❓ A parliamentary question regarding a report on the potential benefits of genetically modified canola for WA farmers and the Minister's critical response, highlighting the government's moratorium on GM crops.
AnsweredQoN 258Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
GENETICALLY MODIFIED CANOLA — AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS REPORT
A recent report from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, as highlighted in today’s The West Australian , indicates that the growing of genetically modified canola could benefit WA farmers by $910 million over the next 10 years. (1) Does the minister stand by his comment on the report that he made to a journalist that it is a nonsense? (2) Is the reason that no commercial GM trials are to go ahead in WA—even if they were successful—a result of the government’s continuing moratorium on the growing of GM crops, which would remove any opportunities for growers who wish to capitalise on these trials? Hon KIM CHANCE
A recent report from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, as highlighted in today’s The West Australian , indicates that the growing of genetically modified canola could benefit WA farmers by $910 million over the next 10 years. (1) Does the minister stand by his comment on the report that he made to a journalist that it is a nonsense? (2) Is the reason that no commercial GM trials are to go ahead in WA—even if they were successful—a result of the government’s continuing moratorium on the growing of GM crops, which would remove any opportunities for growers who wish to capitalise on these trials? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) I said that the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics projection was complete nonsense basically because it is complete nonsense. I took a bit of a punt when I said that because at that stage I had not read the whole report; I had read only its recommendations. Today I took the opportunity to read some of the 43-page report. This report is amazing considering it comes from a body with the reputation that ABARE has; it has quite a sound reputation. When reading through the report, members will see that it is all based on ifs: if there are no market barriers; if the European Union decides to take GM canola; if a market develops at all for GM wheat; if it rains 350 millimetres in every wheat-growing area in Australia—it did not say that, but it might just as well have. The report is absolute nonsense. ABARE worked up a number—it picked a number out of the air—and it then developed all these ifs around it. Let us look at the facts. The EU does not allow GM canola as human food. No country in the world—not one single market in the world—will accept GM wheat. Yet, three-quarters of the $910 million projection was based on that assumption. It was not anything to do with canola; it was all about wheat. No country in the world accepts GM wheat. However, if they all accepted GM wheat, we would make money, but only if we got a 20 per cent increase in yield from GM wheat. Therefore, a commodity that does not even exist—GM wheat—is hypothecated to yield more than the existing wheat. It has never happened. The only GM wheats that have ever been produced had yields substantially lower than non-GM wheats. That is why they have not been successful. That is why Monsanto gave up on GM wheat two years ago. I think Syngenta is probably the only big GM company still doing any trials at all with GM wheat. There is not one single market in the world that will accept GM wheat, not even in the United States. Some GM maize is grown, but only for ethanol and stockfeed. It is an absolute nonsense. For ABARE to allow its statements to go out in the unqualified way that it did is irresponsible in my view. Was the cancellation of the GM canola trials in Western Australia a result of an assessment by the companies that they had a greater future in New South Wales and Victoria than they have in this state? I would say that is probably a fair comment, because they do have a greater future in New South Wales and Victoria than in Western Australia. Having said that, however, this government has been quite clear that the moratorium on all GM crops will exist through to the end of our term. We have said that very clearly on a number of occasions. How that can now become the reason for the backtracking that the companies are supposed to have done in supplying seed for this trial, I am not sure. That was something that they knew when they led people in the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association to believe that they might provide seed. Therefore, I think that is most unfortunate. The fact is that the companies that own this technology will not allow independent persons to carry out tests. They will not allow groups, such as the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association, the Mingenew-Irwin Group or the Liebe Group to carry out trials, notwithstanding that they are highly regarded for their scientific—they are not biased—I am trying to find the right word, sorry — Hon Paul Llewellyn : Independence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Their scientific independence. These groups will not allow trials unless they can control the output of those trials themselves. They will not allow any trials, and the technology use agreement published by Monsanto specifically prohibits any scientific trial. How is the Western Australian government supposed to make a decision on the basis that it might help Western Australian farmers and consumers if we do not have access to the basic agronomy? That is a hurdle that the life science companies, if I may call them that, will have to jump before anybody will take them seriously.
