❓ A parliamentary question regarding genetically modified canola, focusing on public support, government trials, and potential impacts on wheat exports in the Esperance shire. The Minister's response addresses concerns about trial data, legal ramifications, and supply chain management.
AnsweredQoN 657Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to genetically modified canola. (1) Is the minister aware that 94 per cent of the 232 rural people who attended a series of district meetings on the issue of what GM crops have to offer, which were held during our parliamentary break the week before last, are supportive of the technology? (2) Did the minister give an undertaking to have one of his advisers attend at least one of those meetings; and, if so, did someone attend on his behalf? (3) In 2005 how many independent trials has the minister authorised his department to conduct into the viability and safety of genetically modified crops, particularly canola, in Western Australia? (4) What does the minister require to satisfy himself that if GM canola were grown within the Esperance shire, it would not be detrimental to our existing wheat exports? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1) No, I am not aware of that fact. I was aware that Mr Bill Crabtree, a farm consultant, intended to run a series of meetings. Indeed, I met with Mr Crabtree just prior to those meetings occurring. I understood that those meetings were to be held in five different locations in the south eastern wheatbelt, so those numbers look very light on to me if only 232 people attended a total of five meetings. I am not sure of that number; nor am I sure of the number who supported the proposition. However, it is true that, depending on who runs a meeting of this kind, there is a tendency for a polarisation of people; that is, those who might attend Bill Crabtree’s seminars would tend to be supportive of GM technology, and those who might attend a similar meeting called by the Network of Concerned Farmers would probably be against GM technology. (2) No, I did not and none of my officers was able to attend. I indicated to Mr Crabtree that if the occasion provided, I would try to get someone to attend, but I did not give an undertaking of that kind. (3) This is an issue that we are addressing now. Clearly, some issues with GM technology need to be very clearly understood by the industry. The Department of Agriculture has a role in doing that. In fact, the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia has been very closely involved in GM trials; indeed, it is conducting GM trials virtually as we speak. Hon Anthony Fels : This year? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think we have had any this year, but certainly there were some last year. We have had an involvement in a number of trials of both canola and, more recently, cotton in the west Kimberley. We have a responsibility to continue that work, because people need a clear understanding of the real application of this technology in this state to make rational decisions. Speaking of rational decisions, I must refer to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report that was published recently. I am a little surprised that I have not been asked a question on it yet. Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
(1) Is the minister aware that 94 per cent of the 232 rural people who attended a series of district meetings on the issue of what GM crops have to offer, which were held during our parliamentary break the week before last, are supportive of the technology? (2) Did the minister give an undertaking to have one of his advisers attend at least one of those meetings; and, if so, did someone attend on his behalf? (3) In 2005 how many independent trials has the minister authorised his department to conduct into the viability and safety of genetically modified crops, particularly canola, in Western Australia? (4) What does the minister require to satisfy himself that if GM canola were grown within the Esperance shire, it would not be detrimental to our existing wheat exports? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1) No, I am not aware of that fact. I was aware that Mr Bill Crabtree, a farm consultant, intended to run a series of meetings. Indeed, I met with Mr Crabtree just prior to those meetings occurring. I understood that those meetings were to be held in five different locations in the south eastern wheatbelt, so those numbers look very light on to me if only 232 people attended a total of five meetings. I am not sure of that number; nor am I sure of the number who supported the proposition. However, it is true that, depending on who runs a meeting of this kind, there is a tendency for a polarisation of people; that is, those who might attend Bill Crabtree’s seminars would tend to be supportive of GM technology, and those who might attend a similar meeting called by the Network of Concerned Farmers would probably be against GM technology. (2) No, I did not and none of my officers was able to attend. I indicated to Mr Crabtree that if the occasion provided, I would try to get someone to attend, but I did not give an undertaking of that kind. (3) This is an issue that we are addressing now. Clearly, some issues with GM technology need to be very clearly understood by the industry. The Department of Agriculture has a role in doing that. In fact, the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia has been very closely involved in GM trials; indeed, it is conducting GM trials virtually as we speak. Hon Anthony Fels : This year? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think we have had any this year, but certainly there were some last year. We have had an involvement in a number of trials of both canola and, more recently, cotton in the west Kimberley. We have a responsibility to continue that work, because people need a clear understanding of the real application of this technology in this state to make rational decisions. Speaking of rational decisions, I must refer to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report that was published recently. I am a little surprised that I have not been asked a question on it yet. Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
