❓ A parliamentary question addresses concerns regarding a proposed cotton project in the Kimberley, focusing on Traditional Owners' opposition and potential planting of genetically modified cotton. The Minister's response acknowledges the concerns and outlines the government's position.
AnsweredQoN 328Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
KIMBERLEY COTTON PROJECT
With regard to the recent meeting of Agriculture WA, the Department of Industry and Resources and the traditional owners about whether to extend the western agricultural industry’s memorandum of understanding in the Kimberley, I ask - (1) Is the minister aware that the traditional owners’ collective decision was no to growing cotton on their country, no to any further feasibility studies being carried out, no to further discussions with John Logan and no to discussions about cotton or agriculture unless all traditional owners are present? (2) Is the minister aware that Mr Strickland, project manager and research scientist at Agriculture WA, has indicated that he is preparing to plant a 2004 trial crop of genetically modified cotton in the Kimberley this week? (3) If yes to (2), is this to take place? (4) If yes to (3), where is this to be planted given that the TOs have said no to cotton on their country in such clear terms? (5) If no to (2), what is being planned? (6) Is the minister aware that Mr Logan has indicated that he will go ahead with the WAI cotton project regardless of the TOs’ position? Hon KIM CHANCE
With regard to the recent meeting of Agriculture WA, the Department of Industry and Resources and the traditional owners about whether to extend the western agricultural industry’s memorandum of understanding in the Kimberley, I ask - (1) Is the minister aware that the traditional owners’ collective decision was no to growing cotton on their country, no to any further feasibility studies being carried out, no to further discussions with John Logan and no to discussions about cotton or agriculture unless all traditional owners are present? (2) Is the minister aware that Mr Strickland, project manager and research scientist at Agriculture WA, has indicated that he is preparing to plant a 2004 trial crop of genetically modified cotton in the Kimberley this week? (3) If yes to (2), is this to take place? (4) If yes to (3), where is this to be planted given that the TOs have said no to cotton on their country in such clear terms? (5) If no to (2), what is being planned? (6) Is the minister aware that Mr Logan has indicated that he will go ahead with the WAI cotton project regardless of the TOs’ position? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
While Hon Robin Chapple indicated that this is a question without notice, I thank him for providing me with a copy of the question just prior to question time. I will do my best to answer the question as far as I can. It may be necessary for me to provide further information. One of the limitations I have in answering the question is that we are referring to a meeting that took place only yesterday. The people who are able to advise me on the question are mostly still in the Kimberley and are, for some reason, out of mobile phone range. They could well be in the area to which the honourable member just referred. (1) I am generally aware of these issues. I have been informed that the traditional owners have maintained their negative position regarding cotton in the area just east of the Eighty Mile Beach, which is the subject area, principally Nita Downs and Shamrock stations. I am aware of that because I have met with the traditional owners or at least representatives of some of the traditional owners from Bidyadanga Aboriginal community. I had not heard about the demand that there be no further discussions with John Logan, but that is something that traditional owners have no right to demand of government. I have no problem with engaging traditional owners in future discussions about cotton or agriculture. However, to impose a condition that is impossible to comply with is similarly not something that I think government would be all that welcoming of. This issue of cotton and agriculture generally in the Kimberley is a contentious matter. The concept of agriculture is foreign and, in many instances, anathema to Aboriginal and many non-Aboriginal residents of the Kimberley. It is not a region that has an agricultural culture, except in Kununurra, and that is a process that takes some changing. However, I am personally of the view that agriculture has an enormous amount to offer the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of the Kimberley, and that will always remain my view. I am hopeful that we are able to resolve this issue because it is of no help to anybody to have this polarisation of views. If that means we need to sit down and talk to traditional owners, environmentalists, and others such as those representing tourism interests in the Kimberley, then so be it. However, we need to get a better understanding. Agriculture will not progress in the Kimberley unless we can get a debate going in place of the current dichotomy. (2) I do not know whether Mr Strickland has indicated that he has that intention, but it is quite possible. If the member says he has, then I accept that he probably has. (3) I think I have answered that. If Mr Strickland says that he will, then I imagine he will. (4) Given that it is a proposal to plant GM-cotton, I imagine that it will take place on the Frank Wise Research Institute land at Kununurra. (5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
(1) Is the minister aware that the traditional owners’ collective decision was no to growing cotton on their country, no to any further feasibility studies being carried out, no to further discussions with John Logan and no to discussions about cotton or agriculture unless all traditional owners are present? (2) Is the minister aware that Mr Strickland, project manager and research scientist at Agriculture WA, has indicated that he is preparing to plant a 2004 trial crop of genetically modified cotton in the Kimberley this week? (3) If yes to (2), is this to take place? (4) If yes to (3), where is this to be planted given that the TOs have said no to cotton on their country in such clear terms? (5) If no to (2), what is being planned? (6) Is the minister aware that Mr Logan has indicated that he will go ahead with the WAI cotton project regardless of the TOs’ position? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : While Hon Robin Chapple indicated that this is a question without notice, I thank him for providing me with a copy of the question just prior to question time. I will do my best to answer the question as far as I can. It may be necessary for me to provide further information. One of the limitations I have in answering the question is that we are referring to a meeting that took place only yesterday. The people who are able to advise me on the question are mostly still in the Kimberley and are, for some reason, out of mobile phone range. They could well be in the area to which the honourable member just referred. (1) I am generally aware of these issues. I have been informed that the traditional owners have maintained their negative position regarding cotton in the area just east of the Eighty Mile Beach, which is the subject area, principally Nita Downs and Shamrock stations. I am aware of that because I have met with the traditional owners or at least representatives of some of the traditional owners from Bidyadanga Aboriginal community. I had not heard about the demand that there be no further discussions with John Logan, but that is something that traditional owners have no right to demand of government. I have no problem with engaging traditional owners in future discussions about cotton or agriculture. However, to impose a condition that is impossible to comply with is similarly not something that I think government would be all that welcoming of. This