❓ A WA parliamentary question scrutinizes the Agriculture and Food Minister regarding GM canola trials, potential contamination, legal protections for farmers, and environmental impacts. The Minister's answers largely defend current regulations and practices.
AnsweredQoN 1392Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) In Western Australia, in what circumstances is the farmer of a non-GM crop that has been contaminated by GMOs liable to pay a royalty fee to the GM patent owner?
(2) What strategies are in place to ensure farmers of non-GM canola are aware of and able to implement best practice for growing and selling non-GM canola in an environment where trials of GM canola are taking place?
(3) Will the Minister please provide full details regarding, -
(a) GM canola found growing beside roadsides in New South Wales outside its containment area; and
(b) GM canola contamination of commercial beehives in Victoria?
(4) What is the Department’s current knowledge regarding the likely extent of canola spillage during transport?
(5) Will the Minister ensure trucks carrying GM canola are ‘wrapped’ to prevent spillage?
(6) Has the Department trialled for seed escape during transport including studying roadside volunteers and their persistence in the environment?
(7) If yes to (6), what were the results?
(8) If no to (6), why not?
(9) Has the Department done any studies regarding potential out-crossing between GM canola and the related weed wild radish?
(10) If yes to (9), what were the results?
(11) If no to (9), why not?
(12) Has the Minister taken legal advice regarding, -
(a) the adequacy of Western Australian law in respect of protection of farmers whose crops and/or land are contaminated by GMOs;
(b) the adequacy of Western Australian law in respect of responsibility for removal of GMOs that have escaped their containment area;
(c) the adequacy of Western Australian law in respect of identification of the owner of GMOs that have escaped their containment area;
(d) the adequacy of Western Australian law in respect of protection of farmers who inadvertently infringe GMO technology user and end point royalties agreements;
(e) the desirability of introducing statute law in respect of GMOs; and
(f) the desirability of ‘fast tracking’ litigation regarding GMOs in order to develop relevant case law?
(13) If yes to (12)(a),(b),(c),(d),(e) and/or (f), what was the legal advice received?
(14) Regarding the answer to question on notice No. 1497 on 15 September 2009 in the other place, why are local ratepayers to be responsible for paying for clean up of GM canola roadside spillage and any resulting GM plants instead of this being the responsibility of the transport operator?
(15) Has the Minister given assurances to any council that GM canola will not be transported through their jurisdiction?
(16) If yes to (15), which councils have received such assurances?
(17) What routes will be used for transporting GM canola?
(18) How much GM canola from trials, -
(a) is going to the domestic market;
(b) is being exported; and
(c) is being destroyed?
(19) Is the Minister aware of the market rejection of Canadian flax in Europe due to GMO contamination?
(20) Is the Minister aware that GM material has been detected in mustard?
(21) Is the Minister aware that GM canola volunteers are still being found in Tasmania at 12 of 57 sites used for GM canola trials last decade?
(22) What remedial processes will be used, -
(a) at each GMO trial site; and
(b) along transport routes used for GM canola?
(23) Is the Minister aware that the National Variety Trials interstate showed no increase in canola yield?
(24) What are the aims of the GM trials?
(25) What are the parameters of the trials?
(26) Who set the parameters of the trials?
(27) Who is assessing the trials?
(28) Will the Minister table the results of each trial?
(29) If yes to (28), when will the results of each trial be publicly available?
(30) Following the discontinuation of GM canola trials at Wongan Hills, -
(a) how many GM canola trials are underway or have been undertaken in Western Australia this season; and
(b) what is the location of each trial?
(31) Is it correct that farmers of trial GM canola are required by contract to notify their neighbours?
(32) If yes to (31), -
(a) what monitoring process exists to ensure that this contractual term is not breached;
(b) what process exists if a farmer is discovered to have breached this contractual term; and
(c) how many farmers have been discovered to have breached this contractual term and what was the outcome?
(33) To the best of the Department’s knowledge, what international and interstate research is currently occurring in respect of herbicide resistant non GM hybrids and what stage has that research reached?
(34) What research is the Department itself currently conducting into herbicide resistant non GM hybrids?
(35) How much funding has the Department allocated to this research?
(36) How does this figure compare with the funding allocated to GM research?
(37) What proportion of Western Australia’s domestic buyers prefer to buy GM canola?
(38) What proportion of Western Australia’s export market prefers to buy GM canola?
(39) Regarding the answers to (37) and (38), how have these figures been calculated?
(40) Is it possible to completely avoid GM contamination in an environment where GM crops are grown?
(41) If no to (40), -
(a) when was this information provided to canola farmers?
(b) when was this information provided to consumers?
