❓ A parliamentary question addresses potential economic risks from GM wheat trials in Corrigin, focusing on liability for contamination of conventional crops and the risk to farmer shareholders. The Minister acknowledges the strict regulations and defers on liability specifics due to ongoing legislative review.
AnsweredQoN 488Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to genetically modified wheat crop trials being conducted at Corrigin. (1) Is the minister aware that there could be an economic risk associated with Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd’s genetically modified wheat trial due to the potential for contamination of neighbouring conventional wheat crops? (2) Who would be liable for any economic loss experienced by neighbouring farmers in Corrigin in the event of GM contamination of conventional crops? (3) If Grain Biotech Australia were found to be liable for economic loss due to GM contamination, would the farmer shareholders of the Council of Grain Grower Organisations, through their investment in Grain Biotech Australia, be at any risk? (4) If no to (3), why not? (5) If yes to (3), have they been made aware of these risks?. Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The trial is small and is conducted under strict licence conditions. The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage risks is the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. This trial licence process has taken approximately nine months to complete. During that process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee has provided advice to the OGTR regarding scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly a self-pollinating plant. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation normally applied to prevent any contamination between wheat varieties. (2) Liability issues are being considered in the current review of the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. This review commenced in July - I am unable to ascertain the year from my copy of the answer, but I will provide the member with the information later; it appears to be 2005. In the absence of any other provisions, neighbouring farmers retain their common law rights. If a farmer believes that he has suffered economic loss, he could make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. Any such matter would be resolved via mediation or the courts. I understand that there has been no loss or damage arising out of the trials run under the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator’s licence conditions over the past four years. (3) No. (4) As a proprietary limited company, the liability of Grain Biotech Australia is limited to the corporation itself. No liability would attach to shareholders. (5) Not applicable.
(1) Is the minister aware that there could be an economic risk associated with Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd’s genetically modified wheat trial due to the potential for contamination of neighbouring conventional wheat crops? (2) Who would be liable for any economic loss experienced by neighbouring farmers in Corrigin in the event of GM contamination of conventional crops? (3) If Grain Biotech Australia were found to be liable for economic loss due to GM contamination, would the farmer shareholders of the Council of Grain Grower Organisations, through their investment in Grain Biotech Australia, be at any risk? (4) If no to (3), why not? (5) If yes to (3), have they been made aware of these risks?. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The trial is small and is conducted under strict licence conditions. The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage risks is the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. This trial licence process has taken approximately nine months to complete. During that process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee has provided advice to the OGTR regarding scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly a self-pollinating plant. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation normally applied to prevent any contamination between wheat varieties. (2) Liability issues are being considered in the current review of the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. This review commenced in July - I am unable to ascertain the year from my copy of the answer, but I will provide the member with the information later; it appears to be 2005. In the absence of any other provisions, neighbouring farmers retain their common law rights. If a farmer believes that he has suffered economic loss, he could make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. Any such matter would be resolved via mediation or the courts. I understand that there has been no loss or damage arising out of the trials run under the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator’s licence conditions over the past four years. (3) No. (4) As a proprietary limited company, the liability of Grain Biotech Australia is limited to the corporation itself. No liability would attach to shareholders. (5) Not applicable.
(2) Who would be liable for any economic loss experienced by neighbouring farmers in Corrigin in the event of GM contamination of conventional crops? (3) If Grain Biotech Australia were found to be liable for economic loss due to GM contamination, would the farmer shareholders of the Council of Grain Grower Organisations, through their investment in Grain Biotech Australia, be at any risk? (4) If no to (3), why not? (5) If yes to (3), have they been made aware of these risks?. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The trial is small and is conducted under strict licence conditions. The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage risks is the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. This trial licence process has taken approximately nine months to complete. During that process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee has provided advice to the OGTR regarding scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly a self-pollinating plant. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation normally applied to prevent any contamination between wheat varieties. (2) Liability issues are being considered in the current review of the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. This review commenced in July - I am unable to ascertain the year from my copy of the answer, but I will provide the member with the information later; it appears to be 2005. In the absence of any other provisions, neighbouring farmers retain their common law rights. If a farmer believes that he has suffered economic loss, he could make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. Any such matter would be resolved via mediation or the courts. I understand that there has been no loss or damage arising out of the trials run under the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator’s licence conditions over the past four years. (3) No. (4) As a proprietary limited company, the liability of Grain Biotech Australia is limited to the corporation itself. No liability would attach to shareholders. (5) Not applicable.