(1) Does the minister stand by his comment on the report that he made to a journalist that it is a nonsense? (2) Is the reason that no commercial GM trials are to go ahead in WA—even if they were successful—a result of the government’s continuing moratorium on the growing of GM crops, which would remove any opportunities for growers who wish to capitalise on these trials? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) I said that the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics projection was complete nonsense basically because it is complete nonsense. I took a bit of a punt when I said that because at that stage I had not read the whole report; I had read only its recommendations. Today I took the opportunity to read some of the 43-page report. This report is amazing considering it comes from a body with the reputation that ABARE has; it has quite a sound reputation. When reading through the report, members will see that it is all based on ifs: if there are no market barriers; if the European Union decides to take GM canola; if a market develops at all for GM wheat; if it rains 350 millimetres in every wheat-growing area in Australia—it did not say that, but it might just as well have. The report is absolute nonsense. ABARE worked up a number—it picked a number out of the air—and it then developed all these ifs around it. Let us look at the facts. The EU does not allow GM canola as human food. No country in the world—not one single market in the world—will accept GM wheat. Yet, three-quarters of the $910 million projection was based on that assumption. It was not anything to do with canola; it was all about wheat. No country in the world accepts GM wheat. However, if they all accepted GM wheat, we would make money, but only if we got a 20 per cent increase in yield from GM wheat. Therefore, a commodity that does not even exist—GM wheat—is hypothecated to yield more than the existing wheat. It has never happened. The only GM wheats that have ever been produced had yields substantially lower than non-GM wheats. That is why they have not been successful. That is why Monsanto gave up on GM wheat two years ago. I think Syngenta is probably the only big GM company still doing any trials at all with GM wheat. There is not one single market in the world that will accept GM wheat, not even in the United States. Some GM maize is grown, but only for ethanol and stockfeed. It is an absolute nonsense. For ABARE to allow its statements to go out in the unqualified way that it did is irresponsible in my view. Was the cancellation of the GM canola trials in Western Australia a result of an assessment by the companies that they had a greater future in New South Wales and Victoria than they have in this state? I would say that is probably a fair comment, because they do have a greater future in New South Wales and Victoria than in Western Australia. Having said that, however, this government has been quite clear that the moratorium on all GM crops will exist through to the end of our term. We have said that very clearly on a number of occasions. How that can now become the reason for the backtracking that the companies are supposed to have done in supplying seed for this trial, I am not sure. That was something that they knew when they led people in the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association to believe that they might provide seed. Therefore, I think that is most unfortunate. The fact is that the companies that own this technology will not allow independent persons to carry out tests. They will not allow groups, such as the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association, the Mingenew-Irwin Group or the Liebe Group to carry out trials, notwithstanding that they are highly regarded for their scientific—they are not biased—I am trying to find the right word, sorry — Hon Paul Llewellyn : Independence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Their scientific independence. These groups will not allow trials unless they can control the output of those trials themselves. They will not allow any trials, and the technology use agreement published by Monsanto specifically prohibits any scientific trial. How is the Western Australian government supposed to make a decision on the basis that it might help Western Australian farmers and consumers if we do not have access to the basic agronomy? That is a hurdle that the life science companies, if I may call them that, will have to jump before anybody will take them seriously.
