❓ Hon Giz Watson raises concerns about GM canola contamination and liability, urging uniform laws and moratoria. Hon Kim Chance supports a review of liability laws at a national level and highlights WA's existing GM-free area legislation.
AnsweredQoN 651Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to trace levels of Monsanto’s genetically modified canola found in two varieties of non-GM canola grown in national variety trials in the Lake Grace and Cranbrook shires and the upcoming Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting. Will the minister include the following matters on the next PIMC meeting agenda for discussion and resolution? (1) The need for uniform liability laws to ensure that - (a) common law remedies are not relied upon to redress any harm or contamination that genetically engineered organisms may cause; (b) the owners of GE organisms are fully responsible for any negative impact of their use; and (c) an industry-supported fund is established to compensate anyone suffering loss or harm from the impact of GE organisms? (2) That GE crop moratoria be maintained in all jurisdictions and that no state or territory end its present ban without the concurrence of others, as GE-free areas would also be affected if GE canola were grown commercially? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Giz Watson for some notice of the question. (1) I have already made a public statement in a media release on 13 September 2005 on the issues regarding liability laws. I stated - I shall be raising the issues of GM contamination and the need for strict liability legislation as a matter of urgency at the next meeting of the Primary Industry Ministerial Council. It is my view that common law remedies should not and cannot be relied upon to redress any harm or contamination from GM organisms or crops, and for this reason I will be asking that the ministerial council initiate a review of the need for uniform liability laws, including the need for an industry-supported fund to provide compensation. It would clearly be my preference for liability laws to be established at the national level, but I will not rule out state legislation if necessary. I will be raising Western Australia’s concerns in these areas at the forthcoming PIMC meeting, and expect that other PIMC members will also be keen to discuss these matters. I want to fill that out a bit more, as it is not entirely clear. Rather than asking at this stage for a construct of strict liability laws, I believe that concurrently at state and federal levels there needs to be an examination of our existing law to determine whether there are legal deficiencies such that would prevent us being able to adopt GM technology. Those potential legal deficiencies and the identification of same, should they exist, may not need a single piece of stand-alone legislation. It may be that existing legislation, subject to quite minor amendment, can be made a fit and proper mechanism. However, I am concerned about the extent to which the commonwealth government has already commissioned such a review - and it has - in which it stated that there were no problems, it would handle this issue with common law and that common law is an adequate answer. That is the wrong answer, as it is akin to saying - indeed, this analogy has been drawn - that aerial spraying and spray drift problems are similar to GE problems. In some respects perhaps they are. That is, in fact, an example that has been given. In fact, we do not rely on common law to control spray drift issues. Each jurisdiction in Australia has a comprehensive set of statutory laws to control spray drift issues. My point is: why should GM technology be any different? However, I am asking initially for the first hurdle to be crossed; that is, a determination on whether there is a deficiency in our laws. I do not know; I cannot make that judgment. A competent lawyer would need to make that judgment. I also believe that the GM industry ought to be supportive of such a review, because anybody who seriously believed that a state or territory jurisdiction would adopt GM technology without assurances that an adequate legal framework was in existence would be dreaming. The states and territories know that they will be left holding the baby when something goes wrong. The first place the industry will come to for this problem to be fixed will be state and territory governments, not the commonwealth. No state or territory will ever be prepared to adopt GM technology until it has an assurance that an adequate legal framework is in place, and right now we are a thousand miles away from that position. It is clearly my preference for liability laws to exist at the national level, but I would not rule out state legislation if necessary. That depends on the identification of deficiencies. I will be raising Western Australia’s concerns in these areas at the forthcoming Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting, and expect that other ministerial council members will also be keen to discuss these matters. (2) Western Australia has the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 and a Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Order 2004, which was announced by the Premier in 2004. The order designated the whole state as an area in which genetically modified crops must not be cultivated. Most states and territories, with the exception of Queensland and the Northern Territory, have legislation similar to ours regarding a moratoria of genetically modified food crops or genetically modified crops. Other states will make their own decisions on the matter, but I believe a consistent approach is necessary in this situation. The honourable member can be assured that this matter will be discussed at the ministerial council.