(3) If Grain Biotech Australia were found to be liable for economic loss due to GM contamination, would the farmer shareholders of the Council of Grain Grower Organisations, through their investment in Grain Biotech Australia, be at any risk? (4) If no to (3), why not? (5) If yes to (3), have they been made aware of these risks?. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The trial is small and is conducted under strict licence conditions. The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage risks is the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. This trial licence process has taken approximately nine months to complete. During that process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee has provided advice to the OGTR regarding scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly a self-pollinating plant. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation normally applied to prevent any contamination between wheat varieties. (2) Liability issues are being considered in the current review of the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. This review commenced in July - I am unable to ascertain the year from my copy of the answer, but I will provide the member with the information later; it appears to be 2005. In the absence of any other provisions, neighbouring farmers retain their common law rights. If a farmer believes that he has suffered economic loss, he could make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. Any such matter would be resolved via mediation or the courts. I understand that there has been no loss or damage arising out of the trials run under the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator’s licence conditions over the past four years. (3) No. (4) As a proprietary limited company, the liability of Grain Biotech Australia is limited to the corporation itself. No liability would attach to shareholders. (5) Not applicable.
(4) If no to (3), why not? (5) If yes to (3), have they been made aware of these risks?. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The trial is small and is conducted under strict licence conditions. The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage risks is the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. This trial licence process has taken approximately nine months to complete. During that process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee has provided advice to the OGTR regarding scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly a self-pollinating plant. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation normally applied to prevent any contamination between wheat varieties. (2) Liability issues are being considered in the current review of the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. This review commenced in July - I am unable to ascertain the year from my copy of the answer, but I will provide the member with the information later; it appears to be 2005. In the absence of any other provisions, neighbouring farmers retain their common law rights. If a farmer believes that he has suffered economic loss, he could make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. Any such matter would be resolved via mediation or the courts. I understand that there has been no loss or damage arising out of the trials run under the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator’s licence conditions over the past four years. (3) No. (4) As a proprietary limited company, the liability of Grain Biotech Australia is limited to the corporation itself. No liability would attach to shareholders. (5) Not applicable.
(5) If yes to (3), have they been made aware of these risks?. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The trial is small and is conducted under strict licence conditions. The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage risks is the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. This trial licence process has taken approximately nine months to complete. During that process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee has provided advice to the OGTR regarding scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly a self-pollinating plant. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation normally applied to prevent any contamination between wheat varieties. (2) Liability issues are being considered in the current review of the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. This review commenced in July - I am unable to ascertain the year from my copy of the answer, but I will provide the member with the information later; it appears to be 2005. In the absence of any other provisions, neighbouring farmers retain their common law rights. If a farmer believes that he has suffered economic loss, he could make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. Any such matter would be resolved via mediation or the courts. I understand that there has been no loss or damage arising out of the trials run under the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator’s licence conditions over the past four years. (3) No. (4) As a proprietary limited company, the liability of Grain Biotech Australia is limited to the corporation itself. No liability would attach to shareholders. (5) Not applicable.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The trial is small and is conducted under strict licence conditions. The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage risks is the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. This trial licence process has taken approximately nine months to complete. During that process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee has provided advice to the OGTR regarding scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly a self-pollinating plant. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation normally applied to prevent any contamination between wheat varieties. (2) Liability issues are being considered in the current review of the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. This review commenced in July - I am unable to ascertain the year from my copy of the answer, but I will provide the member with the information later; it appears to be 2005. In the absence of any other provisions, neighbouring farmers retain their common law rights. If a farmer believes that he has suffered economic loss, he could make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. Any such matter would be resolved via mediation or the courts. I understand that there has been no loss or damage arising out of the trials run under the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator’s licence conditions over the past four years. (3) No. (4) As a proprietary limited company, the liability of Grain Biotech Australia is limited to the corporation itself. No liability would attach to shareholders. (5) Not applicable.