(2) Is the reason that no commercial GM trials are to go ahead in WA—even if they were successful—a result of the government’s continuing moratorium on the growing of GM crops, which would remove any opportunities for growers who wish to capitalise on these trials? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) I said that the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics projection was complete nonsense basically because it is complete nonsense. I took a bit of a punt when I said that because at that stage I had not read the whole report; I had read only its recommendations. Today I took the opportunity to read some of the 43-page report. This report is amazing considering it comes from a body with the reputation that ABARE has; it has quite a sound reputation. When reading through the report, members will see that it is all based on ifs: if there are no market barriers; if the European Union decides to take GM canola; if a market develops at all for GM wheat; if it rains 350 millimetres in every wheat-growing area in Australia—it did not say that, but it might just as well have. The report is absolute nonsense. ABARE worked up a number—it picked a number out of the air—and it then developed all these ifs around it. Let us look at the facts. The EU does not allow GM canola as human food. No country in the world—not one single market in the world—will accept GM wheat. Yet, three-quarters of the $910 million projection was based on that assumption. It was not anything to do with canola; it was all about wheat. No country in the world accepts GM wheat. However, if they all accepted GM wheat, we would make money, but only if we got a 20 per cent increase in yield from GM wheat. Therefore, a commodity that does not even exist—GM wheat—is hypothecated to yield more than the existing wheat. It has never happened. The only GM wheats that have ever been produced had yields substantially lower than non-GM wheats. That is why they have not been successful. That is why Monsanto gave up on GM wheat two years ago. I think Syngenta is probably the only big GM company still doing any trials at all with GM wheat. There is not one single market in the world that will accept GM wheat, not even in the United States. Some GM maize is grown, but only for ethanol and stockfeed. It is an absolute nonsense. For ABARE to allow its statements to go out in the unqualified way that it did is irresponsible in my view. Was the cancellation of the GM canola trials in Western Australia a result of an assessment by the companies that they had a greater future in New South Wales and Victoria than they have in this state? I would say that is probably a fair comment, because they do have a greater future in New South Wales and Victoria than in Western Australia. Having said that, however, this government has been quite clear that the moratorium on all GM crops will exist through to the end of our term. We have said that very clearly on a number of occasions. How that can now become the reason for the backtracking that the companies are supposed to have done in supplying seed for this trial, I am not sure. That was something that they knew when they led people in the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association to believe that they might provide seed. Therefore, I think that is most unfortunate. The fact is that the companies that own this technology will not allow independent persons to carry out tests. They will not allow groups, such as the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association, the Mingenew-Irwin Group or the Liebe Group to carry out trials, notwithstanding that they are highly regarded for their scientific—they are not biased—I am trying to find the right word, sorry — Hon Paul Llewellyn : Independence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Their scientific independence. These groups will not allow trials unless they can control the output of those trials themselves. They will not allow any trials, and the technology use agreement published by Monsanto specifically prohibits any scientific trial. How is the Western Australian government supposed to make a decision on the basis that it might help Western Australian farmers and consumers if we do not have access to the basic agronomy? That is a hurdle that the life science companies, if I may call them that, will have to jump before anybody will take them seriously.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) I said that the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics projection was complete nonsense basically because it is complete nonsense. I took a bit of a punt when I said that because at that stage I had not read the whole report; I had read only its recommendations. Today I took the opportunity to read some of the 43-page report. This report is amazing considering it comes from a body with the reputation that ABARE has; it has quite a sound reputation. When reading through the report, members will see that it is all based on ifs: if there are no market barriers; if the European Union decides to take GM canola; if a market develops at all for GM wheat; if it rains 350 millimetres in every wheat-growing area in Australia—it did not say that, but it might just as well have. The report is absolute nonsense. ABARE worked up a number—it picked a number out of the air—and it then developed all these ifs around it. Let us look at the facts. The EU does not allow GM canola as human food. No country in the world—not one single market in the world—will accept GM wheat. Yet, three-quarters of the $910 million projection was based on that assumption. It was not anything to do with canola; it was all about wheat. No country in the world accepts GM wheat. However, if they all accepted GM wheat, we would make money, but only if we got a 20 per cent increase in yield from GM wheat. Therefore, a commodity that does not even exist—GM wheat—is hypothecated to yield more than the existing wheat. It has never happened. The only GM wheats that have ever been produced had yields substantially lower than non-GM wheats. That is why they have not been successful. That is why Monsanto gave up on GM wheat two years ago. I think Syngenta is probably the only big GM company still doing any trials at all with GM wheat. There is not one single market in the world that will accept GM wheat, not even in the United States. Some GM maize is grown, but only for ethanol and stockfeed. It is an absolute nonsense. For ABARE to allow its statements to go out in the unqualified way that it did is irresponsible in my view. Was the cancellation of the GM canola trials in Western Australia a result of an assessment by the companies that they had a greater future in New South Wales and Victoria than they have in this state? I would say that is probably a fair comment, because they do have a greater future in New South Wales and Victoria than in Western Australia. Having said that, however, this government has been quite clear that the moratorium on all GM crops will exist through to the end of our term. We have said that very clearly on a number of occasions. How that can now become the reason for the backtracking that the companies are supposed to have done in supplying seed for this trial, I am not sure. That was something that they knew when they led people in the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association to believe that they might provide seed. Therefore, I think that is most unfortunate. The fact is that the companies that own this technology will not allow independent persons to carry out tests. They will not allow groups, such as the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association, the Mingenew-Irwin Group or the Liebe Group to carry out trials, notwithstanding that they are highly regarded for their scientific—they are not biased—I am trying to find the right word, sorry — Hon Paul Llewellyn : Independence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Their scientific independence. These groups will not allow trials unless they can control the output of those trials themselves. They will not allow any trials, and the technology use agreement published by Monsanto specifically prohibits any scientific trial. How is the Western Australian government supposed to make a decision on the basis that it might help Western Australian farmers and consumers if we do not have access to the basic agronomy? That is a hurdle that the life science companies, if I may call them that, will have to jump before anybody will take them seriously.
