❓ A WA parliamentary question addresses concerns about the registration timeframe for sensitive sites, potential impacts on non-GM farmers, and the possibility of legal action related to buffer zones for GM crops. The Minister's response clarifies the registration period, addresses concerns about lost premiums, and outlines the purpose of the Sensitive Sites WA service.
AnsweredQoN 364Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS — SENSITIVE SITES
I refer to the WA Department of Agriculture and Food’s sensitive sites register. (1) Why were some organic growers given only three days to register their properties as sensitive sites? (2) Given that all non-GM farmers, not just organic ones, potentially stand to lose premiums and market access due to GM contamination, will these farmers also be given the opportunity to register their farms as sensitive sites? (3) At a recent forum in Manjimup, DAFWA’s executive director, David Bowran, suggested that GM farmers could sue organic farmers for lost income for having to put in place buffer zones. Is the intent of the sensitive sites register to facilitate such legal action? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY
I refer to the WA Department of Agriculture and Food’s sensitive sites register. (1) Why were some organic growers given only three days to register their properties as sensitive sites? (2) Given that all non-GM farmers, not just organic ones, potentially stand to lose premiums and market access due to GM contamination, will these farmers also be given the opportunity to register their farms as sensitive sites? (3) At a recent forum in Manjimup, DAFWA’s executive director, David Bowran, suggested that GM farmers could sue organic farmers for lost income for having to put in place buffer zones. Is the intent of the sensitive sites register to facilitate such legal action? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Three days is not correct. Between 30 March 2011 and 1 April 2011 the Department of Agriculture and Food sent 1 378 letters to growers asking them to verify their property details and register their property. DAFWA accepted registrations until 3 May 2011. (2) There is no known evidence of premiums being lost in Western Australia where the adventitious presence of GM is less than 0.9 per cent in nonGM crops but, rather, it is enhanced as a result of GM canola being introduced. As defined on the Sensitive Sites WA webpage, any grower with a property that its owner and DAFWA consider to have a legitimate need for registration as a sensitive site may register their property. (3) The Sensitive Sites WA service aims to assist growers to prepare risk assessment and risk mitigation plans in consultation with neighbours so as to protect legitimate sensitive agricultural production systems.
(1) Why were some organic growers given only three days to register their properties as sensitive sites? (2) Given that all non-GM farmers, not just organic ones, potentially stand to lose premiums and market access due to GM contamination, will these farmers also be given the opportunity to register their farms as sensitive sites? (3) At a recent forum in Manjimup, DAFWA’s executive director, David Bowran, suggested that GM farmers could sue organic farmers for lost income for having to put in place buffer zones. Is the intent of the sensitive sites register to facilitate such legal action? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Three days is not correct. Between 30 March 2011 and 1 April 2011 the Department of Agriculture and Food sent 1 378 letters to growers asking them to verify their property details and register their property. DAFWA accepted registrations until 3 May 2011. (2) There is no known evidence of premiums being lost in Western Australia where the adventitious presence of GM is less than 0.9 per cent in nonGM crops but, rather, it is enhanced as a result of GM canola being introduced. As defined on the Sensitive Sites WA webpage, any grower with a property that its owner and DAFWA consider to have a legitimate need for registration as a sensitive site may register their property. (3) The Sensitive Sites WA service aims to assist growers to prepare risk assessment and risk mitigation plans in consultation with neighbours so as to protect legitimate sensitive agricultural production systems.
(2) Given that all non-GM farmers, not just organic ones, potentially stand to lose premiums and market access due to GM contamination, will these farmers also be given the opportunity to register their farms as sensitive sites? (3) At a recent forum in Manjimup, DAFWA’s executive director, David Bowran, suggested that GM farmers could sue organic farmers for lost income for having to put in place buffer zones. Is the intent of the sensitive sites register to facilitate such legal action? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Three days is not correct. Between 30 March 2011 and 1 April 2011 the Department of Agriculture and Food sent 1 378 letters to growers asking them to verify their property details and register their property. DAFWA accepted registrations until 3 May 2011. (2) There is no known evidence of premiums being lost in Western Australia where the adventitious presence of GM is less than 0.9 per cent in nonGM crops but, rather, it is enhanced as a result of GM canola being introduced. As defined on the Sensitive Sites WA webpage, any grower with a property that its owner and DAFWA consider to have a legitimate need for registration as a sensitive site may register their property. (3) The Sensitive Sites WA service aims to assist growers to prepare risk assessment and risk mitigation plans in consultation with neighbours so as to protect legitimate sensitive agricultural production systems.
