Hon Lynn MacLaren questions the government's decision to allow commercial GM canola cultivation without specific protections for GM-free growers. The government defends its position, citing segregation capabilities and reliance on common law for dispute resolution.

AnsweredQoN 938Legislative Council
Asked
10 September 2015
Portfolio
Agriculture and Food

QuestionView source ↗

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CANOLA
938. Hon LYNN MacLAREN to the
Minister for Agriculture and Food:
(1) Why did the government allow
commercial genetically modified canola to be grown without —
(a) publishing
the location of GM canola so GM-free growers could take evasive action, as
promised;
(b) requiring farmers to tell their
neighbours when they were growing GM canola; and
(c) a farmer
protection fund to automatically compensate landholders suffering economic
loss, extra costs or harm from GM canola contamination of their land, resourced
with a levy on each kilogram of GM seed sold?
(2) Was the
government mistaken in leaving the settlement of disputes over GM contamination
to the courts and the common law?
(3) If the
government repeals the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 and the
Gene Technology Act 2006, is it also rescinding its adherence to the Council of
Australian Governments Gene Technology Agreement of 2001 that established a
national uniform system of GM regulation?

AnswerView source ↗

Hon Lynn MacLaren has asked an interesting
question.
(1) (a) The government allowed the
commercial cultivation of genetically modified canola after the 2010 audit
program demonstrated that the Western Australian grains industry could effectively
segregate non-GM from GM canola and deliver canola to meet market requirements.
Privacy issues prevent the publication of the location of the GM canola
growers.
(b) All GM canola growers must comply with
the licence and stewardship agreement and, in accordance with this agreement,
it is voluntary for GM canola growers to notify their neighbours.
(c) The 2005–06 review of the
commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000, concluded that common law allows for
effective remedies for persons incurring damage from GM crops.
(2) No; the 2005–06 review of the
act concluded that common law allows for effective remedies for persons
incurring damage from GM crops.
(3) No.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more