(1)-(2) I said that the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics projection was complete nonsense basically because it is complete nonsense. I took a bit of a punt when I said that because at that stage I had not read the whole report; I had read only its recommendations. Today I took the opportunity to read some of the 43-page report. This report is amazing considering it comes from a body with the reputation that ABARE has; it has quite a sound reputation. When reading through the report, members will see that it is all based on ifs: if there are no market barriers; if the European Union decides to take GM canola; if a market develops at all for GM wheat; if it rains 350 millimetres in every wheat-growing area in Australia—it did not say that, but it might just as well have. The report is absolute nonsense. ABARE worked up a number—it picked a number out of the air—and it then developed all these ifs around it. Let us look at the facts. The EU does not allow GM canola as human food. No country in the world—not one single market in the world—will accept GM wheat. Yet, three-quarters of the $910 million projection was based on that assumption. It was not anything to do with canola; it was all about wheat. No country in the world accepts GM wheat. However, if they all accepted GM wheat, we would make money, but only if we got a 20 per cent increase in yield from GM wheat. Therefore, a commodity that does not even exist—GM wheat—is hypothecated to yield more than the existing wheat. It has never happened. The only GM wheats that have ever been produced had yields substantially lower than non-GM wheats. That is why they have not been successful. That is why Monsanto gave up on GM wheat two years ago. I think Syngenta is probably the only big GM company still doing any trials at all with GM wheat. There is not one single market in the world that will accept GM wheat, not even in the United States. Some GM maize is grown, but only for ethanol and stockfeed. It is an absolute nonsense. For ABARE to allow its statements to go out in the unqualified way that it did is irresponsible in my view. Was the cancellation of the GM canola trials in Western Australia a result of an assessment by the companies that they had a greater future in New South Wales and Victoria than they have in this state? I would say that is probably a fair comment, because they do have a greater future in New South Wales and Victoria than in Western Australia. Having said that, however, this government has been quite clear that the moratorium on all GM crops will exist through to the end of our term. We have said that very clearly on a number of occasions. How that can now become the reason for the backtracking that the companies are supposed to have done in supplying seed for this trial, I am not sure. That was something that they knew when they led people in the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association to believe that they might provide seed. Therefore, I think that is most unfortunate. The fact is that the companies that own this technology will not allow independent persons to carry out tests. They will not allow groups, such as the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association, the Mingenew-Irwin Group or the Liebe Group to carry out trials, notwithstanding that they are highly regarded for their scientific—they are not biased—I am trying to find the right word, sorry — Hon Paul Llewellyn : Independence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Their scientific independence. These groups will not allow trials unless they can control the output of those trials themselves. They will not allow any trials, and the technology use agreement published by Monsanto specifically prohibits any scientific trial. How is the Western Australian government supposed to make a decision on the basis that it might help Western Australian farmers and consumers if we do not have access to the basic agronomy? That is a hurdle that the life science companies, if I may call them that, will have to jump before anybody will take them seriously.
Hon KIM CHANCE : Their scientific independence. These groups will not allow trials unless they can control the output of those trials themselves. They will not allow any trials, and the technology use agreement published by Monsanto specifically prohibits any scientific trial. How is the Western Australian government supposed to make a decision on the basis that it might help Western Australian farmers and consumers if we do not have access to the basic agronomy? That is a hurdle that the life science companies, if I may call them that, will have to jump before anybody will take them seriously.
