❓ A WA parliamentary question addresses concerns about liability and consultation surrounding a GM wheat trial in Corrigin. The Minister clarifies the Commonwealth's role in regulating the trial and outlines actions taken to address liability issues and community concerns.
AnsweredQoN 209Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the article “Genetic crop experiment splits Wheatbelt farmers” in The West Australian of Monday, 2 May 2005, which reports on a decision by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator to allow a trial conducted by Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd of genetically modified salt-tolerant wheat at Corrigin. The article states that the Minister for Agriculture conceded that liability issues were unresolved. (1) What role did the minister play in the process leading to the granting of approval for this trial to make Grain Biotech legally liable for any potential economic loss faced by other Corrigin farmers who were not growing GM wheat? (2) What actions is the minister taking to ensure that issues surrounding liability are clarified and resolved before any other trials are approved in the future? (3) What ongoing consultation with wheatbelt communities is the government conducting to ascertain the concerns of local farmers and the communities at large about liability for economic loss and other concerns, including the ecological impact of genetically modified crops? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Dee Margetts for some notice of the question. This is also a timely question, because it enables me to clarify one aspect of the authority that grants the capacity to run trials, which I think is somewhat obscure. (1) The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage any identified and perceived risk are the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. The trial licence process has taken approximately nine months. During the process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions were considered by the Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee. I was kept fully informed of their considerations. The trial is a small trial and will be conducted under strict licence conditions that will control the spread of the GM wheat. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation required to prevent any contamination between wheat breeders’ varieties. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly self-pollinating. Any farmers who believe that they have suffered economic loss would have to make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. I note that there has been no loss or damage arising out of trials run under the OGTR licence conditions over the past four years. The short answer is that I have played no role; this is a matter conducted under the authority of commonwealth law. Hon Dee Margetts : You must have some input? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes. I explained that in the answer. When the member gets the written answer she will be able to delve into it. (2) Liability was raised as an issue in the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs report, which was tabled in Parliament in July 2003. I commended the report to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council and the report was tabled at the council meeting in August 2003. At the instigation of Western Australia, the terms of reference for the review of the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 are now sufficiently wide to ensure that issues to do with national regulatory frameworks raised by the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs are addressed. Thus, recommendations from the report are to be considered when the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 is reviewed. The review commences in July 2005. (3) The risk assessment process, licence conditions, auditing and monitoring are the responsibility of the OGTR under the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gallop government has consistently stated that there can be no consideration of the commercial growth of GM crops in this state until marketing concerns and any other outstanding matters have been satisfactorily resolved. I include in that the question of liability, which I think is, as yet, unresolved. The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 was put in place specifically to ensure that this can be achieved.
(1) What role did the minister play in the process leading to the granting of approval for this trial to make Grain Biotech legally liable for any potential economic loss faced by other Corrigin farmers who were not growing GM wheat? (2) What actions is the minister taking to ensure that issues surrounding liability are clarified and resolved before any other trials are approved in the future? (3) What ongoing consultation with wheatbelt communities is the government conducting to ascertain the concerns of local farmers and the communities at large about liability for economic loss and other concerns, including the ecological impact of genetically modified crops? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Dee Margetts for some notice of the question. This is also a timely question, because it enables me to clarify one aspect of the authority that grants the capacity to run trials, which I think is somewhat obscure. (1) The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage any identified and perceived risk are the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. The trial licence process has taken approximately nine months. During the process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions were considered by the Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee. I was kept fully informed of their considerations. The trial is a small trial and will be conducted under strict licence conditions that will control the spread of the GM wheat. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation required to prevent any contamination between wheat breeders’ varieties. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly self-pollinating. Any farmers who believe that they have suffered economic loss would have to make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. I note that there has been no loss or damage arising out of trials run under the OGTR licence conditions over the past four years. The short answer is that I have played no role; this is a matter conducted under the authority of commonwealth law. Hon Dee Margetts : You must have some input? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes. I explained that in the answer. When the member gets the written answer she will be able to delve into it. (2) Liability was raised as an issue in the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs report, which was tabled in Parliament in July 2003. I commended the report to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council and the report was tabled at the council meeting in August 2003. At the instigation of Western Australia, the terms of reference for the review of the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 are now sufficiently wide to ensure that issues to do with national regulatory frameworks raised by the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs are addressed. Thus, recommendations from the report are to be considered when the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 is reviewed. The review commences in July 2005. (3) The risk assessment process, licence conditions, auditing and monitoring are the responsibility of the OGTR under the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gallop government has consistently stated that there can be no consideration of the commercial growth of GM crops in this state until marketing concerns and any other outstanding matters have been satisfactorily resolved. I include in that the question of liability, which I think is, as yet, unresolved. The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 was put in place specifically to ensure that this can be achieved.