issue of cotton and agriculture generally in the Kimberley is a contentious matter. The concept of agriculture is foreign and, in many instances, anathema to Aboriginal and many non-Aboriginal residents of the Kimberley. It is not a region that has an agricultural culture, except in Kununurra, and that is a process that takes some changing. However, I am personally of the view that agriculture has an enormous amount to offer the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of the Kimberley, and that will always remain my view. I am hopeful that we are able to resolve this issue because it is of no help to anybody to have this polarisation of views. If that means we need to sit down and talk to traditional owners, environmentalists, and others such as those representing tourism interests in the Kimberley, then so be it. However, we need to get a better understanding. Agriculture will not progress in the Kimberley unless we can get a debate going in place of the current dichotomy. (2) I do not know whether Mr Strickland has indicated that he has that intention, but it is quite possible. If the member says he has, then I accept that he probably has. (3) I think I have answered that. If Mr Strickland says that he will, then I imagine he will. (4) Given that it is a proposal to plant GM-cotton, I imagine that it will take place on the Frank Wise Research Institute land at Kununurra. (5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
(2) Is the minister aware that Mr Strickland, project manager and research scientist at Agriculture WA, has indicated that he is preparing to plant a 2004 trial crop of genetically modified cotton in the Kimberley this week? (3) If yes to (2), is this to take place? (4) If yes to (3), where is this to be planted given that the TOs have said no to cotton on their country in such clear terms? (5) If no to (2), what is being planned? (6) Is the minister aware that Mr Logan has indicated that he will go ahead with the WAI cotton project regardless of the TOs’ position? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : While Hon Robin Chapple indicated that this is a question without notice, I thank him for providing me with a copy of the question just prior to question time. I will do my best to answer the question as far as I can. It may be necessary for me to provide further information. One of the limitations I have in answering the question is that we are referring to a meeting that took place only yesterday. The people who are able to advise me on the question are mostly still in the Kimberley and are, for some reason, out of mobile phone range. They could well be in the area to which the honourable member just referred. (1) I am generally aware of these issues. I have been informed that the traditional owners have maintained their negative position regarding cotton in the area just east of the Eighty Mile Beach, which is the subject area, principally Nita Downs and Shamrock stations. I am aware of that because I have met with the traditional owners or at least representatives of some of the traditional owners from Bidyadanga Aboriginal community. I had not heard about the demand that there be no further discussions with John Logan, but that is something that traditional owners have no right to demand of government. I have no problem with engaging traditional owners in future discussions about cotton or agriculture. However, to impose a condition that is impossible to comply with is similarly not something that I think government would be all that welcoming of. This issue of cotton and agriculture generally in the Kimberley is a contentious matter. The concept of agriculture is foreign and, in many instances, anathema to Aboriginal and many non-Aboriginal residents of the Kimberley. It is not a region that has an agricultural culture, except in Kununurra, and that is a process that takes some changing. However, I am personally of the view that agriculture has an enormous amount to offer the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of the Kimberley, and that will always remain my view. I am hopeful that we are able to resolve this issue because it is of no help to anybody to have this polarisation of views. If that means we need to sit down and talk to traditional owners, environmentalists, and others such as those representing tourism interests in the Kimberley, then so be it. However, we need to get a better understanding. Agriculture will not progress in the Kimberley unless we can get a debate going in place of the current dichotomy. (2) I do not know whether Mr Strickland has indicated that he has that intention, but it is quite possible. If the member says he has, then I accept that he probably has. (3) I think I have answered that. If Mr Strickland says that he will, then I imagine he will. (4) Given that it is a proposal to plant GM-cotton, I imagine that it will take place on the Frank Wise Research Institute land at Kununurra. (5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
(3) If yes to (2), is this to take place? (4) If yes to (3), where is this to be planted given that the TOs have said no to cotton on their country in such clear terms? (5) If no to (2), what is being planned? (6) Is the minister aware that Mr Logan has indicated that he will go ahead with the WAI cotton project regardless of the TOs’ position? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : While Hon Robin Chapple indicated that this is a question without notice, I thank him for providing me with a copy of the question just prior to question time. I will do my best to answer the question as far as I can. It may be necessary for me to provide further information. One of the limitations I have in answering the question is that we are referring to a meeting that took place only yesterday. The people who are able to advise me on the question are mostly still in the Kimberley and are, for some reason, out of mobile phone range. They could well be in the area to which the honourable member just referred. (1) I am generally aware of these issues. I have been informed that the traditional owners have maintained their negative position regarding cotton in the area just east of the Eighty Mile Beach, which is the subject area, principally Nita Downs and Shamrock stations. I am aware of that because I have met with the traditional owners or at least representatives of some of the traditional owners from Bidyadanga Aboriginal community. I had not heard about the demand that there be no further discussions with John Logan, but that is something that traditional owners have no right to demand of government. I have no problem with engaging traditional owners in future discussions about cotton or agriculture. However, to impose a condition that is impossible to comply with is similarly not something that I think government would be all that welcoming of. This issue of cotton and agriculture generally in the Kimberley is a contentious matter. The concept of agriculture is foreign and, in many instances, anathema to Aboriginal and many non-Aboriginal residents of the Kimberley. It is not a region that has an agricultural culture, except in Kununurra, and that is a process that takes some changing. However, I am personally of the view that agriculture has an enormous amount to offer the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of the Kimberley, and that will always remain my view. I am hopeful that we are able to resolve this issue because it is of no help to anybody to have this polarisation of views. If that means we need to sit down and talk to traditional owners, environmentalists, and others such as those representing tourism interests in the Kimberley, then so be it. However, we need to get a better understanding. Agriculture will not progress in the Kimberley unless we can get a debate going in place of the current dichotomy. (2) I do not know whether Mr Strickland has indicated that he has that intention, but it is quite possible. If the member says he has, then I accept that he probably has. (3) I think I have answered that. If Mr Strickland says that he will, then I imagine he will. (4) Given that it is a proposal to plant GM-cotton, I imagine that it will take place on the Frank Wise Research Institute land at Kununurra. (5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
