❓ A parliamentary question regarding proposed trials of genetically modified canola in Western Australia, focusing on conditions, area, management plans, liability, and contamination. The Minister's response indicates a cautious approach, supporting trials with strict safeguards.
AnsweredQoN 1347Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
Quite a considerable amount of notice have been given of this question, which refers to trials of genetically modified canola. (1) Has the minister been approached to undertake trials of approved genetically modified canola in Western Australia next year? (2) If so - (a) As no specific conditions are imposed by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator when granting licences other than to recognise GM-free zones according to policy principles when applying for exemption from the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003, what conditions under clause 5(2) are in place that differentiate trials from commercial release? (b) What is the area proposed for the trials? (c) Are the trials proposing to test the crop management plans and is there a buffer zone requirement? (d) Is there any requirement for the GM industry to contain its product and accept liability for contamination? (e) Who will be responsible for contamination clean-up if it is found? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I take note that the honourable member advised that a considerable amount of notice has been given. I am not sure when notice was given, but I first saw this answer yesterday. It does not matter - nothing turns on it. I note that the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs, so ably chaired by the honourable member - I have said that outside this place as well - recommended that regulator-approved field trials continue in Western Australia. The Government’s moratorium on the commercial release of GM food crops allows regulator-approved trials on the basis that the stringent licence conditions to prevent the escape of GMOs into the environment will manage marketing risks posed to non-GM crops and supply chains. Despite my strongest representations over many months, the regulator has decided against regulating further trials of Bayer CropScience’s InVigor hybrid canola, and to cease monitoring of the existing trials following the issue of a commercial licence for this GMO. Her justification is that she has assessed that the crop poses no greater human health and environmental risks than conventional canola varieties. This decision creates problems in terms of the State’s responsibility to manage marketing risks associated with GMOs, with previous Bayer trials now in a post-trial monitoring phase, a current trial to be harvested in the near future, and any future trials. It would be totally unacceptable to the Government for field trials to be managed according to commercial licence conditions. However the Government believes that GM crop technology may have the potential to benefit Western Australia in the future and, with appropriate safeguards, would support trials continuing. I must point out that Bayer CropScience has been prepared to cooperate fully with the Government in relation to both the moratorium on commercial release in this State and with its field trials. The Department of Agriculture is working closely with Bayer to complete post-trial monitoring of a number of previous trials and to continue the management and monitoring of the 2003 trial in accordance with the original licence conditions. (1) Bayer CropScience has written proposing three trials of InVigor hybrid canola in 2004. I am in the process of seeking further details from Bayer. (2) (a) The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 would preclude these trials, because they would not be monitored by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. However, I will propose amendments to the Bill to allow the minister, by order, to exempt field trials other than those under and complying with OGTR licences covered by clause 5(2). An exemption may be subject to conditions; for example, the conditions imposed in the field trial licence before the commercial licence was issued. I would not consider granting exemptions from orders without the formal agreement of the company concerned. I believe the amendments are necessary to facilitate continued field research of GM crops under strict protocols consistent with the Government’s moratorium. The Department of Agriculture is well prepared to monitor the field trials and I would need to be satisfied that the risks of escape of GM material would be as effectively managed as with trials that the OGTR continues to monitor. (b) Bayer has proposed that three individual trials would be a maximum of nine hectares each. The OGTR’s previous licence for field trials permitted trials up to nine hectares. (c)-(e) I am currently in the process of seeking clarification from Bayer CropScience about a number of matters relating to their proposed trials including liability and clean-up in the event of contamination.