(2) What actions is the minister taking to ensure that issues surrounding liability are clarified and resolved before any other trials are approved in the future? (3) What ongoing consultation with wheatbelt communities is the government conducting to ascertain the concerns of local farmers and the communities at large about liability for economic loss and other concerns, including the ecological impact of genetically modified crops? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Dee Margetts for some notice of the question. This is also a timely question, because it enables me to clarify one aspect of the authority that grants the capacity to run trials, which I think is somewhat obscure. (1) The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage any identified and perceived risk are the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. The trial licence process has taken approximately nine months. During the process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions were considered by the Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee. I was kept fully informed of their considerations. The trial is a small trial and will be conducted under strict licence conditions that will control the spread of the GM wheat. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation required to prevent any contamination between wheat breeders’ varieties. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly self-pollinating. Any farmers who believe that they have suffered economic loss would have to make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. I note that there has been no loss or damage arising out of trials run under the OGTR licence conditions over the past four years. The short answer is that I have played no role; this is a matter conducted under the authority of commonwealth law. Hon Dee Margetts : You must have some input? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes. I explained that in the answer. When the member gets the written answer she will be able to delve into it. (2) Liability was raised as an issue in the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs report, which was tabled in Parliament in July 2003. I commended the report to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council and the report was tabled at the council meeting in August 2003. At the instigation of Western Australia, the terms of reference for the review of the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 are now sufficiently wide to ensure that issues to do with national regulatory frameworks raised by the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs are addressed. Thus, recommendations from the report are to be considered when the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 is reviewed. The review commences in July 2005. (3) The risk assessment process, licence conditions, auditing and monitoring are the responsibility of the OGTR under the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gallop government has consistently stated that there can be no consideration of the commercial growth of GM crops in this state until marketing concerns and any other outstanding matters have been satisfactorily resolved. I include in that the question of liability, which I think is, as yet, unresolved. The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 was put in place specifically to ensure that this can be achieved.
(3) What ongoing consultation with wheatbelt communities is the government conducting to ascertain the concerns of local farmers and the communities at large about liability for economic loss and other concerns, including the ecological impact of genetically modified crops? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Dee Margetts for some notice of the question. This is also a timely question, because it enables me to clarify one aspect of the authority that grants the capacity to run trials, which I think is somewhat obscure. (1) The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage any identified and perceived risk are the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. The trial licence process has taken approximately nine months. During the process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions were considered by the Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee. I was kept fully informed of their considerations. The trial is a small trial and will be conducted under strict licence conditions that will control the spread of the GM wheat. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation required to prevent any contamination between wheat breeders’ varieties. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly self-pollinating. Any farmers who believe that they have suffered economic loss would have to make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. I note that there has been no loss or damage arising out of trials run under the OGTR licence conditions over the past four years. The short answer is that I have played no role; this is a matter conducted under the authority of commonwealth law. Hon Dee Margetts : You must have some input? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes. I explained that in the answer. When the member gets the written answer she will be able to delve into it. (2) Liability was raised as an issue in the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs report, which was tabled in Parliament in July 2003. I commended the report to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council and the report was tabled at the council meeting in August 2003. At the instigation of Western Australia, the terms of reference for the review of the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 are now sufficiently wide to ensure that issues to do with national regulatory frameworks raised by the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs are addressed. Thus, recommendations from the report are to be considered when the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 is reviewed. The review commences in July 2005. (3) The risk assessment process, licence conditions, auditing and monitoring are the responsibility of the OGTR under the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gallop government has consistently stated that there can be no consideration of the commercial growth of GM crops in this state until marketing concerns and any other outstanding matters have been satisfactorily resolved. I include in that the question of liability, which I think is, as yet, unresolved. The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 was put in place specifically to ensure that this can be achieved.