❓ A parliamentary question regarding the economic impact of WA's moratorium on genetically modified crops, referencing a controversial report and prompting a detailed response from the Minister for Agriculture and Food defending the government's policy and questioning the report's credibility.
AnsweredQoN 1237Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS - MORATORIUM
I refer to articles in The West Australian and Countryman on 29 November, which reported that a recent Melbourne University report estimates that Australian grain growers are missing out on $157 million a year for canola and wheat crops because of state moratoriums on genetically modified crops; and that Pastoralists and Graziers Association spokesman Leon Bradley had stated that Western Australian farmers were being penalised and left behind by the Carpenter government’s GM policy. (1) Will the minister, as quoted, investigate the possible introduction of tougher regulations? (2) On what basis will this decision be made, and what changes to practices and penalties are anticipated? (3) Will these be introduced through further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981; and, if so, when; and, if not, by which means? Hon KIM CHANCE
I refer to articles in The West Australian and Countryman on 29 November, which reported that a recent Melbourne University report estimates that Australian grain growers are missing out on $157 million a year for canola and wheat crops because of state moratoriums on genetically modified crops; and that Pastoralists and Graziers Association spokesman Leon Bradley had stated that Western Australian farmers were being penalised and left behind by the Carpenter government’s GM policy. (1) Will the minister, as quoted, investigate the possible introduction of tougher regulations? (2) On what basis will this decision be made, and what changes to practices and penalties are anticipated? (3) Will these be introduced through further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981; and, if so, when; and, if not, by which means? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Brian Ellis for some notice of the question. I note that the University of Melbourne report referred to by the honourable member in his question was commented on recently in the rural media. One of the authors revealed that the report had actually been paid for by the biotech companies favoured by the report. One has to ask what kind of credibility the report has. It has a University of Melbourne logo on it, and we all instinctively trust anything with a University of Melbourne logo on it, do we not? However, as the report was paid for by the biotech companies, one really has to wonder where it is coming from. I also note that Hon Brian Ellis actually changed his question slightly from the question I received in writing. The sum of $157 million apparently quoted in the report is surprising, given that one of the authors has since advised that there has been insufficient commercial testing in Australia of genetically modified crops versus non-genetically modified crops to guide any assessment of relative yields. Dr Norton actually said that - I have the transcript from the Country Hour program on ABC Radio. If the relative yields cannot be assessed, how is it possible to specify the precise figure of $157 million as the amount that Australian farmers will miss out on? Hon Anthony Fels : It’s a conservative estimate. Hon KIM CHANCE : It may be. However, members will be interested to know that one of the world’s largest farming companies, Twynam Group, which has some 14 properties in New South Wales and Victoria as well as extensive landholdings in South America - in fact, it is a big GM grower in South America - has done its own numbers on growing GM canola on its properties in New South Wales and Victoria and has said, “We’re not going to do it; the money just isn’t there. You cannot make a margin of profit with GM canola in New South Wales and Victoria.” It is therefore actually questionable whether the amount of $157 million stands up. It was also interesting that one of the authors of the report said that a comparative assessment could not yet be made. So where did the figure of $157 million come from, or the even more extraordinary figures of 30 per cent and 40 per cent yield gains? These percentages did not actually appear in the report at all; they were part of a later media statement. I also note the inclusion of wheat in the honourable member’s question. I am somewhat mystified by that, because there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world, for the reason that consumers absolutely reject it. The biggest milling company in the United States will not touch GM wheat. However, I return to the honourable member’s questions. (1) Yes. I will investigate measures for tougher regulations in Western Australia as a result of Victoria and New South Wales lifting their moratoria, and the threat this poses to Western Australia’s overseas markets. It should be noted that Western Australia is not being left behind, as non-GM canola is achieving a price premium of $50 per tonne over Canadian GM canola in the Japanese market - some -4 870 per tonne, which I think is actually closer to $70. As I said, there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world. (2) Honourable members will be aware that this is consistent with the government’s election commitment to prohibit the commercial cultivation of all GM crops. This policy will be reviewed in advance of the 2009 election. To facilitate that review, I have established a ministerial industry reference group. The group is working through all the issues that government and the community will need to face. (3) In August I introduced the Seeds Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments are not specific to GM issues, but may be used to assist in maintaining the integrity of the moratorium and in preserving the “clean and green” image of Western Australian agriculture. No further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981 are contemplated at this time.