(42) Regarding the answer to question without notice No. 819 on 15 October 2009, in the other place, -
(a) will the Minister please table the protocols referred to; and
(b) will the Minister please table the results of all compliance monitoring undertaken by the Department to date?
(43) To the best of the Department’s knowledge, what international and interstate research is currently occurring in respect of reducing food waste?
(44) What research is the Department itself conducting into reducing food waste as an alternative means of increasing food availability?
(45) How much funding has the Department allocated to this research?
(46) How does this figure compare with the funding allocated to GM research?
(2) What strategies are in place to ensure farmers of non-GM canola are aware of and able to implement best practice for growing and selling non-GM canola in an environment where trials of GM canola are taking place?
(3) Will the Minister please provide full details regarding, -
(a) GM canola found growing beside roadsides in New South Wales outside its containment area; and
(b) GM canola contamination of commercial beehives in Victoria?
(4) What is the Department’s current knowledge regarding the likely extent of canola spillage during transport?
(5) Will the Minister ensure trucks carrying GM canola are ‘wrapped’ to prevent spillage?
(6) Has the Department trialled for seed escape during transport including studying roadside volunteers and their persistence in the environment?
(7) If yes to (6), what were the results?
(8) If no to (6), why not?
(9) Has the Department done any studies regarding potential out-crossing between GM canola and the related weed wild radish?
(10) If yes to (9), what were the results?
(11) If no to (9), why not?
(12) Has the Minister taken legal advice regarding, -
(a) the adequacy of Western Australian law in respect of protection of farmers whose crops and/or land are contaminated by GMOs;
(b) the adequacy of Western Australian law in respect of responsibility for removal of GMOs that have escaped their containment area;
(c) the adequacy of Western Australian law in respect of identification of the owner of GMOs that have escaped their containment area;
(d) the adequacy of Western Australian law in respect of protection of farmers who inadvertently infringe GMO technology user and end point royalties agreements;
(e) the desirability of introducing statute law in respect of GMOs; and
(f) the desirability of ‘fast tracking’ litigation regarding GMOs in order to develop relevant case law?
(13) If yes to (12)(a),(b),(c),(d),(e) and/or (f), what was the legal advice received?
(14) Regarding the answer to question on notice No. 1497 on 15 September 2009 in the other place, why are local ratepayers to be responsible for paying for clean up of GM canola roadside spillage and any resulting GM plants instead of this being the responsibility of the transport operator?
(15) Has the Minister given assurances to any council that GM canola will not be transported through their jurisdiction?
(16) If yes to (15), which councils have received such assurances?
(17) What routes will be used for transporting GM canola?
(18) How much GM canola from trials, -
(a) is going to the domestic market;
(b) is being exported; and
(c) is being destroyed?
(19) Is the Minister aware of the market rejection of Canadian flax in Europe due to GMO contamination?
(20) Is the Minister aware that GM material has been detected in mustard?
(21) Is the Minister aware that GM canola volunteers are still being found in Tasmania at 12 of 57 sites used for GM canola trials last decade?
(22) What remedial processes will be used, -
(a) at each GMO trial site; and
(b) along transport routes used for GM canola?
(23) Is the Minister aware that the National Variety Trials interstate showed no increase in canola yield?
(24) What are the aims of the GM trials?
(25) What are the parameters of the trials?
(26) Who set the parameters of the trials?
(27) Who is assessing the trials?
(28) Will the Minister table the results of each trial?
(29) If yes to (28), when will the results of each trial be publicly available?
(30) Following the discontinuation of GM canola trials at Wongan Hills, -
(a) how many GM canola trials are underway or have been undertaken in Western Australia this season; and
(b) what is the location of each trial?
(31) Is it correct that farmers of trial GM canola are required by contract to notify their neighbours?
(32) If yes to (31), -
(a) what monitoring process exists to ensure that this contractual term is not breached;
(b) what process exists if a farmer is discovered to have breached this contractual term; and
(c) how many farmers have been discovered to have breached this contractual term and what was the outcome?
(33) To the best of the Department’s knowledge, what international and interstate research is currently occurring in respect of herbicide resistant non GM hybrids and what stage has that research reached?
(34) What research is the Department itself currently conducting into herbicide resistant non GM hybrids?
(35) How much funding has the Department allocated to this research?
(36) How does this figure compare with the funding allocated to GM research?
(37) What proportion of Western Australia’s domestic buyers prefer to buy GM canola?
(38) What proportion of Western Australia’s export market prefers to buy GM canola?
(39) Regarding the answers to (37) and (38), how have these figures been calculated?
(40) Is it possible to completely avoid GM contamination in an environment where GM crops are grown?