(1) The need for uniform liability laws to ensure that - (a) common law remedies are not relied upon to redress any harm or contamination that genetically engineered organisms may cause; (b) the owners of GE organisms are fully responsible for any negative impact of their use; and (c) an industry-supported fund is established to compensate anyone suffering loss or harm from the impact of GE organisms? (2) That GE crop moratoria be maintained in all jurisdictions and that no state or territory end its present ban without the concurrence of others, as GE-free areas would also be affected if GE canola were grown commercially? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for some notice of the question. (1) I have already made a public statement in a media release on 13 September 2005 on the issues regarding liability laws. I stated - I shall be raising the issues of GM contamination and the need for strict liability legislation as a matter of urgency at the next meeting of the Primary Industry Ministerial Council. It is my view that common law remedies should not and cannot be relied upon to redress any harm or contamination from GM organisms or crops, and for this reason I will be asking that the ministerial council initiate a review of the need for uniform liability laws, including the need for an industry-supported fund to provide compensation. It would clearly be my preference for liability laws to be established at the national level, but I will not rule out state legislation if necessary. I will be raising Western Australia’s concerns in these areas at the forthcoming PIMC meeting, and expect that other PIMC members will also be keen to discuss these matters. I want to fill that out a bit more, as it is not entirely clear. Rather than asking at this stage for a construct of strict liability laws, I believe that concurrently at state and federal levels there needs to be an examination of our existing law to determine whether there are legal deficiencies such that would prevent us being able to adopt GM technology. Those potential legal deficiencies and the identification of same, should they exist, may not need a single piece of stand-alone legislation. It may be that existing legislation, subject to quite minor amendment, can be made a fit and proper mechanism. However, I am concerned about the extent to which the commonwealth government has already commissioned such a review - and it has - in which it stated that there were no problems, it would handle this issue with common law and that common law is an adequate answer. That is the wrong answer, as it is akin to saying - indeed, this analogy has been drawn - that aerial spraying and spray drift problems are similar to GE problems. In some respects perhaps they are. That is, in fact, an example that has been given. In fact, we do not rely on common law to control spray drift issues. Each jurisdiction in Australia has a comprehensive set of statutory laws to control spray drift issues. My point is: why should GM technology be any different? However, I am asking initially for the first hurdle to be crossed; that is, a determination on whether there is a deficiency in our laws. I do not know; I cannot make that judgment. A competent lawyer would need to make that judgment. I also believe that the GM industry ought to be supportive of such a review, because anybody who seriously believed that a state or territory jurisdiction would adopt GM technology without assurances that an adequate legal framework was in existence would be dreaming. The states and territories know that they will be left holding the baby when something goes wrong. The first place the industry will come to for this problem to be fixed will be state and territory governments, not the commonwealth. No state or territory will ever be prepared to adopt GM technology until it has an assurance that an adequate legal framework is in place, and right now we are a thousand miles away from that position. It is clearly my preference for liability laws to exist at the national level, but I would not rule out state legislation if necessary. That depends on the identification of deficiencies. I will be raising Western Australia’s concerns in these areas at the forthcoming Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting, and expect that other ministerial council members will also be keen to discuss these matters. (2) Western Australia has the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 and a Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Order 2004, which was announced by the Premier in 2004. The order designated the whole state as an area in which genetically modified crops must not be cultivated. Most states and territories, with the exception of Queensland and the Northern Territory, have legislation similar to ours regarding a moratoria of genetically modified food crops or genetically modified crops. Other states will make their own decisions on the matter, but I believe a consistent approach is necessary in this situation. The honourable member can be assured that this matter will be discussed at the ministerial council.
(b) the owners of GE organisms are fully responsible for any negative impact of their use; and (c) an industry-supported fund is established to compensate anyone suffering loss or harm from the impact of GE organisms?
(c) an industry-supported fund is established to compensate anyone suffering loss or harm from the impact of GE organisms?