(1) Will the minister, as quoted, investigate the possible introduction of tougher regulations? (2) On what basis will this decision be made, and what changes to practices and penalties are anticipated? (3) Will these be introduced through further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981; and, if so, when; and, if not, by which means? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Brian Ellis for some notice of the question. I note that the University of Melbourne report referred to by the honourable member in his question was commented on recently in the rural media. One of the authors revealed that the report had actually been paid for by the biotech companies favoured by the report. One has to ask what kind of credibility the report has. It has a University of Melbourne logo on it, and we all instinctively trust anything with a University of Melbourne logo on it, do we not? However, as the report was paid for by the biotech companies, one really has to wonder where it is coming from. I also note that Hon Brian Ellis actually changed his question slightly from the question I received in writing. The sum of $157 million apparently quoted in the report is surprising, given that one of the authors has since advised that there has been insufficient commercial testing in Australia of genetically modified crops versus non-genetically modified crops to guide any assessment of relative yields. Dr Norton actually said that - I have the transcript from the Country Hour program on ABC Radio. If the relative yields cannot be assessed, how is it possible to specify the precise figure of $157 million as the amount that Australian farmers will miss out on? Hon Anthony Fels : It’s a conservative estimate. Hon KIM CHANCE : It may be. However, members will be interested to know that one of the world’s largest farming companies, Twynam Group, which has some 14 properties in New South Wales and Victoria as well as extensive landholdings in South America - in fact, it is a big GM grower in South America - has done its own numbers on growing GM canola on its properties in New South Wales and Victoria and has said, “We’re not going to do it; the money just isn’t there. You cannot make a margin of profit with GM canola in New South Wales and Victoria.” It is therefore actually questionable whether the amount of $157 million stands up. It was also interesting that one of the authors of the report said that a comparative assessment could not yet be made. So where did the figure of $157 million come from, or the even more extraordinary figures of 30 per cent and 40 per cent yield gains? These percentages did not actually appear in the report at all; they were part of a later media statement. I also note the inclusion of wheat in the honourable member’s question. I am somewhat mystified by that, because there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world, for the reason that consumers absolutely reject it. The biggest milling company in the United States will not touch GM wheat. However, I return to the honourable member’s questions. (1) Yes. I will investigate measures for tougher regulations in Western Australia as a result of Victoria and New South Wales lifting their moratoria, and the threat this poses to Western Australia’s overseas markets. It should be noted that Western Australia is not being left behind, as non-GM canola is achieving a price premium of $50 per tonne over Canadian GM canola in the Japanese market - some -4 870 per tonne, which I think is actually closer to $70. As I said, there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world. (2) Honourable members will be aware that this is consistent with the government’s election commitment to prohibit the commercial cultivation of all GM crops. This policy will be reviewed in advance of the 2009 election. To facilitate that review, I have established a ministerial industry reference group. The group is working through all the issues that government and the community will need to face. (3) In August I introduced the Seeds Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments are not specific to GM issues, but may be used to assist in maintaining the integrity of the moratorium and in preserving the “clean and green” image of Western Australian agriculture. No further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981 are contemplated at this time.
(2) On what basis will this decision be made, and what changes to practices and penalties are anticipated? (3) Will these be introduced through further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981; and, if so, when; and, if not, by which means? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Brian Ellis for some notice of the question. I note that the University of Melbourne report referred to by the honourable member in his question was commented on recently in the rural media. One of the authors revealed that the report had actually been paid for by the biotech companies favoured by the report. One has to ask what kind of credibility the report has. It has a University of Melbourne logo on it, and we all instinctively trust anything with a University of Melbourne logo on it, do we not? However, as the report was paid for by the biotech companies, one really has to wonder where it is coming from. I also note that Hon Brian Ellis actually changed his question slightly from the question I received in writing. The sum of $157 million apparently quoted in the report is surprising, given that one of the authors has since advised that there has been insufficient commercial testing in Australia of genetically modified crops versus non-genetically modified crops to guide any assessment of relative yields. Dr Norton actually said that - I have the transcript from the Country Hour program on ABC Radio. If the relative yields cannot be assessed, how is it possible to specify the precise figure of $157 million as the amount that Australian farmers will miss out on? Hon Anthony Fels : It’s a conservative estimate. Hon KIM CHANCE : It may be. However, members will be interested to know that one of the world’s largest farming companies, Twynam Group, which has some 14 properties in New South Wales and Victoria as well as extensive landholdings in South America - in fact, it is a big GM grower in South America - has done its own numbers on growing GM canola on its properties in New South Wales and Victoria and has said, “We’re not going to do it; the money just isn’t there. You cannot make a margin of profit with GM canola in New South Wales and Victoria.” It is therefore actually questionable whether the amount of $157 million stands up. It was also interesting that one of the authors of the report said that a comparative assessment could not yet be made. So where did the figure of $157 million come from, or the even more extraordinary figures of 30 per cent and 40 per cent yield gains? These percentages did not actually appear in the report at all; they were part of a later media statement. I also note the inclusion of wheat in the honourable member’s question. I am somewhat mystified by that, because there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world, for the reason that consumers absolutely reject it. The biggest milling company in the United States will not touch GM wheat. However, I return to the honourable member’s questions. (1) Yes. I will investigate measures for tougher regulations in Western Australia as a result of Victoria and New South Wales lifting their moratoria, and the threat this poses to Western Australia’s overseas markets. It should be noted that Western Australia is not being left behind, as non-GM canola is achieving a price premium of $50 per tonne over Canadian GM canola in the Japanese market - some -4 870 per tonne, which I think is actually closer to $70. As I said, there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world. (2) Honourable members will be aware that this is consistent with the government’s election commitment to prohibit the commercial cultivation of all GM crops. This policy will be reviewed in advance of the 2009 election. To facilitate that review, I have established a ministerial industry reference group. The group is working through all the issues that government and the community will need to face. (3) In August I introduced the Seeds Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments are not specific to GM issues, but may be used to assist in maintaining the integrity of the moratorium and in preserving the “clean and green” image of Western Australian agriculture. No further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981 are contemplated at this time.