(4) If yes to (3), where is this to be planted given that the TOs have said no to cotton on their country in such clear terms? (5) If no to (2), what is being planned? (6) Is the minister aware that Mr Logan has indicated that he will go ahead with the WAI cotton project regardless of the TOs’ position? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : While Hon Robin Chapple indicated that this is a question without notice, I thank him for providing me with a copy of the question just prior to question time. I will do my best to answer the question as far as I can. It may be necessary for me to provide further information. One of the limitations I have in answering the question is that we are referring to a meeting that took place only yesterday. The people who are able to advise me on the question are mostly still in the Kimberley and are, for some reason, out of mobile phone range. They could well be in the area to which the honourable member just referred. (1) I am generally aware of these issues. I have been informed that the traditional owners have maintained their negative position regarding cotton in the area just east of the Eighty Mile Beach, which is the subject area, principally Nita Downs and Shamrock stations. I am aware of that because I have met with the traditional owners or at least representatives of some of the traditional owners from Bidyadanga Aboriginal community. I had not heard about the demand that there be no further discussions with John Logan, but that is something that traditional owners have no right to demand of government. I have no problem with engaging traditional owners in future discussions about cotton or agriculture. However, to impose a condition that is impossible to comply with is similarly not something that I think government would be all that welcoming of. This issue of cotton and agriculture generally in the Kimberley is a contentious matter. The concept of agriculture is foreign and, in many instances, anathema to Aboriginal and many non-Aboriginal residents of the Kimberley. It is not a region that has an agricultural culture, except in Kununurra, and that is a process that takes some changing. However, I am personally of the view that agriculture has an enormous amount to offer the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of the Kimberley, and that will always remain my view. I am hopeful that we are able to resolve this issue because it is of no help to anybody to have this polarisation of views. If that means we need to sit down and talk to traditional owners, environmentalists, and others such as those representing tourism interests in the Kimberley, then so be it. However, we need to get a better understanding. Agriculture will not progress in the Kimberley unless we can get a debate going in place of the current dichotomy. (2) I do not know whether Mr Strickland has indicated that he has that intention, but it is quite possible. If the member says he has, then I accept that he probably has. (3) I think I have answered that. If Mr Strickland says that he will, then I imagine he will. (4) Given that it is a proposal to plant GM-cotton, I imagine that it will take place on the Frank Wise Research Institute land at Kununurra. (5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
(5) If no to (2), what is being planned? (6) Is the minister aware that Mr Logan has indicated that he will go ahead with the WAI cotton project regardless of the TOs’ position? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : While Hon Robin Chapple indicated that this is a question without notice, I thank him for providing me with a copy of the question just prior to question time. I will do my best to answer the question as far as I can. It may be necessary for me to provide further information. One of the limitations I have in answering the question is that we are referring to a meeting that took place only yesterday. The people who are able to advise me on the question are mostly still in the Kimberley and are, for some reason, out of mobile phone range. They could well be in the area to which the honourable member just referred. (1) I am generally aware of these issues. I have been informed that the traditional owners have maintained their negative position regarding cotton in the area just east of the Eighty Mile Beach, which is the subject area, principally Nita Downs and Shamrock stations. I am aware of that because I have met with the traditional owners or at least representatives of some of the traditional owners from Bidyadanga Aboriginal community. I had not heard about the demand that there be no further discussions with John Logan, but that is something that traditional owners have no right to demand of government. I have no problem with engaging traditional owners in future discussions about cotton or agriculture. However, to impose a condition that is impossible to comply with is similarly not something that I think government would be all that welcoming of. This issue of cotton and agriculture generally in the Kimberley is a contentious matter. The concept of agriculture is foreign and, in many instances, anathema to Aboriginal and many non-Aboriginal residents of the Kimberley. It is not a region that has an agricultural culture, except in Kununurra, and that is a process that takes some changing. However, I am personally of the view that agriculture has an enormous amount to offer the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of the Kimberley, and that will always remain my view. I am hopeful that we are able to resolve this issue because it is of no help to anybody to have this polarisation of views. If that means we need to sit down and talk to traditional owners, environmentalists, and others such as those representing tourism interests in the Kimberley, then so be it. However, we need to get a better understanding. Agriculture will not progress in the Kimberley unless we can get a debate going in place of the current dichotomy. (2) I do not know whether Mr Strickland has indicated that he has that intention, but it is quite possible. If the member says he has, then I accept that he probably has. (3) I think I have answered that. If Mr Strickland says that he will, then I imagine he will. (4) Given that it is a proposal to plant GM-cotton, I imagine that it will take place on the Frank Wise Research Institute land at Kununurra. (5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
(6) Is the minister aware that Mr Logan has indicated that he will go ahead with the WAI cotton project regardless of the TOs’ position? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : While Hon Robin Chapple indicated that this is a question without notice, I thank him for providing me with a copy of the question just prior to question time. I will do my best to answer the question as far as I can. It may be necessary for me to provide further information. One of the limitations I have in answering the question is that we are referring to a meeting that took place only yesterday. The people who are able to advise me on the question are mostly still in the Kimberley and are, for some reason, out of mobile phone range. They could well be in the area to which the honourable member just referred. (1) I am generally aware of these issues. I have been informed that the traditional owners have maintained their negative position regarding cotton in the area just east of the Eighty Mile Beach, which is the subject area, principally Nita Downs and Shamrock stations. I am aware of that because I have met with the traditional owners or at least representatives of some of the traditional owners from Bidyadanga Aboriginal community. I had not heard about the demand that there be no further discussions with John Logan, but that is something that traditional owners have no right to demand of government. I have no problem with engaging traditional owners in future discussions about cotton or agriculture. However, to impose a condition that is impossible to comply with is similarly not something that I think government would be all that welcoming of. This issue of cotton and agriculture generally in the Kimberley is a contentious matter. The concept of agriculture is foreign and, in many instances, anathema to Aboriginal and many non-Aboriginal residents of the Kimberley. It is not a region that has an agricultural culture, except in Kununurra, and that is a process that takes some changing. However, I am personally of the view that agriculture has an enormous amount to offer the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of the Kimberley, and that will always remain my view. I am hopeful that we are able to resolve this issue because it is of no help to anybody to have this polarisation of views. If that means we need to sit down and talk to traditional owners, environmentalists, and others such as those representing tourism interests in the Kimberley, then so be it. However, we need to get a better understanding. Agriculture will not progress in the Kimberley unless we can get a debate going in place of the current dichotomy. (2) I do not know whether Mr Strickland has indicated that he has that intention, but it is quite possible. If the member says he has, then I accept that he probably has. (3) I think I have answered that. If Mr Strickland says that he will, then I imagine he will. (4) Given that it is a proposal to plant GM-cotton, I imagine that it will take place on the Frank Wise Research Institute land at Kununurra. (5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : While Hon Robin Chapple indicated that this is a question without notice, I thank him for providing me with a copy of the question just prior to question time. I will do my best to answer the question as far as I can. It may be necessary for me to provide further information. One of the limitations I have in answering the question is that we are referring to a meeting that took place only yesterday. The people who are able to advise me on the question are mostly still in the Kimberley and are, for some reason, out of mobile phone range. They could well be in the area to which the honourable member just referred. (1) I am generally aware of these issues. I have been informed that the traditional owners have maintained their negative position regarding cotton in the area just east of the Eighty Mile Beach, which is the subject area, principally Nita Downs and Shamrock stations. I am aware of that because I have met with the traditional owners or at least representatives of some of the traditional owners from Bidyadanga Aboriginal community. I had not heard about the demand that there be no further discussions with John Logan, but that is something that traditional owners have no right to demand of government. I have no problem with engaging traditional owners in future discussions about cotton or agriculture. However, to impose a condition that is impossible to comply with is similarly not something that I think government would be all that welcoming of. This issue of cotton and agriculture generally in the Kimberley is a contentious matter. The concept of agriculture is foreign and, in many instances, anathema to Aboriginal and many non-Aboriginal residents of the Kimberley. It is not a region that has an agricultural culture, except in Kununurra, and that is a process that takes some changing. However, I am personally of the view that agriculture has an enormous amount to offer the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of the Kimberley, and that will always remain my view. I am hopeful that we are able to resolve this issue because it is of no help to anybody to have this polarisation of views. If that means we need to sit down and talk to traditional owners, environmentalists, and others such as those representing tourism interests in the Kimberley, then so be it. However, we need to get a better understanding. Agriculture will not progress in the Kimberley unless we can get a debate going in place of the current dichotomy. (2) I do not know whether Mr Strickland has indicated that he has that intention, but it is quite possible. If the member says he has, then I accept that he probably has. (3) I think I have answered that. If Mr Strickland says that he will, then I imagine he will. (4) Given that it is a proposal to plant GM-cotton, I imagine that it will take place on the Frank Wise Research Institute land at Kununurra. (5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
While Hon Robin Chapple indicated that this is a question without notice, I thank him for providing me with a copy of the question just prior to question time. I will do my best to answer the question as far as I can. It may be necessary for me to provide further information. One of the limitations I have in answering the question is that we are referring to a meeting that took place only yesterday. The people who are able to advise me on the question are mostly still in the Kimberley and are, for some reason, out of mobile phone range. They could well be in the area to which the honourable member just referred. (1) I am generally aware of these issues. I have been informed that the traditional owners have maintained their negative position regarding cotton in the area just east of the Eighty Mile Beach, which is the subject area, principally Nita Downs and Shamrock stations. I am aware of that because I have met with the traditional owners or at least representatives of some of the traditional owners from Bidyadanga Aboriginal community. I had not heard about the demand that there be no further discussions with John Logan, but that is something that traditional owners have no right to demand of government. I have no problem with engaging traditional owners in future discussions about cotton or agriculture. However, to impose a condition that is impossible to comply with is similarly not something that I think government would be all that welcoming of. This issue of cotton and agriculture generally in the Kimberley is a contentious matter. The concept of agriculture is foreign and, in many instances, anathema to Aboriginal and many non-Aboriginal residents of the Kimberley. It is not a region that has an agricultural culture, except in Kununurra, and that is a process that takes some changing. However, I am personally of the view that agriculture has an enormous amount to offer the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of the Kimberley, and that will always remain my view. I am hopeful that we are able to resolve this issue because it is of no help to anybody to have this polarisation of views. If that means we need to sit down and talk to traditional owners, environmentalists, and others such as those representing tourism interests in the Kimberley, then so be it. However, we need to get a better understanding. Agriculture will not progress in the Kimberley unless we can get a debate going in place of the current dichotomy. (2) I do not know whether Mr Strickland has indicated that he has that intention, but it is quite possible. If the member says he has, then I accept that he probably has. (3) I think I have answered that. If Mr Strickland says that he will, then I imagine he will. (4) Given that it is a proposal to plant GM-cotton, I imagine that it will take place on the Frank Wise Research Institute land at Kununurra. (5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