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Dee Margetts for some notice of the question. This is also a timely question, because it enables me to clarify one aspect of the authority that grants the capacity to run trials, which I think is somewhat obscure. (1) The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage any identified and perceived risk are the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. The trial licence process has taken approximately nine months. During the process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions were considered by the Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee. I was kept fully informed of their considerations. The trial is a small trial and will be conducted under strict licence conditions that will control the spread of the GM wheat. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation required to prevent any contamination between wheat breeders’ varieties. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly self-pollinating. Any farmers who believe that they have suffered economic loss would have to make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. I note that there has been no loss or damage arising out of trials run under the OGTR licence conditions over the past four years. The short answer is that I have played no role; this is a matter conducted under the authority of commonwealth law. Hon Dee Margetts : You must have some input? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes. I explained that in the answer. When the member gets the written answer she will be able to delve into it. (2) Liability was raised as an issue in the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs report, which was tabled in Parliament in July 2003. I commended the report to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council and the report was tabled at the council meeting in August 2003. At the instigation of Western Australia, the terms of reference for the review of the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 are now sufficiently wide to ensure that issues to do with national regulatory frameworks raised by the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs are addressed. Thus, recommendations from the report are to be considered when the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 is reviewed. The review commences in July 2005. (3) The risk assessment process, licence conditions, auditing and monitoring are the responsibility of the OGTR under the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gallop government has consistently stated that there can be no consideration of the commercial growth of GM crops in this state until marketing concerns and any other outstanding matters have been satisfactorily resolved. I include in that the question of liability, which I think is, as yet, unresolved. The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 was put in place specifically to ensure that this can be achieved.
I thank Hon Dee Margetts for some notice of the question. This is also a timely question, because it enables me to clarify one aspect of the authority that grants the capacity to run trials, which I think is somewhat obscure. (1) The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage any identified and perceived risk are the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. The trial licence process has taken approximately nine months. During the process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions were considered by the Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee. I was kept fully informed of their considerations. The trial is a small trial and will be conducted under strict licence conditions that will control the spread of the GM wheat. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation required to prevent any contamination between wheat breeders’ varieties. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly self-pollinating. Any farmers who believe that they have suffered economic loss would have to make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. I note that there has been no loss or damage arising out of trials run under the OGTR licence conditions over the past four years. The short answer is that I have played no role; this is a matter conducted under the authority of commonwealth law. Hon Dee Margetts : You must have some input? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes. I explained that in the answer. When the member gets the written answer she will be able to delve into it. (2) Liability was raised as an issue in the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs report, which was tabled in Parliament in July 2003. I commended the report to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council and the report was tabled at the council meeting in August 2003. At the instigation of Western Australia, the terms of reference for the review of the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 are now sufficiently wide to ensure that issues to do with national regulatory frameworks raised by the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs are addressed. Thus, recommendations from the report are to be considered when the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 is reviewed. The review commences in July 2005. (3) The risk assessment process, licence conditions, auditing and monitoring are the responsibility of the OGTR under the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gallop government has consistently stated that there can be no consideration of the commercial growth of GM crops in this state until marketing concerns and any other outstanding matters have been satisfactorily resolved. I include in that the question of liability, which I think is, as yet, unresolved. The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 was put in place specifically to ensure that this can be achieved.