(1) Does the minister stand by his comment on the report that he made to a journalist that it is a nonsense? (2) Is the reason that no commercial GM trials are to go ahead in WA—even if they were successful—a result of the government’s continuing moratorium on the growing of GM crops, which would remove any opportunities for growers who wish to capitalise on these trials? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) I said that the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics projection was complete nonsense basically because it is complete nonsense. I took a bit of a punt when I said that because at that stage I had not read the whole report; I had read only its recommendations. Today I took the opportunity to read some of the 43-page report. This report is amazing considering it comes from a body with the reputation that ABARE has; it has quite a sound reputation. When reading through the report, members will see that it is all based on ifs: if there are no market barriers; if the European Union decides to take GM canola; if a market develops at all for GM wheat; if it rains 350 millimetres in every wheat-growing area in Australia—it did not say that, but it might just as well have. The report is absolute nonsense. ABARE worked up a number—it picked a number out of the air—and it then developed all these ifs around it. Let us look at the facts. The EU does not allow GM canola as human food. No country in the world—not one single market in the world—will accept GM wheat. Yet, three-quarters of the $910 million projection was based on that assumption. It was not anything to do with canola; it was all about wheat. No country in the world accepts GM wheat. However, if they all accepted GM wheat, we would make money, but only if we got a 20 per cent increase in yield from GM wheat. Therefore, a commodity that does not even exist—GM wheat—is hypothecated to yield more than the existing wheat. It has never happened. The only GM wheats that have ever been produced had yields substantially lower than non-GM wheats. That is why they have not been successful. That is why Monsanto gave up on GM wheat two years ago. I think Syngenta is probably the only big GM company still doing any trials at all with GM wheat. There is not one single market in the world that will accept GM wheat, not even in the United States. Some GM maize is grown, but only for ethanol and stockfeed. It is an absolute nonsense. For ABARE to allow its statements to go out in the unqualified way that it did is irresponsible in my view. Was the cancellation of the GM canola trials in Western Australia a result of an assessment by the companies that they had a greater future in New South Wales and Victoria than they have in this state? I would say that is probably a fair comment, because they do have a greater future in New South Wales and Victoria than in Western Australia. Having said that, however, this government has been quite clear that the moratorium on all GM crops will exist through to the end of our term. We have said that very clearly on a number of occasions. How that can now become the reason for the backtracking that the companies are supposed to have done in supplying seed for this trial, I am not sure. That was something that they knew when they led people in the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association to believe that they might provide seed. Therefore, I think that is most unfortunate. The fact is that the companies that own this technology will not allow independent persons to carry out tests. They will not allow groups, such as the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association, the Mingenew-Irwin Group or the Liebe Group to carry out trials, notwithstanding that they are highly regarded for their scientific—they are not biased—I am trying to find the right word, sorry — Hon Paul Llewellyn : Independence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Their scientific independence. These groups will not allow trials unless they can control the output of those trials themselves. They will not allow any trials, and the technology use agreement published by Monsanto specifically prohibits any scientific trial. How is the Western Australian government supposed to make a decision on the basis that it might help Western Australian farmers and consumers if we do not have access to the basic agronomy? That is a hurdle that the life science companies, if I may call them that, will have to jump before anybody will take them seriously.
