❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding genetically modified (GM) crops, including local government positions, monitoring of GM canola trials, and a ministerial trip to North America. The response provides details on local government stances, monitoring efforts, and clarifies aspects of the ministerial trip.
AnsweredQoN 1236Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Please provide the full list of local government areas in Western Australia that have formally declared their local government areas either genetically modified (GM) free or non-GM?
(2) Please provide the full list of local government areas in Western Australia that have indicated opposition to GM crops through other means such as submissions in response to the recent review of the
Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003
?
(3) I refer to the Minister’s answer to question without notice No. 807 on 20 August 2009, and ask -
(a) who selected the non-GM growers, that the Minister met on his recent trip to North America;
(b) on what basis were those people selected;
(c) were there other GM free or non-GM names suggested to the Minister, who he then elected not to meet;
(d) if yes to (c), who were those people and why was the decision taken not to meet them and;
(e) is it true that Terry Boehm, the vice-president of the National Farmers Union in Canada, was to be called by the Minister but that Mr Boehm waited for three hours by the phone without receiving the pre-arranged call?
(4) I refer to answers to question on notice No’s 444 through 448 in the other place, on 7 April 2009, and ask -
(a) would the Minister outline how the GM canola ‘trial’ sites have thus far been monitored by his department;
(b) if there has been such monitoring, approximately how many staff hours have been allocated to that effort;
(c) would the Minister outline what further monitoring of those sites and if any, is intended for the future;
(d) if there is such monitoring intended in the future, approximately how many staff hours have been budgeted and over what timeframe will that effort be expended;
(e) in all of the above cases, in what circumstances have or will the actual trial fields be entered by departmental staff;
(f) would the Minister outline how the various transport corridors involved with taking the GM canola to market have thus far been monitored by his Department;
(g) if there has been such monitoring, approximately how many staff hours have been allocated to that effort;
(h) would the Minister outline what further monitoring of the various transport corridors involved with taking the GM canola to market, if any, is intended for the future;
(i) if there is such monitoring intended in the future, approximately how many staff hours have been budgeted and over what timeframe will that effort be expended; and
(j) what will be or has been the most critical time in terms of risk of cross-contamination and how, if at all, has the department addressed monitoring during that time?
(5) I refer to the recent tour of the GM canola trial site on the Department’s Northern Sandplain Research Annexe, and ask -
(a) who picked the speakers at that event;
(b) why was no one speaking from the other side of the debate;
(c) who was invited to attend; and
(d) why weren’t invitations extended to all Members of Parliament with an interest in the area, including those speaking to the other side of the debate?
(2) Please provide the full list of local government areas in Western Australia that have indicated opposition to GM crops through other means such as submissions in response to the recent review of the
Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003
?
(3) I refer to the Minister’s answer to question without notice No. 807 on 20 August 2009, and ask -
(a) who selected the non-GM growers, that the Minister met on his recent trip to North America;
(b) on what basis were those people selected;
(c) were there other GM free or non-GM names suggested to the Minister, who he then elected not to meet;
(d) if yes to (c), who were those people and why was the decision taken not to meet them and;
(e) is it true that Terry Boehm, the vice-president of the National Farmers Union in Canada, was to be called by the Minister but that Mr Boehm waited for three hours by the phone without receiving the pre-arranged call?
(4) I refer to answers to question on notice No’s 444 through 448 in the other place, on 7 April 2009, and ask -
(a) would the Minister outline how the GM canola ‘trial’ sites have thus far been monitored by his department;
(b) if there has been such monitoring, approximately how many staff hours have been allocated to that effort;
(c) would the Minister outline what further monitoring of those sites and if any, is intended for the future;
(d) if there is such monitoring intended in the future, approximately how many staff hours have been budgeted and over what timeframe will that effort be expended;
(e) in all of the above cases, in what circumstances have or will the actual trial fields be entered by departmental staff;
(f) would the Minister outline how the various transport corridors involved with taking the GM canola to market have thus far been monitored by his Department;
(g) if there has been such monitoring, approximately how many staff hours have been allocated to that effort;
(h) would the Minister outline what further monitoring of the various transport corridors involved with taking the GM canola to market, if any, is intended for the future;
(i) if there is such monitoring intended in the future, approximately how many staff hours have been budgeted and over what timeframe will that effort be expended; and
(j) what will be or has been the most critical time in terms of risk of cross-contamination and how, if at all, has the department addressed monitoring during that time?