(1) The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage any identified and perceived risk are the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. The trial licence process has taken approximately nine months. During the process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions were considered by the Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee. I was kept fully informed of their considerations. The trial is a small trial and will be conducted under strict licence conditions that will control the spread of the GM wheat. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation required to prevent any contamination between wheat breeders’ varieties. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly self-pollinating. Any farmers who believe that they have suffered economic loss would have to make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. I note that there has been no loss or damage arising out of trials run under the OGTR licence conditions over the past four years. The short answer is that I have played no role; this is a matter conducted under the authority of commonwealth law. Hon Dee Margetts : You must have some input? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes. I explained that in the answer. When the member gets the written answer she will be able to delve into it. (2) Liability was raised as an issue in the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs report, which was tabled in Parliament in July 2003. I commended the report to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council and the report was tabled at the council meeting in August 2003. At the instigation of Western Australia, the terms of reference for the review of the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 are now sufficiently wide to ensure that issues to do with national regulatory frameworks raised by the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs are addressed. Thus, recommendations from the report are to be considered when the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 is reviewed. The review commences in July 2005. (3) The risk assessment process, licence conditions, auditing and monitoring are the responsibility of the OGTR under the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gallop government has consistently stated that there can be no consideration of the commercial growth of GM crops in this state until marketing concerns and any other outstanding matters have been satisfactorily resolved. I include in that the question of liability, which I think is, as yet, unresolved. The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 was put in place specifically to ensure that this can be achieved.
The short answer is that I have played no role; this is a matter conducted under the authority of commonwealth law. Hon Dee Margetts : You must have some input? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes. I explained that in the answer. When the member gets the written answer she will be able to delve into it. (2) Liability was raised as an issue in the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs report, which was tabled in Parliament in July 2003. I commended the report to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council and the report was tabled at the council meeting in August 2003. At the instigation of Western Australia, the terms of reference for the review of the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 are now sufficiently wide to ensure that issues to do with national regulatory frameworks raised by the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs are addressed. Thus, recommendations from the report are to be considered when the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 is reviewed. The review commences in July 2005. (3) The risk assessment process, licence conditions, auditing and monitoring are the responsibility of the OGTR under the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gallop government has consistently stated that there can be no consideration of the commercial growth of GM crops in this state until marketing concerns and any other outstanding matters have been satisfactorily resolved. I include in that the question of liability, which I think is, as yet, unresolved. The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 was put in place specifically to ensure that this can be achieved.
Hon Dee Margetts : You must have some input? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes. I explained that in the answer. When the member gets the written answer she will be able to delve into it. (2) Liability was raised as an issue in the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs report, which was tabled in Parliament in July 2003. I commended the report to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council and the report was tabled at the council meeting in August 2003. At the instigation of Western Australia, the terms of reference for the review of the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 are now sufficiently wide to ensure that issues to do with national regulatory frameworks raised by the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs are addressed. Thus, recommendations from the report are to be considered when the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 is reviewed. The review commences in July 2005. (3) The risk assessment process, licence conditions, auditing and monitoring are the responsibility of the OGTR under the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gallop government has consistently stated that there can be no consideration of the commercial growth of GM crops in this state until marketing concerns and any other outstanding matters have been satisfactorily resolved. I include in that the question of liability, which I think is, as yet, unresolved. The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 was put in place specifically to ensure that this can be achieved.
Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes. I explained that in the answer. When the member gets the written answer she will be able to delve into it. (2) Liability was raised as an issue in the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs report, which was tabled in Parliament in July 2003. I commended the report to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council and the report was tabled at the council meeting in August 2003. At the instigation of Western Australia, the terms of reference for the review of the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 are now sufficiently wide to ensure that issues to do with national regulatory frameworks raised by the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs are addressed. Thus, recommendations from the report are to be considered when the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 is reviewed. The review commences in July 2005. (3) The risk assessment process, licence conditions, auditing and monitoring are the responsibility of the OGTR under the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gallop government has consistently stated that there can be no consideration of the commercial growth of GM crops in this state until marketing concerns and any other outstanding matters have been satisfactorily resolved. I include in that the question of liability, which I think is, as yet, unresolved. The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 was put in place specifically to ensure that this can be achieved.