(1) Has the minister been approached to undertake trials of approved genetically modified canola in Western Australia next year? (2) If so - (a) As no specific conditions are imposed by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator when granting licences other than to recognise GM-free zones according to policy principles when applying for exemption from the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003, what conditions under clause 5(2) are in place that differentiate trials from commercial release? (b) What is the area proposed for the trials? (c) Are the trials proposing to test the crop management plans and is there a buffer zone requirement? (d) Is there any requirement for the GM industry to contain its product and accept liability for contamination? (e) Who will be responsible for contamination clean-up if it is found? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. I take note that the honourable member advised that a considerable amount of notice has been given. I am not sure when notice was given, but I first saw this answer yesterday. It does not matter - nothing turns on it. I note that the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs, so ably chaired by the honourable member - I have said that outside this place as well - recommended that regulator-approved field trials continue in Western Australia. The Government’s moratorium on the commercial release of GM food crops allows regulator-approved trials on the basis that the stringent licence conditions to prevent the escape of GMOs into the environment will manage marketing risks posed to non-GM crops and supply chains. Despite my strongest representations over many months, the regulator has decided against regulating further trials of Bayer CropScience’s InVigor hybrid canola, and to cease monitoring of the existing trials following the issue of a commercial licence for this GMO. Her justification is that she has assessed that the crop poses no greater human health and environmental risks than conventional canola varieties. This decision creates problems in terms of the State’s responsibility to manage marketing risks associated with GMOs, with previous Bayer trials now in a post-trial monitoring phase, a current trial to be harvested in the near future, and any future trials. It would be totally unacceptable to the Government for field trials to be managed according to commercial licence conditions. However the Government believes that GM crop technology may have the potential to benefit Western Australia in the future and, with appropriate safeguards, would support trials continuing. I must point out that Bayer CropScience has been prepared to cooperate fully with the Government in relation to both the moratorium on commercial release in this State and with its field trials. The Department of Agriculture is working closely with Bayer to complete post-trial monitoring of a number of previous trials and to continue the management and monitoring of the 2003 trial in accordance with the original licence conditions. (1) Bayer CropScience has written proposing three trials of InVigor hybrid canola in 2004. I am in the process of seeking further details from Bayer. (2) (a) The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 would preclude these trials, because they would not be monitored by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. However, I will propose amendments to the Bill to allow the minister, by order, to exempt field trials other than those under and complying with OGTR licences covered by clause 5(2). An exemption may be subject to conditions; for example, the conditions imposed in the field trial licence before the commercial licence was issued. I would not consider granting exemptions from orders without the formal agreement of the company concerned. I believe the amendments are necessary to facilitate continued field research of GM crops under strict protocols consistent with the Government’s moratorium. The Department of Agriculture is well prepared to monitor the field trials and I would need to be satisfied that the risks of escape of GM material would be as effectively managed as with trials that the OGTR continues to monitor. (b) Bayer has proposed that three individual trials would be a maximum of nine hectares each. The OGTR’s previous licence for field trials permitted trials up to nine hectares. (c)-(e) I am currently in the process of seeking clarification from Bayer CropScience about a number of matters relating to their proposed trials including liability and clean-up in the event of contamination.
(2) If so - (a) As no specific conditions are imposed by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator when granting licences other than to recognise GM-free zones according to policy principles when applying for exemption from the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003, what conditions under clause 5(2) are in place that differentiate trials from commercial release? (b) What is the area proposed for the trials? (c) Are the trials proposing to test the crop management plans and is there a buffer zone requirement? (d) Is there any requirement for the GM industry to contain its product and accept liability for contamination? (e) Who will be responsible for contamination clean-up if it is found? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. I take note that the honourable member advised that a considerable amount of notice has been given. I am not sure when notice was given, but I first saw this answer yesterday. It does not matter - nothing turns on it. I note that the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs, so ably chaired by the honourable member - I have said that outside this place as well - recommended that regulator-approved field trials continue in Western Australia. The Government’s moratorium on the commercial release of GM food crops allows regulator-approved trials on the basis that the stringent licence conditions to prevent the escape of GMOs into the environment will manage marketing risks posed to non-GM crops and supply chains. Despite my strongest representations over many months, the regulator has decided against regulating further trials of Bayer CropScience’s InVigor hybrid canola, and to cease monitoring of the existing trials following the issue of a commercial licence for this GMO. Her justification is that she has assessed that the crop poses no greater human health and environmental risks than conventional canola varieties. This decision creates problems in terms of the State’s responsibility to manage marketing risks associated with GMOs, with previous Bayer trials now in a post-trial monitoring phase, a current trial to be harvested in the near future, and any future trials. It would be totally unacceptable to the Government for field trials to be managed according to commercial licence conditions. However the Government believes that GM crop technology may have the potential to benefit Western Australia in the future and, with appropriate safeguards, would support trials continuing. I must point out that Bayer CropScience has been prepared to cooperate fully with the Government in relation to both the moratorium on commercial release in this State and with its field trials. The Department of Agriculture is working closely with Bayer to complete post-trial monitoring of a number of previous trials and to continue the management and monitoring of the 2003 trial in accordance with the original licence conditions. (1) Bayer CropScience has written proposing three trials of InVigor hybrid canola in 2004. I am in the process of seeking further details from Bayer. (2) (a) The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 would preclude these trials, because they would not be monitored by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. However, I will propose amendments to the Bill to allow the minister, by order, to exempt field trials other than those under and complying with OGTR licences covered by clause 5(2). An exemption may be subject to conditions; for example, the conditions imposed in the field trial licence before the commercial licence was issued. I would not consider granting exemptions from orders without the formal agreement of the company concerned. I believe the amendments are necessary to facilitate continued field research of GM crops under strict protocols consistent with the Government’s moratorium. The Department of Agriculture is well prepared to monitor the field trials and I would need to be satisfied that the risks of escape of GM material would be as effectively managed as with trials that the OGTR continues to monitor. (b) Bayer has proposed that three individual trials would be a maximum of nine hectares each. The OGTR’s previous licence for field trials permitted trials up to nine hectares. (c)-(e) I am currently in the process of seeking clarification from Bayer CropScience about a number of matters relating to their proposed trials including liability and clean-up in the event of contamination.