(41) If no to (40), -
(a) when was this information provided to canola farmers?
(b) when was this information provided to consumers?
(42) Regarding the answer to question without notice No. 819 on 15 October 2009, in the other place, -
(a) will the Minister please table the protocols referred to; and
(b) will the Minister please table the results of all compliance monitoring undertaken by the Department to date?
(43) To the best of the Department’s knowledge, what international and interstate research is currently occurring in respect of reducing food waste?
(44) What research is the Department itself conducting into reducing food waste as an alternative means of increasing food availability?
(45) How much funding has the Department allocated to this research?
(46) How does this figure compare with the funding allocated to GM research?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
1 March 2010
Responded by
Minister for Child Protection representing the Minister for Agriculture and Food
Response time
111 days
(1) A non-GM canola farmer who had in fact cultivated GM canola would only be liable to the GM patent owner if that farmer had been found by a court to have infringed the patent owner's exclusive right to exploit the gene technology that is the subject of the patent. In referring to the crop being "contaminated" the question clearly implies the accidental presence of GM canola in the non-GM canola crop and it is unlikely that in such circumstances a patent holder would take, or be successful, in a legal action.
(2) The Department of Agriculture and Food have prepared and distributed FarmNotes entitled "On Farm Segregation of GM and non-GM canola" "Roundup Ready Canola in WA" "Canola variety Guide in WA 2010" and "Weed control in non-GM canola" which are intended to assist in the management of Canola crops. These are also available on the Department's website.
(3)(a) Roadside volunteers of crops following harvest and transportation are a normal occurrence. GM canola can be effectively managed by mechanical and chemical means (not Roundup). The responsibility for the management of roadside weeds in NSW is determined by the classification of the roadway and is shared between Local Councils and the Roads and Traffic Authority.
(b) GM traces may be found in the pollen in hives which are harvesting from GM canola crops. The OGTR and FSANZ have declared that the traits are safe for human consumption. Under national standards organic honey producers are required to site their hives at least 5 kilometres from non-GM canola crops due to the prohibited pesticides which are used. The substitution of GM for non-GM canola crops will make no difference to this requirement.
(4) The Department is aware that spillage does occur from road transport and this was taken into consideration in the conduct of the trial.
(5) Under the terms of the trial permitted by the exemption order the trucks were sealed with wide adhesive tape.
(6) No.
(7) Not applicable
(8) There are many studies which show that canola does not persist as a roadside volunteer as the plants do not compete well under such circumstances and are preferentially predated by birds and herbivores.
(9) No
(10) Not applicable
(11) This has been studied in depth by the OGTR and the regulatory bodies of other countries and their unanimous conclusion was that the risk of such an event was negligible.
(12)(a) No. A review of the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act in 2005-06 found that current common law provisions would be adequate.
(b) No, because the containment of GMOs that require containment is a matter dealt with by the National Gene Technology Regulatory system.
(c) Please refer to answer (12)(b).
(d) No. Patent law is the province of the Commonwealth Patents Act.
(e) No. We already have the Western Australian component of the National Regulatory System, the Gene Technology Act 2006 and the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003.
(f) No because to the government's knowledge there is no litigation regarding GMOs that could be fast tracked.
(13) Not relevant.
(14) GM canola is another canola variety and no Local Government targets canola for any different and separate treatment to other weeds.
(15) No
(16) Not applicable
(17) That is a commercial decision by the grower or his transport contractor and will depend on his geographic location relative to the delivery site.
(18)(a) None.
(b) It is anticipated that the entire crop from the trial will be exported.
(c) Sweepings and cleanings from the CBH facilities were incinerated. Small amounts of GM grain from small scale trials were buried at least one metre deep.
(19) This adventitious presence is due to the illegal activities of one or more growers who have grown the Triffid variety of GM flax which was deregistered in 2001.
(20) The trace amounts of canola material found in Canadian mustard was due to mechanical admixing. The two traits identified have both been approved for human consumption.
(21) Yes. The trial sites were deep ploughed after harvesting and the seeds, which are very persistent, are still germinating. Deep ploughing is not practised in WA.
(22)(a) If this question refers to the trial conducted in WA in 2009 the grower of each site is responsible for the monitoring and management of any volunteers.
If this question relates to Tasmanian trial sites - the Tasmanian sites are still being managed under permit and volunteers hand pulled and destroyed or sprayed out. Audits occur three times per year with the audit results posted on the Department of Primary Industries Plants Water and the Environment (DPIPWE) website.
(b) None.
(23) The adverse climatic conditions in the Eastern States in 2008 have made any comparisons between GM and non-GM canola yields inconclusive. The results from the 2009 WA National variety trial sites are available on the NVT website.
