❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice addresses concerns regarding GM canola, including its impact on non-GM farmers, seed purity, pesticide use, intellectual property, and the handling of allegations made by a former Department of Agriculture technician. The Minister provides detailed responses, clarifying government policies and actions.
AnsweredQoN 2214Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the answers given on 2 March 2010 to my question on notice No. 1392, and I ask -
(1) Regarding the answer given to question one, what is the effect of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) 91 on farmers of non-GM crops contaminated by GMOs?
(2) Regarding the answer given to question two, -
(a) why does the Farm Note, ‘On Farm Segregation of GM and non-GM Canola’, say the Department will not accept liability arising from use of its contents; and
(b) why does the section, ‘canola grain standards’, in that Farm Note omit information about standards for non-GM canola, -
(i) pursuant to Australia’s laws dealing with deceptive conduct in trading;
(ii) pursuant to the legislation of nations to which non-GM canola is likely to be exported; and
(iii) that may be determined by market demand?
(3) Which seed companies sell canola seed that is certified as having no GM content whatsoever?
(4) Can volunteer Roundup Ready GM canola stack onto Triazine tolerant varieties of non-GM canola so that offspring are resistant to both Roundup and Triazine?
(5) If no to (4), upon what research is this statement based?
(6) In respect of the advice contained in Farm Note, ‘On Farm Segregation of GM and non-GM Canola’, that neighbours of boundary paddocks develop plans to manage any GM volunteer plants, -
(a) is it compulsory for GM canola growers to notify their neighbours of intention to grow GM canola; and
(b) if yes to (6)(a), how will this requirement be, -
(i) monitored for compliance; and
(ii) enforced if there is non-compliance?
(7) Is it compulsory to have a management plan?
(8) What resources, including legal resources, is the Government providing to growers to assist them in developing a management plan?
(9) How will the contents of a management plan be, -
(a) monitored for compliance; and
(b) enforced if one party breaches its terms?
(10) Regarding the statement at page 23 of the March 2010 edition of
Choice Magazine
that, ‘There is increasing evidence that GM varieties of corn and canola can require higher levels of application of pesticides than some non-GM varieties’, will the Minister please list all the evidence of which he or his Department is aware that shows GM canola can require a higher level of application of pesticides than a non-GM variety?
(11) Regarding the allegations made by former Department of Agriculture technician Patrick Fels, -
(a) what specifically are the allegations made by Mr Fels;
(b) when did the Minister first become aware of the allegations;
(c) when did the investigation of the allegations commence;
(d) what are the terms of reference of the investigation; and
(e) do the terms of reference of the investigation cover all allegations made by Mr Fels?
(12) If no to (11)(e), -
(a) which allegations have been excluded;
(b) what is the reason for their exclusion;
(c) what if any alternative action is being taken in respect of those allegations;
(d) who is doing the investigation;
(e) how was the investigator selected; and
(f) when will the investigation be completed?
(13) Upon completion of the investigation, will the Minister publish a report of the investigation and its findings?
(14) Why has the exemption order regarding cultivation of GM canola been made before the investigation is completed?
(15) Has the Government transferred any of its intellectual property in research into canola, wheat or barley breeding to, -
(a) Monsanto;
(b) Nufarm;
(c) Intergrain;
(d) Cropcare; and
(e) any other business?
(16) If yes to (15), -
(a) which particular research does the transfer relate to;
(b) what were the reasons for the transfer;
(c) what did the Government receive in exchange for the transfer; and
(d) who made the decision that the Government make the transfer?
(17) Has the Government waived its intellectual property rights in research into canola, wheat or barley breeding to, -
(a) Monsanto;
(b) Nufarm;
(c) Intergrain;
(d) Cropcare; and
(e) any other business?
(18) If yes to (17), -
(a) which particular research does the waiver relate to;
(b) what were the reasons for the waiver;
(c) what did the Government receive in exchange for the waiver;
(d) who made the decision that the Government make the waiver; and
(e) has the Minister notified the Corruption and Crime Commission of Mr Fels’ allegations?
(19) If yes to (18)(e), when did the notification occur?
(20) If no to (18)(e), why not?
(21) If the answers to any of the above cannot be provided, will the Minister please explain why this information is not subject to public scrutiny?
(1) Regarding the answer given to question one, what is the effect of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) 91 on farmers of non-GM crops contaminated by GMOs?
(2) Regarding the answer given to question two, -
(a) why does the Farm Note, ‘On Farm Segregation of GM and non-GM Canola’, say the Department will not accept liability arising from use of its contents; and
(b) why does the section, ‘canola grain standards’, in that Farm Note omit information about standards for non-GM canola, -
(i) pursuant to Australia’s laws dealing with deceptive conduct in trading;
(ii) pursuant to the legislation of nations to which non-GM canola is likely to be exported; and
(iii) that may be determined by market demand?