(2) Did the minister give an undertaking to have one of his advisers attend at least one of those meetings; and, if so, did someone attend on his behalf? (3) In 2005 how many independent trials has the minister authorised his department to conduct into the viability and safety of genetically modified crops, particularly canola, in Western Australia? (4) What does the minister require to satisfy himself that if GM canola were grown within the Esperance shire, it would not be detrimental to our existing wheat exports? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1) No, I am not aware of that fact. I was aware that Mr Bill Crabtree, a farm consultant, intended to run a series of meetings. Indeed, I met with Mr Crabtree just prior to those meetings occurring. I understood that those meetings were to be held in five different locations in the south eastern wheatbelt, so those numbers look very light on to me if only 232 people attended a total of five meetings. I am not sure of that number; nor am I sure of the number who supported the proposition. However, it is true that, depending on who runs a meeting of this kind, there is a tendency for a polarisation of people; that is, those who might attend Bill Crabtree’s seminars would tend to be supportive of GM technology, and those who might attend a similar meeting called by the Network of Concerned Farmers would probably be against GM technology. (2) No, I did not and none of my officers was able to attend. I indicated to Mr Crabtree that if the occasion provided, I would try to get someone to attend, but I did not give an undertaking of that kind. (3) This is an issue that we are addressing now. Clearly, some issues with GM technology need to be very clearly understood by the industry. The Department of Agriculture has a role in doing that. In fact, the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia has been very closely involved in GM trials; indeed, it is conducting GM trials virtually as we speak. Hon Anthony Fels : This year? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think we have had any this year, but certainly there were some last year. We have had an involvement in a number of trials of both canola and, more recently, cotton in the west Kimberley. We have a responsibility to continue that work, because people need a clear understanding of the real application of this technology in this state to make rational decisions. Speaking of rational decisions, I must refer to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report that was published recently. I am a little surprised that I have not been asked a question on it yet. Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
(3) In 2005 how many independent trials has the minister authorised his department to conduct into the viability and safety of genetically modified crops, particularly canola, in Western Australia? (4) What does the minister require to satisfy himself that if GM canola were grown within the Esperance shire, it would not be detrimental to our existing wheat exports? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1) No, I am not aware of that fact. I was aware that Mr Bill Crabtree, a farm consultant, intended to run a series of meetings. Indeed, I met with Mr Crabtree just prior to those meetings occurring. I understood that those meetings were to be held in five different locations in the south eastern wheatbelt, so those numbers look very light on to me if only 232 people attended a total of five meetings. I am not sure of that number; nor am I sure of the number who supported the proposition. However, it is true that, depending on who runs a meeting of this kind, there is a tendency for a polarisation of people; that is, those who might attend Bill Crabtree’s seminars would tend to be supportive of GM technology, and those who might attend a similar meeting called by the Network of Concerned Farmers would probably be against GM technology. (2) No, I did not and none of my officers was able to attend. I indicated to Mr Crabtree that if the occasion provided, I would try to get someone to attend, but I did not give an undertaking of that kind. (3) This is an issue that we are addressing now. Clearly, some issues with GM technology need to be very clearly understood by the industry. The Department of Agriculture has a role in doing that. In fact, the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia has been very closely involved in GM trials; indeed, it is conducting GM trials virtually as we speak. Hon Anthony Fels : This year? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think we have had any this year, but certainly there were some last year. We have had an involvement in a number of trials of both canola and, more recently, cotton in the west Kimberley. We have a responsibility to continue that work, because people need a clear understanding of the real application of this technology in this state to make rational decisions. Speaking of rational decisions, I must refer to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report that was published recently. I am a little surprised that I have not been asked a question on it yet. Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