(3) Will these be introduced through further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981; and, if so, when; and, if not, by which means? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Brian Ellis for some notice of the question. I note that the University of Melbourne report referred to by the honourable member in his question was commented on recently in the rural media. One of the authors revealed that the report had actually been paid for by the biotech companies favoured by the report. One has to ask what kind of credibility the report has. It has a University of Melbourne logo on it, and we all instinctively trust anything with a University of Melbourne logo on it, do we not? However, as the report was paid for by the biotech companies, one really has to wonder where it is coming from. I also note that Hon Brian Ellis actually changed his question slightly from the question I received in writing. The sum of $157 million apparently quoted in the report is surprising, given that one of the authors has since advised that there has been insufficient commercial testing in Australia of genetically modified crops versus non-genetically modified crops to guide any assessment of relative yields. Dr Norton actually said that - I have the transcript from the Country Hour program on ABC Radio. If the relative yields cannot be assessed, how is it possible to specify the precise figure of $157 million as the amount that Australian farmers will miss out on? Hon Anthony Fels : It’s a conservative estimate. Hon KIM CHANCE : It may be. However, members will be interested to know that one of the world’s largest farming companies, Twynam Group, which has some 14 properties in New South Wales and Victoria as well as extensive landholdings in South America - in fact, it is a big GM grower in South America - has done its own numbers on growing GM canola on its properties in New South Wales and Victoria and has said, “We’re not going to do it; the money just isn’t there. You cannot make a margin of profit with GM canola in New South Wales and Victoria.” It is therefore actually questionable whether the amount of $157 million stands up. It was also interesting that one of the authors of the report said that a comparative assessment could not yet be made. So where did the figure of $157 million come from, or the even more extraordinary figures of 30 per cent and 40 per cent yield gains? These percentages did not actually appear in the report at all; they were part of a later media statement. I also note the inclusion of wheat in the honourable member’s question. I am somewhat mystified by that, because there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world, for the reason that consumers absolutely reject it. The biggest milling company in the United States will not touch GM wheat. However, I return to the honourable member’s questions. (1) Yes. I will investigate measures for tougher regulations in Western Australia as a result of Victoria and New South Wales lifting their moratoria, and the threat this poses to Western Australia’s overseas markets. It should be noted that Western Australia is not being left behind, as non-GM canola is achieving a price premium of $50 per tonne over Canadian GM canola in the Japanese market - some -4 870 per tonne, which I think is actually closer to $70. As I said, there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world. (2) Honourable members will be aware that this is consistent with the government’s election commitment to prohibit the commercial cultivation of all GM crops. This policy will be reviewed in advance of the 2009 election. To facilitate that review, I have established a ministerial industry reference group. The group is working through all the issues that government and the community will need to face. (3) In August I introduced the Seeds Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments are not specific to GM issues, but may be used to assist in maintaining the integrity of the moratorium and in preserving the “clean and green” image of Western Australian agriculture. No further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981 are contemplated at this time.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Brian Ellis for some notice of the question. I note that the University of Melbourne report referred to by the honourable member in his question was commented on recently in the rural media. One of the authors revealed that the report had actually been paid for by the biotech companies favoured by the report. One has to ask what kind of credibility the report has. It has a University of Melbourne logo on it, and we all instinctively trust anything with a University of Melbourne logo on it, do we not? However, as the report was paid for by the biotech companies, one really has to wonder where it is coming from. I also note that Hon Brian Ellis actually changed his question slightly from the question I received in writing. The sum of $157 million apparently quoted in the report is surprising, given that one of the authors has since advised that there has been insufficient commercial testing in Australia of genetically modified crops versus non-genetically modified crops to guide any assessment of relative yields. Dr Norton actually said that - I have the transcript from the Country Hour program on ABC Radio. If the relative yields cannot be assessed, how is it possible to specify the precise figure of $157 million as the amount that Australian farmers will miss out on? Hon Anthony Fels : It’s a conservative estimate. Hon KIM CHANCE : It may be. However, members will be interested to know that one of the world’s largest farming companies, Twynam Group, which has some 14 properties in New South Wales and Victoria as well as extensive landholdings in South America - in fact, it is a big GM grower in South America - has done its own numbers on growing GM canola on its properties in New South Wales and Victoria and has said, “We’re not going to do it; the money just isn’t there. You cannot make a margin of profit with GM canola in New South Wales and Victoria.” It is therefore actually questionable whether the amount of $157 million stands up. It was also interesting that one of the authors of the report said that a comparative assessment could not yet be made. So where did the figure of $157 million come from, or the even more extraordinary figures of 30 per cent and 40 per cent yield gains? These percentages did not actually appear in the report at all; they were part of a later media statement. I also note the inclusion of wheat in the honourable member’s question. I am somewhat mystified by that, because there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world, for the reason that consumers absolutely reject it. The biggest milling company in the United States will not touch GM wheat. However, I return to the honourable member’s questions. (1) Yes. I will investigate measures for tougher regulations in Western Australia as a result of Victoria and New South Wales lifting their moratoria, and the threat this poses to Western Australia’s overseas markets. It should be noted that Western Australia is not being left behind, as non-GM canola is achieving a price premium of $50 per tonne over Canadian GM canola in the Japanese market - some -4 870 per tonne, which I think is actually closer to $70. As I said, there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world. (2) Honourable members will be aware that this is consistent with the government’s election commitment to prohibit the commercial cultivation of all GM crops. This policy will be reviewed in advance of the 2009 election. To facilitate that review, I have established a ministerial industry reference group. The group is working through all the issues that government and the community will need to face. (3) In August I introduced the Seeds Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments are not specific to GM issues, but may be used to assist in maintaining the integrity of the moratorium and in preserving the “clean and green” image of Western Australian agriculture. No further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981 are contemplated at this time.