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The trial is small and is conducted under strict licence conditions. The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage risks is the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. This trial licence process has taken approximately nine months to complete. During that process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee has provided advice to the OGTR regarding scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly a self-pollinating plant. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation normally applied to prevent any contamination between wheat varieties. (2) Liability issues are being considered in the current review of the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. This review commenced in July - I am unable to ascertain the year from my copy of the answer, but I will provide the member with the information later; it appears to be 2005. In the absence of any other provisions, neighbouring farmers retain their common law rights. If a farmer believes that he has suffered economic loss, he could make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. Any such matter would be resolved via mediation or the courts. I understand that there has been no loss or damage arising out of the trials run under the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator’s licence conditions over the past four years. (3) No. (4) As a proprietary limited company, the liability of Grain Biotech Australia is limited to the corporation itself. No liability would attach to shareholders. (5) Not applicable.
(1) The trial is small and is conducted under strict licence conditions. The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage risks is the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. This trial licence process has taken approximately nine months to complete. During that process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee has provided advice to the OGTR regarding scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly a self-pollinating plant. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation normally applied to prevent any contamination between wheat varieties. (2) Liability issues are being considered in the current review of the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. This review commenced in July - I am unable to ascertain the year from my copy of the answer, but I will provide the member with the information later; it appears to be 2005. In the absence of any other provisions, neighbouring farmers retain their common law rights. If a farmer believes that he has suffered economic loss, he could make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. Any such matter would be resolved via mediation or the courts. I understand that there has been no loss or damage arising out of the trials run under the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator’s licence conditions over the past four years. (3) No. (4) As a proprietary limited company, the liability of Grain Biotech Australia is limited to the corporation itself. No liability would attach to shareholders. (5) Not applicable.
(2) Liability issues are being considered in the current review of the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. This review commenced in July - I am unable to ascertain the year from my copy of the answer, but I will provide the member with the information later; it appears to be 2005. In the absence of any other provisions, neighbouring farmers retain their common law rights. If a farmer believes that he has suffered economic loss, he could make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. Any such matter would be resolved via mediation or the courts. I understand that there has been no loss or damage arising out of the trials run under the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator’s licence conditions over the past four years. (3) No. (4) As a proprietary limited company, the liability of Grain Biotech Australia is limited to the corporation itself. No liability would attach to shareholders. (5) Not applicable.
(4) As a proprietary limited company, the liability of Grain Biotech Australia is limited to the corporation itself. No liability would attach to shareholders. (5) Not applicable.
(5) Not applicable.
(1) Is the minister aware that there could be an economic risk associated with Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd’s genetically modified wheat trial due to the potential for contamination of neighbouring conventional wheat crops? (2) Who would be liable for any economic loss experienced by neighbouring farmers in Corrigin in the event of GM contamination of conventional crops? (3) If Grain Biotech Australia were found to be liable for economic loss due to GM contamination, would the farmer shareholders of the Council of Grain Grower Organisations, through their investment in Grain Biotech Australia, be at any risk? (4) If no to (3), why not? (5) If yes to (3), have they been made aware of these risks?. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The trial is small and is conducted under strict licence conditions. The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage risks is the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. This trial licence process has taken approximately nine months to complete. During that process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee has provided advice to the OGTR regarding scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly a self-pollinating plant. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation normally applied to prevent any contamination between wheat varieties. (2) Liability issues are being considered in the current review of the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. This review commenced in July - I am unable to ascertain the year from my copy of the answer, but I will provide the member with the information later; it appears to be 2005. In the absence of any other provisions, neighbouring farmers retain their common law rights. If a farmer believes that he has suffered economic loss, he could make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. Any such matter would be resolved via mediation or the courts. I understand that there has been no loss or damage arising out of the trials run under the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator’s licence conditions over the past four years. (3) No. (4) As a proprietary limited company, the liability of Grain Biotech Australia is limited to the corporation itself. No liability would attach to shareholders. (5) Not applicable.