(2) Liability was raised as an issue in the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs report, which was tabled in Parliament in July 2003. I commended the report to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council and the report was tabled at the council meeting in August 2003. At the instigation of Western Australia, the terms of reference for the review of the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 are now sufficiently wide to ensure that issues to do with national regulatory frameworks raised by the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs are addressed. Thus, recommendations from the report are to be considered when the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 is reviewed. The review commences in July 2005. (3) The risk assessment process, licence conditions, auditing and monitoring are the responsibility of the OGTR under the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gallop government has consistently stated that there can be no consideration of the commercial growth of GM crops in this state until marketing concerns and any other outstanding matters have been satisfactorily resolved. I include in that the question of liability, which I think is, as yet, unresolved. The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 was put in place specifically to ensure that this can be achieved.
(3) The risk assessment process, licence conditions, auditing and monitoring are the responsibility of the OGTR under the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gallop government has consistently stated that there can be no consideration of the commercial growth of GM crops in this state until marketing concerns and any other outstanding matters have been satisfactorily resolved. I include in that the question of liability, which I think is, as yet, unresolved. The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 was put in place specifically to ensure that this can be achieved.
(1) What role did the minister play in the process leading to the granting of approval for this trial to make Grain Biotech legally liable for any potential economic loss faced by other Corrigin farmers who were not growing GM wheat? (2) What actions is the minister taking to ensure that issues surrounding liability are clarified and resolved before any other trials are approved in the future? (3) What ongoing consultation with wheatbelt communities is the government conducting to ascertain the concerns of local farmers and the communities at large about liability for economic loss and other concerns, including the ecological impact of genetically modified crops? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Dee Margetts for some notice of the question. This is also a timely question, because it enables me to clarify one aspect of the authority that grants the capacity to run trials, which I think is somewhat obscure. (1) The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage any identified and perceived risk are the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. The trial licence process has taken approximately nine months. During the process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions were considered by the Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee. I was kept fully informed of their considerations. The trial is a small trial and will be conducted under strict licence conditions that will control the spread of the GM wheat. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation required to prevent any contamination between wheat breeders’ varieties. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly self-pollinating. Any farmers who believe that they have suffered economic loss would have to make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. I note that there has been no loss or damage arising out of trials run under the OGTR licence conditions over the past four years. The short answer is that I have played no role; this is a matter conducted under the authority of commonwealth law. Hon Dee Margetts : You must have some input? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes. I explained that in the answer. When the member gets the written answer she will be able to delve into it. (2) Liability was raised as an issue in the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs report, which was tabled in Parliament in July 2003. I commended the report to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council and the report was tabled at the council meeting in August 2003. At the instigation of Western Australia, the terms of reference for the review of the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 are now sufficiently wide to ensure that issues to do with national regulatory frameworks raised by the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs are addressed. Thus, recommendations from the report are to be considered when the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 is reviewed. The review commences in July 2005. (3) The risk assessment process, licence conditions, auditing and monitoring are the responsibility of the OGTR under the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gallop government has consistently stated that there can be no consideration of the commercial growth of GM crops in this state until marketing concerns and any other outstanding matters have been satisfactorily resolved. I include in that the question of liability, which I think is, as yet, unresolved. The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 was put in place specifically to ensure that this can be achieved.
