes, we are not ready. Hon Ken Travers : We wouldn’t need the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act. We could just rely on the common law. Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, we could rely on the common law. Why do we need road traffic legislation? We can rely on the common law. (2) Do I believe there is opportunity for GM canola in biofuels? Yes, there probably is. There are probably opportunities for a range of industrial plants for the biofuel industry but GM canola carries with it all those same issues, being an open pollinator. As an open pollinator, it will pollinate crops alongside where that particular crop is grown. How big a buffer zone do we need? We already know that open pollination in canola goes out to 3 000 metres. That is a serious issue if someone is growing a food consumption crop alongside. How will we deal with that? It might be possible; I do not know. A range of crops provide opportunities for biofuel. It is not necessary for those crops to be defined by their GM and non-GM base. A whole range of crops are suitable. Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
(1) The first question asked whether I concede that the Western Australian position and, indeed, the position shared by the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory - in other words, the majority of jurisdictions around Australia - is not evidence based. No, I do not. The moratorium is justified in this jurisdiction, and I believe in the others from the comments that I have heard from them, on the basis that this jurisdiction and the others are seeking to buy a little time to try to learn more about the technology. It frightens me when politicians confuse rashness with leadership. The New South Wales government did two things at the same time. First, it advised that it intended to lift the moratorium. I think the effective date for the lifting is 29 February next year. In the same legislation that lifts the moratorium, it advised that it will establish an expert committee. The expert committee will provide advice to the government to determine whether segregation of GM and non-GM lines is possible. What happens if the answer is no? What happens if the expert committee says, “No, we wouldn’t do that” and it has already been done? This is the absurdity of it. Why would that question not be resolved first? Why would the NSW government not resolve the question of legal issues? Hon Norman Moore : That’s what we’ve been saying in here for the past two weeks, and you did nothing about it. Hon KIM CHANCE : I wish my comrades in New South Wales had been listening to the arguments because they may have learnt something. In terms of the legal issues, how is the state of New South Wales, or the state of Victoria for that matter, proposing to deal with the issues when one farmer sues his neighbour for the contamination and economic damage that is caused? What will happen then? We have certainly asked that question of the federal government, and it said it had taken legal advice on it and the legal advice was that the common law can look after that. That is amazing. The common law can look after a question as complex as genetic modification but when it comes to something as simple as the use of agricultural chemicals, we need a veritable mountain of statutory law. Why do we not rely on the common law for chemical use? It is an absurd proposition. This country is not ready for GM. It does not have the legal frameworks in place. Setting aside all the other arguments from the point of view of public administrative processes, we are not ready. Hon Ken Travers : We wouldn’t need the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act. We could just rely on the common law. Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, we could rely on the common law. Why do we need road traffic legislation? We can rely on the common law. (2) Do I believe there is opportunity for GM canola in biofuels? Yes, there probably is. There are probably opportunities for a range of industrial plants for the biofuel industry but GM canola carries with it all those same issues, being an open pollinator. As an open pollinator, it will pollinate crops alongside where that particular crop is grown. How big a buffer zone do we need? We already know that open pollination in canola goes out to 3 000 metres. That is a serious issue if someone is growing a food consumption crop alongside. How will we deal with that? It might be possible; I do not know. A range of crops provide opportunities for biofuel. It is not necessary for those crops to be defined by their GM and non-GM base. A whole range of crops are suitable. Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
Hon Norman Moore : That’s what we’ve been saying in here for the past two weeks, and you did nothing about it. Hon KIM CHANCE : I wish my comrades in New South Wales had been listening to the arguments because they may have learnt something. In terms of the legal issues, how is the state of New South Wales, or the state of Victoria for that matter, proposing to deal with the issues when one farmer sues his neighbour for the contamination and economic damage that is caused? What will happen then? We have certainly asked that question of the federal government, and it said it had taken legal advice on it and the legal advice was that the common law can look after that. That is amazing. The common law can look after a question as complex as genetic modification but when it comes to something as simple as the use of agricultural chemicals, we need a veritable mountain of statutory law. Why do we not rely on the common law for chemical use? It is an absurd proposition. This country is not ready for GM. It does not have the legal frameworks in place. Setting aside all the other arguments from the point of view of public administrative processes, we are not ready. Hon Ken Travers : We wouldn’t need the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act. We could just rely on the common law. Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, we could rely on the common law. Why do we need road traffic legislation? We can rely on the common law. (2) Do I believe there is opportunity for GM canola in biofuels? Yes, there probably is. There are probably opportunities for a range of industrial plants for the biofuel industry but GM canola carries with it all those same issues, being an open pollinator. As an open pollinator, it will pollinate crops alongside where that particular crop is grown. How big a buffer zone do we need? We already know that open pollination in canola goes out to 3 000 metres. That is a serious issue if someone is growing a food consumption crop alongside. How will we deal with that? It might be possible; I do not know. A range of crops provide opportunities for biofuel. It is not necessary for those crops to be defined by their GM and non-GM base. A whole range of crops are suitable. Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