(2) Who would be liable for any economic loss experienced by neighbouring farmers in Corrigin in the event of GM contamination of conventional crops? (3) If Grain Biotech Australia were found to be liable for economic loss due to GM contamination, would the farmer shareholders of the Council of Grain Grower Organisations, through their investment in Grain Biotech Australia, be at any risk? (4) If no to (3), why not? (5) If yes to (3), have they been made aware of these risks?. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The trial is small and is conducted under strict licence conditions. The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage risks is the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. This trial licence process has taken approximately nine months to complete. During that process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee has provided advice to the OGTR regarding scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly a self-pollinating plant. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation normally applied to prevent any contamination between wheat varieties. (2) Liability issues are being considered in the current review of the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. This review commenced in July - I am unable to ascertain the year from my copy of the answer, but I will provide the member with the information later; it appears to be 2005. In the absence of any other provisions, neighbouring farmers retain their common law rights. If a farmer believes that he has suffered economic loss, he could make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. Any such matter would be resolved via mediation or the courts. I understand that there has been no loss or damage arising out of the trials run under the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator’s licence conditions over the past four years. (3) No. (4) As a proprietary limited company, the liability of Grain Biotech Australia is limited to the corporation itself. No liability would attach to shareholders. (5) Not applicable.
(3) If Grain Biotech Australia were found to be liable for economic loss due to GM contamination, would the farmer shareholders of the Council of Grain Grower Organisations, through their investment in Grain Biotech Australia, be at any risk? (4) If no to (3), why not? (5) If yes to (3), have they been made aware of these risks?. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The trial is small and is conducted under strict licence conditions. The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage risks is the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. This trial licence process has taken approximately nine months to complete. During that process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee has provided advice to the OGTR regarding scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly a self-pollinating plant. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation normally applied to prevent any contamination between wheat varieties. (2) Liability issues are being considered in the current review of the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. This review commenced in July - I am unable to ascertain the year from my copy of the answer, but I will provide the member with the information later; it appears to be 2005. In the absence of any other provisions, neighbouring farmers retain their common law rights. If a farmer believes that he has suffered economic loss, he could make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. Any such matter would be resolved via mediation or the courts. I understand that there has been no loss or damage arising out of the trials run under the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator’s licence conditions over the past four years. (3) No. (4) As a proprietary limited company, the liability of Grain Biotech Australia is limited to the corporation itself. No liability would attach to shareholders. (5) Not applicable.
(4) If no to (3), why not? (5) If yes to (3), have they been made aware of these risks?. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The trial is small and is conducted under strict licence conditions. The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage risks is the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. This trial licence process has taken approximately nine months to complete. During that process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee has provided advice to the OGTR regarding scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly a self-pollinating plant. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation normally applied to prevent any contamination between wheat varieties. (2) Liability issues are being considered in the current review of the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. This review commenced in July - I am unable to ascertain the year from my copy of the answer, but I will provide the member with the information later; it appears to be 2005. In the absence of any other provisions, neighbouring farmers retain their common law rights. If a farmer believes that he has suffered economic loss, he could make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. Any such matter would be resolved via mediation or the courts. I understand that there has been no loss or damage arising out of the trials run under the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator’s licence conditions over the past four years. (3) No. (4) As a proprietary limited company, the liability of Grain Biotech Australia is limited to the corporation itself. No liability would attach to shareholders. (5) Not applicable.