I thank Hon Brian Ellis for some notice of the question. I note that the University of Melbourne report referred to by the honourable member in his question was commented on recently in the rural media. One of the authors revealed that the report had actually been paid for by the biotech companies favoured by the report. One has to ask what kind of credibility the report has. It has a University of Melbourne logo on it, and we all instinctively trust anything with a University of Melbourne logo on it, do we not? However, as the report was paid for by the biotech companies, one really has to wonder where it is coming from. I also note that Hon Brian Ellis actually changed his question slightly from the question I received in writing. The sum of $157 million apparently quoted in the report is surprising, given that one of the authors has since advised that there has been insufficient commercial testing in Australia of genetically modified crops versus non-genetically modified crops to guide any assessment of relative yields. Dr Norton actually said that - I have the transcript from the Country Hour program on ABC Radio. If the relative yields cannot be assessed, how is it possible to specify the precise figure of $157 million as the amount that Australian farmers will miss out on? Hon Anthony Fels : It’s a conservative estimate. Hon KIM CHANCE : It may be. However, members will be interested to know that one of the world’s largest farming companies, Twynam Group, which has some 14 properties in New South Wales and Victoria as well as extensive landholdings in South America - in fact, it is a big GM grower in South America - has done its own numbers on growing GM canola on its properties in New South Wales and Victoria and has said, “We’re not going to do it; the money just isn’t there. You cannot make a margin of profit with GM canola in New South Wales and Victoria.” It is therefore actually questionable whether the amount of $157 million stands up. It was also interesting that one of the authors of the report said that a comparative assessment could not yet be made. So where did the figure of $157 million come from, or the even more extraordinary figures of 30 per cent and 40 per cent yield gains? These percentages did not actually appear in the report at all; they were part of a later media statement. I also note the inclusion of wheat in the honourable member’s question. I am somewhat mystified by that, because there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world, for the reason that consumers absolutely reject it. The biggest milling company in the United States will not touch GM wheat. However, I return to the honourable member’s questions. (1) Yes. I will investigate measures for tougher regulations in Western Australia as a result of Victoria and New South Wales lifting their moratoria, and the threat this poses to Western Australia’s overseas markets. It should be noted that Western Australia is not being left behind, as non-GM canola is achieving a price premium of $50 per tonne over Canadian GM canola in the Japanese market - some -4 870 per tonne, which I think is actually closer to $70. As I said, there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world. (2) Honourable members will be aware that this is consistent with the government’s election commitment to prohibit the commercial cultivation of all GM crops. This policy will be reviewed in advance of the 2009 election. To facilitate that review, I have established a ministerial industry reference group. The group is working through all the issues that government and the community will need to face. (3) In August I introduced the Seeds Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments are not specific to GM issues, but may be used to assist in maintaining the integrity of the moratorium and in preserving the “clean and green” image of Western Australian agriculture. No further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981 are contemplated at this time.
Hon Anthony Fels : It’s a conservative estimate. Hon KIM CHANCE : It may be. However, members will be interested to know that one of the world’s largest farming companies, Twynam Group, which has some 14 properties in New South Wales and Victoria as well as extensive landholdings in South America - in fact, it is a big GM grower in South America - has done its own numbers on growing GM canola on its properties in New South Wales and Victoria and has said, “We’re not going to do it; the money just isn’t there. You cannot make a margin of profit with GM canola in New South Wales and Victoria.” It is therefore actually questionable whether the amount of $157 million stands up. It was also interesting that one of the authors of the report said that a comparative assessment could not yet be made. So where did the figure of $157 million come from, or the even more extraordinary figures of 30 per cent and 40 per cent yield gains? These percentages did not actually appear in the report at all; they were part of a later media statement. I also note the inclusion of wheat in the honourable member’s question. I am somewhat mystified by that, because there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world, for the reason that consumers absolutely reject it. The biggest milling company in the United States will not touch GM wheat. However, I return to the honourable member’s questions. (1) Yes. I will investigate measures for tougher regulations in Western Australia as a result of Victoria and New South Wales lifting their moratoria, and the threat this poses to Western Australia’s overseas markets. It should be noted that Western Australia is not being left behind, as non-GM canola is achieving a price premium of $50 per tonne over Canadian GM canola in the Japanese market - some -4 870 per tonne, which I think is actually closer to $70. As I said, there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world. (2) Honourable members will be aware that this is consistent with the government’s election commitment to prohibit the commercial cultivation of all GM crops. This policy will be reviewed in advance of the 2009 election. To facilitate that review, I have established a ministerial industry reference group. The group is working through all the issues that government and the community will need to face. (3) In August I introduced the Seeds Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments are not specific to GM issues, but may be used to assist in maintaining the integrity of the moratorium and in preserving the “clean and green” image of Western Australian agriculture. No further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981 are contemplated at this time.
Hon KIM CHANCE : It may be. However, members will be interested to know that one of the world’s largest farming companies, Twynam Group, which has some 14 properties in New South Wales and Victoria as well as extensive landholdings in South America - in fact, it is a big GM grower in South America - has done its own numbers on growing GM canola on its properties in New South Wales and Victoria and has said, “We’re not going to do it; the money just isn’t there. You cannot make a margin of profit with GM canola in New South Wales and Victoria.” It is therefore actually questionable whether the amount of $157 million stands up. It was also interesting that one of the authors of the report said that a comparative assessment could not yet be made. So where did the figure of $157 million come from, or the even more extraordinary figures of 30 per cent and 40 per cent yield gains? These percentages did not actually appear in the report at all; they were part of a later media statement. I also note the inclusion of wheat in the honourable member’s question. I am somewhat mystified by that, because there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world, for the reason that consumers absolutely reject it. The biggest milling company in the United States will not touch GM wheat. However, I return to the honourable member’s questions. (1) Yes. I will investigate measures for tougher regulations in Western Australia as a result of Victoria and New South Wales lifting their moratoria, and the threat this poses to Western Australia’s overseas markets. It should be noted that Western Australia is not being left behind, as non-GM canola is achieving a price premium of $50 per tonne over Canadian GM canola in the Japanese market - some -4 870 per tonne, which I think is actually closer to $70. As I said, there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world. (2) Honourable members will be aware that this is consistent with the government’s election commitment to prohibit the commercial cultivation of all GM crops. This policy will be reviewed in advance of the 2009 election. To facilitate that review, I have established a ministerial industry reference group. The group is working through all the issues that government and the community will need to face. (3) In August I introduced the Seeds Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments are not specific to GM issues, but may be used to assist in maintaining the integrity of the moratorium and in preserving the “clean and green” image of Western Australian agriculture. No further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981 are contemplated at this time.
I also note the inclusion of wheat in the honourable member’s question. I am somewhat mystified by that, because there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world, for the reason that consumers absolutely reject it. The biggest milling company in the United States will not touch GM wheat. However, I return to the honourable member’s questions. (1) Yes. I will investigate measures for tougher regulations in Western Australia as a result of Victoria and New South Wales lifting their moratoria, and the threat this poses to Western Australia’s overseas markets. It should be noted that Western Australia is not being left behind, as non-GM canola is achieving a price premium of $50 per tonne over Canadian GM canola in the Japanese market - some -4 870 per tonne, which I think is actually closer to $70. As I said, there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world. (2) Honourable members will be aware that this is consistent with the government’s election commitment to prohibit the commercial cultivation of all GM crops. This policy will be reviewed in advance of the 2009 election. To facilitate that review, I have established a ministerial industry reference group. The group is working through all the issues that government and the community will need to face. (3) In August I introduced the Seeds Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments are not specific to GM issues, but may be used to assist in maintaining the integrity of the moratorium and in preserving the “clean and green” image of Western Australian agriculture. No further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981 are contemplated at this time.