(2) What actions is the minister taking to ensure that issues surrounding liability are clarified and resolved before any other trials are approved in the future? (3) What ongoing consultation with wheatbelt communities is the government conducting to ascertain the concerns of local farmers and the communities at large about liability for economic loss and other concerns, including the ecological impact of genetically modified crops? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Dee Margetts for some notice of the question. This is also a timely question, because it enables me to clarify one aspect of the authority that grants the capacity to run trials, which I think is somewhat obscure. (1) The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage any identified and perceived risk are the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. The trial licence process has taken approximately nine months. During the process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions were considered by the Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee. I was kept fully informed of their considerations. The trial is a small trial and will be conducted under strict licence conditions that will control the spread of the GM wheat. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation required to prevent any contamination between wheat breeders’ varieties. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly self-pollinating. Any farmers who believe that they have suffered economic loss would have to make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. I note that there has been no loss or damage arising out of trials run under the OGTR licence conditions over the past four years. The short answer is that I have played no role; this is a matter conducted under the authority of commonwealth law. Hon Dee Margetts : You must have some input? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes. I explained that in the answer. When the member gets the written answer she will be able to delve into it. (2) Liability was raised as an issue in the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs report, which was tabled in Parliament in July 2003. I commended the report to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council and the report was tabled at the council meeting in August 2003. At the instigation of Western Australia, the terms of reference for the review of the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 are now sufficiently wide to ensure that issues to do with national regulatory frameworks raised by the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs are addressed. Thus, recommendations from the report are to be considered when the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 is reviewed. The review commences in July 2005. (3) The risk assessment process, licence conditions, auditing and monitoring are the responsibility of the OGTR under the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gallop government has consistently stated that there can be no consideration of the commercial growth of GM crops in this state until marketing concerns and any other outstanding matters have been satisfactorily resolved. I include in that the question of liability, which I think is, as yet, unresolved. The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 was put in place specifically to ensure that this can be achieved.
(3) What ongoing consultation with wheatbelt communities is the government conducting to ascertain the concerns of local farmers and the communities at large about liability for economic loss and other concerns, including the ecological impact of genetically modified crops? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Dee Margetts for some notice of the question. This is also a timely question, because it enables me to clarify one aspect of the authority that grants the capacity to run trials, which I think is somewhat obscure. (1) The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage any identified and perceived risk are the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. The trial licence process has taken approximately nine months. During the process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions were considered by the Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee. I was kept fully informed of their considerations. The trial is a small trial and will be conducted under strict licence conditions that will control the spread of the GM wheat. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation required to prevent any contamination between wheat breeders’ varieties. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly self-pollinating. Any farmers who believe that they have suffered economic loss would have to make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. I note that there has been no loss or damage arising out of trials run under the OGTR licence conditions over the past four years. The short answer is that I have played no role; this is a matter conducted under the authority of commonwealth law. Hon Dee Margetts : You must have some input? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes. I explained that in the answer. When the member gets the written answer she will be able to delve into it. (2) Liability was raised as an issue in the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs report, which was tabled in Parliament in July 2003. I commended the report to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council and the report was tabled at the council meeting in August 2003. At the instigation of Western Australia, the terms of reference for the review of the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 are now sufficiently wide to ensure that issues to do with national regulatory frameworks raised by the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs are addressed. Thus, recommendations from the report are to be considered when the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 is reviewed. The review commences in July 2005. (3) The risk assessment process, licence conditions, auditing and monitoring are the responsibility of the OGTR under the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gallop government has consistently stated that there can be no consideration of the commercial growth of GM crops in this state until marketing concerns and any other outstanding matters have been satisfactorily resolved. I include in that the question of liability, which I think is, as yet, unresolved. The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 was put in place specifically to ensure that this can be achieved.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Dee Margetts for some notice of the question. This is also a timely question, because it enables me to clarify one aspect of the authority that grants the capacity to run trials, which I think is somewhat obscure. (1) The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage any identified and perceived risk are the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. The trial licence process has taken approximately nine months. During the process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions were considered by the Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee. I was kept fully informed of their considerations. The trial is a small trial and will be conducted under strict licence conditions that will control the spread of the GM wheat. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation required to prevent any contamination between wheat breeders’ varieties. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly self-pollinating. Any farmers who believe that they have suffered economic loss would have to make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. I note that there has been no loss or damage arising out of trials run under the OGTR licence conditions over the past four years. The short answer is that I have played no role; this is a matter conducted under the authority of commonwealth law. Hon Dee Margetts : You must have some input? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes. I explained that in the answer. When the member gets the written answer she will be able to delve into it. (2) Liability was raised as an issue in the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs report, which was tabled in Parliament in July 2003. I commended the report to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council and the report was tabled at the council meeting in August 2003. At the instigation of Western Australia, the terms of reference for the review of the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 are now sufficiently wide to ensure that issues to do with national regulatory frameworks raised by the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs are addressed. Thus, recommendations from the report are to be considered when the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 is reviewed. The review commences in July 2005. (3) The risk assessment process, licence conditions, auditing and monitoring are the responsibility of the OGTR under the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gallop government has consistently stated that there can be no consideration of the commercial growth of GM crops in this state until marketing concerns and any other outstanding matters have been satisfactorily resolved. I include in that the question of liability, which I think is, as yet, unresolved. The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 was put in place specifically to ensure that this can be achieved.
