❓ Hon. Bruce Donaldson questions the timing and scope of the review of the moratorium on commercial GM crops. Hon. Kim Chance clarifies the moratorium is a policy position of the Labor Party, not law, and discusses a potential small-scale GM canola trial in Esperance.
AnsweredQoN 348Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS - MORATORIUM
Given the refusal of the government to consider the lifting of the moratorium on commercial genetically modified crops earlier than 2008 - (1) When in the calendar year of 2008 will this review commence? (2) What will the consultation process of stakeholders involve? (3) Will this review consider the growing of GM canola commercially in the Esperance region as a priority opportunity? Hon KIM CHANCE
Given the refusal of the government to consider the lifting of the moratorium on commercial genetically modified crops earlier than 2008 - (1) When in the calendar year of 2008 will this review commence? (2) What will the consultation process of stakeholders involve? (3) Will this review consider the growing of GM canola commercially in the Esperance region as a priority opportunity? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) The position of the moratorium is a policy position. As every member in this house understands, there are two positions regarding the regulation of genetically modified organisms in this state. Of most concern to members of this house is the legal position. The legal position is as stated in the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003. I make that point because there is a distinction between the legal position and the policy position. The moratorium does not exist within the framework of the legal position; nor does the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 refer in any part to the moratorium. The moratorium is a policy position of government and derives from the policy position of the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party has determined its policy position to be that, for the term of this government, the moratorium on growing genetically modified crops can continue. There are two distinct legs to the policy. Hon Anthony Fels : What about in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : We would like to try to bind Victoria under our jurisdiction, but Mr Bracks has been strangely resistant to that idea. The member asked when the policy position will be considered. It will be considered within the Australian Labor Party between now and the next election. Hon Bruce Donaldson : At the state conference next week? Hon KIM CHANCE : No, I do not think that is possible, although, as members are aware, one can never fully anticipate what will happen at a state conference. The answer is: not that I know of or have any plans for. Consultation would occur to the extent that a major political party would normally consult with stakeholders in the formation of its policy. As members are aware, that does not take the formal structure of a government consulting; it is the way a major party consults, which is somewhat different. The reason that I went into the legal position and the policy position related to the third part of the question pertaining to Esperance is that at the moment the indications are that shortly I am to receive a formal application from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association for a semi-commercial trial of GM canola to be grown in Esperance. That was indicated to me to be the industry’s desire. Industry suggested to me that I should nominate an area where the trial would cause less of an issue for the government. I did suggest the Esperance area because the logistics and the separation of the port etc would work better there. However, I told industry that it would have to put a case together that might convince the government to reconsider its position. I understand that I am to receive an application to grow a small-scale trial, 2.14 hectares, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Department of Agriculture and Food’s land. I have indicated that I am not averse to that application coming forward. We could learn a great deal from a trial. The size of the trial, 2.14 hectares, fits my definition of a small-scale trial, which is within policy; it is not outside policy. It is something that I look forward to. The industry has suggested that this is a way forward to determine whether there are agronomic or economic advantages or disadvantages with GM canola. Similarly, it will give members an opportunity to resolve in their minds some of the issues about gene extensibility in brassica crops of that nature.
(1) When in the calendar year of 2008 will this review commence? (2) What will the consultation process of stakeholders involve? (3) Will this review consider the growing of GM canola commercially in the Esperance region as a priority opportunity? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(3) The position of the moratorium is a policy position. As every member in this house understands, there are two positions regarding the regulation of genetically modified organisms in this state. Of most concern to members of this house is the legal position. The legal position is as stated in the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003. I make that point because there is a distinction between the legal position and the policy position. The moratorium does not exist within the framework of the legal position; nor does the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 refer in any part to the moratorium. The moratorium is a policy position of government and derives from the policy position of the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party has determined its policy position to be that, for the term of this government, the moratorium on growing genetically modified crops can continue. There are two distinct legs to the policy. Hon Anthony Fels : What about in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : We would like to try to bind Victoria under our jurisdiction, but Mr Bracks has been strangely resistant to that idea. The member asked when the policy position will be considered. It will be considered within the Australian Labor Party between now and the next election. Hon Bruce Donaldson : At the state conference next week? Hon KIM CHANCE : No, I do not think that is possible, although, as members are aware, one can never fully anticipate what will happen at a state conference. The answer is: not that I know of or have any plans for. Consultation would occur to the extent that a major political party would normally consult with stakeholders in the formation of its policy. As members are aware, that does not take the formal structure of a government consulting; it is the way a major party consults, which is somewhat different. The reason that I went into the legal position and the policy position related to the third part of the question pertaining to Esperance is that at the moment the indications are that shortly I am to receive a formal application from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association for a semi-commercial trial of GM canola to be grown in Esperance. That was indicated to me to be the industry’s desire. Industry suggested to me that I should nominate an area where the trial would cause less of an issue for the government. I did suggest the Esperance area because the logistics and the separation of the port etc would work better there. However, I told industry that it would have to put a case together that might convince the government to reconsider its position. I understand that I am to receive an application to grow a small-scale trial, 2.14 hectares, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Department of Agriculture and Food’s land. I have indicated that I am not averse to that application coming forward. We could learn a great deal from a trial. The size of the trial, 2.14 hectares, fits my definition of a small-scale trial, which is within policy; it is not outside policy. It is something that I look forward to. The industry has suggested that this is a way forward to determine whether there are agronomic or economic advantages or disadvantages with GM canola. Similarly, it will give members an opportunity to resolve in their minds some of the issues about gene extensibility in brassica crops of that nature.