(4) What does the minister require to satisfy himself that if GM canola were grown within the Esperance shire, it would not be detrimental to our existing wheat exports? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1) No, I am not aware of that fact. I was aware that Mr Bill Crabtree, a farm consultant, intended to run a series of meetings. Indeed, I met with Mr Crabtree just prior to those meetings occurring. I understood that those meetings were to be held in five different locations in the south eastern wheatbelt, so those numbers look very light on to me if only 232 people attended a total of five meetings. I am not sure of that number; nor am I sure of the number who supported the proposition. However, it is true that, depending on who runs a meeting of this kind, there is a tendency for a polarisation of people; that is, those who might attend Bill Crabtree’s seminars would tend to be supportive of GM technology, and those who might attend a similar meeting called by the Network of Concerned Farmers would probably be against GM technology. (2) No, I did not and none of my officers was able to attend. I indicated to Mr Crabtree that if the occasion provided, I would try to get someone to attend, but I did not give an undertaking of that kind. (3) This is an issue that we are addressing now. Clearly, some issues with GM technology need to be very clearly understood by the industry. The Department of Agriculture has a role in doing that. In fact, the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia has been very closely involved in GM trials; indeed, it is conducting GM trials virtually as we speak. Hon Anthony Fels : This year? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think we have had any this year, but certainly there were some last year. We have had an involvement in a number of trials of both canola and, more recently, cotton in the west Kimberley. We have a responsibility to continue that work, because people need a clear understanding of the real application of this technology in this state to make rational decisions. Speaking of rational decisions, I must refer to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report that was published recently. I am a little surprised that I have not been asked a question on it yet. Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1) No, I am not aware of that fact. I was aware that Mr Bill Crabtree, a farm consultant, intended to run a series of meetings. Indeed, I met with Mr Crabtree just prior to those meetings occurring. I understood that those meetings were to be held in five different locations in the south eastern wheatbelt, so those numbers look very light on to me if only 232 people attended a total of five meetings. I am not sure of that number; nor am I sure of the number who supported the proposition. However, it is true that, depending on who runs a meeting of this kind, there is a tendency for a polarisation of people; that is, those who might attend Bill Crabtree’s seminars would tend to be supportive of GM technology, and those who might attend a similar meeting called by the Network of Concerned Farmers would probably be against GM technology. (2) No, I did not and none of my officers was able to attend. I indicated to Mr Crabtree that if the occasion provided, I would try to get someone to attend, but I did not give an undertaking of that kind. (3) This is an issue that we are addressing now. Clearly, some issues with GM technology need to be very clearly understood by the industry. The Department of Agriculture has a role in doing that. In fact, the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia has been very closely involved in GM trials; indeed, it is conducting GM trials virtually as we speak. Hon Anthony Fels : This year? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think we have had any this year, but certainly there were some last year. We have had an involvement in a number of trials of both canola and, more recently, cotton in the west Kimberley. We have a responsibility to continue that work, because people need a clear understanding of the real application of this technology in this state to make rational decisions. Speaking of rational decisions, I must refer to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report that was published recently. I am a little surprised that I have not been asked a question on it yet. Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1) No, I am not aware of that fact. I was aware that Mr Bill Crabtree, a farm consultant, intended to run a series of meetings. Indeed, I met with Mr Crabtree just prior to those meetings occurring. I understood that those meetings were to be held in five different locations in the south eastern wheatbelt, so those numbers look very light on to me if only 232 people attended a total of five meetings. I am not sure of that number; nor am I sure of the number who supported the proposition. However, it is true that, depending on who runs a meeting of this kind, there is a tendency for a polarisation of people; that is, those who might attend Bill Crabtree’s seminars would tend to be supportive of GM technology, and those who might attend a similar meeting called by the Network of Concerned Farmers would probably be against GM technology. (2) No, I did not and none of my officers was able to attend. I indicated to Mr Crabtree that if the occasion provided, I would try to get someone to attend, but I did not give an undertaking of that kind. (3) This is an issue that we are addressing now. Clearly, some issues with GM technology need to be very clearly understood by the industry. The Department of Agriculture has a role in doing that. In fact, the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia has been very closely involved in GM trials; indeed, it is conducting GM trials virtually as we speak. Hon Anthony Fels : This year? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think we have had any this year, but certainly there were some last year. We have had an involvement in a number of trials of both canola and, more recently, cotton in the west Kimberley. We have a responsibility to continue that work, because people need a clear understanding of the real application of this technology in this state to make rational decisions. Speaking of rational decisions, I must refer to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report that was published recently. I am a little surprised that I have not been asked a question on it yet. Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