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for some notice of the question. (1) I have already made a public statement in a media release on 13 September 2005 on the issues regarding liability laws. I stated - I shall be raising the issues of GM contamination and the need for strict liability legislation as a matter of urgency at the next meeting of the Primary Industry Ministerial Council. It is my view that common law remedies should not and cannot be relied upon to redress any harm or contamination from GM organisms or crops, and for this reason I will be asking that the ministerial council initiate a review of the need for uniform liability laws, including the need for an industry-supported fund to provide compensation. It would clearly be my preference for liability laws to be established at the national level, but I will not rule out state legislation if necessary. I will be raising Western Australia’s concerns in these areas at the forthcoming PIMC meeting, and expect that other PIMC members will also be keen to discuss these matters. I want to fill that out a bit more, as it is not entirely clear. Rather than asking at this stage for a construct of strict liability laws, I believe that concurrently at state and federal levels there needs to be an examination of our existing law to determine whether there are legal deficiencies such that would prevent us being able to adopt GM technology. Those potential legal deficiencies and the identification of same, should they exist, may not need a single piece of stand-alone legislation. It may be that existing legislation, subject to quite minor amendment, can be made a fit and proper mechanism. However, I am concerned about the extent to which the commonwealth government has already commissioned such a review - and it has - in which it stated that there were no problems, it would handle this issue with common law and that common law is an adequate answer. That is the wrong answer, as it is akin to saying - indeed, this analogy has been drawn - that aerial spraying and spray drift problems are similar to GE problems. In some respects perhaps they are. That is, in fact, an example that has been given. In fact, we do not rely on common law to control spray drift issues. Each jurisdiction in Australia has a comprehensive set of statutory laws to control spray drift issues. My point is: why should GM technology be any different? However, I am asking initially for the first hurdle to be crossed; that is, a determination on whether there is a deficiency in our laws. I do not know; I cannot make that judgment. A competent lawyer would need to make that judgment. I also believe that the GM industry ought to be supportive of such a review, because anybody who seriously believed that a state or territory jurisdiction would adopt GM technology without assurances that an adequate legal framework was in existence would be dreaming. The states and territories know that they will be left holding the baby when something goes wrong. The first place the industry will come to for this problem to be fixed will be state and territory governments, not the commonwealth. No state or territory will ever be prepared to adopt GM technology until it has an assurance that an adequate legal framework is in place, and right now we are a thousand miles away from that position. It is clearly my preference for liability laws to exist at the national level, but I would not rule out state legislation if necessary. That depends on the identification of deficiencies. I will be raising Western Australia’s concerns in these areas at the forthcoming Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting, and expect that other ministerial council members will also be keen to discuss these matters. (2) Western Australia has the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 and a Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Order 2004, which was announced by the Premier in 2004. The order designated the whole state as an area in which genetically modified crops must not be cultivated. Most states and territories, with the exception of Queensland and the Northern Territory, have legislation similar to ours regarding a moratoria of genetically modified food crops or genetically modified crops. Other states will make their own decisions on the matter, but I believe a consistent approach is necessary in this situation. The honourable member can be assured that this matter will be discussed at the ministerial council.
I thank Hon Giz Watson for some notice of the question. (1) I have already made a public statement in a media release on 13 September 2005 on the issues regarding liability laws. I stated - I shall be raising the issues of GM contamination and the need for strict liability legislation as a matter of urgency at the next meeting of the Primary Industry Ministerial Council. It is my view that common law remedies should not and cannot be relied upon to redress any harm or contamination from GM organisms or crops, and for this reason I will be asking that the ministerial council initiate a review of the need for uniform liability laws, including the need for an industry-supported fund to provide compensation. It would clearly be my preference for liability laws to be established at the national level, but I will not rule out state legislation if necessary. I will be raising Western Australia’s concerns in these areas at the forthcoming PIMC meeting, and expect that other PIMC members will also be keen to discuss these matters. I want to fill that out a bit more, as it is not entirely clear. Rather than asking at this stage for a construct of strict liability laws, I believe that concurrently at state and federal levels there needs to be an examination of our existing law to determine whether there are legal deficiencies such that would prevent us being able to adopt GM technology. Those potential legal deficiencies and the identification of same, should they exist, may not need a single piece of stand-alone legislation. It may be that existing legislation, subject to quite minor amendment, can be made a fit and proper mechanism. However, I am concerned about the extent to which the commonwealth government has already commissioned such a review - and it has - in which it stated that there were no problems, it would handle this issue with common law and that common law is an adequate answer. That is the wrong answer, as it is akin to saying - indeed, this analogy has been drawn - that aerial spraying and spray drift problems are similar to GE problems. In some respects perhaps they are. That is, in fact, an example that has been given. In fact, we do not rely on common law to control spray drift issues. Each jurisdiction in Australia has a comprehensive set of statutory laws to control spray drift issues. My point is: why should GM technology be any different? However, I am asking initially for the first hurdle to be crossed; that is, a determination on whether there is a deficiency in our laws. I do not know; I cannot make that judgment. A competent lawyer would need to make that judgment. I also believe that the GM industry ought to be supportive of such a review, because anybody who seriously believed that a state or territory jurisdiction would adopt GM technology without assurances that an adequate legal framework was in existence would be dreaming. The states and territories know that they will be left holding the baby when something goes wrong. The first place the industry will come to for this problem to be fixed will be state and territory governments, not the commonwealth. No state or territory will ever be prepared to adopt GM technology until it has an assurance that an adequate legal framework is in place, and right now we are a thousand miles away from that position. It is clearly my preference for liability laws to exist at the national level, but I would not rule out state legislation if necessary. That depends on the identification of deficiencies. I will be raising Western Australia’s concerns in these areas at the forthcoming Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting, and expect that other ministerial council members will also be keen to discuss these matters. (2) Western Australia has the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 and a Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Order 2004, which was announced by the Premier in 2004. The order designated the whole state as an area in which genetically modified crops must not be cultivated. Most states and territories, with the exception of Queensland and the Northern Territory, have legislation similar to ours regarding a moratoria of genetically modified food crops or genetically modified crops. Other states will make their own decisions on the matter, but I believe a consistent approach is necessary in this situation. The honourable member can be assured that this matter will be discussed at the ministerial council.