(2) What will the consultation process of stakeholders involve? (3) Will this review consider the growing of GM canola commercially in the Esperance region as a priority opportunity? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(3) The position of the moratorium is a policy position. As every member in this house understands, there are two positions regarding the regulation of genetically modified organisms in this state. Of most concern to members of this house is the legal position. The legal position is as stated in the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003. I make that point because there is a distinction between the legal position and the policy position. The moratorium does not exist within the framework of the legal position; nor does the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 refer in any part to the moratorium. The moratorium is a policy position of government and derives from the policy position of the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party has determined its policy position to be that, for the term of this government, the moratorium on growing genetically modified crops can continue. There are two distinct legs to the policy. Hon Anthony Fels : What about in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : We would like to try to bind Victoria under our jurisdiction, but Mr Bracks has been strangely resistant to that idea. The member asked when the policy position will be considered. It will be considered within the Australian Labor Party between now and the next election. Hon Bruce Donaldson : At the state conference next week? Hon KIM CHANCE : No, I do not think that is possible, although, as members are aware, one can never fully anticipate what will happen at a state conference. The answer is: not that I know of or have any plans for. Consultation would occur to the extent that a major political party would normally consult with stakeholders in the formation of its policy. As members are aware, that does not take the formal structure of a government consulting; it is the way a major party consults, which is somewhat different. The reason that I went into the legal position and the policy position related to the third part of the question pertaining to Esperance is that at the moment the indications are that shortly I am to receive a formal application from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association for a semi-commercial trial of GM canola to be grown in Esperance. That was indicated to me to be the industry’s desire. Industry suggested to me that I should nominate an area where the trial would cause less of an issue for the government. I did suggest the Esperance area because the logistics and the separation of the port etc would work better there. However, I told industry that it would have to put a case together that might convince the government to reconsider its position. I understand that I am to receive an application to grow a small-scale trial, 2.14 hectares, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Department of Agriculture and Food’s land. I have indicated that I am not averse to that application coming forward. We could learn a great deal from a trial. The size of the trial, 2.14 hectares, fits my definition of a small-scale trial, which is within policy; it is not outside policy. It is something that I look forward to. The industry has suggested that this is a way forward to determine whether there are agronomic or economic advantages or disadvantages with GM canola. Similarly, it will give members an opportunity to resolve in their minds some of the issues about gene extensibility in brassica crops of that nature.
(3) Will this review consider the growing of GM canola commercially in the Esperance region as a priority opportunity? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(3) The position of the moratorium is a policy position. As every member in this house understands, there are two positions regarding the regulation of genetically modified organisms in this state. Of most concern to members of this house is the legal position. The legal position is as stated in the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003. I make that point because there is a distinction between the legal position and the policy position. The moratorium does not exist within the framework of the legal position; nor does the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 refer in any part to the moratorium. The moratorium is a policy position of government and derives from the policy position of the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party has determined its policy position to be that, for the term of this government, the moratorium on growing genetically modified crops can continue. There are two distinct legs to the policy. Hon Anthony Fels : What about in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : We would like to try to bind Victoria under our jurisdiction, but Mr Bracks has been strangely resistant to that idea. The member asked when the policy position will be considered. It will be considered within the Australian Labor Party between now and the next election. Hon Bruce Donaldson : At the state conference next week? Hon KIM CHANCE : No, I do not think that is possible, although, as members are aware, one can never fully anticipate what will happen at a state conference. The answer is: not that I know of or have any plans for. Consultation would occur to the extent that a major political party would normally consult with stakeholders in the formation of its policy. As members are aware, that does not take the formal structure of a government consulting; it is the way a major party consults, which is somewhat different. The reason that I went into the legal position and the policy position related to the third part of the question pertaining to Esperance is that at the moment the indications are that shortly I am to receive a formal application from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association for a semi-commercial trial of GM canola to be grown in Esperance. That was indicated to me to be the industry’s desire. Industry suggested to me that I should nominate an area where the trial would cause less of an issue for the government. I did suggest the Esperance area because the logistics and the separation of the port etc would work better there. However, I told industry that it would have to put a case together that might convince the government to reconsider its position. I understand that I am to receive an application to grow a small-scale trial, 2.14 hectares, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Department of Agriculture and Food’s land. I have indicated that I am not averse to that application coming forward. We could learn a great deal from a trial. The size of the trial, 2.14 hectares, fits my definition of a small-scale trial, which is within policy; it is not outside policy. It is something that I look forward to. The industry has suggested that this is a way forward to determine whether there are agronomic or economic advantages or disadvantages with GM canola. Similarly, it will give members an opportunity to resolve in their minds some of the issues about gene extensibility in brassica crops of that nature.