(3) Which seed companies sell canola seed that is certified as having no GM content whatsoever?
(4) Can volunteer Roundup Ready GM canola stack onto Triazine tolerant varieties of non-GM canola so that offspring are resistant to both Roundup and Triazine?
(5) If no to (4), upon what research is this statement based?
(6) In respect of the advice contained in Farm Note, ‘On Farm Segregation of GM and non-GM Canola’, that neighbours of boundary paddocks develop plans to manage any GM volunteer plants, -
(a) is it compulsory for GM canola growers to notify their neighbours of intention to grow GM canola; and
(b) if yes to (6)(a), how will this requirement be, -
(i) monitored for compliance; and
(ii) enforced if there is non-compliance?
(7) Is it compulsory to have a management plan?
(8) What resources, including legal resources, is the Government providing to growers to assist them in developing a management plan?
(9) How will the contents of a management plan be, -
(a) monitored for compliance; and
(b) enforced if one party breaches its terms?
(10) Regarding the statement at page 23 of the March 2010 edition of
Choice Magazine
that, ‘There is increasing evidence that GM varieties of corn and canola can require higher levels of application of pesticides than some non-GM varieties’, will the Minister please list all the evidence of which he or his Department is aware that shows GM canola can require a higher level of application of pesticides than a non-GM variety?
(11) Regarding the allegations made by former Department of Agriculture technician Patrick Fels, -
(a) what specifically are the allegations made by Mr Fels;
(b) when did the Minister first become aware of the allegations;
(c) when did the investigation of the allegations commence;
(d) what are the terms of reference of the investigation; and
(e) do the terms of reference of the investigation cover all allegations made by Mr Fels?
(12) If no to (11)(e), -
(a) which allegations have been excluded;
(b) what is the reason for their exclusion;
(c) what if any alternative action is being taken in respect of those allegations;
(d) who is doing the investigation;
(e) how was the investigator selected; and
(f) when will the investigation be completed?
(13) Upon completion of the investigation, will the Minister publish a report of the investigation and its findings?
(14) Why has the exemption order regarding cultivation of GM canola been made before the investigation is completed?
(15) Has the Government transferred any of its intellectual property in research into canola, wheat or barley breeding to, -
(a) Monsanto;
(b) Nufarm;
(c) Intergrain;
(d) Cropcare; and
(e) any other business?
(16) If yes to (15), -
(a) which particular research does the transfer relate to;
(b) what were the reasons for the transfer;
(c) what did the Government receive in exchange for the transfer; and
(d) who made the decision that the Government make the transfer?
(17) Has the Government waived its intellectual property rights in research into canola, wheat or barley breeding to, -
(a) Monsanto;
(b) Nufarm;
(c) Intergrain;
(d) Cropcare; and
(e) any other business?
(18) If yes to (17), -
(a) which particular research does the waiver relate to;
(b) what were the reasons for the waiver;
(c) what did the Government receive in exchange for the waiver;
(d) who made the decision that the Government make the waiver; and
(e) has the Minister notified the Corruption and Crime Commission of Mr Fels’ allegations?
(19) If yes to (18)(e), when did the notification occur?
(20) If no to (18)(e), why not?
(21) If the answers to any of the above cannot be provided, will the Minister please explain why this information is not subject to public scrutiny?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
25 May 2010
Responded by
Minister for Child Protection representing the Minister for Agriculture and Food
Response time
35 days
(1) The aim of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties and UPOV 91 is to provide and promote an effective system of plant variety protection, with the aim of encouraging the development of new varieties of plants, for the benefit of society. UPOV 91 has no effect on non-GM farmers with accidental presence of GM.
(2)(a) All Department of Agriculture and Food publications carry this disclaimer as there can be no control over how this information might be used by a third party.
(b)(i-iii) The Farm Note clearly states - there are two national standards: canola standard (CSO1) which may contain any level of GM-approved canola and non-GM canola standard (CSO1-A) which must contain less than 0.9 per cent adventitious (accidental) presence of an approved GM canola. These standards are in place to enable the grains industry to meet regulatory and customer specifications.
(3) None. Biological systems do not have 100 per cent purity.
(4) It is scientifically possible, but improbable if crop segregation standards are maintained.
(5) Not applicable.
(6)(a) No, under the Roundup Ready® canola 2010 Crop Management Plan, all GM growers are recommended to inform their neighbours of their intention to plant GM canola.
(b)(i-ii) Not applicable.
(7) Under the Roundup Ready® Canola Grower License and Stewardship Agreement the GM growers agree to read and strictly comply with the Canola Crop Management Plan.