(2) Is the reason that no commercial GM trials are to go ahead in WA—even if they were successful—a result of the government’s continuing moratorium on the growing of GM crops, which would remove any opportunities for growers who wish to capitalise on these trials? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) I said that the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics projection was complete nonsense basically because it is complete nonsense. I took a bit of a punt when I said that because at that stage I had not read the whole report; I had read only its recommendations. Today I took the opportunity to read some of the 43-page report. This report is amazing considering it comes from a body with the reputation that ABARE has; it has quite a sound reputation. When reading through the report, members will see that it is all based on ifs: if there are no market barriers; if the European Union decides to take GM canola; if a market develops at all for GM wheat; if it rains 350 millimetres in every wheat-growing area in Australia—it did not say that, but it might just as well have. The report is absolute nonsense. ABARE worked up a number—it picked a number out of the air—and it then developed all these ifs around it. Let us look at the facts. The EU does not allow GM canola as human food. No country in the world—not one single market in the world—will accept GM wheat. Yet, three-quarters of the $910 million projection was based on that assumption. It was not anything to do with canola; it was all about wheat. No country in the world accepts GM wheat. However, if they all accepted GM wheat, we would make money, but only if we got a 20 per cent increase in yield from GM wheat. Therefore, a commodity that does not even exist—GM wheat—is hypothecated to yield more than the existing wheat. It has never happened. The only GM wheats that have ever been produced had yields substantially lower than non-GM wheats. That is why they have not been successful. That is why Monsanto gave up on GM wheat two years ago. I think Syngenta is probably the only big GM company still doing any trials at all with GM wheat. There is not one single market in the world that will accept GM wheat, not even in the United States. Some GM maize is grown, but only for ethanol and stockfeed. It is an absolute nonsense. For ABARE to allow its statements to go out in the unqualified way that it did is irresponsible in my view. Was the cancellation of the GM canola trials in Western Australia a result of an assessment by the companies that they had a greater future in New South Wales and Victoria than they have in this state? I would say that is probably a fair comment, because they do have a greater future in New South Wales and Victoria than in Western Australia. Having said that, however, this government has been quite clear that the moratorium on all GM crops will exist through to the end of our term. We have said that very clearly on a number of occasions. How that can now become the reason for the backtracking that the companies are supposed to have done in supplying seed for this trial, I am not sure. That was something that they knew when they led people in the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association to believe that they might provide seed. Therefore, I think that is most unfortunate. The fact is that the companies that own this technology will not allow independent persons to carry out tests. They will not allow groups, such as the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association, the Mingenew-Irwin Group or the Liebe Group to carry out trials, notwithstanding that they are highly regarded for their scientific—they are not biased—I am trying to find the right word, sorry — Hon Paul Llewellyn : Independence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Their scientific independence. These groups will not allow trials unless they can control the output of those trials themselves. They will not allow any trials, and the technology use agreement published by Monsanto specifically prohibits any scientific trial. How is the Western Australian government supposed to make a decision on the basis that it might help Western Australian farmers and consumers if we do not have access to the basic agronomy? That is a hurdle that the life science companies, if I may call them that, will have to jump before anybody will take them seriously.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) I said that the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics projection was complete nonsense basically because it is complete nonsense. I took a bit of a punt when I said that because at that stage I had not read the whole report; I had read only its recommendations. Today I took the opportunity to read some of the 43-page report. This report is amazing considering it comes from a body with the reputation that ABARE has; it has quite a sound reputation. When reading through the report, members will see that it is all based on ifs: if there are no market barriers; if the European Union decides to take GM canola; if a market develops at all for GM wheat; if it rains 350 millimetres in every wheat-growing area in Australia—it did not say that, but it might just as well have. The report is absolute nonsense. ABARE worked up a number—it picked a number out of the air—and it then developed all these ifs around it. Let us look at the facts. The EU does not allow GM canola as human food. No country in the world—not one single market in the world—will accept GM wheat. Yet, three-quarters of the $910 million projection was based on that assumption. It was not anything to do with canola; it was all about wheat. No country in the world accepts GM wheat. However, if they all accepted GM wheat, we would make money, but only if we got a 20 per cent increase in yield from GM wheat. Therefore, a commodity that does not even exist—GM wheat—is hypothecated to yield more than the existing wheat. It has never happened. The only GM wheats that have ever been produced had yields substantially lower than non-GM wheats. That is why they have not been successful. That is why Monsanto gave up on GM wheat two years ago. I think Syngenta is probably the only big GM company still doing any trials at all with GM wheat. There is not one single market in the world that will accept GM wheat, not even in the United States. Some GM maize is grown, but only for ethanol and stockfeed. It is an absolute nonsense. For ABARE to allow its statements to go out in the unqualified way that it did is irresponsible in my view. Was the cancellation of the GM canola trials in Western Australia a result of an assessment by the companies that they had a greater future in New South Wales and Victoria than they have in this state? I would say that is probably a fair comment, because they do have a greater future in New South Wales and Victoria than in Western Australia. Having said that, however, this government has been quite clear that the moratorium on all GM crops will exist through to the end of our term. We have said that very clearly on a number of occasions. How that can now become the reason for the backtracking that the companies are supposed to have done in supplying seed for this trial, I am not sure. That was something that they knew when they led people in the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association to believe that they might provide seed. Therefore, I think that is most unfortunate. The fact is that the companies that own this technology will not allow independent persons to carry out tests. They will not allow groups, such as the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association, the Mingenew-Irwin Group or the Liebe Group to carry out trials, notwithstanding that they are highly regarded for their scientific—they are not biased—I am trying to find the right word, sorry — Hon Paul Llewellyn : Independence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Their scientific independence. These groups will not allow trials unless they can control the output of those trials themselves. They will not allow any trials, and the technology use agreement published by Monsanto specifically prohibits any scientific trial. How is the Western Australian government supposed to make a decision on the basis that it might help Western Australian farmers and consumers if we do not have access to the basic agronomy? That is a hurdle that the life science companies, if I may call them that, will have to jump before anybody will take them seriously.