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(3) The position of the moratorium is a policy position. As every member in this house understands, there are two positions regarding the regulation of genetically modified organisms in this state. Of most concern to members of this house is the legal position. The legal position is as stated in the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003. I make that point because there is a distinction between the legal position and the policy position. The moratorium does not exist within the framework of the legal position; nor does the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 refer in any part to the moratorium. The moratorium is a policy position of government and derives from the policy position of the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party has determined its policy position to be that, for the term of this government, the moratorium on growing genetically modified crops can continue. There are two distinct legs to the policy. Hon Anthony Fels : What about in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : We would like to try to bind Victoria under our jurisdiction, but Mr Bracks has been strangely resistant to that idea. The member asked when the policy position will be considered. It will be considered within the Australian Labor Party between now and the next election. Hon Bruce Donaldson : At the state conference next week? Hon KIM CHANCE : No, I do not think that is possible, although, as members are aware, one can never fully anticipate what will happen at a state conference. The answer is: not that I know of or have any plans for. Consultation would occur to the extent that a major political party would normally consult with stakeholders in the formation of its policy. As members are aware, that does not take the formal structure of a government consulting; it is the way a major party consults, which is somewhat different. The reason that I went into the legal position and the policy position related to the third part of the question pertaining to Esperance is that at the moment the indications are that shortly I am to receive a formal application from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association for a semi-commercial trial of GM canola to be grown in Esperance. That was indicated to me to be the industry’s desire. Industry suggested to me that I should nominate an area where the trial would cause less of an issue for the government. I did suggest the Esperance area because the logistics and the separation of the port etc would work better there. However, I told industry that it would have to put a case together that might convince the government to reconsider its position. I understand that I am to receive an application to grow a small-scale trial, 2.14 hectares, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Department of Agriculture and Food’s land. I have indicated that I am not averse to that application coming forward. We could learn a great deal from a trial. The size of the trial, 2.14 hectares, fits my definition of a small-scale trial, which is within policy; it is not outside policy. It is something that I look forward to. The industry has suggested that this is a way forward to determine whether there are agronomic or economic advantages or disadvantages with GM canola. Similarly, it will give members an opportunity to resolve in their minds some of the issues about gene extensibility in brassica crops of that nature.
(1)-(3) The position of the moratorium is a policy position. As every member in this house understands, there are two positions regarding the regulation of genetically modified organisms in this state. Of most concern to members of this house is the legal position. The legal position is as stated in the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003. I make that point because there is a distinction between the legal position and the policy position. The moratorium does not exist within the framework of the legal position; nor does the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 refer in any part to the moratorium. The moratorium is a policy position of government and derives from the policy position of the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party has determined its policy position to be that, for the term of this government, the moratorium on growing genetically modified crops can continue. There are two distinct legs to the policy. Hon Anthony Fels : What about in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : We would like to try to bind Victoria under our jurisdiction, but Mr Bracks has been strangely resistant to that idea. The member asked when the policy position will be considered. It will be considered within the Australian Labor Party between now and the next election. Hon Bruce Donaldson : At the state conference next week? Hon KIM CHANCE : No, I do not think that is possible, although, as members are aware, one can never fully anticipate what will happen at a state conference. The answer is: not that I know of or have any plans for. Consultation would occur to the extent that a major political party would normally consult with stakeholders in the formation of its policy. As members are aware, that does not take the formal structure of a government consulting; it is the way a major party consults, which is somewhat different. The reason that I went into the legal position and the policy position related to the third part of the question pertaining to Esperance is that at the moment the indications are that shortly I am to receive a formal application from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association for a semi-commercial trial of GM canola to be grown in Esperance. That was indicated to me to be the industry’s desire. Industry suggested to me that I should nominate an area where the trial would cause less of an issue for the government. I did suggest the Esperance area because the logistics and the separation of the port etc would work better there. However, I told industry that it would have to put a case together that might convince the government to reconsider its position. I understand that I am to receive an application to grow a small-scale trial, 2.14 hectares, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Department of Agriculture and Food’s land. I have indicated that I am not averse to that application coming forward. We could learn a great deal from a trial. The size of the trial, 2.14 hectares, fits my definition of a small-scale trial, which is within policy; it is not outside policy. It is something that I look forward to. The industry has suggested that this is a way forward to determine whether there are agronomic or economic advantages or disadvantages with GM canola. Similarly, it will give members an opportunity to resolve in their minds some of the issues about gene extensibility in brassica crops of that nature.
Hon Anthony Fels : What about in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : We would like to try to bind Victoria under our jurisdiction, but Mr Bracks has been strangely resistant to that idea. The member asked when the policy position will be considered. It will be considered within the Australian Labor Party between now and the next election. Hon Bruce Donaldson : At the state conference next week? Hon KIM CHANCE : No, I do not think that is possible, although, as members are aware, one can never fully anticipate what will happen at a state conference. The answer is: not that I know of or have any plans for. Consultation would occur to the extent that a major political party would normally consult with stakeholders in the formation of its policy. As members are aware, that does not take the formal structure of a government consulting; it is the way a major party consults, which is somewhat different. The reason that I went into the legal position and the policy position related to the third part of the question pertaining to Esperance is that at the moment the indications are that shortly I am to receive a formal application from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association for a semi-commercial trial of GM canola to be grown in Esperance. That was indicated to me to be the industry’s desire. Industry suggested to me that I should nominate an area where the trial would cause less of an issue for the government. I did suggest the Esperance area because the logistics and the separation of the port etc would work better there. However, I told industry that it would have to put a case together that might convince the government to reconsider its position. I understand that I am to receive an application to grow a small-scale trial, 2.14 hectares, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Department of Agriculture and Food’s land. I have indicated that I am not averse to that application coming forward. We could learn a great deal from a trial. The size of the trial, 2.14 hectares, fits my definition of a small-scale trial, which is within policy; it is not outside policy. It is something that I look forward to. The industry has suggested that this is a way forward to determine whether there are agronomic or economic advantages or disadvantages with GM canola. Similarly, it will give members an opportunity to resolve in their minds some of the issues about gene extensibility in brassica crops of that nature.