(b) What is the area proposed for the trials? (c) Are the trials proposing to test the crop management plans and is there a buffer zone requirement? (d) Is there any requirement for the GM industry to contain its product and accept liability for contamination? (e) Who will be responsible for contamination clean-up if it is found?
(c) Are the trials proposing to test the crop management plans and is there a buffer zone requirement? (d) Is there any requirement for the GM industry to contain its product and accept liability for contamination? (e) Who will be responsible for contamination clean-up if it is found?
(d) Is there any requirement for the GM industry to contain its product and accept liability for contamination? (e) Who will be responsible for contamination clean-up if it is found?
(e) Who will be responsible for contamination clean-up if it is found?
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I take note that the honourable member advised that a considerable amount of notice has been given. I am not sure when notice was given, but I first saw this answer yesterday. It does not matter - nothing turns on it. I note that the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs, so ably chaired by the honourable member - I have said that outside this place as well - recommended that regulator-approved field trials continue in Western Australia. The Government’s moratorium on the commercial release of GM food crops allows regulator-approved trials on the basis that the stringent licence conditions to prevent the escape of GMOs into the environment will manage marketing risks posed to non-GM crops and supply chains. Despite my strongest representations over many months, the regulator has decided against regulating further trials of Bayer CropScience’s InVigor hybrid canola, and to cease monitoring of the existing trials following the issue of a commercial licence for this GMO. Her justification is that she has assessed that the crop poses no greater human health and environmental risks than conventional canola varieties. This decision creates problems in terms of the State’s responsibility to manage marketing risks associated with GMOs, with previous Bayer trials now in a post-trial monitoring phase, a current trial to be harvested in the near future, and any future trials. It would be totally unacceptable to the Government for field trials to be managed according to commercial licence conditions. However the Government believes that GM crop technology may have the potential to benefit Western Australia in the future and, with appropriate safeguards, would support trials continuing. I must point out that Bayer CropScience has been prepared to cooperate fully with the Government in relation to both the moratorium on commercial release in this State and with its field trials. The Department of Agriculture is working closely with Bayer to complete post-trial monitoring of a number of previous trials and to continue the management and monitoring of the 2003 trial in accordance with the original licence conditions. (1) Bayer CropScience has written proposing three trials of InVigor hybrid canola in 2004. I am in the process of seeking further details from Bayer. (2) (a) The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 would preclude these trials, because they would not be monitored by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. However, I will propose amendments to the Bill to allow the minister, by order, to exempt field trials other than those under and complying with OGTR licences covered by clause 5(2). An exemption may be subject to conditions; for example, the conditions imposed in the field trial licence before the commercial licence was issued. I would not consider granting exemptions from orders without the formal agreement of the company concerned. I believe the amendments are necessary to facilitate continued field research of GM crops under strict protocols consistent with the Government’s moratorium. The Department of Agriculture is well prepared to monitor the field trials and I would need to be satisfied that the risks of escape of GM material would be as effectively managed as with trials that the OGTR continues to monitor. (b) Bayer has proposed that three individual trials would be a maximum of nine hectares each. The OGTR’s previous licence for field trials permitted trials up to nine hectares. (c)-(e) I am currently in the process of seeking clarification from Bayer CropScience about a number of matters relating to their proposed trials including liability and clean-up in the event of contamination.