(1) I am generally aware of these issues. I have been informed that the traditional owners have maintained their negative position regarding cotton in the area just east of the Eighty Mile Beach, which is the subject area, principally Nita Downs and Shamrock stations. I am aware of that because I have met with the traditional owners or at least representatives of some of the traditional owners from Bidyadanga Aboriginal community. I had not heard about the demand that there be no further discussions with John Logan, but that is something that traditional owners have no right to demand of government. I have no problem with engaging traditional owners in future discussions about cotton or agriculture. However, to impose a condition that is impossible to comply with is similarly not something that I think government would be all that welcoming of. This issue of cotton and agriculture generally in the Kimberley is a contentious matter. The concept of agriculture is foreign and, in many instances, anathema to Aboriginal and many non-Aboriginal residents of the Kimberley. It is not a region that has an agricultural culture, except in Kununurra, and that is a process that takes some changing. However, I am personally of the view that agriculture has an enormous amount to offer the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of the Kimberley, and that will always remain my view. I am hopeful that we are able to resolve this issue because it is of no help to anybody to have this polarisation of views. If that means we need to sit down and talk to traditional owners, environmentalists, and others such as those representing tourism interests in the Kimberley, then so be it. However, we need to get a better understanding. Agriculture will not progress in the Kimberley unless we can get a debate going in place of the current dichotomy. (2) I do not know whether Mr Strickland has indicated that he has that intention, but it is quite possible. If the member says he has, then I accept that he probably has. (3) I think I have answered that. If Mr Strickland says that he will, then I imagine he will. (4) Given that it is a proposal to plant GM-cotton, I imagine that it will take place on the Frank Wise Research Institute land at Kununurra. (5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
(3) I think I have answered that. If Mr Strickland says that he will, then I imagine he will. (4) Given that it is a proposal to plant GM-cotton, I imagine that it will take place on the Frank Wise Research Institute land at Kununurra. (5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
(4) Given that it is a proposal to plant GM-cotton, I imagine that it will take place on the Frank Wise Research Institute land at Kununurra. (5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
(5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
(6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
(1) Is the minister aware that the traditional owners’ collective decision was no to growing cotton on their country, no to any further feasibility studies being carried out, no to further discussions with John Logan and no to discussions about cotton or agriculture unless all traditional owners are present? (2) Is the minister aware that Mr Strickland, project manager and research scientist at Agriculture WA, has indicated that he is preparing to plant a 2004 trial crop of genetically modified cotton in the Kimberley this week? (3) If yes to (2), is this to take place? (4) If yes to (3), where is this to be planted given that the TOs have said no to cotton on their country in such clear terms? (5) If no to (2), what is being planned? (6) Is the minister aware that Mr Logan has indicated that he will go ahead with the WAI cotton project regardless of the TOs’ position? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : While Hon Robin Chapple indicated that this is a question without notice, I thank him for providing me with a copy of the question just prior to question time. I will do my best to answer the question as far as I can. It may be necessary for me to provide further information. One of the limitations I have in answering the question is that we are referring to a meeting that took place only yesterday. The people who are able to advise me on the question are mostly still in the Kimberley and are, for some reason, out of mobile phone range. They could well be in the area to which the honourable member just referred. (1) I am generally aware of these issues. I have been informed that the traditional owners have maintained their negative position regarding cotton in the area just east of the Eighty Mile Beach, which is the subject area, principally Nita Downs and Shamrock stations. I am aware of that because I have met with the traditional owners or at least representatives of some of the traditional owners from Bidyadanga Aboriginal community. I had not heard about the demand that there be no further discussions with John Logan, but that is something that traditional owners have no right to demand of government. I have no problem with engaging traditional owners in future discussions about cotton or agriculture. However, to impose a condition that is impossible to comply with is similarly not something that I think government would be all that welcoming of. This issue of cotton and agriculture generally in the Kimberley is a contentious matter. The concept of agriculture is foreign and, in many instances, anathema to Aboriginal and many non-Aboriginal residents of the Kimberley. It is not a region that has an agricultural culture, except in Kununurra, and that is a process that takes some changing. However, I am personally of the view that agriculture has an enormous amount to offer the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of the Kimberley, and that will always remain my view. I am hopeful that we are able to resolve this issue because it is of no help to anybody to have this polarisation of views. If that means we need to sit down and talk to traditional owners, environmentalists, and others such as those representing tourism interests in the Kimberley, then so be it. However, we need to get a better understanding. Agriculture will not progress in the Kimberley unless we can get a debate going in place of the current dichotomy. (2) I do not know whether Mr Strickland has indicated that he has that intention, but it is quite possible. If the member says he has, then I accept that he probably has. (3) I think I have answered that. If Mr Strickland says that he will, then I imagine he will. (4) Given that it is a proposal to plant GM-cotton, I imagine that it will take place on the Frank Wise Research Institute land at Kununurra. (5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
(2) Is the minister aware that Mr Strickland, project manager and research scientist at Agriculture WA, has indicated that he is preparing to plant a 2004 trial crop of genetically modified cotton in the Kimberley this week? (3) If yes to (2), is this to take place? (4) If yes to (3), where is this to be planted given that the TOs have said no to cotton on their country in such clear terms? (5) If no to (2), what is being planned? (6) Is the minister aware that Mr Logan has indicated that he will go ahead with the WAI cotton project regardless of the TOs’ position? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : While Hon Robin Chapple indicated that this is a question without notice, I thank him for providing me with a copy of the question just prior to question time. I will do my best to answer the question as far as I can. It may be necessary for me to provide further information. One of the limitations I have in answering the question is that we are referring to a meeting that took place only yesterday. The people who are able to advise me on the question are mostly still in the Kimberley and are, for some reason, out of mobile phone range. They could well be in the area to which the honourable member just referred. (1) I am generally aware of these issues. I have been informed that the traditional owners have maintained their negative position regarding cotton in the area just east of the Eighty Mile Beach, which is the subject area, principally Nita Downs and Shamrock stations. I am aware of that because I have met with the traditional owners or at least representatives of some of the traditional owners from Bidyadanga Aboriginal community. I had not heard about the demand that there be no further discussions with John Logan, but that is something that traditional owners have no right to demand of government. I have no problem with engaging traditional owners in future discussions about cotton or agriculture. However, to impose a condition that is impossible to comply with is similarly not something that I think government would be all that welcoming of. This issue of cotton and agriculture generally in the Kimberley is a contentious matter. The concept of agriculture is foreign and, in many instances, anathema to Aboriginal and many non-Aboriginal residents of the Kimberley. It is not a region that has an agricultural culture, except in Kununurra, and that is a process that takes some changing. However, I am personally of the view that agriculture has an enormous amount to offer the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of the Kimberley, and that will always remain my view. I am hopeful that we are able to resolve this issue because it is of no help to anybody to have this polarisation of views. If that means we need to sit down and talk to traditional owners, environmentalists, and others such as those representing tourism interests in the Kimberley, then so be it. However, we need to get a better understanding. Agriculture will not progress in the Kimberley unless we can get a debate going in place of the current dichotomy. (2) I do not know whether Mr Strickland has indicated that he has that intention, but it is quite possible. If the member says he has, then I accept that he probably has. (3) I think I have answered that. If Mr Strickland says that he will, then I imagine he will. (4) Given that it is a proposal to plant GM-cotton, I imagine that it will take place on the Frank Wise Research Institute land at Kununurra. (5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
(3) If yes to (2), is this to take place? (4) If yes to (3), where is this to be planted given that the TOs have said no to cotton on their country in such clear terms? (5) If no to (2), what is being planned? (6) Is the minister aware that Mr Logan has indicated that he will go ahead with the WAI cotton project regardless of the TOs’ position? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : While Hon Robin Chapple indicated that this is a question without notice, I thank him for providing me with a copy of the question just prior to question time. I will do my best to answer the question as far as I can. It may be necessary for me to provide further information. One of the limitations I have in answering the question is that we are referring to a meeting that took place only yesterday. The people who are able to advise me on the question are mostly still in the Kimberley and are, for some reason, out of mobile phone range. They could well be in the area to which the honourable member just referred. (1) I am generally aware of these issues. I have been informed that the traditional owners have maintained their negative position regarding cotton in the area just east of the Eighty Mile Beach, which is the subject area, principally Nita Downs and Shamrock stations. I am aware of that because I have met with the traditional owners or at least representatives of some of the traditional owners from Bidyadanga Aboriginal community. I had not heard about the demand that there be no further discussions with John Logan, but that is something that traditional owners have no right to demand of government. I have no problem with engaging traditional owners in future discussions about cotton or agriculture. However, to impose a condition that is impossible to comply with is similarly not something that I think government would be all that welcoming of. This issue of cotton and agriculture generally in the Kimberley is a contentious matter. The concept of agriculture is foreign and, in many instances, anathema to Aboriginal and many non-Aboriginal residents of the Kimberley. It is not a region that has an agricultural culture, except in Kununurra, and that is a process that takes some changing. However, I am personally of the view that agriculture has an enormous amount to offer the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of the Kimberley, and that will always remain my view. I am hopeful that we are able to resolve this issue because it is of no help to anybody to have this polarisation of views. If that means we need to sit down and talk to traditional owners, environmentalists, and others such as those representing tourism interests in the Kimberley, then so be it. However, we need to get a better understanding. Agriculture will not progress in the Kimberley unless we can get a debate going in place of the current dichotomy. (2) I do not know whether Mr Strickland has indicated that he has that intention, but it is quite possible. If the member says he has, then I accept that he probably has. (3) I think I have answered that. If Mr Strickland says that he will, then I imagine he will. (4) Given that it is a proposal to plant GM-cotton, I imagine that it will take place on the Frank Wise Research Institute land at Kununurra. (5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
(4) If yes to (3), where is this to be planted given that the TOs have said no to cotton on their country in such clear terms? (5) If no to (2), what is being planned? (6) Is the minister aware that Mr Logan has indicated that he will go ahead with the WAI cotton project regardless of the TOs’ position? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : While Hon Robin Chapple indicated that this is a question without notice, I thank him for providing me with a copy of the question just prior to question time. I will do my best to answer the question as far as I can. It may be necessary for me to provide further information. One of the limitations I have in answering the question is that we are referring to a meeting that took place only yesterday. The people who are able to advise me on the question are mostly still in the Kimberley and are, for some reason, out of mobile phone range. They could well be in the area to which the honourable member just referred. (1) I am generally aware of these issues. I have been informed that the traditional owners have maintained their negative position regarding cotton in the area just east of the Eighty Mile Beach, which is the subject area, principally Nita Downs and Shamrock stations. I am aware of that because I have met with the traditional owners or at least representatives of some of the traditional owners from Bidyadanga Aboriginal community. I had not heard about the demand that there be no further discussions with John Logan, but that is something that traditional owners have no right to demand of government. I have no problem with engaging traditional owners in future discussions about cotton or agriculture. However, to impose a condition that is impossible to comply with is similarly not something that I think government would be all that welcoming of. This issue of cotton and agriculture generally in the Kimberley is a contentious matter. The concept of agriculture is foreign and, in many instances, anathema to Aboriginal and many non-Aboriginal residents of the Kimberley. It is not a region that has an agricultural culture, except in Kununurra, and that is a process that takes some changing. However, I am personally of the view that agriculture has an enormous amount to offer the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of the Kimberley, and that will always remain my view. I am hopeful that we are able to resolve this issue because it is of no help to anybody to have this polarisation of views. If that means we need to sit down and talk to traditional owners, environmentalists, and others such as those representing tourism interests in the Kimberley, then so be it. However, we need to get a better understanding. Agriculture will not progress in the Kimberley unless we can get a debate going in place of the current dichotomy. (2) I do not know whether Mr Strickland has indicated that he has that intention, but it is quite possible. If the member says he has, then I accept that he probably has. (3) I think I have answered that. If Mr Strickland says that he will, then I imagine he will. (4) Given that it is a proposal to plant GM-cotton, I imagine that it will take place on the Frank Wise Research Institute land at Kununurra. (5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