I thank Hon Dee Margetts for some notice of the question. This is also a timely question, because it enables me to clarify one aspect of the authority that grants the capacity to run trials, which I think is somewhat obscure. (1) The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage any identified and perceived risk are the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. The trial licence process has taken approximately nine months. During the process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions were considered by the Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee. I was kept fully informed of their considerations. The trial is a small trial and will be conducted under strict licence conditions that will control the spread of the GM wheat. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation required to prevent any contamination between wheat breeders’ varieties. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly self-pollinating. Any farmers who believe that they have suffered economic loss would have to make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. I note that there has been no loss or damage arising out of trials run under the OGTR licence conditions over the past four years. The short answer is that I have played no role; this is a matter conducted under the authority of commonwealth law. Hon Dee Margetts : You must have some input? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes. I explained that in the answer. When the member gets the written answer she will be able to delve into it. (2) Liability was raised as an issue in the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs report, which was tabled in Parliament in July 2003. I commended the report to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council and the report was tabled at the council meeting in August 2003. At the instigation of Western Australia, the terms of reference for the review of the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 are now sufficiently wide to ensure that issues to do with national regulatory frameworks raised by the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs are addressed. Thus, recommendations from the report are to be considered when the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 is reviewed. The review commences in July 2005. (3) The risk assessment process, licence conditions, auditing and monitoring are the responsibility of the OGTR under the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gallop government has consistently stated that there can be no consideration of the commercial growth of GM crops in this state until marketing concerns and any other outstanding matters have been satisfactorily resolved. I include in that the question of liability, which I think is, as yet, unresolved. The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 was put in place specifically to ensure that this can be achieved.
(1) The risk assessment and the setting of trial licence conditions to manage any identified and perceived risk are the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator under commonwealth legislation. The trial licence process has taken approximately nine months. During the process there have been two public consultation periods. The state’s scientific assessment of the trial and proposed licence conditions were considered by the Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee. I was kept fully informed of their considerations. The trial is a small trial and will be conducted under strict licence conditions that will control the spread of the GM wheat. The licence stipulates a 500-metre isolation zone, which is much wider than the two-metre separation required to prevent any contamination between wheat breeders’ varieties. It must be remembered that wheat is predominantly self-pollinating. Any farmers who believe that they have suffered economic loss would have to make a claim against Grain Biotech Australia Pty Ltd under common law. I note that there has been no loss or damage arising out of trials run under the OGTR licence conditions over the past four years. The short answer is that I have played no role; this is a matter conducted under the authority of commonwealth law. Hon Dee Margetts : You must have some input? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes. I explained that in the answer. When the member gets the written answer she will be able to delve into it. (2) Liability was raised as an issue in the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs report, which was tabled in Parliament in July 2003. I commended the report to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council and the report was tabled at the council meeting in August 2003. At the instigation of Western Australia, the terms of reference for the review of the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 are now sufficiently wide to ensure that issues to do with national regulatory frameworks raised by the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs are addressed. Thus, recommendations from the report are to be considered when the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 is reviewed. The review commences in July 2005. (3) The risk assessment process, licence conditions, auditing and monitoring are the responsibility of the OGTR under the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gallop government has consistently stated that there can be no consideration of the commercial growth of GM crops in this state until marketing concerns and any other outstanding matters have been satisfactorily resolved. I include in that the question of liability, which I think is, as yet, unresolved. The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 was put in place specifically to ensure that this can be achieved.