(1) I have already made a public statement in a media release on 13 September 2005 on the issues regarding liability laws. I stated - I shall be raising the issues of GM contamination and the need for strict liability legislation as a matter of urgency at the next meeting of the Primary Industry Ministerial Council. It is my view that common law remedies should not and cannot be relied upon to redress any harm or contamination from GM organisms or crops, and for this reason I will be asking that the ministerial council initiate a review of the need for uniform liability laws, including the need for an industry-supported fund to provide compensation. It would clearly be my preference for liability laws to be established at the national level, but I will not rule out state legislation if necessary. I will be raising Western Australia’s concerns in these areas at the forthcoming PIMC meeting, and expect that other PIMC members will also be keen to discuss these matters. I want to fill that out a bit more, as it is not entirely clear. Rather than asking at this stage for a construct of strict liability laws, I believe that concurrently at state and federal levels there needs to be an examination of our existing law to determine whether there are legal deficiencies such that would prevent us being able to adopt GM technology. Those potential legal deficiencies and the identification of same, should they exist, may not need a single piece of stand-alone legislation. It may be that existing legislation, subject to quite minor amendment, can be made a fit and proper mechanism. However, I am concerned about the extent to which the commonwealth government has already commissioned such a review - and it has - in which it stated that there were no problems, it would handle this issue with common law and that common law is an adequate answer. That is the wrong answer, as it is akin to saying - indeed, this analogy has been drawn - that aerial spraying and spray drift problems are similar to GE problems. In some respects perhaps they are. That is, in fact, an example that has been given. In fact, we do not rely on common law to control spray drift issues. Each jurisdiction in Australia has a comprehensive set of statutory laws to control spray drift issues. My point is: why should GM technology be any different? However, I am asking initially for the first hurdle to be crossed; that is, a determination on whether there is a deficiency in our laws. I do not know; I cannot make that judgment. A competent lawyer would need to make that judgment. I also believe that the GM industry ought to be supportive of such a review, because anybody who seriously believed that a state or territory jurisdiction would adopt GM technology without assurances that an adequate legal framework was in existence would be dreaming. The states and territories know that they will be left holding the baby when something goes wrong. The first place the industry will come to for this problem to be fixed will be state and territory governments, not the commonwealth. No state or territory will ever be prepared to adopt GM technology until it has an assurance that an adequate legal framework is in place, and right now we are a thousand miles away from that position. It is clearly my preference for liability laws to exist at the national level, but I would not rule out state legislation if necessary. That depends on the identification of deficiencies. I will be raising Western Australia’s concerns in these areas at the forthcoming Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting, and expect that other ministerial council members will also be keen to discuss these matters. (2) Western Australia has the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 and a Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Order 2004, which was announced by the Premier in 2004. The order designated the whole state as an area in which genetically modified crops must not be cultivated. Most states and territories, with the exception of Queensland and the Northern Territory, have legislation similar to ours regarding a moratoria of genetically modified food crops or genetically modified crops. Other states will make their own decisions on the matter, but I believe a consistent approach is necessary in this situation. The honourable member can be assured that this matter will be discussed at the ministerial council.