I note that the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs, so ably chaired by the honourable member - I have said that outside this place as well - recommended that regulator-approved field trials continue in Western Australia. The Government’s moratorium on the commercial release of GM food crops allows regulator-approved trials on the basis that the stringent licence conditions to prevent the escape of GMOs into the environment will manage marketing risks posed to non-GM crops and supply chains. Despite my strongest representations over many months, the regulator has decided against regulating further trials of Bayer CropScience’s InVigor hybrid canola, and to cease monitoring of the existing trials following the issue of a commercial licence for this GMO. Her justification is that she has assessed that the crop poses no greater human health and environmental risks than conventional canola varieties. This decision creates problems in terms of the State’s responsibility to manage marketing risks associated with GMOs, with previous Bayer trials now in a post-trial monitoring phase, a current trial to be harvested in the near future, and any future trials. It would be totally unacceptable to the Government for field trials to be managed according to commercial licence conditions. However the Government believes that GM crop technology may have the potential to benefit Western Australia in the future and, with appropriate safeguards, would support trials continuing. I must point out that Bayer CropScience has been prepared to cooperate fully with the Government in relation to both the moratorium on commercial release in this State and with its field trials. The Department of Agriculture is working closely with Bayer to complete post-trial monitoring of a number of previous trials and to continue the management and monitoring of the 2003 trial in accordance with the original licence conditions. (1) Bayer CropScience has written proposing three trials of InVigor hybrid canola in 2004. I am in the process of seeking further details from Bayer. (2) (a) The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 would preclude these trials, because they would not be monitored by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. However, I will propose amendments to the Bill to allow the minister, by order, to exempt field trials other than those under and complying with OGTR licences covered by clause 5(2). An exemption may be subject to conditions; for example, the conditions imposed in the field trial licence before the commercial licence was issued. I would not consider granting exemptions from orders without the formal agreement of the company concerned. I believe the amendments are necessary to facilitate continued field research of GM crops under strict protocols consistent with the Government’s moratorium. The Department of Agriculture is well prepared to monitor the field trials and I would need to be satisfied that the risks of escape of GM material would be as effectively managed as with trials that the OGTR continues to monitor. (b) Bayer has proposed that three individual trials would be a maximum of nine hectares each. The OGTR’s previous licence for field trials permitted trials up to nine hectares. (c)-(e) I am currently in the process of seeking clarification from Bayer CropScience about a number of matters relating to their proposed trials including liability and clean-up in the event of contamination.
It would be totally unacceptable to the Government for field trials to be managed according to commercial licence conditions. However the Government believes that GM crop technology may have the potential to benefit Western Australia in the future and, with appropriate safeguards, would support trials continuing. I must point out that Bayer CropScience has been prepared to cooperate fully with the Government in relation to both the moratorium on commercial release in this State and with its field trials. The Department of Agriculture is working closely with Bayer to complete post-trial monitoring of a number of previous trials and to continue the management and monitoring of the 2003 trial in accordance with the original licence conditions. (1) Bayer CropScience has written proposing three trials of InVigor hybrid canola in 2004. I am in the process of seeking further details from Bayer. (2) (a) The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 would preclude these trials, because they would not be monitored by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. However, I will propose amendments to the Bill to allow the minister, by order, to exempt field trials other than those under and complying with OGTR licences covered by clause 5(2). An exemption may be subject to conditions; for example, the conditions imposed in the field trial licence before the commercial licence was issued. I would not consider granting exemptions from orders without the formal agreement of the company concerned. I believe the amendments are necessary to facilitate continued field research of GM crops under strict protocols consistent with the Government’s moratorium. The Department of Agriculture is well prepared to monitor the field trials and I would need to be satisfied that the risks of escape of GM material would be as effectively managed as with trials that the OGTR continues to monitor. (b) Bayer has proposed that three individual trials would be a maximum of nine hectares each. The OGTR’s previous licence for field trials permitted trials up to nine hectares. (c)-(e) I am currently in the process of seeking clarification from Bayer CropScience about a number of matters relating to their proposed trials including liability and clean-up in the event of contamination.