(5) If no to (2), what is being planned? (6) Is the minister aware that Mr Logan has indicated that he will go ahead with the WAI cotton project regardless of the TOs’ position? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : While Hon Robin Chapple indicated that this is a question without notice, I thank him for providing me with a copy of the question just prior to question time. I will do my best to answer the question as far as I can. It may be necessary for me to provide further information. One of the limitations I have in answering the question is that we are referring to a meeting that took place only yesterday. The people who are able to advise me on the question are mostly still in the Kimberley and are, for some reason, out of mobile phone range. They could well be in the area to which the honourable member just referred. (1) I am generally aware of these issues. I have been informed that the traditional owners have maintained their negative position regarding cotton in the area just east of the Eighty Mile Beach, which is the subject area, principally Nita Downs and Shamrock stations. I am aware of that because I have met with the traditional owners or at least representatives of some of the traditional owners from Bidyadanga Aboriginal community. I had not heard about the demand that there be no further discussions with John Logan, but that is something that traditional owners have no right to demand of government. I have no problem with engaging traditional owners in future discussions about cotton or agriculture. However, to impose a condition that is impossible to comply with is similarly not something that I think government would be all that welcoming of. This issue of cotton and agriculture generally in the Kimberley is a contentious matter. The concept of agriculture is foreign and, in many instances, anathema to Aboriginal and many non-Aboriginal residents of the Kimberley. It is not a region that has an agricultural culture, except in Kununurra, and that is a process that takes some changing. However, I am personally of the view that agriculture has an enormous amount to offer the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of the Kimberley, and that will always remain my view. I am hopeful that we are able to resolve this issue because it is of no help to anybody to have this polarisation of views. If that means we need to sit down and talk to traditional owners, environmentalists, and others such as those representing tourism interests in the Kimberley, then so be it. However, we need to get a better understanding. Agriculture will not progress in the Kimberley unless we can get a debate going in place of the current dichotomy. (2) I do not know whether Mr Strickland has indicated that he has that intention, but it is quite possible. If the member says he has, then I accept that he probably has. (3) I think I have answered that. If Mr Strickland says that he will, then I imagine he will. (4) Given that it is a proposal to plant GM-cotton, I imagine that it will take place on the Frank Wise Research Institute land at Kununurra. (5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
(6) Is the minister aware that Mr Logan has indicated that he will go ahead with the WAI cotton project regardless of the TOs’ position? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : While Hon Robin Chapple indicated that this is a question without notice, I thank him for providing me with a copy of the question just prior to question time. I will do my best to answer the question as far as I can. It may be necessary for me to provide further information. One of the limitations I have in answering the question is that we are referring to a meeting that took place only yesterday. The people who are able to advise me on the question are mostly still in the Kimberley and are, for some reason, out of mobile phone range. They could well be in the area to which the honourable member just referred. (1) I am generally aware of these issues. I have been informed that the traditional owners have maintained their negative position regarding cotton in the area just east of the Eighty Mile Beach, which is the subject area, principally Nita Downs and Shamrock stations. I am aware of that because I have met with the traditional owners or at least representatives of some of the traditional owners from Bidyadanga Aboriginal community. I had not heard about the demand that there be no further discussions with John Logan, but that is something that traditional owners have no right to demand of government. I have no problem with engaging traditional owners in future discussions about cotton or agriculture. However, to impose a condition that is impossible to comply with is similarly not something that I think government would be all that welcoming of. This issue of cotton and agriculture generally in the Kimberley is a contentious matter. The concept of agriculture is foreign and, in many instances, anathema to Aboriginal and many non-Aboriginal residents of the Kimberley. It is not a region that has an agricultural culture, except in Kununurra, and that is a process that takes some changing. However, I am personally of the view that agriculture has an enormous amount to offer the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of the Kimberley, and that will always remain my view. I am hopeful that we are able to resolve this issue because it is of no help to anybody to have this polarisation of views. If that means we need to sit down and talk to traditional owners, environmentalists, and others such as those representing tourism interests in the Kimberley, then so be it. However, we need to get a better understanding. Agriculture will not progress in the Kimberley unless we can get a debate going in place of the current dichotomy. (2) I do not know whether Mr Strickland has indicated that he has that intention, but it is quite possible. If the member says he has, then I accept that he probably has. (3) I think I have answered that. If Mr Strickland says that he will, then I imagine he will. (4) Given that it is a proposal to plant GM-cotton, I imagine that it will take place on the Frank Wise Research Institute land at Kununurra. (5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : While Hon Robin Chapple indicated that this is a question without notice, I thank him for providing me with a copy of the question just prior to question time. I will do my best to answer the question as far as I can. It may be necessary for me to provide further information. One of the limitations I have in answering the question is that we are referring to a meeting that took place only yesterday. The people who are able to advise me on the question are mostly still in the Kimberley and are, for some reason, out of mobile phone range. They could well be in the area to which the honourable member just referred. (1) I am generally aware of these issues. I have been informed that the traditional owners have maintained their negative position regarding cotton in the area just east of the Eighty Mile Beach, which is the subject area, principally Nita Downs and Shamrock stations. I am aware of that because I have met with the traditional owners or at least representatives of some of the traditional owners from