I want to fill that out a bit more, as it is not entirely clear. Rather than asking at this stage for a construct of strict liability laws, I believe that concurrently at state and federal levels there needs to be an examination of our existing law to determine whether there are legal deficiencies such that would prevent us being able to adopt GM technology. Those potential legal deficiencies and the identification of same, should they exist, may not need a single piece of stand-alone legislation. It may be that existing legislation, subject to quite minor amendment, can be made a fit and proper mechanism. However, I am concerned about the extent to which the commonwealth government has already commissioned such a review - and it has - in which it stated that there were no problems, it would handle this issue with common law and that common law is an adequate answer. That is the wrong answer, as it is akin to saying - indeed, this analogy has been drawn - that aerial spraying and spray drift problems are similar to GE problems. In some respects perhaps they are. That is, in fact, an example that has been given. In fact, we do not rely on common law to control spray drift issues. Each jurisdiction in Australia has a comprehensive set of statutory laws to control spray drift issues. My point is: why should GM technology be any different? However, I am asking initially for the first hurdle to be crossed; that is, a determination on whether there is a deficiency in our laws. I do not know; I cannot make that judgment. A competent lawyer would need to make that judgment. I also believe that the GM industry ought to be supportive of such a review, because anybody who seriously believed that a state or territory jurisdiction would adopt GM technology without assurances that an adequate legal framework was in existence would be dreaming. The states and territories know that they will be left holding the baby when something goes wrong. The first place the industry will come to for this problem to be fixed will be state and territory governments, not the commonwealth. No state or territory will ever be prepared to adopt GM technology until it has an assurance that an adequate legal framework is in place, and right now we are a thousand miles away from that position. It is clearly my preference for liability laws to exist at the national level, but I would not rule out state legislation if necessary. That depends on the identification of deficiencies. I will be raising Western Australia’s concerns in these areas at the forthcoming Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting, and expect that other ministerial council members will also be keen to discuss these matters.
It is clearly my preference for liability laws to exist at the national level, but I would not rule out state legislation if necessary. That depends on the identification of deficiencies. I will be raising Western Australia’s concerns in these areas at the forthcoming Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting, and expect that other ministerial council members will also be keen to discuss these matters.
(1) The need for uniform liability laws to ensure that - (a) common law remedies are not relied upon to redress any harm or contamination that genetically engineered organisms may cause; (b) the owners of GE organisms are fully responsible for any negative impact of their use; and (c) an industry-supported fund is established to compensate anyone suffering loss or harm from the impact of GE organisms? (2) That GE crop moratoria be maintained in all jurisdictions and that no state or territory end its present ban without the concurrence of others, as GE-free areas would also be affected if GE canola were grown commercially? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for some notice of the question. (1) I have already made a public statement in a media release on 13 September 2005 on the issues regarding liability laws. I stated - I shall be raising the issues of GM contamination and the need for strict liability legislation as a matter of urgency at the next meeting of the Primary Industry Ministerial Council. It is my view that common law remedies should not and cannot be relied upon to redress any harm or contamination from GM organisms or crops, and for this reason I will be asking that the ministerial council initiate a review of the need for uniform liability laws, including the need for an industry-supported fund to provide compensation. It would clearly be my preference for liability laws to be established at the national level, but I will not rule out state legislation if necessary. I will be raising Western Australia’s concerns in these areas at the forthcoming PIMC meeting, and expect that other PIMC members will also be keen to discuss these matters. I want to fill that out a bit more, as it is not entirely clear. Rather than asking at this stage for a construct of strict liability laws, I believe that concurrently at state and federal levels there needs to be an examination of our existing law to determine whether there are legal deficiencies such that would prevent us being able to adopt GM technology. Those potential legal deficiencies and the identification of same, should they exist, may not need a single piece of stand-alone legislation. It may be that existing legislation, subject to quite minor amendment, can be made a fit and proper mechanism. However, I am concerned about the extent to which the commonwealth government has already commissioned such a review - and it has - in which it stated that there were no problems, it would handle this issue with common law and that common law is an adequate answer. That is the wrong answer, as it is akin to saying - indeed, this analogy has been drawn - that aerial spraying and spray drift problems are similar to GE problems. In some respects perhaps they are. That is, in fact, an example that has been given. In fact, we do not rely on common law to control spray drift issues. Each jurisdiction in Australia has a comprehensive set of statutory laws to control spray drift issues. My point is: why should GM technology be any different? However, I am asking initially for the first hurdle to be crossed; that is, a determination on whether there is a deficiency in our laws. I do not know; I cannot make that judgment. A competent lawyer would need to make that judgment. I also believe that the GM industry ought to be supportive of such a review, because anybody who seriously believed that a state or territory jurisdiction would adopt GM technology without assurances that an adequate legal framework was in existence would be dreaming. The states and territories know that they will be left holding the baby when something goes wrong. The first place the industry will come to for this problem to be fixed will be state and territory governments, not the commonwealth. No state or territory will ever be prepared to adopt GM technology until it has an assurance that an adequate legal framework is in place, and right now we are a thousand miles away from that position. It is clearly my preference for liability laws to exist at the national level, but I would not rule out state legislation if necessary. That depends on the identification of deficiencies. I will be raising Western Australia’s concerns in these areas at the forthcoming Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting, and expect that other ministerial council members will also be keen to discuss these matters. (2) Western Australia has the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 and a Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Order 2004, which was announced by the Premier in 2004. The order designated the whole state as an area in which genetically modified crops must not be cultivated. Most states and territories, with the exception of Queensland and the Northern Territory, have legislation similar to ours regarding a moratoria of genetically modified food crops or genetically modified crops. Other states will make their own decisions on the matter, but I believe a consistent approach is necessary in this situation. The honourable member can be assured that this matter will be discussed at the ministerial council.