(8) None. It is an industry matter, but any grower can request advice from the Department of Agriculture and Food.
(9)(a-b) The Department of Agriculture and Food is conducting an audit of GM grower compliance with the Stewardship Protocols in 2010. The Department of Agriculture and Food will report any non-conformity with the Stewardship protocols to Monsanto Australia. Any further actions are the responsibility of Monsanto Australia.
(10) The claim about pesticide use in the Choice article is not supported by a reference to a peer-reviewed scientific article. In contrast there are peer?reviewed scientific articles showing adoption of GM crops has led to a decrease in pesticide use or the use of less harmful pesticides. The Department of Agriculture and Food and I are not aware of any peer-reviewed scientific article that shows GM canola can require a higher application of pesticides than a non-GM variety.
(11)(a) Allegations of improper conduct by senior management in terminating the Brassica breeding program, and unfair termination of his contract of employment.
(b) December 2009
(c) 11 February 2010.
(d) The terms of reference for this investigation are:
· To review the specific allegations of maladministration raised by Mr Patrick Fels in his 7 December 2009 e-mail to Minister Redman, in relation to the management and administration of the department's Intellectual Property (IP) of its Brassica/Canola breeding programs.
· To advise if there were any systemic protocol and or procedural issues in the management of DAFWA's Brassica/Canola IP agreements, as alleged by Mr Fels in his e-mail of 7 December 2009.
· To gather evidence and/or provide findings into any further related matters that may arise in the course of the investigation specifically in relation to points 1 and 2 above.
(e) No
(12)(a) Allegations of unfair dismissal.
(b) As a Minister of the Crown, I am precluded by legislation and cannot involve myself in matters of employment within a Public Sector Department.
(c) Mr Fels has lodged an application in WA Industrial Relations Commission, for the matter to be heard before the Public Service Appeal Board.
(d) Gold Security Group International Pty. Ltd.
(e) The Department of Treasury and Finance, under the Common Use Arrangement (CUA), provides a list of independent investigators available to Western Australian public authorities. The Department of Agriculture and Food reviewed the CUA list to assess the independence and suitability of the independent investigators. The appointed investigator, Gold Security Group (International) Pty Ltd. was assessed as suitably qualified to undertake an independent investigation. Prior to engaging the investigator the scope of the planned investigation was discussed with the Corruption and Crime Commission and the Ombudsman's Office.
(f) Completion of the report is expected within the month.
(13) No, as the process is in the hands of Crime and Corruption Commission and Ombudsman.
(14) It was not considered that one was necessarily dependant on the other.
(15)(a-e) This is answered on the basis that "transferred" means transfer of ownership, as transfer of material is common practice to allow trials/evaluations/assessment/licences etc.
No transfers were made to Monsanto, Nufarm or CropCare.
Transfers were made to InterGrain and Adelaide Research and Innovation Pty Ltd which is the commercial development arm of the University of Adelaide.
(16)(a) The transfer to InterGrain involved wheat breeding IP. The transfer to Adelaide Research and Innovation Pty Ltd involved IP ownership in the barley line W13297.
(b) The wheat IP was transferred to InterGrain because conduct of wheat breeding is not core business for modern governments.
The barley line IP was transferred to Adelaide Research and Innovation Pty Ltd because barley line W13297 was potentially useful to South Australian barley growers and had little potential use to Western Australian growers. The Government retained 25 per cent equity in the line.
(c) As a result of the IP transfers the Government received shares in InterGrain, a licence to use the W13297 line for further research and other non-commercial purposes, and the 25 per cent equity mentioned in answer to question 16 (b).
(d) The decision for the 2007 transfer to InterGrain was made by the then Minister for Agriculture and the then Treasurer. The decision for the 2004 transfer to Adelaide Research and Innovation Pty Ltd was made by the then Director General.
(17)(a-e) The Government has not intentionally relinquished canola, wheat or barley intellectual property rights to Monsanto, Nufarm, or Cropcare. As noted in the answer to question 16, the Government has assigned wheat breeding intellectual property to InterGrain Pty Ltd and IP ownership in the barley line W13297 to Adelaide Research Institute Pty Ltd.
(18)(a-d) Not applicable
(e) Yes
(19) Notification occurred on 18 December 2009.
(20-21) Not applicable
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
(2)(a) All Department of Agriculture and Food publications carry this disclaimer as there can be no control over how this information might be used by a third party.
(b)(i-iii) The Farm Note clearly states - there are two national standards: canola standard (CSO1) which may contain any level of GM-approved canola and non-GM canola standard (CSO1-A) which must contain less than 0.9 per cent adventitious (accidental) presence of an approved GM canola. These standards are in place to enable the grains industry to meet regulatory and customer specifications.
(3) None. Biological systems do not have 100 per cent purity.