(1) Bayer CropScience has written proposing three trials of InVigor hybrid canola in 2004. I am in the process of seeking further details from Bayer. (2) (a) The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 would preclude these trials, because they would not be monitored by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. However, I will propose amendments to the Bill to allow the minister, by order, to exempt field trials other than those under and complying with OGTR licences covered by clause 5(2). An exemption may be subject to conditions; for example, the conditions imposed in the field trial licence before the commercial licence was issued. I would not consider granting exemptions from orders without the formal agreement of the company concerned. I believe the amendments are necessary to facilitate continued field research of GM crops under strict protocols consistent with the Government’s moratorium. The Department of Agriculture is well prepared to monitor the field trials and I would need to be satisfied that the risks of escape of GM material would be as effectively managed as with trials that the OGTR continues to monitor. (b) Bayer has proposed that three individual trials would be a maximum of nine hectares each. The OGTR’s previous licence for field trials permitted trials up to nine hectares. (c)-(e) I am currently in the process of seeking clarification from Bayer CropScience about a number of matters relating to their proposed trials including liability and clean-up in the event of contamination.
(2) (a) The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 would preclude these trials, because they would not be monitored by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. However, I will propose amendments to the Bill to allow the minister, by order, to exempt field trials other than those under and complying with OGTR licences covered by clause 5(2). An exemption may be subject to conditions; for example, the conditions imposed in the field trial licence before the commercial licence was issued. I would not consider granting exemptions from orders without the formal agreement of the company concerned. I believe the amendments are necessary to facilitate continued field research of GM crops under strict protocols consistent with the Government’s moratorium. The Department of Agriculture is well prepared to monitor the field trials and I would need to be satisfied that the risks of escape of GM material would be as effectively managed as with trials that the OGTR continues to monitor. (b) Bayer has proposed that three individual trials would be a maximum of nine hectares each. The OGTR’s previous licence for field trials permitted trials up to nine hectares. (c)-(e) I am currently in the process of seeking clarification from Bayer CropScience about a number of matters relating to their proposed trials including liability and clean-up in the event of contamination.
(c)-(e) I am currently in the process of seeking clarification from Bayer CropScience about a number of matters relating to their proposed trials including liability and clean-up in the event of contamination.
(1) Has the minister been approached to undertake trials of approved genetically modified canola in Western Australia next year? (2) If so - (a) As no specific conditions are imposed by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator when granting licences other than to recognise GM-free zones according to policy principles when applying for exemption from the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003, what conditions under clause 5(2) are in place that differentiate trials from commercial release? (b) What is the area proposed for the trials? (c) Are the trials proposing to test the crop management plans and is there a buffer zone requirement? (d) Is there any requirement for the GM industry to contain its product and accept liability for contamination? (e) Who will be responsible for contamination clean-up if it is found? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. I take note that the honourable member advised that a considerable amount of notice has been given. I am not sure when notice was given, but I first saw this answer yesterday. It does not matter - nothing turns on it. I note that the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs, so ably chaired by the honourable member - I have said that outside this place as well - recommended that regulator-approved field trials continue in Western Australia. The Government’s moratorium on the commercial release of GM food crops allows regulator-approved trials on the basis that the stringent licence conditions to prevent the escape of GMOs into the environment will manage marketing risks posed to non-GM crops and supply chains. Despite my strongest representations over many months, the regulator has decided against regulating further trials of Bayer CropScience’s InVigor hybrid canola, and to cease monitoring of the existing trials following the issue of a commercial licence for this GMO. Her justification is that she has assessed that the crop poses no greater human health and environmental risks than conventional canola varieties. This decision creates problems in terms of the State’s responsibility to manage marketing risks associated with GMOs, with previous Bayer trials now in a post-trial monitoring phase, a current trial to be harvested in the near future, and any future trials. It would be totally unacceptable to the Government for field trials to be managed according to commercial licence conditions. However the Government believes that GM crop technology may have the potential to benefit Western Australia in the future and, with appropriate safeguards, would support trials continuing. I must point out that Bayer CropScience has been prepared to cooperate fully with the Government in relation to both the moratorium on commercial release in this State and with its field trials. The Department of Agriculture is working closely with Bayer to complete post-trial monitoring of a number of previous trials and to continue the management and monitoring of the 2003 trial in accordance with the original licence conditions. (1) Bayer CropScience has written proposing three trials of InVigor hybrid canola in 2004. I am in the process of seeking further details from Bayer. (2) (a) The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 would preclude these trials, because they would not be monitored by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. However, I will propose amendments to the Bill to allow the minister, by order, to exempt field trials other than those under and complying with OGTR licences covered by clause 5(2). An exemption may be subject to conditions; for example, the conditions imposed in the field trial licence before the commercial licence was issued. I would not consider granting exemptions from orders without the formal agreement of the company concerned. I believe the amendments are necessary to facilitate continued field research of GM crops under strict protocols consistent with the Government’s moratorium. The Department of Agriculture is well prepared to monitor the field trials and I would need to be satisfied that the risks of escape of GM material would be as effectively managed as with trials that the OGTR continues to monitor. (b) Bayer has proposed that three individual trials would be a maximum of nine hectares each. The OGTR’s previous licence for field trials permitted trials up to nine hectares. (c)-(e) I am currently in the process of seeking clarification from Bayer CropScience about a number of matters relating to their proposed trials including liability and clean-up in the event of contamination.