(5) I refer to the recent tour of the GM canola trial site on the Department’s Northern Sandplain Research Annexe, and ask -
(a) who picked the speakers at that event;
(b) why was no one speaking from the other side of the debate;
(c) who was invited to attend; and
(d) why weren’t invitations extended to all Members of Parliament with an interest in the area, including those speaking to the other side of the debate?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
12 November 2009
Responded by
Minister for Child Protection representing the Minister for Agriculture and Food
Response time
49 days
(1) The Western Australian Local Government Association surveyed its members in August/September 2009, asking if they had adopted a position on genetically modified organisms or ever considered the issue. Of the 140 local governments surveyed 23 indicated they were opposed to GMOs, 16 local governments support GMOs, 27 have chosen not to take a position, and 74 local governments either have not discussed the issue or did not respond to the survey. The following local governments indicated they oppose genetically modified organisms. (This information was provided by the WA Local Government Association and the Minister cannot vouch for its accuracy.)
City of Albany
Shire of Augusta-Margaret River
Shire of Boyup Brook
Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes
Shire of Carnamah
Shire of Chittering
Shire of Denmark
City of Fremantle
Shire of Kojonup
Shire of Koorda
Shire of Kulin
Shire of Manjimup
Shire of Mukinbudin
Shire of Nannup
Shire of Northam
City of Swan
Shire of Tammin
Shire of Toodyay
Shire of Wandering
Shire of Williams
Shire of Woodanilling
Shire of Wyalkatchem
Shire of Yalgoo
(2) Five local government areas made submissions to the review of the
GM Crops Free Areas Act 2003
. Four of these local government areas stated their opposition the GM crops (Shires of Serpentine-Jarrahdale, Manjimup, Williams and Northam) while the City of Subiaco recommended the adoption of the precautionary approach for dealing with GM crops.
Ten local government areas have written to Minister Redman stating their opposition to GM crops.
Shire of Chittering
Shire of Manjimup
Shire of Williams
Shire of West Arthur
Shire of Northam
Shire of Boyup Brook
Shire of Mukinbudin
Shire of Nannup
Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale
Shire of Denmark
(3)(a-b) The non GM growers were selected by Ms Marlene Boersche, an Agri?business consultant now based in Alberta Canada and also Garrett Hawkins from the Missouri US Farm Bureau. The non GM growers were selected as being non-GM farmers available at times to fit Minister Redman's itinerary.
(c-d) An invitation was received to meet the vice president of the National Farmers Union of Canada Terry Boehm and the president of the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate Arnold Taylor, however, as the invitation was received less than a week before the Minister's departure the Minister's itinerary was already fixed and it was not possible to schedule a meeting. Arrangements were made to speak with Mr Boehm by telephone.
(e) No, this is not true. A phone call was arranged and the Minister rang at the correct time. There was no answer and the Minister left a message. Subsequent attempts to contact Mr Boehm were unsuccessful.
(4)(a) The Department of Agriculture and Food (the Department) has appointed four Authorised Officers under the
GM Crops Free Areas Act 2003
. The Authorised Officers will visit each trial site at least three times during 2009 to ensure the trials are being carried out in accordance with conditions of the exemption order.
(b) As of October 2009, the Authorised Officers have spent approximately 642 hours inspecting the trials and reporting on the outcomes of the inspections. Other Department staff have spent approximately 590 hours developing monitoring procedures, training the Authorised Officers, coordinating the monitoring visits, developing a GM Crops Trial interface for storing trial data and reporting on outcomes of the Department's monitoring and auditing activities.
(4)(c-d) Further trial site monitoring will involve the Authorised Officers carrying out harvest inspections of the trial sites in 2009. If the moratorium on commercial cultivation of the GM canola remains in place after 2009 all trial sites will be managed in subsequent years by the trial farmers to ensure destruction of any canola volunteers. The Authorised Officers will inspect the trial sites at flowering time to identify any canola volunteers and these will be destroyed by the trial farmers using herbicides or hand removal. This process will continue until no GM canola volunteer plants have germinated on the trial sites for 12 months. It will take between half a day and a whole day for the Authorised Officers to complete each inspection.