Hon KIM CHANCE : We would like to try to bind Victoria under our jurisdiction, but Mr Bracks has been strangely resistant to that idea. The member asked when the policy position will be considered. It will be considered within the Australian Labor Party between now and the next election. Hon Bruce Donaldson : At the state conference next week? Hon KIM CHANCE : No, I do not think that is possible, although, as members are aware, one can never fully anticipate what will happen at a state conference. The answer is: not that I know of or have any plans for. Consultation would occur to the extent that a major political party would normally consult with stakeholders in the formation of its policy. As members are aware, that does not take the formal structure of a government consulting; it is the way a major party consults, which is somewhat different. The reason that I went into the legal position and the policy position related to the third part of the question pertaining to Esperance is that at the moment the indications are that shortly I am to receive a formal application from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association for a semi-commercial trial of GM canola to be grown in Esperance. That was indicated to me to be the industry’s desire. Industry suggested to me that I should nominate an area where the trial would cause less of an issue for the government. I did suggest the Esperance area because the logistics and the separation of the port etc would work better there. However, I told industry that it would have to put a case together that might convince the government to reconsider its position. I understand that I am to receive an application to grow a small-scale trial, 2.14 hectares, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Department of Agriculture and Food’s land. I have indicated that I am not averse to that application coming forward. We could learn a great deal from a trial. The size of the trial, 2.14 hectares, fits my definition of a small-scale trial, which is within policy; it is not outside policy. It is something that I look forward to. The industry has suggested that this is a way forward to determine whether there are agronomic or economic advantages or disadvantages with GM canola. Similarly, it will give members an opportunity to resolve in their minds some of the issues about gene extensibility in brassica crops of that nature.
Hon Bruce Donaldson : At the state conference next week? Hon KIM CHANCE : No, I do not think that is possible, although, as members are aware, one can never fully anticipate what will happen at a state conference. The answer is: not that I know of or have any plans for. Consultation would occur to the extent that a major political party would normally consult with stakeholders in the formation of its policy. As members are aware, that does not take the formal structure of a government consulting; it is the way a major party consults, which is somewhat different. The reason that I went into the legal position and the policy position related to the third part of the question pertaining to Esperance is that at the moment the indications are that shortly I am to receive a formal application from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association for a semi-commercial trial of GM canola to be grown in Esperance. That was indicated to me to be the industry’s desire. Industry suggested to me that I should nominate an area where the trial would cause less of an issue for the government. I did suggest the Esperance area because the logistics and the separation of the port etc would work better there. However, I told industry that it would have to put a case together that might convince the government to reconsider its position. I understand that I am to receive an application to grow a small-scale trial, 2.14 hectares, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Department of Agriculture and Food’s land. I have indicated that I am not averse to that application coming forward. We could learn a great deal from a trial. The size of the trial, 2.14 hectares, fits my definition of a small-scale trial, which is within policy; it is not outside policy. It is something that I look forward to. The industry has suggested that this is a way forward to determine whether there are agronomic or economic advantages or disadvantages with GM canola. Similarly, it will give members an opportunity to resolve in their minds some of the issues about gene extensibility in brassica crops of that nature.
Hon KIM CHANCE : No, I do not think that is possible, although, as members are aware, one can never fully anticipate what will happen at a state conference. The answer is: not that I know of or have any plans for. Consultation would occur to the extent that a major political party would normally consult with stakeholders in the formation of its policy. As members are aware, that does not take the formal structure of a government consulting; it is the way a major party consults, which is somewhat different. The reason that I went into the legal position and the policy position related to the third part of the question pertaining to Esperance is that at the moment the indications are that shortly I am to receive a formal application from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association for a semi-commercial trial of GM canola to be grown in Esperance. That was indicated to me to be the industry’s desire. Industry suggested to me that I should nominate an area where the trial would cause less of an issue for the government. I did suggest the Esperance area because the logistics and the separation of the port etc would work better there. However, I told industry that it would have to put a case together that might convince the government to reconsider its position. I understand that I am to receive an application to grow a small-scale trial, 2.14 hectares, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Department of Agriculture and Food’s land. I have indicated that I am not averse to that application coming forward. We could learn a great deal from a trial. The size of the trial, 2.14 hectares, fits my definition of a small-scale trial, which is within policy; it is not outside policy. It is something that I look forward to. The industry has suggested that this is a way forward to determine whether there are agronomic or economic advantages or disadvantages with GM canola. Similarly, it will give members an opportunity to resolve in their minds some of the issues about gene extensibility in brassica crops of that nature.
Consultation would occur to the extent that a major political party would normally consult with stakeholders in the formation of its policy. As members are aware, that does not take the formal structure of a government consulting; it is the way a major party consults, which is somewhat different. The reason that I went into the legal position and the policy position related to the third part of the question pertaining to Esperance is that at the moment the indications are that shortly I am to receive a formal application from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association for a semi-commercial trial of GM canola to be grown in Esperance. That was indicated to me to be the industry’s desire. Industry suggested to me that I should nominate an area where the trial would cause less of an issue for the government. I did suggest the Esperance area because the logistics and the separation of the port etc would work better there. However, I told industry that it would have to put a case together that might convince the government to reconsider its position. I understand that I am to receive an application to grow a small-scale trial, 2.14 hectares, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Department of Agriculture and Food’s land. I have indicated that I am not averse to that application coming forward. We could learn a great deal from a trial. The size of the trial, 2.14 hectares, fits my definition of a small-scale trial, which is within policy; it is not outside policy. It is something that I look forward to. The industry has suggested that this is a way forward to determine whether there are agronomic or economic advantages or disadvantages with GM canola. Similarly, it will give members an opportunity to resolve in their minds some of the issues about gene extensibility in brassica crops of that nature.