(2) If so - (a) As no specific conditions are imposed by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator when granting licences other than to recognise GM-free zones according to policy principles when applying for exemption from the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003, what conditions under clause 5(2) are in place that differentiate trials from commercial release? (b) What is the area proposed for the trials? (c) Are the trials proposing to test the crop management plans and is there a buffer zone requirement? (d) Is there any requirement for the GM industry to contain its product and accept liability for contamination? (e) Who will be responsible for contamination clean-up if it is found? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. I take note that the honourable member advised that a considerable amount of notice has been given. I am not sure when notice was given, but I first saw this answer yesterday. It does not matter - nothing turns on it. I note that the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs, so ably chaired by the honourable member - I have said that outside this place as well - recommended that regulator-approved field trials continue in Western Australia. The Government’s moratorium on the commercial release of GM food crops allows regulator-approved trials on the basis that the stringent licence conditions to prevent the escape of GMOs into the environment will manage marketing risks posed to non-GM crops and supply chains. Despite my strongest representations over many months, the regulator has decided against regulating further trials of Bayer CropScience’s InVigor hybrid canola, and to cease monitoring of the existing trials following the issue of a commercial licence for this GMO. Her justification is that she has assessed that the crop poses no greater human health and environmental risks than conventional canola varieties. This decision creates problems in terms of the State’s responsibility to manage marketing risks associated with GMOs, with previous Bayer trials now in a post-trial monitoring phase, a current trial to be harvested in the near future, and any future trials. It would be totally unacceptable to the Government for field trials to be managed according to commercial licence conditions. However the Government believes that GM crop technology may have the potential to benefit Western Australia in the future and, with appropriate safeguards, would support trials continuing. I must point out that Bayer CropScience has been prepared to cooperate fully with the Government in relation to both the moratorium on commercial release in this State and with its field trials. The Department of Agriculture is working closely with Bayer to complete post-trial monitoring of a number of previous trials and to continue the management and monitoring of the 2003 trial in accordance with the original licence conditions. (1) Bayer CropScience has written proposing three trials of InVigor hybrid canola in 2004. I am in the process of seeking further details from Bayer. (2) (a) The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 would preclude these trials, because they would not be monitored by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. However, I will propose amendments to the Bill to allow the minister, by order, to exempt field trials other than those under and complying with OGTR licences covered by clause 5(2). An exemption may be subject to conditions; for example, the conditions imposed in the field trial licence before the commercial licence was issued. I would not consider granting exemptions from orders without the formal agreement of the company concerned. I believe the amendments are necessary to facilitate continued field research of GM crops under strict protocols consistent with the Government’s moratorium. The Department of Agriculture is well prepared to monitor the field trials and I would need to be satisfied that the risks of escape of GM material would be as effectively managed as with trials that the OGTR continues to monitor. (b) Bayer has proposed that three individual trials would be a maximum of nine hectares each. The OGTR’s previous licence for field trials permitted trials up to nine hectares. (c)-(e) I am currently in the process of seeking clarification from Bayer CropScience about a number of matters relating to their proposed trials including liability and clean-up in the event of contamination.
(b) What is the area proposed for the trials? (c) Are the trials proposing to test the crop management plans and is there a buffer zone requirement? (d) Is there any requirement for the GM industry to contain its product and accept liability for contamination? (e) Who will be responsible for contamination clean-up if it is found?
(c) Are the trials proposing to test the crop management plans and is there a buffer zone requirement? (d) Is there any requirement for the GM industry to contain its product and accept liability for contamination? (e) Who will be responsible for contamination clean-up if it is found?
(d) Is there any requirement for the GM industry to contain its product and accept liability for contamination? (e) Who will be responsible for contamination clean-up if it is found?
(e) Who will be responsible for contamination clean-up if it is found?