(1) Yes. I will investigate measures for tougher regulations in Western Australia as a result of Victoria and New South Wales lifting their moratoria, and the threat this poses to Western Australia’s overseas markets. It should be noted that Western Australia is not being left behind, as non-GM canola is achieving a price premium of $50 per tonne over Canadian GM canola in the Japanese market - some -4 870 per tonne, which I think is actually closer to $70. As I said, there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world. (2) Honourable members will be aware that this is consistent with the government’s election commitment to prohibit the commercial cultivation of all GM crops. This policy will be reviewed in advance of the 2009 election. To facilitate that review, I have established a ministerial industry reference group. The group is working through all the issues that government and the community will need to face. (3) In August I introduced the Seeds Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments are not specific to GM issues, but may be used to assist in maintaining the integrity of the moratorium and in preserving the “clean and green” image of Western Australian agriculture. No further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981 are contemplated at this time.
(2) Honourable members will be aware that this is consistent with the government’s election commitment to prohibit the commercial cultivation of all GM crops. This policy will be reviewed in advance of the 2009 election. To facilitate that review, I have established a ministerial industry reference group. The group is working through all the issues that government and the community will need to face. (3) In August I introduced the Seeds Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments are not specific to GM issues, but may be used to assist in maintaining the integrity of the moratorium and in preserving the “clean and green” image of Western Australian agriculture. No further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981 are contemplated at this time.
(3) In August I introduced the Seeds Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments are not specific to GM issues, but may be used to assist in maintaining the integrity of the moratorium and in preserving the “clean and green” image of Western Australian agriculture. No further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981 are contemplated at this time.
(1) Will the minister, as quoted, investigate the possible introduction of tougher regulations? (2) On what basis will this decision be made, and what changes to practices and penalties are anticipated? (3) Will these be introduced through further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981; and, if so, when; and, if not, by which means? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Brian Ellis for some notice of the question. I note that the University of Melbourne report referred to by the honourable member in his question was commented on recently in the rural media. One of the authors revealed that the report had actually been paid for by the biotech companies favoured by the report. One has to ask what kind of credibility the report has. It has a University of Melbourne logo on it, and we all instinctively trust anything with a University of Melbourne logo on it, do we not? However, as the report was paid for by the biotech companies, one really has to wonder where it is coming from. I also note that Hon Brian Ellis actually changed his question slightly from the question I received in writing. The sum of $157 million apparently quoted in the report is surprising, given that one of the authors has since advised that there has been insufficient commercial testing in Australia of genetically modified crops versus non-genetically modified crops to guide any assessment of relative yields. Dr Norton actually said that - I have the transcript from the Country Hour program on ABC Radio. If the relative yields cannot be assessed, how is it possible to specify the precise figure of $157 million as the amount that Australian farmers will miss out on? Hon Anthony Fels : It’s a conservative estimate. Hon KIM CHANCE : It may be. However, members will be interested to know that one of the world’s largest farming companies, Twynam Group, which has some 14 properties in New South Wales and Victoria as well as extensive landholdings in South America - in fact, it is a big GM grower in South America - has done its own numbers on growing GM canola on its properties in New South Wales and Victoria and has said, “We’re not going to do it; the money just isn’t there. You cannot make a margin of profit with GM canola in New South Wales and Victoria.” It is therefore actually questionable whether the amount of $157 million stands up. It was also interesting that one of the authors of the report said that a comparative assessment could not yet be made. So where did the figure of $157 million come from, or the even more extraordinary figures of 30 per cent and 40 per cent yield gains? These percentages did not actually appear in the report at all; they were part of a later media statement. I also note the inclusion of wheat in the honourable member’s question. I am somewhat mystified by that, because there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world, for the reason that consumers absolutely reject it. The biggest milling company in the United States will not touch GM wheat. However, I return to the honourable member’s questions. (1) Yes. I will investigate measures for tougher regulations in Western Australia as a result of Victoria and New South Wales lifting their moratoria, and the threat this poses to Western Australia’s overseas markets. It should be noted that Western Australia is not being left behind, as non-GM canola is achieving a price premium of $50 per tonne over Canadian GM canola in the Japanese market - some -4 870 per tonne, which I think is actually closer to $70. As I said, there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world. (2) Honourable members will be aware that this is consistent with the government’s election commitment to prohibit the commercial cultivation of all GM crops. This policy will be reviewed in advance of the 2009 election. To facilitate that review, I have established a ministerial industry reference group. The group is working through all the issues that government and the community will need to face. (3) In August I introduced the Seeds Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments are not specific to GM issues, but may be used to assist in maintaining the integrity of the moratorium and in preserving the “clean and green” image of Western Australian agriculture. No further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981 are contemplated at this time.