The short answer is that I have played no role; this is a matter conducted under the authority of commonwealth law. Hon Dee Margetts : You must have some input? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes. I explained that in the answer. When the member gets the written answer she will be able to delve into it. (2) Liability was raised as an issue in the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs report, which was tabled in Parliament in July 2003. I commended the report to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council and the report was tabled at the council meeting in August 2003. At the instigation of Western Australia, the terms of reference for the review of the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 are now sufficiently wide to ensure that issues to do with national regulatory frameworks raised by the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs are addressed. Thus, recommendations from the report are to be considered when the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 is reviewed. The review commences in July 2005. (3) The risk assessment process, licence conditions, auditing and monitoring are the responsibility of the OGTR under the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gallop government has consistently stated that there can be no consideration of the commercial growth of GM crops in this state until marketing concerns and any other outstanding matters have been satisfactorily resolved. I include in that the question of liability, which I think is, as yet, unresolved. The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 was put in place specifically to ensure that this can be achieved.
Hon Dee Margetts : You must have some input? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes. I explained that in the answer. When the member gets the written answer she will be able to delve into it. (2) Liability was raised as an issue in the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs report, which was tabled in Parliament in July 2003. I commended the report to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council and the report was tabled at the council meeting in August 2003. At the instigation of Western Australia, the terms of reference for the review of the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 are now sufficiently wide to ensure that issues to do with national regulatory frameworks raised by the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs are addressed. Thus, recommendations from the report are to be considered when the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 is reviewed. The review commences in July 2005. (3) The risk assessment process, licence conditions, auditing and monitoring are the responsibility of the OGTR under the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gallop government has consistently stated that there can be no consideration of the commercial growth of GM crops in this state until marketing concerns and any other outstanding matters have been satisfactorily resolved. I include in that the question of liability, which I think is, as yet, unresolved. The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 was put in place specifically to ensure that this can be achieved.
Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes. I explained that in the answer. When the member gets the written answer she will be able to delve into it. (2) Liability was raised as an issue in the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs report, which was tabled in Parliament in July 2003. I commended the report to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council and the report was tabled at the council meeting in August 2003. At the instigation of Western Australia, the terms of reference for the review of the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 are now sufficiently wide to ensure that issues to do with national regulatory frameworks raised by the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs are addressed. Thus, recommendations from the report are to be considered when the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 is reviewed. The review commences in July 2005. (3) The risk assessment process, licence conditions, auditing and monitoring are the responsibility of the OGTR under the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gallop government has consistently stated that there can be no consideration of the commercial growth of GM crops in this state until marketing concerns and any other outstanding matters have been satisfactorily resolved. I include in that the question of liability, which I think is, as yet, unresolved. The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 was put in place specifically to ensure that this can be achieved.
(2) Liability was raised as an issue in the Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs report, which was tabled in Parliament in July 2003. I commended the report to the Gene Technology Ministerial Council and the report was tabled at the council meeting in August 2003. At the instigation of Western Australia, the terms of reference for the review of the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 are now sufficiently wide to ensure that issues to do with national regulatory frameworks raised by the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs are addressed. Thus, recommendations from the report are to be considered when the commonwealth’s Gene Technology Act 2000 is reviewed. The review commences in July 2005. (3) The risk assessment process, licence conditions, auditing and monitoring are the responsibility of the OGTR under the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gallop government has consistently stated that there can be no consideration of the commercial growth of GM crops in this state until marketing concerns and any other outstanding matters have been satisfactorily resolved. I include in that the question of liability, which I think is, as yet, unresolved. The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 was put in place specifically to ensure that this can be achieved.
(3) The risk assessment process, licence conditions, auditing and monitoring are the responsibility of the OGTR under the commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gallop government has consistently stated that there can be no consideration of the commercial growth of GM crops in this state until marketing concerns and any other outstanding matters have been satisfactorily resolved. I include in that the question of liability, which I think is, as yet, unresolved. The Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 was put in place specifically to ensure that this can be achieved.
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.