(5) If yes to (3), have they been made aware of these risks?. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The trial is small and is conducted under strict licence conditions. The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage risks is the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. This trial licence process has taken approximately nine months to complete. During that process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee has provided advice to the OGTR regarding scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly a self-pollinating plant. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation normally applied to prevent any contamination between wheat varieties. (2) Liability issues are being considered in the current review of the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. This review commenced in July - I am unable to ascertain the year from my copy of the answer, but I will provide the member with the information later; it appears to be 2005. In the absence of any other provisions, neighbouring farmers retain their common law rights. If a farmer believes that he has suffered economic loss, he could make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. Any such matter would be resolved via mediation or the courts. I understand that there has been no loss or damage arising out of the trials run under the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator’s licence conditions over the past four years. (3) No. (4) As a proprietary limited company, the liability of Grain Biotech Australia is limited to the corporation itself. No liability would attach to shareholders. (5) Not applicable.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The trial is small and is conducted under strict licence conditions. The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage risks is the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. This trial licence process has taken approximately nine months to complete. During that process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee has provided advice to the OGTR regarding scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly a self-pollinating plant. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation normally applied to prevent any contamination between wheat varieties. (2) Liability issues are being considered in the current review of the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. This review commenced in July - I am unable to ascertain the year from my copy of the answer, but I will provide the member with the information later; it appears to be 2005. In the absence of any other provisions, neighbouring farmers retain their common law rights. If a farmer believes that he has suffered economic loss, he could make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. Any such matter would be resolved via mediation or the courts. I understand that there has been no loss or damage arising out of the trials run under the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator’s licence conditions over the past four years. (3) No. (4) As a proprietary limited company, the liability of Grain Biotech Australia is limited to the corporation itself. No liability would attach to shareholders. (5) Not applicable.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The trial is small and is conducted under strict licence conditions. The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage risks is the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. This trial licence process has taken approximately nine months to complete. During that process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee has provided advice to the OGTR regarding scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly a self-pollinating plant. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation normally applied to prevent any contamination between wheat varieties. (2) Liability issues are being considered in the current review of the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. This review commenced in July - I am unable to ascertain the year from my copy of the answer, but I will provide the member with the information later; it appears to be 2005. In the absence of any other provisions, neighbouring farmers retain their common law rights. If a farmer believes that he has suffered economic loss, he could make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. Any such matter would be resolved via mediation or the courts. I understand that there has been no loss or damage arising out of the trials run under the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator’s licence conditions over the past four years. (3) No. (4) As a proprietary limited company, the liability of Grain Biotech Australia is limited to the corporation itself. No liability would attach to shareholders. (5) Not applicable.
(1) The trial is small and is conducted under strict licence conditions. The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage risks is the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. This trial licence process has taken approximately nine months to complete. During that process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee has provided advice to the OGTR regarding scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly a self-pollinating plant. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation normally applied to prevent any contamination between wheat varieties. (2) Liability issues are being considered in the current review of the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. This review commenced in July - I am unable to ascertain the year from my copy of the answer, but I will provide the member with the information later; it appears to be 2005. In the absence of any other provisions, neighbouring farmers retain their common law rights. If a farmer believes that he has suffered economic loss, he could make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. Any such matter would be resolved via mediation or the courts. I understand that there has been no loss or damage arising out of the trials run under the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator’s licence conditions over the past four years. (3) No. (4) As a proprietary limited company, the liability of Grain Biotech Australia is limited to the corporation itself. No liability would attach to shareholders. (5) Not applicable.
(2) Liability issues are being considered in the current review of the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. This review commenced in July - I am unable to ascertain the year from my copy of the answer, but I will provide the member with the information later; it appears to be 2005. In the absence of any other provisions, neighbouring farmers retain their common law rights. If a farmer believes that he has suffered economic loss, he could make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. Any such matter would be resolved via mediation or the courts. I understand that there has been no loss or damage arising out of the trials run under the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator’s licence conditions over the past four years. (3) No. (4) As a proprietary limited company, the liability of Grain Biotech Australia is limited to the corporation itself. No liability would attach to shareholders. (5) Not applicable.
(4) As a proprietary limited company, the liability of Grain Biotech Australia is limited to the corporation itself. No liability would attach to shareholders. (5) Not applicable.
(5) Not applicable.
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.