(2) On what basis will this decision be made, and what changes to practices and penalties are anticipated? (3) Will these be introduced through further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981; and, if so, when; and, if not, by which means? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Brian Ellis for some notice of the question. I note that the University of Melbourne report referred to by the honourable member in his question was commented on recently in the rural media. One of the authors revealed that the report had actually been paid for by the biotech companies favoured by the report. One has to ask what kind of credibility the report has. It has a University of Melbourne logo on it, and we all instinctively trust anything with a University of Melbourne logo on it, do we not? However, as the report was paid for by the biotech companies, one really has to wonder where it is coming from. I also note that Hon Brian Ellis actually changed his question slightly from the question I received in writing. The sum of $157 million apparently quoted in the report is surprising, given that one of the authors has since advised that there has been insufficient commercial testing in Australia of genetically modified crops versus non-genetically modified crops to guide any assessment of relative yields. Dr Norton actually said that - I have the transcript from the Country Hour program on ABC Radio. If the relative yields cannot be assessed, how is it possible to specify the precise figure of $157 million as the amount that Australian farmers will miss out on? Hon Anthony Fels : It’s a conservative estimate. Hon KIM CHANCE : It may be. However, members will be interested to know that one of the world’s largest farming companies, Twynam Group, which has some 14 properties in New South Wales and Victoria as well as extensive landholdings in South America - in fact, it is a big GM grower in South America - has done its own numbers on growing GM canola on its properties in New South Wales and Victoria and has said, “We’re not going to do it; the money just isn’t there. You cannot make a margin of profit with GM canola in New South Wales and Victoria.” It is therefore actually questionable whether the amount of $157 million stands up. It was also interesting that one of the authors of the report said that a comparative assessment could not yet be made. So where did the figure of $157 million come from, or the even more extraordinary figures of 30 per cent and 40 per cent yield gains? These percentages did not actually appear in the report at all; they were part of a later media statement. I also note the inclusion of wheat in the honourable member’s question. I am somewhat mystified by that, because there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world, for the reason that consumers absolutely reject it. The biggest milling company in the United States will not touch GM wheat. However, I return to the honourable member’s questions. (1) Yes. I will investigate measures for tougher regulations in Western Australia as a result of Victoria and New South Wales lifting their moratoria, and the threat this poses to Western Australia’s overseas markets. It should be noted that Western Australia is not being left behind, as non-GM canola is achieving a price premium of $50 per tonne over Canadian GM canola in the Japanese market - some -4 870 per tonne, which I think is actually closer to $70. As I said, there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world. (2) Honourable members will be aware that this is consistent with the government’s election commitment to prohibit the commercial cultivation of all GM crops. This policy will be reviewed in advance of the 2009 election. To facilitate that review, I have established a ministerial industry reference group. The group is working through all the issues that government and the community will need to face. (3) In August I introduced the Seeds Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments are not specific to GM issues, but may be used to assist in maintaining the integrity of the moratorium and in preserving the “clean and green” image of Western Australian agriculture. No further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981 are contemplated at this time.
(3) Will these be introduced through further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981; and, if so, when; and, if not, by which means? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Brian Ellis for some notice of the question. I note that the University of Melbourne report referred to by the honourable member in his question was commented on recently in the rural media. One of the authors revealed that the report had actually been paid for by the biotech companies favoured by the report. One has to ask what kind of credibility the report has. It has a University of Melbourne logo on it, and we all instinctively trust anything with a University of Melbourne logo on it, do we not? However, as the report was paid for by the biotech companies, one really has to wonder where it is coming from. I also note that Hon Brian Ellis actually changed his question slightly from the question I received in writing. The sum of $157 million apparently quoted in the report is surprising, given that one of the authors has since advised that there has been insufficient commercial testing in Australia of genetically modified crops versus non-genetically modified crops to guide any assessment of relative yields. Dr Norton actually said that - I have the transcript from the Country Hour program on ABC Radio. If the relative yields cannot be assessed, how is it possible to specify the precise figure of $157 million as the amount that Australian farmers will miss out on? Hon Anthony Fels : It’s a conservative estimate. Hon KIM CHANCE : It may be. However, members will be interested to know that one of the world’s largest farming companies, Twynam Group, which has some 14 properties in New South Wales and Victoria as well as extensive landholdings in South America - in fact, it is a big GM grower in South America - has done its own numbers on growing GM canola on its properties in New South Wales and Victoria and has said, “We’re not going to do it; the money just isn’t there. You cannot make a margin of profit with GM canola in New South Wales and Victoria.” It is therefore actually questionable whether the amount of $157 million stands up. It was also interesting that one of the authors of the report said that a comparative assessment could not yet be made. So where did the figure of $157 million come from, or the even more extraordinary figures of 30 per cent and 40 per cent yield gains? These percentages did not actually appear in the report at all; they were part of a later media statement. I also note the inclusion of wheat in the honourable member’s question. I am somewhat mystified by that, because there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world, for the reason that consumers absolutely reject it. The biggest milling company in the United States will not touch GM wheat. However, I return to the honourable member’s questions. (1) Yes. I will investigate measures for tougher regulations in Western Australia as a result of Victoria and New South Wales lifting their moratoria, and the threat this poses to Western Australia’s overseas markets. It should be noted that Western Australia is not being left behind, as non-GM canola is achieving a price premium of $50 per tonne over Canadian GM canola in the Japanese market - some -4 870 per tonne, which I think is actually closer to $70. As I said, there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world. (2) Honourable members will be aware that this is consistent with the government’s election commitment to prohibit the commercial cultivation of all GM crops. This policy will be reviewed in advance of the 2009 election. To facilitate that review, I have established a ministerial industry reference group. The group is working through all the issues that government and the community will need to face. (3) In August I introduced the Seeds Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments are not specific to GM issues, but may be used to assist in maintaining the integrity of the moratorium and in preserving the “clean and green” image of Western Australian agriculture. No further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981 are contemplated at this time.