(4) It is scientifically possible, but improbable if crop segregation standards are maintained.
(5) Not applicable.
(6)(a) No, under the Roundup Ready® canola 2010 Crop Management Plan, all GM growers are recommended to inform their neighbours of their intention to plant GM canola.
(b)(i-ii) Not applicable.
(7) Under the Roundup Ready® Canola Grower License and Stewardship Agreement the GM growers agree to read and strictly comply with the Canola Crop Management Plan.
(8) None. It is an industry matter, but any grower can request advice from the Department of Agriculture and Food.
(9)(a-b) The Department of Agriculture and Food is conducting an audit of GM grower compliance with the Stewardship Protocols in 2010. The Department of Agriculture and Food will report any non-conformity with the Stewardship protocols to Monsanto Australia. Any further actions are the responsibility of Monsanto Australia.
(10) The claim about pesticide use in the Choice article is not supported by a reference to a peer-reviewed scientific article. In contrast there are peer?reviewed scientific articles showing adoption of GM crops has led to a decrease in pesticide use or the use of less harmful pesticides. The Department of Agriculture and Food and I are not aware of any peer-reviewed scientific article that shows GM canola can require a higher application of pesticides than a non-GM variety.
(11)(a) Allegations of improper conduct by senior management in terminating the Brassica breeding program, and unfair termination of his contract of employment.
(b) December 2009
(c) 11 February 2010.
(d) The terms of reference for this investigation are:
· To review the specific allegations of maladministration raised by Mr Patrick Fels in his 7 December 2009 e-mail to Minister Redman, in relation to the management and administration of the department's Intellectual Property (IP) of its Brassica/Canola breeding programs.
· To advise if there were any systemic protocol and or procedural issues in the management of DAFWA's Brassica/Canola IP agreements, as alleged by Mr Fels in his e-mail of 7 December 2009.
· To gather evidence and/or provide findings into any further related matters that may arise in the course of the investigation specifically in relation to points 1 and 2 above.
(e) No
(12)(a) Allegations of unfair dismissal.
(b) As a Minister of the Crown, I am precluded by legislation and cannot involve myself in matters of employment within a Public Sector Department.
(c) Mr Fels has lodged an application in WA Industrial Relations Commission, for the matter to be heard before the Public Service Appeal Board.
(d) Gold Security Group International Pty. Ltd.
(e) The Department of Treasury and Finance, under the Common Use Arrangement (CUA), provides a list of independent investigators available to Western Australian public authorities. The Department of Agriculture and Food reviewed the CUA list to assess the independence and suitability of the independent investigators. The appointed investigator, Gold Security Group (International) Pty Ltd. was assessed as suitably qualified to undertake an independent investigation. Prior to engaging the investigator the scope of the planned investigation was discussed with the Corruption and Crime Commission and the Ombudsman's Office.
(f) Completion of the report is expected within the month.
(13) No, as the process is in the hands of Crime and Corruption Commission and Ombudsman.
(14) It was not considered that one was necessarily dependant on the other.
(15)(a-e) This is answered on the basis that "transferred" means transfer of ownership, as transfer of material is common practice to allow trials/evaluations/assessment/licences etc.
No transfers were made to Monsanto, Nufarm or CropCare.
Transfers were made to InterGrain and Adelaide Research and Innovation Pty Ltd which is the commercial development arm of the University of Adelaide.
(16)(a) The transfer to InterGrain involved wheat breeding IP. The transfer to Adelaide Research and Innovation Pty Ltd involved IP ownership in the barley line W13297.
(b) The wheat IP was transferred to InterGrain because conduct of wheat breeding is not core business for modern governments.
The barley line IP was transferred to Adelaide Research and Innovation Pty Ltd because barley line W13297 was potentially useful to South Australian barley growers and had little potential use to Western Australian growers. The Government retained 25 per cent equity in the line.
(c) As a result of the IP transfers the Government received shares in InterGrain, a licence to use the W13297 line for further research and other non-commercial purposes, and the 25 per cent equity mentioned in answer to question 16 (b).
(d) The decision for the 2007 transfer to InterGrain was made by the then Minister for Agriculture and the then Treasurer. The decision for the 2004 transfer to Adelaide Research and Innovation Pty Ltd was made by the then Director General.
(17)(a-e) The Government has not intentionally relinquished canola, wheat or barley intellectual property rights to Monsanto, Nufarm, or Cropcare. As noted in the answer to question 16, the Government has assigned wheat breeding intellectual property to InterGrain Pty Ltd and IP ownership in the barley line W13297 to Adelaide Research Institute Pty Ltd.
(18)(a-d) Not applicable
(e) Yes
(19) Notification occurred on 18 December 2009.
(20-21) Not applicable
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.