(24) To ascertain the ability of the industry to maintain segregation between GM and non-GM canola along the entire production chain and secondarily to gain an understanding of the viability of the technology under WA farm management conditions.
(25) CBH undertook GM trait testing of each load of non-GM canola crops delivered by the GM growers and stack samples of all canola delivered to them in the 09/10 season. The participating farmers were asked, at the conclusion of the trial, if they consider that the technology is beneficial in their management system and crop rotation.
(26) An expert group within the Department of Agriculture and Food advised the Director General.
(27) The Department has provided me with interim reports in October, November and December 2009 and a final report in January 2010.
(28-29) The final report has been available from the Department's website since 25 January 2010.
(30)(a-b) The report mentioned earlier contains full details of the trial sites. GM canola was grown on a commercial scale at 19 locations, two of which were DAFWA sites.
(31) Yes.
(32)(a) Growers have a requirement to confirm that all conditions have been met as a part of the initial approval prior to the approval to plant GM canola.
(b) Approval to plant would not have been granted.
(c) None.
(33) Non-GM hybrids with herbicide tolerance to triazines and imidazolinones have been developed and are commercially available in WA. Canola Breeders WA have released a hybrid TT canola variety and most Australian and International canola breeding companies have released hybrid imidazolinone tolerant varieties. Non-herbicide tolerant hybrid canola is also commercially available.
(34) The Department conducted research on the management of Clearfield imidazolinone tolerant hybrid canola in 2009. This work and research on triazine tolerant hybrid canola is expected to continue in 2010.
(35) The Department committed approximately $65,000 to work on hybrid imidazolinone tolerant canola in 2009. The funding is likely to double in 2010 if hybrid TT canola is included in the program.
(36) No funding was specifically allocated to research on hybrid or open pollinated GM canola in 2009. The Department was contracted by Nufarm to conduct a demonstration site comparing GM canola and other non-GM canola types for weed management at Geraldton in 2009.
(37) To date there has been no GM canola available to be purchased in WA.
(38-39) Five percent of the 2009-10 Western Australian canola crop was sold to domestic buyers. 95 per cent was sold to international buyers of which the majority do not distinguish between GM and non-GM canola. These data were provided by GrainPool.
(40) If the agreed protocols for the segregation of GM and non-GM canola are complied with any adventitious presence will be kept below the Australian Grains Industry threshold of 0.9 per cent presence.
(41)(a-b) The Primary Industries Ministerial Council announced the 0.9 per cent threshold level of GM presence in non-GM canola grain in October 2005.
(42)(a-b) All the protocols referred to in question without notice 819 of 15 October 2009 are contained in Department's report on the trials.
(43) The Department does not currently have any responsibility for research into reducing food waste. Its prime focus is on food production, value adding and marketing both domestically and overseas.
(44) None.
(45) None.
(46) Not applicable.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
(2) The Department of Agriculture and Food have prepared and distributed FarmNotes entitled "On Farm Segregation of GM and non-GM canola" "Roundup Ready Canola in WA" "Canola variety Guide in WA 2010" and "Weed control in non-GM canola" which are intended to assist in the management of Canola crops. These are also available on the Department's website.
(3)(a) Roadside volunteers of crops following harvest and transportation are a normal occurrence. GM canola can be effectively managed by mechanical and chemical means (not Roundup). The responsibility for the management of roadside weeds in NSW is determined by the classification of the roadway and is shared between Local Councils and the Roads and Traffic Authority.
(b) GM traces may be found in the pollen in hives which are harvesting from GM canola crops. The OGTR and FSANZ have declared that the traits are safe for human consumption. Under national standards organic honey producers are required to site their hives at least 5 kilometres from non-GM canola crops due to the prohibited pesticides which are used. The substitution of GM for non-GM canola crops will make no difference to this requirement.
(4) The Department is aware that spillage does occur from road transport and this was taken into consideration in the conduct of the trial.
(5) Under the terms of the trial permitted by the exemption order the trucks were sealed with wide adhesive tape.
(6) No.
(7) Not applicable
(8) There are many studies which show that canola does not persist as a roadside volunteer as the plants do not compete well under such circumstances and are preferentially predated by birds and herbivores.
(9) No
(10) Not applicable
(11) This has been studied in depth by the OGTR and the regulatory bodies of other countries and their unanimous conclusion was that the risk of such an event was negligible.
(12)(a) No. A review of the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act in 2005-06 found that current common law provisions would be adequate.
(b) No, because the containment of GMOs that require containment is a matter dealt with by the National Gene Technology Regulatory system.