(3) At a recent forum in Manjimup, DAFWA’s executive director, David Bowran, suggested that GM farmers could sue organic farmers for lost income for having to put in place buffer zones. Is the intent of the sensitive sites register to facilitate such legal action? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Three days is not correct. Between 30 March 2011 and 1 April 2011 the Department of Agriculture and Food sent 1 378 letters to growers asking them to verify their property details and register their property. DAFWA accepted registrations until 3 May 2011. (2) There is no known evidence of premiums being lost in Western Australia where the adventitious presence of GM is less than 0.9 per cent in nonGM crops but, rather, it is enhanced as a result of GM canola being introduced. As defined on the Sensitive Sites WA webpage, any grower with a property that its owner and DAFWA consider to have a legitimate need for registration as a sensitive site may register their property. (3) The Sensitive Sites WA service aims to assist growers to prepare risk assessment and risk mitigation plans in consultation with neighbours so as to protect legitimate sensitive agricultural production systems.
Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Three days is not correct. Between 30 March 2011 and 1 April 2011 the Department of Agriculture and Food sent 1 378 letters to growers asking them to verify their property details and register their property. DAFWA accepted registrations until 3 May 2011. (2) There is no known evidence of premiums being lost in Western Australia where the adventitious presence of GM is less than 0.9 per cent in nonGM crops but, rather, it is enhanced as a result of GM canola being introduced. As defined on the Sensitive Sites WA webpage, any grower with a property that its owner and DAFWA consider to have a legitimate need for registration as a sensitive site may register their property. (3) The Sensitive Sites WA service aims to assist growers to prepare risk assessment and risk mitigation plans in consultation with neighbours so as to protect legitimate sensitive agricultural production systems.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Three days is not correct. Between 30 March 2011 and 1 April 2011 the Department of Agriculture and Food sent 1 378 letters to growers asking them to verify their property details and register their property. DAFWA accepted registrations until 3 May 2011. (2) There is no known evidence of premiums being lost in Western Australia where the adventitious presence of GM is less than 0.9 per cent in nonGM crops but, rather, it is enhanced as a result of GM canola being introduced. As defined on the Sensitive Sites WA webpage, any grower with a property that its owner and DAFWA consider to have a legitimate need for registration as a sensitive site may register their property. (3) The Sensitive Sites WA service aims to assist growers to prepare risk assessment and risk mitigation plans in consultation with neighbours so as to protect legitimate sensitive agricultural production systems.
(1) Three days is not correct. Between 30 March 2011 and 1 April 2011 the Department of Agriculture and Food sent 1 378 letters to growers asking them to verify their property details and register their property. DAFWA accepted registrations until 3 May 2011. (2) There is no known evidence of premiums being lost in Western Australia where the adventitious presence of GM is less than 0.9 per cent in nonGM crops but, rather, it is enhanced as a result of GM canola being introduced. As defined on the Sensitive Sites WA webpage, any grower with a property that its owner and DAFWA consider to have a legitimate need for registration as a sensitive site may register their property. (3) The Sensitive Sites WA service aims to assist growers to prepare risk assessment and risk mitigation plans in consultation with neighbours so as to protect legitimate sensitive agricultural production systems.
(2) There is no known evidence of premiums being lost in Western Australia where the adventitious presence of GM is less than 0.9 per cent in nonGM crops but, rather, it is enhanced as a result of GM canola being introduced. As defined on the Sensitive Sites WA webpage, any grower with a property that its owner and DAFWA consider to have a legitimate need for registration as a sensitive site may register their property. (3) The Sensitive Sites WA service aims to assist growers to prepare risk assessment and risk mitigation plans in consultation with neighbours so as to protect legitimate sensitive agricultural production systems.
(3) The Sensitive Sites WA service aims to assist growers to prepare risk assessment and risk mitigation plans in consultation with neighbours so as to protect legitimate sensitive agricultural production systems.
(1) Why were some organic growers given only three days to register their properties as sensitive sites? (2) Given that all non-GM farmers, not just organic ones, potentially stand to lose premiums and market access due to GM contamination, will these farmers also be given the opportunity to register their farms as sensitive sites? (3) At a recent forum in Manjimup, DAFWA’s executive director, David Bowran, suggested that GM farmers could sue organic farmers for lost income for having to put in place buffer zones. Is the intent of the sensitive sites register to facilitate such legal action? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Three days is not correct. Between 30 March 2011 and 1 April 2011 the Department of Agriculture and Food sent 1 378 letters to growers asking them to verify their property details and register their property. DAFWA accepted registrations until 3 May 2011. (2) There is no known evidence of premiums being lost in Western Australia where the adventitious presence of GM is less than 0.9 per cent in nonGM crops but, rather, it is enhanced as a result of GM canola being introduced. As defined on the Sensitive Sites WA webpage, any grower with a property that its owner and DAFWA consider to have a legitimate need for registration as a sensitive site may register their property. (3) The Sensitive Sites WA service aims to assist growers to prepare risk assessment and risk mitigation plans in consultation with neighbours so as to protect legitimate sensitive agricultural production systems.