(e) Department staff have entered trial sites for the following purposes:
· Management-related activities of trial crops on Department trial sites such as sowing, spraying, fertilising, and harvesting
· Scheduled Authorised Officer inspections and any required follow ups
· Escort of visitors to the Department trial sites
· Educational purposes.
(f) Department staff have not monitored transport corridors involved in the transport of GM canola to market.
(g) Not applicable
(h-i) The Department will monitor transport corridors involved in the transport of GM canola from the Geraldton and Esperance research sites to market next growing season. This monitoring will include checking for GM canola volunteers. Furthermore, all DAFWA staff travelling along transport routes will be instructed to keep watch for volunteer canola plants.
(j) A publication produced by ACIL Tasman and Farm Horizon in 2005 using estimates from the Australian Seed Federation indicates activities associated with production of the seed to be planted have the greatest rate of cross contamination. The genetically modified seed used for the trials was not produced in Western Australia.
Since 2006 the canola seed and grain industries have cooperated with the Department in implementing various control measures for the management of accidental presence of GM canola. The control measures have successfully controlled the adventitious presence of GM in the supply chain. The control measures include the following Department and industry activities:
· Since 2006, the Department has undertaken a Canola Seed Screening Program for the presence of OGTR approved GM events in seed lots of commercially marketed canola in Western Australia. This involved seed lots from Pacific Seeds, Nufarm, Pioneer, Plant Tech and Canola Breeders of WA.
· Since the 2005/06 harvest samples from all CBH Group sidings receiving canola (>130) have been tested. Only two genetically modified plants have been detected (from the 2007/8 harvest) from among 3.9 million plants. All harvest samples from the 2008/9 harvest tested negative.
· The Australian Seed Federation policy on GM accidental presence in canola is to retain the 0.5% threshold established in October 2005 by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council.
· The Australian Seed Federation has developed with the assistance of canola breeding and marketing companies a "Best Practice Guideline for Managing Adventitious Presence in Canola Varieties" to assist members to comply with their statutory and consumer obligations.
5(a) The Department of Agriculture and Food and industry representatives selected the speakers.
(b) The field day was to provide technical and agronomic information on GM canola and the day was not planned as a debate.
(c) Farmers, members of the Chamber of Commerce, relevant Department staff, Members of Parliament, grains industry representatives, and local government representatives.
(d) Invitations for the field day were sent to Members of Parliament who had indicated an interest in future development of the grains industry. All Members of Parliament and representatives of all local government areas were invited to the GM information session held on 12 October 2009.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
City of Albany
Shire of Augusta-Margaret River
Shire of Boyup Brook
Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes
Shire of Carnamah
Shire of Chittering
Shire of Denmark
City of Fremantle
Shire of Kojonup
Shire of Koorda
Shire of Kulin
Shire of Manjimup
Shire of Mukinbudin
Shire of Nannup
Shire of Northam
City of Swan
Shire of Tammin
Shire of Toodyay
Shire of Wandering
Shire of Williams
Shire of Woodanilling
Shire of Wyalkatchem
Shire of Yalgoo
(2) Five local government areas made submissions to the review of the
GM Crops Free Areas Act 2003
. Four of these local government areas stated their opposition the GM crops (Shires of Serpentine-Jarrahdale, Manjimup, Williams and Northam) while the City of Subiaco recommended the adoption of the precautionary approach for dealing with GM crops.
Ten local government areas have written to Minister Redman stating their opposition to GM crops.
Shire of Chittering
Shire of Manjimup
Shire of Williams
Shire of West Arthur
Shire of Northam
Shire of Boyup Brook
Shire of Mukinbudin
Shire of Nannup
Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale
Shire of Denmark
(3)(a-b) The non GM growers were selected by Ms Marlene Boersche, an Agri?business consultant now based in Alberta Canada and also Garrett Hawkins from the Missouri US Farm Bureau. The non GM growers were selected as being non-GM farmers available at times to fit Minister Redman's itinerary.