The reason that I went into the legal position and the policy position related to the third part of the question pertaining to Esperance is that at the moment the indications are that shortly I am to receive a formal application from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association for a semi-commercial trial of GM canola to be grown in Esperance. That was indicated to me to be the industry’s desire. Industry suggested to me that I should nominate an area where the trial would cause less of an issue for the government. I did suggest the Esperance area because the logistics and the separation of the port etc would work better there. However, I told industry that it would have to put a case together that might convince the government to reconsider its position. I understand that I am to receive an application to grow a small-scale trial, 2.14 hectares, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Department of Agriculture and Food’s land. I have indicated that I am not averse to that application coming forward. We could learn a great deal from a trial. The size of the trial, 2.14 hectares, fits my definition of a small-scale trial, which is within policy; it is not outside policy. It is something that I look forward to. The industry has suggested that this is a way forward to determine whether there are agronomic or economic advantages or disadvantages with GM canola. Similarly, it will give members an opportunity to resolve in their minds some of the issues about gene extensibility in brassica crops of that nature.
(1) When in the calendar year of 2008 will this review commence? (2) What will the consultation process of stakeholders involve? (3) Will this review consider the growing of GM canola commercially in the Esperance region as a priority opportunity? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(3) The position of the moratorium is a policy position. As every member in this house understands, there are two positions regarding the regulation of genetically modified organisms in this state. Of most concern to members of this house is the legal position. The legal position is as stated in the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003. I make that point because there is a distinction between the legal position and the policy position. The moratorium does not exist within the framework of the legal position; nor does the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 refer in any part to the moratorium. The moratorium is a policy position of government and derives from the policy position of the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party has determined its policy position to be that, for the term of this government, the moratorium on growing genetically modified crops can continue. There are two distinct legs to the policy. Hon Anthony Fels : What about in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : We would like to try to bind Victoria under our jurisdiction, but Mr Bracks has been strangely resistant to that idea. The member asked when the policy position will be considered. It will be considered within the Australian Labor Party between now and the next election. Hon Bruce Donaldson : At the state conference next week? Hon KIM CHANCE : No, I do not think that is possible, although, as members are aware, one can never fully anticipate what will happen at a state conference. The answer is: not that I know of or have any plans for. Consultation would occur to the extent that a major political party would normally consult with stakeholders in the formation of its policy. As members are aware, that does not take the formal structure of a government consulting; it is the way a major party consults, which is somewhat different. The reason that I went into the legal position and the policy position related to the third part of the question pertaining to Esperance is that at the moment the indications are that shortly I am to receive a formal application from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association for a semi-commercial trial of GM canola to be grown in Esperance. That was indicated to me to be the industry’s desire. Industry suggested to me that I should nominate an area where the trial would cause less of an issue for the government. I did suggest the Esperance area because the logistics and the separation of the port etc would work better there. However, I told industry that it would have to put a case together that might convince the government to reconsider its position. I understand that I am to receive an application to grow a small-scale trial, 2.14 hectares, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Department of Agriculture and Food’s land. I have indicated that I am not averse to that application coming forward. We could learn a great deal from a trial. The size of the trial, 2.14 hectares, fits my definition of a small-scale trial, which is within policy; it is not outside policy. It is something that I look forward to. The industry has suggested that this is a way forward to determine whether there are agronomic or economic advantages or disadvantages with GM canola. Similarly, it will give members an opportunity to resolve in their minds some of the issues about gene extensibility in brassica crops of that nature.
(2) What will the consultation process of stakeholders involve? (3) Will this review consider the growing of GM canola commercially in the Esperance region as a priority opportunity? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(3) The position of the moratorium is a policy position. As every member in this house understands, there are two positions regarding the regulation of genetically modified organisms in this state. Of most concern to members of this house is the legal position. The legal position is as stated in the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003. I make that point because there is a distinction between the legal position and the policy position. The moratorium does not exist within the framework of the legal position; nor does the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 refer in any part to the moratorium. The moratorium is a policy position of government and derives from the policy position of the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party has determined its policy position to be that, for the term of this government, the moratorium on growing genetically modified crops can continue. There are two distinct legs to the policy. Hon Anthony Fels : What about in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : We would like to try to bind Victoria under our jurisdiction, but Mr Bracks has been strangely resistant to that idea. The member asked when the policy position will be considered. It will be considered within the Australian Labor Party between now and the next election. Hon Bruce Donaldson : At the state conference next week? Hon KIM CHANCE : No, I do not think that is possible, although, as members are aware, one can never fully anticipate what will happen at a state conference. The answer is: not that I know of or have any plans for. Consultation would occur to the extent that a major political party would normally consult with stakeholders in the formation of its policy. As members are aware, that does not take the formal structure of a government consulting; it is the way a major party consults, which is somewhat different. The reason that I went into the legal position and the policy position related to the third part of the question pertaining to Esperance is that at the moment the indications are that shortly I am to receive a formal application from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association for a semi-commercial trial of GM canola to be grown in Esperance. That was indicated to me to be the industry’s desire. Industry suggested to me that I should nominate an area where the trial would cause less of an issue for the government. I did suggest the Esperance area because the logistics and the separation of the port etc would work better there. However, I told industry that it would have to put a case together that might convince the government to reconsider its position. I understand that I am to receive an application to grow a small-scale trial, 2.14 hectares, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Department of Agriculture and Food’s land. I have indicated that I am not averse to that application coming forward. We could learn a great deal from a trial. The size of the trial, 2.14 hectares, fits my definition of a small-scale trial, which is within policy; it is not outside policy. It is something that I look forward to. The industry has suggested that this is a way forward to determine whether there are agronomic or economic advantages or disadvantages with GM canola. Similarly, it will give members an opportunity to resolve in their minds some of the issues about gene extensibility in brassica crops of that nature.