(b) the owners of GE organisms are fully responsible for any negative impact of their use; and (c) an industry-supported fund is established to compensate anyone suffering loss or harm from the impact of GE organisms?
(c) an industry-supported fund is established to compensate anyone suffering loss or harm from the impact of GE organisms?
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for some notice of the question. (1) I have already made a public statement in a media release on 13 September 2005 on the issues regarding liability laws. I stated - I shall be raising the issues of GM contamination and the need for strict liability legislation as a matter of urgency at the next meeting of the Primary Industry Ministerial Council. It is my view that common law remedies should not and cannot be relied upon to redress any harm or contamination from GM organisms or crops, and for this reason I will be asking that the ministerial council initiate a review of the need for uniform liability laws, including the need for an industry-supported fund to provide compensation. It would clearly be my preference for liability laws to be established at the national level, but I will not rule out state legislation if necessary. I will be raising Western Australia’s concerns in these areas at the forthcoming PIMC meeting, and expect that other PIMC members will also be keen to discuss these matters. I want to fill that out a bit more, as it is not entirely clear. Rather than asking at this stage for a construct of strict liability laws, I believe that concurrently at state and federal levels there needs to be an examination of our existing law to determine whether there are legal deficiencies such that would prevent us being able to adopt GM technology. Those potential legal deficiencies and the identification of same, should they exist, may not need a single piece of stand-alone legislation. It may be that existing legislation, subject to quite minor amendment, can be made a fit and proper mechanism. However, I am concerned about the extent to which the commonwealth government has already commissioned such a review - and it has - in which it stated that there were no problems, it would handle this issue with common law and that common law is an adequate answer. That is the wrong answer, as it is akin to saying - indeed, this analogy has been drawn - that aerial spraying and spray drift problems are similar to GE problems. In some respects perhaps they are. That is, in fact, an example that has been given. In fact, we do not rely on common law to control spray drift issues. Each jurisdiction in Australia has a comprehensive set of statutory laws to control spray drift issues. My point is: why should GM technology be any different? However, I am asking initially for the first hurdle to be crossed; that is, a determination on whether there is a deficiency in our laws. I do not know; I cannot make that judgment. A competent lawyer would need to make that judgment. I also believe that the GM industry ought to be supportive of such a review, because anybody who seriously believed that a state or territory jurisdiction would adopt GM technology without assurances that an adequate legal framework was in existence would be dreaming. The states and territories know that they will be left holding the baby when something goes wrong. The first place the industry will come to for this problem to be fixed will be state and territory governments, not the commonwealth. No state or territory will ever be prepared to adopt GM technology until it has an assurance that an adequate legal framework is in place, and right now we are a thousand miles away from that position. It is clearly my preference for liability laws to exist at the national level, but I would not rule out state legislation if necessary. That depends on the identification of deficiencies. I will be raising Western Australia’s concerns in these areas at the forthcoming Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting, and expect that other ministerial council members will also be keen to discuss these matters. (2) Western Australia has the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 and a Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Order 2004, which was announced by the Premier in 2004. The order designated the whole state as an area in which genetically modified crops must not be cultivated. Most states and territories, with the exception of Queensland and the Northern Territory, have legislation similar to ours regarding a moratoria of genetically modified food crops or genetically modified crops. Other states will make their own decisions on the matter, but I believe a consistent approach is necessary in this situation. The honourable member can be assured that this matter will be discussed at the ministerial council.