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Brian Ellis for some notice of the question. I note that the University of Melbourne report referred to by the honourable member in his question was commented on recently in the rural media. One of the authors revealed that the report had actually been paid for by the biotech companies favoured by the report. One has to ask what kind of credibility the report has. It has a University of Melbourne logo on it, and we all instinctively trust anything with a University of Melbourne logo on it, do we not? However, as the report was paid for by the biotech companies, one really has to wonder where it is coming from. I also note that Hon Brian Ellis actually changed his question slightly from the question I received in writing. The sum of $157 million apparently quoted in the report is surprising, given that one of the authors has since advised that there has been insufficient commercial testing in Australia of genetically modified crops versus non-genetically modified crops to guide any assessment of relative yields. Dr Norton actually said that - I have the transcript from the Country Hour program on ABC Radio. If the relative yields cannot be assessed, how is it possible to specify the precise figure of $157 million as the amount that Australian farmers will miss out on? Hon Anthony Fels : It’s a conservative estimate. Hon KIM CHANCE : It may be. However, members will be interested to know that one of the world’s largest farming companies, Twynam Group, which has some 14 properties in New South Wales and Victoria as well as extensive landholdings in South America - in fact, it is a big GM grower in South America - has done its own numbers on growing GM canola on its properties in New South Wales and Victoria and has said, “We’re not going to do it; the money just isn’t there. You cannot make a margin of profit with GM canola in New South Wales and Victoria.” It is therefore actually questionable whether the amount of $157 million stands up. It was also interesting that one of the authors of the report said that a comparative assessment could not yet be made. So where did the figure of $157 million come from, or the even more extraordinary figures of 30 per cent and 40 per cent yield gains? These percentages did not actually appear in the report at all; they were part of a later media statement. I also note the inclusion of wheat in the honourable member’s question. I am somewhat mystified by that, because there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world, for the reason that consumers absolutely reject it. The biggest milling company in the United States will not touch GM wheat. However, I return to the honourable member’s questions. (1) Yes. I will investigate measures for tougher regulations in Western Australia as a result of Victoria and New South Wales lifting their moratoria, and the threat this poses to Western Australia’s overseas markets. It should be noted that Western Australia is not being left behind, as non-GM canola is achieving a price premium of $50 per tonne over Canadian GM canola in the Japanese market - some -4 870 per tonne, which I think is actually closer to $70. As I said, there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world. (2) Honourable members will be aware that this is consistent with the government’s election commitment to prohibit the commercial cultivation of all GM crops. This policy will be reviewed in advance of the 2009 election. To facilitate that review, I have established a ministerial industry reference group. The group is working through all the issues that government and the community will need to face. (3) In August I introduced the Seeds Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments are not specific to GM issues, but may be used to assist in maintaining the integrity of the moratorium and in preserving the “clean and green” image of Western Australian agriculture. No further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981 are contemplated at this time.
I thank Hon Brian Ellis for some notice of the question. I note that the University of Melbourne report referred to by the honourable member in his question was commented on recently in the rural media. One of the authors revealed that the report had actually been paid for by the biotech companies favoured by the report. One has to ask what kind of credibility the report has. It has a University of Melbourne logo on it, and we all instinctively trust anything with a University of Melbourne logo on it, do we not? However, as the report was paid for by the biotech companies, one really has to wonder where it is coming from. I also note that Hon Brian Ellis actually changed his question slightly from the question I received in writing. The sum of $157 million apparently quoted in the report is surprising, given that one of the authors has since advised that there has been insufficient commercial testing in Australia of genetically modified crops versus non-genetically modified crops to guide any assessment of relative yields. Dr Norton actually said that - I have the transcript from the Country Hour program on ABC Radio. If the relative yields cannot be assessed, how is it possible to specify the precise figure of $157 million as the amount that Australian farmers will miss out on? Hon Anthony Fels : It’s a conservative estimate. Hon KIM CHANCE : It may be. However, members will be interested to know that one of the world’s largest farming companies, Twynam Group, which has some 14 properties in New South Wales and Victoria as well as extensive landholdings in South America - in fact, it is a big GM grower in South America - has done its own numbers on growing GM canola on its properties in New South Wales and Victoria and has said, “We’re not going to do it; the money just isn’t there. You cannot make a margin of profit with GM canola in New South Wales and Victoria.” It is therefore actually questionable whether the amount of $157 million stands up. It was also interesting that one of the authors of the report said that a comparative assessment could not yet be made. So where did the figure of $157 million come from, or the even more extraordinary figures of 30 per cent and 40 per cent yield gains? These percentages did not actually appear in the report at all; they were part of a later media statement. I also note the inclusion of wheat in the honourable member’s question. I am somewhat mystified by that, because there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world, for the reason that consumers absolutely reject it. The biggest milling company in the United States will not touch GM wheat. However, I return to the honourable member’s questions. (1) Yes. I will investigate measures for tougher regulations in Western Australia as a result of Victoria and New South Wales lifting their moratoria, and the threat this poses to Western Australia’s overseas markets. It should be noted that Western Australia is not being left behind, as non-GM canola is achieving a price premium of $50 per tonne over Canadian GM canola in the Japanese market - some -4 870 per tonne, which I think is actually closer to $70. As I said, there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world. (2) Honourable members will be aware that this is consistent with the government’s election commitment to prohibit the commercial cultivation of all GM crops. This policy will be reviewed in advance of the 2009 election. To facilitate that review, I have established a ministerial industry reference group. The group is working through all the issues that government and the community will need to face. (3) In August I introduced the Seeds Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments are not specific to GM issues, but may be used to assist in maintaining the integrity of the moratorium and in preserving the “clean and green” image of Western Australian agriculture. No further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981 are contemplated at this time.