(3) Will this review consider the growing of GM canola commercially in the Esperance region as a priority opportunity? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(3) The position of the moratorium is a policy position. As every member in this house understands, there are two positions regarding the regulation of genetically modified organisms in this state. Of most concern to members of this house is the legal position. The legal position is as stated in the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003. I make that point because there is a distinction between the legal position and the policy position. The moratorium does not exist within the framework of the legal position; nor does the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 refer in any part to the moratorium. The moratorium is a policy position of government and derives from the policy position of the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party has determined its policy position to be that, for the term of this government, the moratorium on growing genetically modified crops can continue. There are two distinct legs to the policy. Hon Anthony Fels : What about in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : We would like to try to bind Victoria under our jurisdiction, but Mr Bracks has been strangely resistant to that idea. The member asked when the policy position will be considered. It will be considered within the Australian Labor Party between now and the next election. Hon Bruce Donaldson : At the state conference next week? Hon KIM CHANCE : No, I do not think that is possible, although, as members are aware, one can never fully anticipate what will happen at a state conference. The answer is: not that I know of or have any plans for. Consultation would occur to the extent that a major political party would normally consult with stakeholders in the formation of its policy. As members are aware, that does not take the formal structure of a government consulting; it is the way a major party consults, which is somewhat different. The reason that I went into the legal position and the policy position related to the third part of the question pertaining to Esperance is that at the moment the indications are that shortly I am to receive a formal application from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association for a semi-commercial trial of GM canola to be grown in Esperance. That was indicated to me to be the industry’s desire. Industry suggested to me that I should nominate an area where the trial would cause less of an issue for the government. I did suggest the Esperance area because the logistics and the separation of the port etc would work better there. However, I told industry that it would have to put a case together that might convince the government to reconsider its position. I understand that I am to receive an application to grow a small-scale trial, 2.14 hectares, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Department of Agriculture and Food’s land. I have indicated that I am not averse to that application coming forward. We could learn a great deal from a trial. The size of the trial, 2.14 hectares, fits my definition of a small-scale trial, which is within policy; it is not outside policy. It is something that I look forward to. The industry has suggested that this is a way forward to determine whether there are agronomic or economic advantages or disadvantages with GM canola. Similarly, it will give members an opportunity to resolve in their minds some of the issues about gene extensibility in brassica crops of that nature.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(3) The position of the moratorium is a policy position. As every member in this house understands, there are two positions regarding the regulation of genetically modified organisms in this state. Of most concern to members of this house is the legal position. The legal position is as stated in the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003. I make that point because there is a distinction between the legal position and the policy position. The moratorium does not exist within the framework of the legal position; nor does the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 refer in any part to the moratorium. The moratorium is a policy position of government and derives from the policy position of the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party has determined its policy position to be that, for the term of this government, the moratorium on growing genetically modified crops can continue. There are two distinct legs to the policy. Hon Anthony Fels : What about in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : We would like to try to bind Victoria under our jurisdiction, but Mr Bracks has been strangely resistant to that idea. The member asked when the policy position will be considered. It will be considered within the Australian Labor Party between now and the next election. Hon Bruce Donaldson : At the state conference next week? Hon KIM CHANCE : No, I do not think that is possible, although, as members are aware, one can never fully anticipate what will happen at a state conference. The answer is: not that I know of or have any plans for. Consultation would occur to the extent that a major political party would normally consult with stakeholders in the formation of its policy. As members are aware, that does not take the formal structure of a government consulting; it is the way a major party consults, which is somewhat different. The reason that I went into the legal position and the policy position related to the third part of the question pertaining to Esperance is that at the moment the indications are that shortly I am to receive a formal application from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association for a semi-commercial trial of GM canola to be grown in Esperance. That was indicated to me to be the industry’s desire. Industry suggested to me that I should nominate an area where the trial would cause less of an issue for the government. I did suggest the Esperance area because the logistics and the separation of the port etc would work better there. However, I told industry that it would have to put a case together that might convince the government to reconsider its position. I understand that I am to receive an application to grow a small-scale trial, 2.14 hectares, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Department of Agriculture and Food’s land. I have indicated that I am not averse to that application coming forward. We could learn a great deal from a trial. The size of the trial, 2.14 hectares, fits my definition of a small-scale trial, which is within policy; it is not outside policy. It is something that I look forward to. The industry has suggested that this is a way forward to determine whether there are agronomic or economic advantages or disadvantages with GM canola. Similarly, it will give members an opportunity to resolve in their minds some of the issues about gene extensibility in brassica crops of that nature.