(2) Given that all non-GM farmers, not just organic ones, potentially stand to lose premiums and market access due to GM contamination, will these farmers also be given the opportunity to register their farms as sensitive sites? (3) At a recent forum in Manjimup, DAFWA’s executive director, David Bowran, suggested that GM farmers could sue organic farmers for lost income for having to put in place buffer zones. Is the intent of the sensitive sites register to facilitate such legal action? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Three days is not correct. Between 30 March 2011 and 1 April 2011 the Department of Agriculture and Food sent 1 378 letters to growers asking them to verify their property details and register their property. DAFWA accepted registrations until 3 May 2011. (2) There is no known evidence of premiums being lost in Western Australia where the adventitious presence of GM is less than 0.9 per cent in nonGM crops but, rather, it is enhanced as a result of GM canola being introduced. As defined on the Sensitive Sites WA webpage, any grower with a property that its owner and DAFWA consider to have a legitimate need for registration as a sensitive site may register their property. (3) The Sensitive Sites WA service aims to assist growers to prepare risk assessment and risk mitigation plans in consultation with neighbours so as to protect legitimate sensitive agricultural production systems.
(3) At a recent forum in Manjimup, DAFWA’s executive director, David Bowran, suggested that GM farmers could sue organic farmers for lost income for having to put in place buffer zones. Is the intent of the sensitive sites register to facilitate such legal action? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Three days is not correct. Between 30 March 2011 and 1 April 2011 the Department of Agriculture and Food sent 1 378 letters to growers asking them to verify their property details and register their property. DAFWA accepted registrations until 3 May 2011. (2) There is no known evidence of premiums being lost in Western Australia where the adventitious presence of GM is less than 0.9 per cent in nonGM crops but, rather, it is enhanced as a result of GM canola being introduced. As defined on the Sensitive Sites WA webpage, any grower with a property that its owner and DAFWA consider to have a legitimate need for registration as a sensitive site may register their property. (3) The Sensitive Sites WA service aims to assist growers to prepare risk assessment and risk mitigation plans in consultation with neighbours so as to protect legitimate sensitive agricultural production systems.
Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Three days is not correct. Between 30 March 2011 and 1 April 2011 the Department of Agriculture and Food sent 1 378 letters to growers asking them to verify their property details and register their property. DAFWA accepted registrations until 3 May 2011. (2) There is no known evidence of premiums being lost in Western Australia where the adventitious presence of GM is less than 0.9 per cent in nonGM crops but, rather, it is enhanced as a result of GM canola being introduced. As defined on the Sensitive Sites WA webpage, any grower with a property that its owner and DAFWA consider to have a legitimate need for registration as a sensitive site may register their property. (3) The Sensitive Sites WA service aims to assist growers to prepare risk assessment and risk mitigation plans in consultation with neighbours so as to protect legitimate sensitive agricultural production systems.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Three days is not correct. Between 30 March 2011 and 1 April 2011 the Department of Agriculture and Food sent 1 378 letters to growers asking them to verify their property details and register their property. DAFWA accepted registrations until 3 May 2011. (2) There is no known evidence of premiums being lost in Western Australia where the adventitious presence of GM is less than 0.9 per cent in nonGM crops but, rather, it is enhanced as a result of GM canola being introduced. As defined on the Sensitive Sites WA webpage, any grower with a property that its owner and DAFWA consider to have a legitimate need for registration as a sensitive site may register their property. (3) The Sensitive Sites WA service aims to assist growers to prepare risk assessment and risk mitigation plans in consultation with neighbours so as to protect legitimate sensitive agricultural production systems.
(1) Three days is not correct. Between 30 March 2011 and 1 April 2011 the Department of Agriculture and Food sent 1 378 letters to growers asking them to verify their property details and register their property. DAFWA accepted registrations until 3 May 2011. (2) There is no known evidence of premiums being lost in Western Australia where the adventitious presence of GM is less than 0.9 per cent in nonGM crops but, rather, it is enhanced as a result of GM canola being introduced. As defined on the Sensitive Sites WA webpage, any grower with a property that its owner and DAFWA consider to have a legitimate need for registration as a sensitive site may register their property. (3) The Sensitive Sites WA service aims to assist growers to prepare risk assessment and risk mitigation plans in consultation with neighbours so as to protect legitimate sensitive agricultural production systems.
(2) There is no known evidence of premiums being lost in Western Australia where the adventitious presence of GM is less than 0.9 per cent in nonGM crops but, rather, it is enhanced as a result of GM canola being introduced. As defined on the Sensitive Sites WA webpage, any grower with a property that its owner and DAFWA consider to have a legitimate need for registration as a sensitive site may register their property. (3) The Sensitive Sites WA service aims to assist growers to prepare risk assessment and risk mitigation plans in consultation with neighbours so as to protect legitimate sensitive agricultural production systems.
(3) The Sensitive Sites WA service aims to assist growers to prepare risk assessment and risk mitigation plans in consultation with neighbours so as to protect legitimate sensitive agricultural production systems.
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.