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I take note that the honourable member advised that a considerable amount of notice has been given. I am not sure when notice was given, but I first saw this answer yesterday. It does not matter - nothing turns on it. I note that the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs, so ably chaired by the honourable member - I have said that outside this place as well - recommended that regulator-approved field trials continue in Western Australia. The Government’s moratorium on the commercial release of GM food crops allows regulator-approved trials on the basis that the stringent licence conditions to prevent the escape of GMOs into the environment will manage marketing risks posed to non-GM crops and supply chains. Despite my strongest representations over many months, the regulator has decided against regulating further trials of Bayer CropScience’s InVigor hybrid canola, and to cease monitoring of the existing trials following the issue of a commercial licence for this GMO. Her justification is that she has assessed that the crop poses no greater human health and environmental risks than conventional canola varieties. This decision creates problems in terms of the State’s responsibility to manage marketing risks associated with GMOs, with previous Bayer trials now in a post-trial monitoring phase, a current trial to be harvested in the near future, and any future trials. It would be totally unacceptable to the Government for field trials to be managed according to commercial licence conditions. However the Government believes that GM crop technology may have the potential to benefit Western Australia in the future and, with appropriate safeguards, would support trials continuing. I must point out that Bayer CropScience has been prepared to cooperate fully with the Government in relation to both the moratorium on commercial release in this State and with its field trials. The Department of Agriculture is working closely with Bayer to complete post-trial monitoring of a number of previous trials and to continue the management and monitoring of the 2003 trial in accordance with the original licence conditions. (1) Bayer CropScience has written proposing three trials of InVigor hybrid canola in 2004. I am in the process of seeking further details from Bayer. (2) (a) The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 would preclude these trials, because they would not be monitored by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. However, I will propose amendments to the Bill to allow the minister, by order, to exempt field trials other than those under and complying with OGTR licences covered by clause 5(2). An exemption may be subject to conditions; for example, the conditions imposed in the field trial licence before the commercial licence was issued. I would not consider granting exemptions from orders without the formal agreement of the company concerned. I believe the amendments are necessary to facilitate continued field research of GM crops under strict protocols consistent with the Government’s moratorium. The Department of Agriculture is well prepared to monitor the field trials and I would need to be satisfied that the risks of escape of GM material would be as effectively managed as with trials that the OGTR continues to monitor. (b) Bayer has proposed that three individual trials would be a maximum of nine hectares each. The OGTR’s previous licence for field trials permitted trials up to nine hectares. (c)-(e) I am currently in the process of seeking clarification from Bayer CropScience about a number of matters relating to their proposed trials including liability and clean-up in the event of contamination.
I note that the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs, so ably chaired by the honourable member - I have said that outside this place as well - recommended that regulator-approved field trials continue in Western Australia. The Government’s moratorium on the commercial release of GM food crops allows regulator-approved trials on the basis that the stringent licence conditions to prevent the escape of GMOs into the environment will manage marketing risks posed to non-GM crops and supply chains. Despite my strongest representations over many months, the regulator has decided against regulating further trials of Bayer CropScience’s InVigor hybrid canola, and to cease monitoring of the existing trials following the issue of a commercial licence for this GMO. Her justification is that she has assessed that the crop poses no greater human health and environmental risks than conventional canola varieties. This decision creates problems in terms of the State’s responsibility to manage marketing risks associated with GMOs, with previous Bayer trials now in a post-trial monitoring phase, a current trial to be harvested in the near future, and any future trials. It would be totally unacceptable to the Government for field trials to be managed according to commercial licence conditions. However the Government believes that GM crop technology may have the potential to benefit Western Australia in the future and, with appropriate safeguards, would support trials continuing. I must point out that Bayer CropScience has been prepared to cooperate fully with the Government in relation to both the moratorium on commercial release in this State and with its field trials. The Department of Agriculture is working closely with Bayer to complete post-trial monitoring of a number of previous trials and to continue the management and monitoring of the 2003 trial in accordance with the original licence conditions. (1) Bayer CropScience has written proposing three trials of InVigor hybrid canola in 2004. I am in the process of seeking further details from Bayer. (2) (a) The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 would preclude these trials, because they would not be monitored by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. However, I will propose amendments to the Bill to allow the minister, by order, to exempt field trials other than those under and complying with OGTR licences covered by clause 5(2). An exemption may be subject to conditions; for example, the conditions imposed in the field trial licence before the commercial licence was issued. I would not consider granting exemptions from orders without the formal agreement of the company concerned. I believe the amendments are necessary to facilitate continued field research of GM crops under strict protocols consistent with the Government’s moratorium. The Department of Agriculture is well prepared to monitor the field trials and I would need to be satisfied that the risks of escape of GM material would be as effectively managed as with trials that the OGTR continues to monitor. (b) Bayer has proposed that three individual trials would be a maximum of nine hectares each. The OGTR’s previous licence for field trials permitted trials up to nine hectares. (c)-(e) I am currently in the process of seeking clarification from Bayer CropScience about a number of matters relating to their proposed trials including liability and clean-up in the event of contamination.