(1)-(3) The position of the moratorium is a policy position. As every member in this house understands, there are two positions regarding the regulation of genetically modified organisms in this state. Of most concern to members of this house is the legal position. The legal position is as stated in the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003. I make that point because there is a distinction between the legal position and the policy position. The moratorium does not exist within the framework of the legal position; nor does the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 refer in any part to the moratorium. The moratorium is a policy position of government and derives from the policy position of the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party has determined its policy position to be that, for the term of this government, the moratorium on growing genetically modified crops can continue. There are two distinct legs to the policy. Hon Anthony Fels : What about in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : We would like to try to bind Victoria under our jurisdiction, but Mr Bracks has been strangely resistant to that idea. The member asked when the policy position will be considered. It will be considered within the Australian Labor Party between now and the next election. Hon Bruce Donaldson : At the state conference next week? Hon KIM CHANCE : No, I do not think that is possible, although, as members are aware, one can never fully anticipate what will happen at a state conference. The answer is: not that I know of or have any plans for. Consultation would occur to the extent that a major political party would normally consult with stakeholders in the formation of its policy. As members are aware, that does not take the formal structure of a government consulting; it is the way a major party consults, which is somewhat different. The reason that I went into the legal position and the policy position related to the third part of the question pertaining to Esperance is that at the moment the indications are that shortly I am to receive a formal application from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association for a semi-commercial trial of GM canola to be grown in Esperance. That was indicated to me to be the industry’s desire. Industry suggested to me that I should nominate an area where the trial would cause less of an issue for the government. I did suggest the Esperance area because the logistics and the separation of the port etc would work better there. However, I told industry that it would have to put a case together that might convince the government to reconsider its position. I understand that I am to receive an application to grow a small-scale trial, 2.14 hectares, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Department of Agriculture and Food’s land. I have indicated that I am not averse to that application coming forward. We could learn a great deal from a trial. The size of the trial, 2.14 hectares, fits my definition of a small-scale trial, which is within policy; it is not outside policy. It is something that I look forward to. The industry has suggested that this is a way forward to determine whether there are agronomic or economic advantages or disadvantages with GM canola. Similarly, it will give members an opportunity to resolve in their minds some of the issues about gene extensibility in brassica crops of that nature.
Hon Anthony Fels : What about in Victoria? Hon KIM CHANCE : We would like to try to bind Victoria under our jurisdiction, but Mr Bracks has been strangely resistant to that idea. The member asked when the policy position will be considered. It will be considered within the Australian Labor Party between now and the next election. Hon Bruce Donaldson : At the state conference next week? Hon KIM CHANCE : No, I do not think that is possible, although, as members are aware, one can never fully anticipate what will happen at a state conference. The answer is: not that I know of or have any plans for. Consultation would occur to the extent that a major political party would normally consult with stakeholders in the formation of its policy. As members are aware, that does not take the formal structure of a government consulting; it is the way a major party consults, which is somewhat different. The reason that I went into the legal position and the policy position related to the third part of the question pertaining to Esperance is that at the moment the indications are that shortly I am to receive a formal application from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association for a semi-commercial trial of GM canola to be grown in Esperance. That was indicated to me to be the industry’s desire. Industry suggested to me that I should nominate an area where the trial would cause less of an issue for the government. I did suggest the Esperance area because the logistics and the separation of the port etc would work better there. However, I told industry that it would have to put a case together that might convince the government to reconsider its position. I understand that I am to receive an application to grow a small-scale trial, 2.14 hectares, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Department of Agriculture and Food’s land. I have indicated that I am not averse to that application coming forward. We could learn a great deal from a trial. The size of the trial, 2.14 hectares, fits my definition of a small-scale trial, which is within policy; it is not outside policy. It is something that I look forward to. The industry has suggested that this is a way forward to determine whether there are agronomic or economic advantages or disadvantages with GM canola. Similarly, it will give members an opportunity to resolve in their minds some of the issues about gene extensibility in brassica crops of that nature.
Hon KIM CHANCE : We would like to try to bind Victoria under our jurisdiction, but Mr Bracks has been strangely resistant to that idea. The member asked when the policy position will be considered. It will be considered within the Australian Labor Party between now and the next election. Hon Bruce Donaldson : At the state conference next week? Hon KIM CHANCE : No, I do not think that is possible, although, as members are aware, one can never fully anticipate what will happen at a state conference. The answer is: not that I know of or have any plans for. Consultation would occur to the extent that a major political party would normally consult with stakeholders in the formation of its policy. As members are aware, that does not take the formal structure of a government consulting; it is the way a major party consults, which is somewhat different. The reason that I went into the legal position and the policy position related to the third part of the question pertaining to Esperance is that at the moment the indications are that shortly I am to receive a formal application from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association for a semi-commercial trial of GM canola to be grown in Esperance. That was indicated to me to be the industry’s desire. Industry suggested to me that I should nominate an area where the trial would cause less of an issue for the government. I did suggest the Esperance area because the logistics and the separation of the port etc would work better there. However, I told industry that it would have to put a case together that might convince the government to reconsider its position. I understand that I am to receive an application to grow a small-scale trial, 2.14 hectares, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Department of Agriculture and Food’s land. I have indicated that I am not averse to that application coming forward. We could learn a great deal from a trial. The size of the trial, 2.14 hectares, fits my definition of a small-scale trial, which is within policy; it is not outside policy. It is something that I look forward to. The industry has suggested that this is a way forward to determine whether there are agronomic or economic advantages or disadvantages with GM canola. Similarly, it will give members an opportunity to resolve in their minds some of the issues about gene extensibility in brassica crops of that nature.