Hon KIM CHANCE : I wish my comrades in New South Wales had been listening to the arguments because they may have learnt something. In terms of the legal issues, how is the state of New South Wales, or the state of Victoria for that matter, proposing to deal with the issues when one farmer sues his neighbour for the contamination and economic damage that is caused? What will happen then? We have certainly asked that question of the federal government, and it said it had taken legal advice on it and the legal advice was that the common law can look after that. That is amazing. The common law can look after a question as complex as genetic modification but when it comes to something as simple as the use of agricultural chemicals, we need a veritable mountain of statutory law. Why do we not rely on the common law for chemical use? It is an absurd proposition. This country is not ready for GM. It does not have the legal frameworks in place. Setting aside all the other arguments from the point of view of public administrative processes, we are not ready. Hon Ken Travers : We wouldn’t need the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act. We could just rely on the common law. Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, we could rely on the common law. Why do we need road traffic legislation? We can rely on the common law. (2) Do I believe there is opportunity for GM canola in biofuels? Yes, there probably is. There are probably opportunities for a range of industrial plants for the biofuel industry but GM canola carries with it all those same issues, being an open pollinator. As an open pollinator, it will pollinate crops alongside where that particular crop is grown. How big a buffer zone do we need? We already know that open pollination in canola goes out to 3 000 metres. That is a serious issue if someone is growing a food consumption crop alongside. How will we deal with that? It might be possible; I do not know. A range of crops provide opportunities for biofuel. It is not necessary for those crops to be defined by their GM and non-GM base. A whole range of crops are suitable. Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
Hon Ken Travers : We wouldn’t need the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act. We could just rely on the common law. Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, we could rely on the common law. Why do we need road traffic legislation? We can rely on the common law. (2) Do I believe there is opportunity for GM canola in biofuels? Yes, there probably is. There are probably opportunities for a range of industrial plants for the biofuel industry but GM canola carries with it all those same issues, being an open pollinator. As an open pollinator, it will pollinate crops alongside where that particular crop is grown. How big a buffer zone do we need? We already know that open pollination in canola goes out to 3 000 metres. That is a serious issue if someone is growing a food consumption crop alongside. How will we deal with that? It might be possible; I do not know. A range of crops provide opportunities for biofuel. It is not necessary for those crops to be defined by their GM and non-GM base. A whole range of crops are suitable. Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, we could rely on the common law. Why do we need road traffic legislation? We can rely on the common law. (2) Do I believe there is opportunity for GM canola in biofuels? Yes, there probably is. There are probably opportunities for a range of industrial plants for the biofuel industry but GM canola carries with it all those same issues, being an open pollinator. As an open pollinator, it will pollinate crops alongside where that particular crop is grown. How big a buffer zone do we need? We already know that open pollination in canola goes out to 3 000 metres. That is a serious issue if someone is growing a food consumption crop alongside. How will we deal with that? It might be possible; I do not know. A range of crops provide opportunities for biofuel. It is not necessary for those crops to be defined by their GM and non-GM base. A whole range of crops are suitable. Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
(2) Do I believe there is opportunity for GM canola in biofuels? Yes, there probably is. There are probably opportunities for a range of industrial plants for the biofuel industry but GM canola carries with it all those same issues, being an open pollinator. As an open pollinator, it will pollinate crops alongside where that particular crop is grown. How big a buffer zone do we need? We already know that open pollination in canola goes out to 3 000 metres. That is a serious issue if someone is growing a food consumption crop alongside. How will we deal with that? It might be possible; I do not know. A range of crops provide opportunities for biofuel. It is not necessary for those crops to be defined by their GM and non-GM base. A whole range of crops are suitable. Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
Hon Norman Moore : Will you send a copy of your response to the minister in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
Hon KIM CHANCE : I will say much stronger things to the minister personally, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition. I already have. He calls me a greenie! Can members believe that? Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
Several members interjected. Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
Hon KIM CHANCE : Minister Ian Macdonald is a lovely guy; I am very fond of him, but he is somewhat browner than most of us. (3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
(3) Does GM technology provide opportunities for reduced herbicides? Yes, it does. One of the strongest arguments that GM advocates have is that the use of Roundup Ready traits in GM crops provides an opportunity, particularly with canola, to reduce the use of atrazine. Nobody questions the fact that it would be preferable to be using glyphosate than atrazine or the simazine derivatives of the triazine family of chemicals that are used on lupins. It is a matter of weighing those issues against the other issues that are still not resolved. Fundamentally, our government is not going to be adopting GM technology while consumers, both here in Australia and overseas, are saying that they do not want to eat them. That is the bottom line. We can grow anything; we can grow GM wheat. People have actually produced GM wheat that does all kinds of things. Is there a market for it? No. The worldwide market for GM wheat is nil. There is no market because nobody will eat it. These are the issues that we have to work through. I know canola is different because it is crushed and refined and there is little, if any, DNA in any form of vegetable oil, but it is still a matter of community perceptions. That is what the biotech companies need to be doing. They need to be going to the consumers rather than to the farmers and the politicians and scientists, who actually cannot do anything about guiding consumer opinion. They have failed miserably in that.
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.