(c-d) An invitation was received to meet the vice president of the National Farmers Union of Canada Terry Boehm and the president of the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate Arnold Taylor, however, as the invitation was received less than a week before the Minister's departure the Minister's itinerary was already fixed and it was not possible to schedule a meeting. Arrangements were made to speak with Mr Boehm by telephone.
(e) No, this is not true. A phone call was arranged and the Minister rang at the correct time. There was no answer and the Minister left a message. Subsequent attempts to contact Mr Boehm were unsuccessful.
(4)(a) The Department of Agriculture and Food (the Department) has appointed four Authorised Officers under the
GM Crops Free Areas Act 2003
. The Authorised Officers will visit each trial site at least three times during 2009 to ensure the trials are being carried out in accordance with conditions of the exemption order.
(b) As of October 2009, the Authorised Officers have spent approximately 642 hours inspecting the trials and reporting on the outcomes of the inspections. Other Department staff have spent approximately 590 hours developing monitoring procedures, training the Authorised Officers, coordinating the monitoring visits, developing a GM Crops Trial interface for storing trial data and reporting on outcomes of the Department's monitoring and auditing activities.
(4)(c-d) Further trial site monitoring will involve the Authorised Officers carrying out harvest inspections of the trial sites in 2009. If the moratorium on commercial cultivation of the GM canola remains in place after 2009 all trial sites will be managed in subsequent years by the trial farmers to ensure destruction of any canola volunteers. The Authorised Officers will inspect the trial sites at flowering time to identify any canola volunteers and these will be destroyed by the trial farmers using herbicides or hand removal. This process will continue until no GM canola volunteer plants have germinated on the trial sites for 12 months. It will take between half a day and a whole day for the Authorised Officers to complete each inspection.
(e) Department staff have entered trial sites for the following purposes:
· Management-related activities of trial crops on Department trial sites such as sowing, spraying, fertilising, and harvesting
· Scheduled Authorised Officer inspections and any required follow ups
· Escort of visitors to the Department trial sites
· Educational purposes.
(f) Department staff have not monitored transport corridors involved in the transport of GM canola to market.
(g) Not applicable
(h-i) The Department will monitor transport corridors involved in the transport of GM canola from the Geraldton and Esperance research sites to market next growing season. This monitoring will include checking for GM canola volunteers. Furthermore, all DAFWA staff travelling along transport routes will be instructed to keep watch for volunteer canola plants.
(j) A publication produced by ACIL Tasman and Farm Horizon in 2005 using estimates from the Australian Seed Federation indicates activities associated with production of the seed to be planted have the greatest rate of cross contamination. The genetically modified seed used for the trials was not produced in Western Australia.
Since 2006 the canola seed and grain industries have cooperated with the Department in implementing various control measures for the management of accidental presence of GM canola. The control measures have successfully controlled the adventitious presence of GM in the supply chain. The control measures include the following Department and industry activities:
· Since 2006, the Department has undertaken a Canola Seed Screening Program for the presence of OGTR approved GM events in seed lots of commercially marketed canola in Western Australia. This involved seed lots from Pacific Seeds, Nufarm, Pioneer, Plant Tech and Canola Breeders of WA.
· Since the 2005/06 harvest samples from all CBH Group sidings receiving canola (>130) have been tested. Only two genetically modified plants have been detected (from the 2007/8 harvest) from among 3.9 million plants. All harvest samples from the 2008/9 harvest tested negative.
· The Australian Seed Federation policy on GM accidental presence in canola is to retain the 0.5% threshold established in October 2005 by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council.
· The Australian Seed Federation has developed with the assistance of canola breeding and marketing companies a "Best Practice Guideline for Managing Adventitious Presence in Canola Varieties" to assist members to comply with their statutory and consumer obligations.
5(a) The Department of Agriculture and Food and industry representatives selected the speakers.
(b) The field day was to provide technical and agronomic information on GM canola and the day was not planned as a debate.
(c) Farmers, members of the Chamber of Commerce, relevant Department staff, Members of Parliament, grains industry representatives, and local government representatives.
(d) Invitations for the field day were sent to Members of Parliament who had indicated an interest in future development of the grains industry. All Members of Parliament and representatives of all local government areas were invited to the GM information session held on 12 October 2009.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.