Hon Bruce Donaldson : At the state conference next week? Hon KIM CHANCE : No, I do not think that is possible, although, as members are aware, one can never fully anticipate what will happen at a state conference. The answer is: not that I know of or have any plans for. Consultation would occur to the extent that a major political party would normally consult with stakeholders in the formation of its policy. As members are aware, that does not take the formal structure of a government consulting; it is the way a major party consults, which is somewhat different. The reason that I went into the legal position and the policy position related to the third part of the question pertaining to Esperance is that at the moment the indications are that shortly I am to receive a formal application from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association for a semi-commercial trial of GM canola to be grown in Esperance. That was indicated to me to be the industry’s desire. Industry suggested to me that I should nominate an area where the trial would cause less of an issue for the government. I did suggest the Esperance area because the logistics and the separation of the port etc would work better there. However, I told industry that it would have to put a case together that might convince the government to reconsider its position. I understand that I am to receive an application to grow a small-scale trial, 2.14 hectares, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Department of Agriculture and Food’s land. I have indicated that I am not averse to that application coming forward. We could learn a great deal from a trial. The size of the trial, 2.14 hectares, fits my definition of a small-scale trial, which is within policy; it is not outside policy. It is something that I look forward to. The industry has suggested that this is a way forward to determine whether there are agronomic or economic advantages or disadvantages with GM canola. Similarly, it will give members an opportunity to resolve in their minds some of the issues about gene extensibility in brassica crops of that nature.
Hon KIM CHANCE : No, I do not think that is possible, although, as members are aware, one can never fully anticipate what will happen at a state conference. The answer is: not that I know of or have any plans for. Consultation would occur to the extent that a major political party would normally consult with stakeholders in the formation of its policy. As members are aware, that does not take the formal structure of a government consulting; it is the way a major party consults, which is somewhat different. The reason that I went into the legal position and the policy position related to the third part of the question pertaining to Esperance is that at the moment the indications are that shortly I am to receive a formal application from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association for a semi-commercial trial of GM canola to be grown in Esperance. That was indicated to me to be the industry’s desire. Industry suggested to me that I should nominate an area where the trial would cause less of an issue for the government. I did suggest the Esperance area because the logistics and the separation of the port etc would work better there. However, I told industry that it would have to put a case together that might convince the government to reconsider its position. I understand that I am to receive an application to grow a small-scale trial, 2.14 hectares, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Department of Agriculture and Food’s land. I have indicated that I am not averse to that application coming forward. We could learn a great deal from a trial. The size of the trial, 2.14 hectares, fits my definition of a small-scale trial, which is within policy; it is not outside policy. It is something that I look forward to. The industry has suggested that this is a way forward to determine whether there are agronomic or economic advantages or disadvantages with GM canola. Similarly, it will give members an opportunity to resolve in their minds some of the issues about gene extensibility in brassica crops of that nature.
Consultation would occur to the extent that a major political party would normally consult with stakeholders in the formation of its policy. As members are aware, that does not take the formal structure of a government consulting; it is the way a major party consults, which is somewhat different. The reason that I went into the legal position and the policy position related to the third part of the question pertaining to Esperance is that at the moment the indications are that shortly I am to receive a formal application from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association for a semi-commercial trial of GM canola to be grown in Esperance. That was indicated to me to be the industry’s desire. Industry suggested to me that I should nominate an area where the trial would cause less of an issue for the government. I did suggest the Esperance area because the logistics and the separation of the port etc would work better there. However, I told industry that it would have to put a case together that might convince the government to reconsider its position. I understand that I am to receive an application to grow a small-scale trial, 2.14 hectares, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Department of Agriculture and Food’s land. I have indicated that I am not averse to that application coming forward. We could learn a great deal from a trial. The size of the trial, 2.14 hectares, fits my definition of a small-scale trial, which is within policy; it is not outside policy. It is something that I look forward to. The industry has suggested that this is a way forward to determine whether there are agronomic or economic advantages or disadvantages with GM canola. Similarly, it will give members an opportunity to resolve in their minds some of the issues about gene extensibility in brassica crops of that nature.
The reason that I went into the legal position and the policy position related to the third part of the question pertaining to Esperance is that at the moment the indications are that shortly I am to receive a formal application from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association for a semi-commercial trial of GM canola to be grown in Esperance. That was indicated to me to be the industry’s desire. Industry suggested to me that I should nominate an area where the trial would cause less of an issue for the government. I did suggest the Esperance area because the logistics and the separation of the port etc would work better there. However, I told industry that it would have to put a case together that might convince the government to reconsider its position. I understand that I am to receive an application to grow a small-scale trial, 2.14 hectares, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Department of Agriculture and Food’s land. I have indicated that I am not averse to that application coming forward. We could learn a great deal from a trial. The size of the trial, 2.14 hectares, fits my definition of a small-scale trial, which is within policy; it is not outside policy. It is something that I look forward to. The industry has suggested that this is a way forward to determine whether there are agronomic or economic advantages or disadvantages with GM canola. Similarly, it will give members an opportunity to resolve in their minds some of the issues about gene extensibility in brassica crops of that nature.
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.