(c) Please refer to answer (12)(b).
(d) No. Patent law is the province of the Commonwealth Patents Act.
(e) No. We already have the Western Australian component of the National Regulatory System, the Gene Technology Act 2006 and the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003.
(f) No because to the government's knowledge there is no litigation regarding GMOs that could be fast tracked.
(13) Not relevant.
(14) GM canola is another canola variety and no Local Government targets canola for any different and separate treatment to other weeds.
(15) No
(16) Not applicable
(17) That is a commercial decision by the grower or his transport contractor and will depend on his geographic location relative to the delivery site.
(18)(a) None.
(b) It is anticipated that the entire crop from the trial will be exported.
(c) Sweepings and cleanings from the CBH facilities were incinerated. Small amounts of GM grain from small scale trials were buried at least one metre deep.
(19) This adventitious presence is due to the illegal activities of one or more growers who have grown the Triffid variety of GM flax which was deregistered in 2001.
(20) The trace amounts of canola material found in Canadian mustard was due to mechanical admixing. The two traits identified have both been approved for human consumption.
(21) Yes. The trial sites were deep ploughed after harvesting and the seeds, which are very persistent, are still germinating. Deep ploughing is not practised in WA.
(22)(a) If this question refers to the trial conducted in WA in 2009 the grower of each site is responsible for the monitoring and management of any volunteers.
If this question relates to Tasmanian trial sites - the Tasmanian sites are still being managed under permit and volunteers hand pulled and destroyed or sprayed out. Audits occur three times per year with the audit results posted on the Department of Primary Industries Plants Water and the Environment (DPIPWE) website.
(b) None.
(23) The adverse climatic conditions in the Eastern States in 2008 have made any comparisons between GM and non-GM canola yields inconclusive. The results from the 2009 WA National variety trial sites are available on the NVT website.
(24) To ascertain the ability of the industry to maintain segregation between GM and non-GM canola along the entire production chain and secondarily to gain an understanding of the viability of the technology under WA farm management conditions.
(25) CBH undertook GM trait testing of each load of non-GM canola crops delivered by the GM growers and stack samples of all canola delivered to them in the 09/10 season. The participating farmers were asked, at the conclusion of the trial, if they consider that the technology is beneficial in their management system and crop rotation.
(26) An expert group within the Department of Agriculture and Food advised the Director General.
(27) The Department has provided me with interim reports in October, November and December 2009 and a final report in January 2010.
(28-29) The final report has been available from the Department's website since 25 January 2010.
(30)(a-b) The report mentioned earlier contains full details of the trial sites. GM canola was grown on a commercial scale at 19 locations, two of which were DAFWA sites.
(31) Yes.
(32)(a) Growers have a requirement to confirm that all conditions have been met as a part of the initial approval prior to the approval to plant GM canola.
(b) Approval to plant would not have been granted.
(c) None.
(33) Non-GM hybrids with herbicide tolerance to triazines and imidazolinones have been developed and are commercially available in WA. Canola Breeders WA have released a hybrid TT canola variety and most Australian and International canola breeding companies have released hybrid imidazolinone tolerant varieties. Non-herbicide tolerant hybrid canola is also commercially available.
(34) The Department conducted research on the management of Clearfield imidazolinone tolerant hybrid canola in 2009. This work and research on triazine tolerant hybrid canola is expected to continue in 2010.
(35) The Department committed approximately $65,000 to work on hybrid imidazolinone tolerant canola in 2009. The funding is likely to double in 2010 if hybrid TT canola is included in the program.
(36) No funding was specifically allocated to research on hybrid or open pollinated GM canola in 2009. The Department was contracted by Nufarm to conduct a demonstration site comparing GM canola and other non-GM canola types for weed management at Geraldton in 2009.
(37) To date there has been no GM canola available to be purchased in WA.
(38-39) Five percent of the 2009-10 Western Australian canola crop was sold to domestic buyers. 95 per cent was sold to international buyers of which the majority do not distinguish between GM and non-GM canola. These data were provided by GrainPool.
(40) If the agreed protocols for the segregation of GM and non-GM canola are complied with any adventitious presence will be kept below the Australian Grains Industry threshold of 0.9 per cent presence.
(41)(a-b) The Primary Industries Ministerial Council announced the 0.9 per cent threshold level of GM presence in non-GM canola grain in October 2005.
(42)(a-b) All the protocols referred to in question without notice 819 of 15 October 2009 are contained in Department's report on the trials.
(43) The Department does not currently have any responsibility for research into reducing food waste. Its prime focus is on food production, value adding and marketing both domestically and overseas.
(44) None.
(45) None.
(46) Not applicable.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
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.