(1)-(2) I said that the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics projection was complete nonsense basically because it is complete nonsense. I took a bit of a punt when I said that because at that stage I had not read the whole report; I had read only its recommendations. Today I took the opportunity to read some of the 43-page report. This report is amazing considering it comes from a body with the reputation that ABARE has; it has quite a sound reputation. When reading through the report, members will see that it is all based on ifs: if there are no market barriers; if the European Union decides to take GM canola; if a market develops at all for GM wheat; if it rains 350 millimetres in every wheat-growing area in Australia—it did not say that, but it might just as well have. The report is absolute nonsense. ABARE worked up a number—it picked a number out of the air—and it then developed all these ifs around it. Let us look at the facts. The EU does not allow GM canola as human food. No country in the world—not one single market in the world—will accept GM wheat. Yet, three-quarters of the $910 million projection was based on that assumption. It was not anything to do with canola; it was all about wheat. No country in the world accepts GM wheat. However, if they all accepted GM wheat, we would make money, but only if we got a 20 per cent increase in yield from GM wheat. Therefore, a commodity that does not even exist—GM wheat—is hypothecated to yield more than the existing wheat. It has never happened. The only GM wheats that have ever been produced had yields substantially lower than non-GM wheats. That is why they have not been successful. That is why Monsanto gave up on GM wheat two years ago. I think Syngenta is probably the only big GM company still doing any trials at all with GM wheat. There is not one single market in the world that will accept GM wheat, not even in the United States. Some GM maize is grown, but only for ethanol and stockfeed. It is an absolute nonsense. For ABARE to allow its statements to go out in the unqualified way that it did is irresponsible in my view. Was the cancellation of the GM canola trials in Western Australia a result of an assessment by the companies that they had a greater future in New South Wales and Victoria than they have in this state? I would say that is probably a fair comment, because they do have a greater future in New South Wales and Victoria than in Western Australia. Having said that, however, this government has been quite clear that the moratorium on all GM crops will exist through to the end of our term. We have said that very clearly on a number of occasions. How that can now become the reason for the backtracking that the companies are supposed to have done in supplying seed for this trial, I am not sure. That was something that they knew when they led people in the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association to believe that they might provide seed. Therefore, I think that is most unfortunate. The fact is that the companies that own this technology will not allow independent persons to carry out tests. They will not allow groups, such as the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association, the Mingenew-Irwin Group or the Liebe Group to carry out trials, notwithstanding that they are highly regarded for their scientific—they are not biased—I am trying to find the right word, sorry — Hon Paul Llewellyn : Independence. Hon KIM CHANCE : Their scientific independence. These groups will not allow trials unless they can control the output of those trials themselves. They will not allow any trials, and the technology use agreement published by Monsanto specifically prohibits any scientific trial. How is the Western Australian government supposed to make a decision on the basis that it might help Western Australian farmers and consumers if we do not have access to the basic agronomy? That is a hurdle that the life science companies, if I may call them that, will have to jump before anybody will take them seriously.
Hon KIM CHANCE : Their scientific independence. These groups will not allow trials unless they can control the output of those trials themselves. They will not allow any trials, and the technology use agreement published by Monsanto specifically prohibits any scientific trial. How is the Western Australian government supposed to make a decision on the basis that it might help Western Australian farmers and consumers if we do not have access to the basic agronomy? That is a hurdle that the life science companies, if I may call them that, will have to jump before anybody will take them seriously.
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.