(1) No, I am not aware of that fact. I was aware that Mr Bill Crabtree, a farm consultant, intended to run a series of meetings. Indeed, I met with Mr Crabtree just prior to those meetings occurring. I understood that those meetings were to be held in five different locations in the south eastern wheatbelt, so those numbers look very light on to me if only 232 people attended a total of five meetings. I am not sure of that number; nor am I sure of the number who supported the proposition. However, it is true that, depending on who runs a meeting of this kind, there is a tendency for a polarisation of people; that is, those who might attend Bill Crabtree’s seminars would tend to be supportive of GM technology, and those who might attend a similar meeting called by the Network of Concerned Farmers would probably be against GM technology. (2) No, I did not and none of my officers was able to attend. I indicated to Mr Crabtree that if the occasion provided, I would try to get someone to attend, but I did not give an undertaking of that kind. (3) This is an issue that we are addressing now. Clearly, some issues with GM technology need to be very clearly understood by the industry. The Department of Agriculture has a role in doing that. In fact, the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia has been very closely involved in GM trials; indeed, it is conducting GM trials virtually as we speak. Hon Anthony Fels : This year? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think we have had any this year, but certainly there were some last year. We have had an involvement in a number of trials of both canola and, more recently, cotton in the west Kimberley. We have a responsibility to continue that work, because people need a clear understanding of the real application of this technology in this state to make rational decisions. Speaking of rational decisions, I must refer to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report that was published recently. I am a little surprised that I have not been asked a question on it yet. Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
(2) No, I did not and none of my officers was able to attend. I indicated to Mr Crabtree that if the occasion provided, I would try to get someone to attend, but I did not give an undertaking of that kind. (3) This is an issue that we are addressing now. Clearly, some issues with GM technology need to be very clearly understood by the industry. The Department of Agriculture has a role in doing that. In fact, the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia has been very closely involved in GM trials; indeed, it is conducting GM trials virtually as we speak. Hon Anthony Fels : This year? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think we have had any this year, but certainly there were some last year. We have had an involvement in a number of trials of both canola and, more recently, cotton in the west Kimberley. We have a responsibility to continue that work, because people need a clear understanding of the real application of this technology in this state to make rational decisions. Speaking of rational decisions, I must refer to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report that was published recently. I am a little surprised that I have not been asked a question on it yet. Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
(3) This is an issue that we are addressing now. Clearly, some issues with GM technology need to be very clearly understood by the industry. The Department of Agriculture has a role in doing that. In fact, the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia has been very closely involved in GM trials; indeed, it is conducting GM trials virtually as we speak. Hon Anthony Fels : This year? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think we have had any this year, but certainly there were some last year. We have had an involvement in a number of trials of both canola and, more recently, cotton in the west Kimberley. We have a responsibility to continue that work, because people need a clear understanding of the real application of this technology in this state to make rational decisions. Speaking of rational decisions, I must refer to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report that was published recently. I am a little surprised that I have not been asked a question on it yet. Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
Hon Anthony Fels : This year? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think we have had any this year, but certainly there were some last year. We have had an involvement in a number of trials of both canola and, more recently, cotton in the west Kimberley. We have a responsibility to continue that work, because people need a clear understanding of the real application of this technology in this state to make rational decisions. Speaking of rational decisions, I must refer to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report that was published recently. I am a little surprised that I have not been asked a question on it yet. Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think we have had any this year, but certainly there were some last year. We have had an involvement in a number of trials of both canola and, more recently, cotton in the west Kimberley. We have a responsibility to continue that work, because people need a clear understanding of the real application of this technology in this state to make rational decisions. Speaking of rational decisions, I must refer to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report that was published recently. I am a little surprised that I have not been asked a question on it yet. Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