It would be totally unacceptable to the Government for field trials to be managed according to commercial licence conditions. However the Government believes that GM crop technology may have the potential to benefit Western Australia in the future and, with appropriate safeguards, would support trials continuing. I must point out that Bayer CropScience has been prepared to cooperate fully with the Government in relation to both the moratorium on commercial release in this State and with its field trials. The Department of Agriculture is working closely with Bayer to complete post-trial monitoring of a number of previous trials and to continue the management and monitoring of the 2003 trial in accordance with the original licence conditions. (1) Bayer CropScience has written proposing three trials of InVigor hybrid canola in 2004. I am in the process of seeking further details from Bayer. (2) (a) The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 would preclude these trials, because they would not be monitored by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. However, I will propose amendments to the Bill to allow the minister, by order, to exempt field trials other than those under and complying with OGTR licences covered by clause 5(2). An exemption may be subject to conditions; for example, the conditions imposed in the field trial licence before the commercial licence was issued. I would not consider granting exemptions from orders without the formal agreement of the company concerned. I believe the amendments are necessary to facilitate continued field research of GM crops under strict protocols consistent with the Government’s moratorium. The Department of Agriculture is well prepared to monitor the field trials and I would need to be satisfied that the risks of escape of GM material would be as effectively managed as with trials that the OGTR continues to monitor. (b) Bayer has proposed that three individual trials would be a maximum of nine hectares each. The OGTR’s previous licence for field trials permitted trials up to nine hectares. (c)-(e) I am currently in the process of seeking clarification from Bayer CropScience about a number of matters relating to their proposed trials including liability and clean-up in the event of contamination.
(1) Bayer CropScience has written proposing three trials of InVigor hybrid canola in 2004. I am in the process of seeking further details from Bayer. (2) (a) The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 would preclude these trials, because they would not be monitored by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. However, I will propose amendments to the Bill to allow the minister, by order, to exempt field trials other than those under and complying with OGTR licences covered by clause 5(2). An exemption may be subject to conditions; for example, the conditions imposed in the field trial licence before the commercial licence was issued. I would not consider granting exemptions from orders without the formal agreement of the company concerned. I believe the amendments are necessary to facilitate continued field research of GM crops under strict protocols consistent with the Government’s moratorium. The Department of Agriculture is well prepared to monitor the field trials and I would need to be satisfied that the risks of escape of GM material would be as effectively managed as with trials that the OGTR continues to monitor. (b) Bayer has proposed that three individual trials would be a maximum of nine hectares each. The OGTR’s previous licence for field trials permitted trials up to nine hectares. (c)-(e) I am currently in the process of seeking clarification from Bayer CropScience about a number of matters relating to their proposed trials including liability and clean-up in the event of contamination.
(2) (a) The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 would preclude these trials, because they would not be monitored by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. However, I will propose amendments to the Bill to allow the minister, by order, to exempt field trials other than those under and complying with OGTR licences covered by clause 5(2). An exemption may be subject to conditions; for example, the conditions imposed in the field trial licence before the commercial licence was issued. I would not consider granting exemptions from orders without the formal agreement of the company concerned. I believe the amendments are necessary to facilitate continued field research of GM crops under strict protocols consistent with the Government’s moratorium. The Department of Agriculture is well prepared to monitor the field trials and I would need to be satisfied that the risks of escape of GM material would be as effectively managed as with trials that the OGTR continues to monitor. (b) Bayer has proposed that three individual trials would be a maximum of nine hectares each. The OGTR’s previous licence for field trials permitted trials up to nine hectares. (c)-(e) I am currently in the process of seeking clarification from Bayer CropScience about a number of matters relating to their proposed trials including liability and clean-up in the event of contamination.
(c)-(e) I am currently in the process of seeking clarification from Bayer CropScience about a number of matters relating to their proposed trials including liability and clean-up in the event of contamination.
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.