Bidyadanga Aboriginal community. I had not heard about the demand that there be no further discussions with John Logan, but that is something that traditional owners have no right to demand of government. I have no problem with engaging traditional owners in future discussions about cotton or agriculture. However, to impose a condition that is impossible to comply with is similarly not something that I think government would be all that welcoming of. This issue of cotton and agriculture generally in the Kimberley is a contentious matter. The concept of agriculture is foreign and, in many instances, anathema to Aboriginal and many non-Aboriginal residents of the Kimberley. It is not a region that has an agricultural culture, except in Kununurra, and that is a process that takes some changing. However, I am personally of the view that agriculture has an enormous amount to offer the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of the Kimberley, and that will always remain my view. I am hopeful that we are able to resolve this issue because it is of no help to anybody to have this polarisation of views. If that means we need to sit down and talk to traditional owners, environmentalists, and others such as those representing tourism interests in the Kimberley, then so be it. However, we need to get a better understanding. Agriculture will not progress in the Kimberley unless we can get a debate going in place of the current dichotomy. (2) I do not know whether Mr Strickland has indicated that he has that intention, but it is quite possible. If the member says he has, then I accept that he probably has. (3) I think I have answered that. If Mr Strickland says that he will, then I imagine he will. (4) Given that it is a proposal to plant GM-cotton, I imagine that it will take place on the Frank Wise Research Institute land at Kununurra. (5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
While Hon Robin Chapple indicated that this is a question without notice, I thank him for providing me with a copy of the question just prior to question time. I will do my best to answer the question as far as I can. It may be necessary for me to provide further information. One of the limitations I have in answering the question is that we are referring to a meeting that took place only yesterday. The people who are able to advise me on the question are mostly still in the Kimberley and are, for some reason, out of mobile phone range. They could well be in the area to which the honourable member just referred. (1) I am generally aware of these issues. I have been informed that the traditional owners have maintained their negative position regarding cotton in the area just east of the Eighty Mile Beach, which is the subject area, principally Nita Downs and Shamrock stations. I am aware of that because I have met with the traditional owners or at least representatives of some of the traditional owners from Bidyadanga Aboriginal community. I had not heard about the demand that there be no further discussions with John Logan, but that is something that traditional owners have no right to demand of government. I have no problem with engaging traditional owners in future discussions about cotton or agriculture. However, to impose a condition that is impossible to comply with is similarly not something that I think government would be all that welcoming of. This issue of cotton and agriculture generally in the Kimberley is a contentious matter. The concept of agriculture is foreign and, in many instances, anathema to Aboriginal and many non-Aboriginal residents of the Kimberley. It is not a region that has an agricultural culture, except in Kununurra, and that is a process that takes some changing. However, I am personally of the view that agriculture has an enormous amount to offer the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of the Kimberley, and that will always remain my view. I am hopeful that we are able to resolve this issue because it is of no help to anybody to have this polarisation of views. If that means we need to sit down and talk to traditional owners, environmentalists, and others such as those representing tourism interests in the Kimberley, then so be it. However, we need to get a better understanding. Agriculture will not progress in the Kimberley unless we can get a debate going in place of the current dichotomy. (2) I do not know whether Mr Strickland has indicated that he has that intention, but it is quite possible. If the member says he has, then I accept that he probably has. (3) I think I have answered that. If Mr Strickland says that he will, then I imagine he will. (4) Given that it is a proposal to plant GM-cotton, I imagine that it will take place on the Frank Wise Research Institute land at Kununurra. (5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
(1) I am generally aware of these issues. I have been informed that the traditional owners have maintained their negative position regarding cotton in the area just east of the Eighty Mile Beach, which is the subject area, principally Nita Downs and Shamrock stations. I am aware of that because I have met with the traditional owners or at least representatives of some of the traditional owners from Bidyadanga Aboriginal community. I had not heard about the demand that there be no further discussions with John Logan, but that is something that traditional owners have no right to demand of government. I have no problem with engaging traditional owners in future discussions about cotton or agriculture. However, to impose a condition that is impossible to comply with is similarly not something that I think government would be all that welcoming of. This issue of cotton and agriculture generally in the Kimberley is a contentious matter. The concept of agriculture is foreign and, in many instances, anathema to Aboriginal and many non-Aboriginal residents of the Kimberley. It is not a region that has an agricultural culture, except in Kununurra, and that is a process that takes some changing. However, I am personally of the view that agriculture has an enormous amount to offer the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of the Kimberley, and that will always remain my view. I am hopeful that we are able to resolve this issue because it is of no help to anybody to have this polarisation of views. If that means we need to sit down and talk to traditional owners, environmentalists, and others such as those representing tourism interests in the Kimberley, then so be it. However, we need to get a better understanding. Agriculture will not progress in the Kimberley unless we can get a debate going in place of the current dichotomy. (2) I do not know whether Mr Strickland has indicated that he has that intention, but it is quite possible. If the member says he has, then I accept that he probably has. (3) I think I have answered that. If Mr Strickland says that he will, then I imagine he will. (4) Given that it is a proposal to plant GM-cotton, I imagine that it will take place on the Frank Wise Research Institute land at Kununurra. (5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
(3) I think I have answered that. If Mr Strickland says that he will, then I imagine he will. (4) Given that it is a proposal to plant GM-cotton, I imagine that it will take place on the Frank Wise Research Institute land at Kununurra. (5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
(4) Given that it is a proposal to plant GM-cotton, I imagine that it will take place on the Frank Wise Research Institute land at Kununurra. (5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
(5) Refer to (3) and (4). (6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
(6) I cannot speak for Mr Logan’s intentions or about what he has indicated. I have not heard of that indication. It would not be the Government’s view that the WAI proposal should go ahead in the face of strong TO opposition.
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.