(4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
(1) Is the minister aware that 94 per cent of the 232 rural people who attended a series of district meetings on the issue of what GM crops have to offer, which were held during our parliamentary break the week before last, are supportive of the technology? (2) Did the minister give an undertaking to have one of his advisers attend at least one of those meetings; and, if so, did someone attend on his behalf? (3) In 2005 how many independent trials has the minister authorised his department to conduct into the viability and safety of genetically modified crops, particularly canola, in Western Australia? (4) What does the minister require to satisfy himself that if GM canola were grown within the Esperance shire, it would not be detrimental to our existing wheat exports? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1) No, I am not aware of that fact. I was aware that Mr Bill Crabtree, a farm consultant, intended to run a series of meetings. Indeed, I met with Mr Crabtree just prior to those meetings occurring. I understood that those meetings were to be held in five different locations in the south eastern wheatbelt, so those numbers look very light on to me if only 232 people attended a total of five meetings. I am not sure of that number; nor am I sure of the number who supported the proposition. However, it is true that, depending on who runs a meeting of this kind, there is a tendency for a polarisation of people; that is, those who might attend Bill Crabtree’s seminars would tend to be supportive of GM technology, and those who might attend a similar meeting called by the Network of Concerned Farmers would probably be against GM technology. (2) No, I did not and none of my officers was able to attend. I indicated to Mr Crabtree that if the occasion provided, I would try to get someone to attend, but I did not give an undertaking of that kind. (3) This is an issue that we are addressing now. Clearly, some issues with GM technology need to be very clearly understood by the industry. The Department of Agriculture has a role in doing that. In fact, the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia has been very closely involved in GM trials; indeed, it is conducting GM trials virtually as we speak. Hon Anthony Fels : This year? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think we have had any this year, but certainly there were some last year. We have had an involvement in a number of trials of both canola and, more recently, cotton in the west Kimberley. We have a responsibility to continue that work, because people need a clear understanding of the real application of this technology in this state to make rational decisions. Speaking of rational decisions, I must refer to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report that was published recently. I am a little surprised that I have not been asked a question on it yet. Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
(2) Did the minister give an undertaking to have one of his advisers attend at least one of those meetings; and, if so, did someone attend on his behalf? (3) In 2005 how many independent trials has the minister authorised his department to conduct into the viability and safety of genetically modified crops, particularly canola, in Western Australia? (4) What does the minister require to satisfy himself that if GM canola were grown within the Esperance shire, it would not be detrimental to our existing wheat exports? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1) No, I am not aware of that fact. I was aware that Mr Bill Crabtree, a farm consultant, intended to run a series of meetings. Indeed, I met with Mr Crabtree just prior to those meetings occurring. I understood that those meetings were to be held in five different locations in the south eastern wheatbelt, so those numbers look very light on to me if only 232 people attended a total of five meetings. I am not sure of that number; nor am I sure of the number who supported the proposition. However, it is true that, depending on who runs a meeting of this kind, there is a tendency for a polarisation of people; that is, those who might attend Bill Crabtree’s seminars would tend to be supportive of GM technology, and those who might attend a similar meeting called by the Network of Concerned Farmers would probably be against GM technology. (2) No, I did not and none of my officers was able to attend. I indicated to Mr Crabtree that if the occasion provided, I would try to get someone to attend, but I did not give an undertaking of that kind. (3) This is an issue that we are addressing now. Clearly, some issues with GM technology need to be very clearly understood by the industry. The Department of Agriculture has a role in doing that. In fact, the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia has been very closely involved in GM trials; indeed, it is conducting GM trials virtually as we speak. Hon Anthony Fels : This year? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think we have had any this year, but certainly there were some last year. We have had an involvement in a number of trials of both canola and, more recently, cotton in the west Kimberley. We have a responsibility to continue that work, because people need a clear understanding of the real application of this technology in this state to make rational decisions. Speaking of rational decisions, I must refer to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report that was published recently. I am a little surprised that I have not been asked a question on it yet. Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