I thank Hon Giz Watson for some notice of the question. (1) I have already made a public statement in a media release on 13 September 2005 on the issues regarding liability laws. I stated - I shall be raising the issues of GM contamination and the need for strict liability legislation as a matter of urgency at the next meeting of the Primary Industry Ministerial Council. It is my view that common law remedies should not and cannot be relied upon to redress any harm or contamination from GM organisms or crops, and for this reason I will be asking that the ministerial council initiate a review of the need for uniform liability laws, including the need for an industry-supported fund to provide compensation. It would clearly be my preference for liability laws to be established at the national level, but I will not rule out state legislation if necessary. I will be raising Western Australia’s concerns in these areas at the forthcoming PIMC meeting, and expect that other PIMC members will also be keen to discuss these matters. I want to fill that out a bit more, as it is not entirely clear. Rather than asking at this stage for a construct of strict liability laws, I believe that concurrently at state and federal levels there needs to be an examination of our existing law to determine whether there are legal deficiencies such that would prevent us being able to adopt GM technology. Those potential legal deficiencies and the identification of same, should they exist, may not need a single piece of stand-alone legislation. It may be that existing legislation, subject to quite minor amendment, can be made a fit and proper mechanism. However, I am concerned about the extent to which the commonwealth government has already commissioned such a review - and it has - in which it stated that there were no problems, it would handle this issue with common law and that common law is an adequate answer. That is the wrong answer, as it is akin to saying - indeed, this analogy has been drawn - that aerial spraying and spray drift problems are similar to GE problems. In some respects perhaps they are. That is, in fact, an example that has been given. In fact, we do not rely on common law to control spray drift issues. Each jurisdiction in Australia has a comprehensive set of statutory laws to control spray drift issues. My point is: why should GM technology be any different? However, I am asking initially for the first hurdle to be crossed; that is, a determination on whether there is a deficiency in our laws. I do not know; I cannot make that judgment. A competent lawyer would need to make that judgment. I also believe that the GM industry ought to be supportive of such a review, because anybody who seriously believed that a state or territory jurisdiction would adopt GM technology without assurances that an adequate legal framework was in existence would be dreaming. The states and territories know that they will be left holding the baby when something goes wrong. The first place the industry will come to for this problem to be fixed will be state and territory governments, not the commonwealth. No state or territory will ever be prepared to adopt GM technology until it has an assurance that an adequate legal framework is in place, and right now we are a thousand miles away from that position. It is clearly my preference for liability laws to exist at the national level, but I would not rule out state legislation if necessary. That depends on the identification of deficiencies. I will be raising Western Australia’s concerns in these areas at the forthcoming Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting, and expect that other ministerial council members will also be keen to discuss these matters. (2) Western Australia has the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 and a Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Order 2004, which was announced by the Premier in 2004. The order designated the whole state as an area in which genetically modified crops must not be cultivated. Most states and territories, with the exception of Queensland and the Northern Territory, have legislation similar to ours regarding a moratoria of genetically modified food crops or genetically modified crops. Other states will make their own decisions on the matter, but I believe a consistent approach is necessary in this situation. The honourable member can be assured that this matter will be discussed at the ministerial council.