Hon Anthony Fels : It’s a conservative estimate. Hon KIM CHANCE : It may be. However, members will be interested to know that one of the world’s largest farming companies, Twynam Group, which has some 14 properties in New South Wales and Victoria as well as extensive landholdings in South America - in fact, it is a big GM grower in South America - has done its own numbers on growing GM canola on its properties in New South Wales and Victoria and has said, “We’re not going to do it; the money just isn’t there. You cannot make a margin of profit with GM canola in New South Wales and Victoria.” It is therefore actually questionable whether the amount of $157 million stands up. It was also interesting that one of the authors of the report said that a comparative assessment could not yet be made. So where did the figure of $157 million come from, or the even more extraordinary figures of 30 per cent and 40 per cent yield gains? These percentages did not actually appear in the report at all; they were part of a later media statement. I also note the inclusion of wheat in the honourable member’s question. I am somewhat mystified by that, because there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world, for the reason that consumers absolutely reject it. The biggest milling company in the United States will not touch GM wheat. However, I return to the honourable member’s questions. (1) Yes. I will investigate measures for tougher regulations in Western Australia as a result of Victoria and New South Wales lifting their moratoria, and the threat this poses to Western Australia’s overseas markets. It should be noted that Western Australia is not being left behind, as non-GM canola is achieving a price premium of $50 per tonne over Canadian GM canola in the Japanese market - some -4 870 per tonne, which I think is actually closer to $70. As I said, there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world. (2) Honourable members will be aware that this is consistent with the government’s election commitment to prohibit the commercial cultivation of all GM crops. This policy will be reviewed in advance of the 2009 election. To facilitate that review, I have established a ministerial industry reference group. The group is working through all the issues that government and the community will need to face. (3) In August I introduced the Seeds Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments are not specific to GM issues, but may be used to assist in maintaining the integrity of the moratorium and in preserving the “clean and green” image of Western Australian agriculture. No further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981 are contemplated at this time.
Hon KIM CHANCE : It may be. However, members will be interested to know that one of the world’s largest farming companies, Twynam Group, which has some 14 properties in New South Wales and Victoria as well as extensive landholdings in South America - in fact, it is a big GM grower in South America - has done its own numbers on growing GM canola on its properties in New South Wales and Victoria and has said, “We’re not going to do it; the money just isn’t there. You cannot make a margin of profit with GM canola in New South Wales and Victoria.” It is therefore actually questionable whether the amount of $157 million stands up. It was also interesting that one of the authors of the report said that a comparative assessment could not yet be made. So where did the figure of $157 million come from, or the even more extraordinary figures of 30 per cent and 40 per cent yield gains? These percentages did not actually appear in the report at all; they were part of a later media statement. I also note the inclusion of wheat in the honourable member’s question. I am somewhat mystified by that, because there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world, for the reason that consumers absolutely reject it. The biggest milling company in the United States will not touch GM wheat. However, I return to the honourable member’s questions. (1) Yes. I will investigate measures for tougher regulations in Western Australia as a result of Victoria and New South Wales lifting their moratoria, and the threat this poses to Western Australia’s overseas markets. It should be noted that Western Australia is not being left behind, as non-GM canola is achieving a price premium of $50 per tonne over Canadian GM canola in the Japanese market - some -4 870 per tonne, which I think is actually closer to $70. As I said, there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world. (2) Honourable members will be aware that this is consistent with the government’s election commitment to prohibit the commercial cultivation of all GM crops. This policy will be reviewed in advance of the 2009 election. To facilitate that review, I have established a ministerial industry reference group. The group is working through all the issues that government and the community will need to face. (3) In August I introduced the Seeds Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments are not specific to GM issues, but may be used to assist in maintaining the integrity of the moratorium and in preserving the “clean and green” image of Western Australian agriculture. No further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981 are contemplated at this time.
I also note the inclusion of wheat in the honourable member’s question. I am somewhat mystified by that, because there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world, for the reason that consumers absolutely reject it. The biggest milling company in the United States will not touch GM wheat. However, I return to the honourable member’s questions. (1) Yes. I will investigate measures for tougher regulations in Western Australia as a result of Victoria and New South Wales lifting their moratoria, and the threat this poses to Western Australia’s overseas markets. It should be noted that Western Australia is not being left behind, as non-GM canola is achieving a price premium of $50 per tonne over Canadian GM canola in the Japanese market - some -4 870 per tonne, which I think is actually closer to $70. As I said, there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world. (2) Honourable members will be aware that this is consistent with the government’s election commitment to prohibit the commercial cultivation of all GM crops. This policy will be reviewed in advance of the 2009 election. To facilitate that review, I have established a ministerial industry reference group. The group is working through all the issues that government and the community will need to face. (3) In August I introduced the Seeds Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments are not specific to GM issues, but may be used to assist in maintaining the integrity of the moratorium and in preserving the “clean and green” image of Western Australian agriculture. No further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981 are contemplated at this time.
(1) Yes. I will investigate measures for tougher regulations in Western Australia as a result of Victoria and New South Wales lifting their moratoria, and the threat this poses to Western Australia’s overseas markets. It should be noted that Western Australia is not being left behind, as non-GM canola is achieving a price premium of $50 per tonne over Canadian GM canola in the Japanese market - some -4 870 per tonne, which I think is actually closer to $70. As I said, there is no commercial cultivation of GM wheat anywhere in the world. (2) Honourable members will be aware that this is consistent with the government’s election commitment to prohibit the commercial cultivation of all GM crops. This policy will be reviewed in advance of the 2009 election. To facilitate that review, I have established a ministerial industry reference group. The group is working through all the issues that government and the community will need to face. (3) In August I introduced the Seeds Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments are not specific to GM issues, but may be used to assist in maintaining the integrity of the moratorium and in preserving the “clean and green” image of Western Australian agriculture. No further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981 are contemplated at this time.
(2) Honourable members will be aware that this is consistent with the government’s election commitment to prohibit the commercial cultivation of all GM crops. This policy will be reviewed in advance of the 2009 election. To facilitate that review, I have established a ministerial industry reference group. The group is working through all the issues that government and the community will need to face. (3) In August I introduced the Seeds Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments are not specific to GM issues, but may be used to assist in maintaining the integrity of the moratorium and in preserving the “clean and green” image of Western Australian agriculture. No further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981 are contemplated at this time.
(3) In August I introduced the Seeds Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments are not specific to GM issues, but may be used to assist in maintaining the integrity of the moratorium and in preserving the “clean and green” image of Western Australian agriculture. No further amendments to the Seeds Act 1981 are contemplated at this time.
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.