(3) In 2005 how many independent trials has the minister authorised his department to conduct into the viability and safety of genetically modified crops, particularly canola, in Western Australia? (4) What does the minister require to satisfy himself that if GM canola were grown within the Esperance shire, it would not be detrimental to our existing wheat exports? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1) No, I am not aware of that fact. I was aware that Mr Bill Crabtree, a farm consultant, intended to run a series of meetings. Indeed, I met with Mr Crabtree just prior to those meetings occurring. I understood that those meetings were to be held in five different locations in the south eastern wheatbelt, so those numbers look very light on to me if only 232 people attended a total of five meetings. I am not sure of that number; nor am I sure of the number who supported the proposition. However, it is true that, depending on who runs a meeting of this kind, there is a tendency for a polarisation of people; that is, those who might attend Bill Crabtree’s seminars would tend to be supportive of GM technology, and those who might attend a similar meeting called by the Network of Concerned Farmers would probably be against GM technology. (2) No, I did not and none of my officers was able to attend. I indicated to Mr Crabtree that if the occasion provided, I would try to get someone to attend, but I did not give an undertaking of that kind. (3) This is an issue that we are addressing now. Clearly, some issues with GM technology need to be very clearly understood by the industry. The Department of Agriculture has a role in doing that. In fact, the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia has been very closely involved in GM trials; indeed, it is conducting GM trials virtually as we speak. Hon Anthony Fels : This year? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think we have had any this year, but certainly there were some last year. We have had an involvement in a number of trials of both canola and, more recently, cotton in the west Kimberley. We have a responsibility to continue that work, because people need a clear understanding of the real application of this technology in this state to make rational decisions. Speaking of rational decisions, I must refer to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report that was published recently. I am a little surprised that I have not been asked a question on it yet. Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
(4) What does the minister require to satisfy himself that if GM canola were grown within the Esperance shire, it would not be detrimental to our existing wheat exports? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1) No, I am not aware of that fact. I was aware that Mr Bill Crabtree, a farm consultant, intended to run a series of meetings. Indeed, I met with Mr Crabtree just prior to those meetings occurring. I understood that those meetings were to be held in five different locations in the south eastern wheatbelt, so those numbers look very light on to me if only 232 people attended a total of five meetings. I am not sure of that number; nor am I sure of the number who supported the proposition. However, it is true that, depending on who runs a meeting of this kind, there is a tendency for a polarisation of people; that is, those who might attend Bill Crabtree’s seminars would tend to be supportive of GM technology, and those who might attend a similar meeting called by the Network of Concerned Farmers would probably be against GM technology. (2) No, I did not and none of my officers was able to attend. I indicated to Mr Crabtree that if the occasion provided, I would try to get someone to attend, but I did not give an undertaking of that kind. (3) This is an issue that we are addressing now. Clearly, some issues with GM technology need to be very clearly understood by the industry. The Department of Agriculture has a role in doing that. In fact, the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia has been very closely involved in GM trials; indeed, it is conducting GM trials virtually as we speak. Hon Anthony Fels : This year? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think we have had any this year, but certainly there were some last year. We have had an involvement in a number of trials of both canola and, more recently, cotton in the west Kimberley. We have a responsibility to continue that work, because people need a clear understanding of the real application of this technology in this state to make rational decisions. Speaking of rational decisions, I must refer to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report that was published recently. I am a little surprised that I have not been asked a question on it yet. Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1) No, I am not aware of that fact. I was aware that Mr Bill Crabtree, a farm consultant, intended to run a series of meetings. Indeed, I met with Mr Crabtree just prior to those meetings occurring. I understood that those meetings were to be held in five different locations in the south eastern wheatbelt, so those numbers look very light on to me if only 232 people attended a total of five meetings. I am not sure of that number; nor am I sure of the number who supported the proposition. However, it is true that, depending on who runs a meeting of this kind, there is a tendency for a polarisation of people; that is, those who might attend Bill Crabtree’s seminars would tend to be supportive of GM technology, and those who might attend a similar meeting called by the Network of Concerned Farmers would probably be against GM technology. (2) No, I did not and none of my officers was able to attend. I indicated to Mr Crabtree that if the occasion provided, I would try to get someone to attend, but I did not give an undertaking of that kind. (3) This is an issue that we are addressing now. Clearly, some issues with GM technology need to be very clearly understood by the industry. The Department of Agriculture has a role in doing that. In fact, the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia has been very closely involved in GM trials; indeed, it is conducting GM trials virtually as we speak. Hon Anthony Fels : This year? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think we have had any this year, but certainly there were some last year. We have had an involvement in a number of trials of both canola and, more recently, cotton in the west Kimberley. We have a responsibility to continue that work, because people need a clear understanding of the real application of this technology in this state to make rational decisions. Speaking of rational decisions, I must refer to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report that was published recently. I am a little surprised that I have not been asked a question on it yet. Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1) No, I am not aware of that fact. I was aware that Mr Bill Crabtree, a farm consultant, intended to run a series of meetings. Indeed, I met with Mr Crabtree just prior to those meetings occurring. I understood that those meetings were to be held in five different locations in the south eastern wheatbelt, so those numbers look very light on to me if only 232 people attended a total of five meetings. I am not sure of that number; nor am I sure of the number who supported the proposition. However, it is true that, depending on who runs a meeting of this kind, there is a tendency for a polarisation of people; that is, those who might attend Bill Crabtree’s seminars would tend to be supportive of GM technology, and those who might attend a similar meeting called by the Network of Concerned Farmers would probably be against GM technology. (2) No, I did not and none of my officers was able to attend. I indicated to Mr Crabtree that if the occasion provided, I would try to get someone to attend, but I did not give an undertaking of that kind. (3) This is an issue that we are addressing now. Clearly, some issues with GM technology need to be very clearly understood by the industry. The Department of Agriculture has a role in doing that. In fact, the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia has been very closely involved in GM trials; indeed, it is conducting GM trials virtually as we speak. Hon Anthony Fels : This year? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think we have had any this year, but certainly there were some last year. We have had an involvement in a number of trials of both canola and, more recently, cotton in the west Kimberley. We have a responsibility to continue that work, because people need a clear understanding of the real application of this technology in this state to make rational decisions. Speaking of rational decisions, I must refer to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report that was published recently. I am a little surprised that I have not been asked a question on it yet. Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
(1) No, I am not aware of that fact. I was aware that Mr Bill Crabtree, a farm consultant, intended to run a series of meetings. Indeed, I met with Mr Crabtree just prior to those meetings occurring. I understood that those meetings were to be held in five different locations in the south eastern wheatbelt, so those numbers look very light on to me if only 232 people attended a total of five meetings. I am not sure of that number; nor am I sure of the number who supported the proposition. However, it is true that, depending on who runs a meeting of this kind, there is a tendency for a polarisation of people; that is, those who might attend Bill Crabtree’s seminars would tend to be supportive of GM technology, and those who might attend a similar meeting called by the Network of Concerned Farmers would probably be against GM technology. (2) No, I did not and none of my officers was able to attend. I indicated to Mr Crabtree that if the occasion provided, I would try to get someone to attend, but I did not give an undertaking of that kind. (3) This is an issue that we are addressing now. Clearly, some issues with GM technology need to be very clearly understood by the industry. The Department of Agriculture has a role in doing that. In fact, the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia has been very closely involved in GM trials; indeed, it is conducting GM trials virtually as we speak. Hon Anthony Fels : This year? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think we have had any this year, but certainly there were some last year. We have had an involvement in a number of trials of both canola and, more recently, cotton in the west Kimberley. We have a responsibility to continue that work, because people need a clear understanding of the real application of this technology in this state to make rational decisions. Speaking of rational decisions, I must refer to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report that was published recently. I am a little surprised that I have not been asked a question on it yet. Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