(1) I have already made a public statement in a media release on 13 September 2005 on the issues regarding liability laws. I stated - I shall be raising the issues of GM contamination and the need for strict liability legislation as a matter of urgency at the next meeting of the Primary Industry Ministerial Council. It is my view that common law remedies should not and cannot be relied upon to redress any harm or contamination from GM organisms or crops, and for this reason I will be asking that the ministerial council initiate a review of the need for uniform liability laws, including the need for an industry-supported fund to provide compensation. It would clearly be my preference for liability laws to be established at the national level, but I will not rule out state legislation if necessary. I will be raising Western Australia’s concerns in these areas at the forthcoming PIMC meeting, and expect that other PIMC members will also be keen to discuss these matters. I want to fill that out a bit more, as it is not entirely clear. Rather than asking at this stage for a construct of strict liability laws, I believe that concurrently at state and federal levels there needs to be an examination of our existing law to determine whether there are legal deficiencies such that would prevent us being able to adopt GM technology. Those potential legal deficiencies and the identification of same, should they exist, may not need a single piece of stand-alone legislation. It may be that existing legislation, subject to quite minor amendment, can be made a fit and proper mechanism. However, I am concerned about the extent to which the commonwealth government has already commissioned such a review - and it has - in which it stated that there were no problems, it would handle this issue with common law and that common law is an adequate answer. That is the wrong answer, as it is akin to saying - indeed, this analogy has been drawn - that aerial spraying and spray drift problems are similar to GE problems. In some respects perhaps they are. That is, in fact, an example that has been given. In fact, we do not rely on common law to control spray drift issues. Each jurisdiction in Australia has a comprehensive set of statutory laws to control spray drift issues. My point is: why should GM technology be any different? However, I am asking initially for the first hurdle to be crossed; that is, a determination on whether there is a deficiency in our laws. I do not know; I cannot make that judgment. A competent lawyer would need to make that judgment. I also believe that the GM industry ought to be supportive of such a review, because anybody who seriously believed that a state or territory jurisdiction would adopt GM technology without assurances that an adequate legal framework was in existence would be dreaming. The states and territories know that they will be left holding the baby when something goes wrong. The first place the industry will come to for this problem to be fixed will be state and territory governments, not the commonwealth. No state or territory will ever be prepared to adopt GM technology until it has an assurance that an adequate legal framework is in place, and right now we are a thousand miles away from that position. It is clearly my preference for liability laws to exist at the national level, but I would not rule out state legislation if necessary. That depends on the identification of deficiencies. I will be raising Western Australia’s concerns in these areas at the forthcoming Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting, and expect that other ministerial council members will also be keen to discuss these matters. (2) Western Australia has the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 and a Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Order 2004, which was announced by the Premier in 2004. The order designated the whole state as an area in which genetically modified crops must not be cultivated. Most states and territories, with the exception of Queensland and the Northern Territory, have legislation similar to ours regarding a moratoria of genetically modified food crops or genetically modified crops. Other states will make their own decisions on the matter, but I believe a consistent approach is necessary in this situation. The honourable member can be assured that this matter will be discussed at the ministerial council.
I want to fill that out a bit more, as it is not entirely clear. Rather than asking at this stage for a construct of strict liability laws, I believe that concurrently at state and federal levels there needs to be an examination of our existing law to determine whether there are legal deficiencies such that would prevent us being able to adopt GM technology. Those potential legal deficiencies and the identification of same, should they exist, may not need a single piece of stand-alone legislation. It may be that existing legislation, subject to quite minor amendment, can be made a fit and proper mechanism. However, I am concerned about the extent to which the commonwealth government has already commissioned such a review - and it has - in which it stated that there were no problems, it would handle this issue with common law and that common law is an adequate answer. That is the wrong answer, as it is akin to saying - indeed, this analogy has been drawn - that aerial spraying and spray drift problems are similar to GE problems. In some respects perhaps they are. That is, in fact, an example that has been given. In fact, we do not rely on common law to control spray drift issues. Each jurisdiction in Australia has a comprehensive set of statutory laws to control spray drift issues. My point is: why should GM technology be any different? However, I am asking initially for the first hurdle to be crossed; that is, a determination on whether there is a deficiency in our laws. I do not know; I cannot make that judgment. A competent lawyer would need to make that judgment. I also believe that the GM industry ought to be supportive of such a review, because anybody who seriously believed that a state or territory jurisdiction would adopt GM technology without assurances that an adequate legal framework was in existence would be dreaming. The states and territories know that they will be left holding the baby when something goes wrong. The first place the industry will come to for this problem to be fixed will be state and territory governments, not the commonwealth. No state or territory will ever be prepared to adopt GM technology until it has an assurance that an adequate legal framework is in place, and right now we are a thousand miles away from that position. It is clearly my preference for liability laws to exist at the national level, but I would not rule out state legislation if necessary. That depends on the identification of deficiencies. I will be raising Western Australia’s concerns in these areas at the forthcoming Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting, and expect that other ministerial council members will also be keen to discuss these matters.
It is clearly my preference for liability laws to exist at the national level, but I would not rule out state legislation if necessary. That depends on the identification of deficiencies. I will be raising Western Australia’s concerns in these areas at the forthcoming Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting, and expect that other ministerial council members will also be keen to discuss these matters.
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.