(2) No, I did not and none of my officers was able to attend. I indicated to Mr Crabtree that if the occasion provided, I would try to get someone to attend, but I did not give an undertaking of that kind. (3) This is an issue that we are addressing now. Clearly, some issues with GM technology need to be very clearly understood by the industry. The Department of Agriculture has a role in doing that. In fact, the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia has been very closely involved in GM trials; indeed, it is conducting GM trials virtually as we speak. Hon Anthony Fels : This year? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think we have had any this year, but certainly there were some last year. We have had an involvement in a number of trials of both canola and, more recently, cotton in the west Kimberley. We have a responsibility to continue that work, because people need a clear understanding of the real application of this technology in this state to make rational decisions. Speaking of rational decisions, I must refer to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report that was published recently. I am a little surprised that I have not been asked a question on it yet. Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
(3) This is an issue that we are addressing now. Clearly, some issues with GM technology need to be very clearly understood by the industry. The Department of Agriculture has a role in doing that. In fact, the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia has been very closely involved in GM trials; indeed, it is conducting GM trials virtually as we speak. Hon Anthony Fels : This year? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think we have had any this year, but certainly there were some last year. We have had an involvement in a number of trials of both canola and, more recently, cotton in the west Kimberley. We have a responsibility to continue that work, because people need a clear understanding of the real application of this technology in this state to make rational decisions. Speaking of rational decisions, I must refer to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report that was published recently. I am a little surprised that I have not been asked a question on it yet. Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
Hon Anthony Fels : This year? Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think we have had any this year, but certainly there were some last year. We have had an involvement in a number of trials of both canola and, more recently, cotton in the west Kimberley. We have a responsibility to continue that work, because people need a clear understanding of the real application of this technology in this state to make rational decisions. Speaking of rational decisions, I must refer to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report that was published recently. I am a little surprised that I have not been asked a question on it yet. Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
Hon KIM CHANCE : I do not think we have had any this year, but certainly there were some last year. We have had an involvement in a number of trials of both canola and, more recently, cotton in the west Kimberley. We have a responsibility to continue that work, because people need a clear understanding of the real application of this technology in this state to make rational decisions. Speaking of rational decisions, I must refer to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report that was published recently. I am a little surprised that I have not been asked a question on it yet. Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
Hon Graham Giffard : What kind of question? Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
Hon KIM CHANCE : In fact, Hon Graham Giffard may be good enough to ask me one! The ABARE report speculated that our lack of adoption of GM technology would cost Australian canola growers $3 billion between now and 2015. This report was from ABARE. I have always looked up to the people from ABARE. They are agricultural and resource economists. They have a justifiably good reputation. I had a look behind how they came up with that quite remarkable figure, because $3 billion, even extended over a decade, is a spectacular figure. They based it on the fact that GM canola will yield 10 per cent more than conventional canola and, therefore, the amount of canola that will be grown over the next 10 years amounts to $3 billion. It is quite an amazing proposition when there is equal evidence to suggest that GM canola yields 20 per cent less than conventional canola. There is a variation between ABARE’s claim that there will be a $3 billion loss as a result of the moratorium and the alternative figure that the moratorium is benefiting Australian agriculture by $6 billion. Members know where we end up when we strike an average. (4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
(4) I would want a clear identification of preservation of identity, with a clearly identified and separate supply chain, so that there could be no mixing with conventional canola. I would also want some of the legal issues addressed more carefully. As I said in response to an earlier question, no government in its right mind would enter into an adoption of the technology - even that toe in the water kind of approach that Mr Crabtree is advocating - without some idea of the legal position. I would want to have the legal ramifications explained to us without that nonsense of saying people can go to common law. The result of relying on common law is that 1 500 farmers could be fronting up in individual cases in the High Court of Australia, just from one trial. Therefore, we will not be doing that. We will be requiring some sort of statutory law. I hope Mr Crabtree and the GE proponents keep going on this, because we need to have two sides to this argument. I hope we will generate out of this more light than heat, because this argument has been a polemic rather than a debate, and I think we can do a lot better.
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.