❓ A WA parliamentary question probes the state government's stance on Australia's support for the US's WTO action against the EU's GMO ban, focusing on potential threats to WA's moratoriums, competitive advantage, and GE labelling laws. The Minister responds by stating that the WA government prefers its trading partners to be WTO compliant, and that the WA government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods.
AnsweredQoN 956Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to Australia’s support for the United States’ World Trade Organisation action to overturn the European Union’s ban on genetically modified organisms. (1) Did the federal Minister for Trade, Mark Vaile, consult the Western Australian Government before supporting the United States’ action against the EU? (2) If not, what is the State Government’s position on the matter? (3) Does the minister believe that Australian support for this legal action will threaten the ability of Australian States to call moratoriums on the commercial release of genetically engineered crops? (4) If not, why not? (5) Given the strong and growing consumer preference for non-GE crops, would lobbying the EU to drop its restrictions not put the strong competitive advantage that Australian growers currently have at risk? (6) Does the minister agree that Australian support for this legal action poses a real threat to Australia’s existing GE labelling laws, one of the major US demands in the proposed Australia-US free trade agreement? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am unaware of any consultation with the Western Australian Government on this matter. (2) The World Trade Organisation’s challenge brought by the US and others is about the failure of the EU to conduct scientifically based risk assessments of GMOs. The WA Government prefers that its trading partners’ import regimes are compliant with the WTO. (3) No. (4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(1) Did the federal Minister for Trade, Mark Vaile, consult the Western Australian Government before supporting the United States’ action against the EU? (2) If not, what is the State Government’s position on the matter? (3) Does the minister believe that Australian support for this legal action will threaten the ability of Australian States to call moratoriums on the commercial release of genetically engineered crops? (4) If not, why not? (5) Given the strong and growing consumer preference for non-GE crops, would lobbying the EU to drop its restrictions not put the strong competitive advantage that Australian growers currently have at risk? (6) Does the minister agree that Australian support for this legal action poses a real threat to Australia’s existing GE labelling laws, one of the major US demands in the proposed Australia-US free trade agreement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am unaware of any consultation with the Western Australian Government on this matter. (2) The World Trade Organisation’s challenge brought by the US and others is about the failure of the EU to conduct scientifically based risk assessments of GMOs. The WA Government prefers that its trading partners’ import regimes are compliant with the WTO. (3) No. (4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(2) If not, what is the State Government’s position on the matter? (3) Does the minister believe that Australian support for this legal action will threaten the ability of Australian States to call moratoriums on the commercial release of genetically engineered crops? (4) If not, why not? (5) Given the strong and growing consumer preference for non-GE crops, would lobbying the EU to drop its restrictions not put the strong competitive advantage that Australian growers currently have at risk? (6) Does the minister agree that Australian support for this legal action poses a real threat to Australia’s existing GE labelling laws, one of the major US demands in the proposed Australia-US free trade agreement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am unaware of any consultation with the Western Australian Government on this matter. (2) The World Trade Organisation’s challenge brought by the US and others is about the failure of the EU to conduct scientifically based risk assessments of GMOs. The WA Government prefers that its trading partners’ import regimes are compliant with the WTO. (3) No. (4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(3) Does the minister believe that Australian support for this legal action will threaten the ability of Australian States to call moratoriums on the commercial release of genetically engineered crops? (4) If not, why not? (5) Given the strong and growing consumer preference for non-GE crops, would lobbying the EU to drop its restrictions not put the strong competitive advantage that Australian growers currently have at risk? (6) Does the minister agree that Australian support for this legal action poses a real threat to Australia’s existing GE labelling laws, one of the major US demands in the proposed Australia-US free trade agreement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am unaware of any consultation with the Western Australian Government on this matter. (2) The World Trade Organisation’s challenge brought by the US and others is about the failure of the EU to conduct scientifically based risk assessments of GMOs. The WA Government prefers that its trading partners’ import regimes are compliant with the WTO. (3) No. (4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(4) If not, why not? (5) Given the strong and growing consumer preference for non-GE crops, would lobbying the EU to drop its restrictions not put the strong competitive advantage that Australian growers currently have at risk? (6) Does the minister agree that Australian support for this legal action poses a real threat to Australia’s existing GE labelling laws, one of the major US demands in the proposed Australia-US free trade agreement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am unaware of any consultation with the Western Australian Government on this matter. (2) The World Trade Organisation’s challenge brought by the US and others is about the failure of the EU to conduct scientifically based risk assessments of GMOs. The WA Government prefers that its trading partners’ import regimes are compliant with the WTO. (3) No. (4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(5) Given the strong and growing consumer preference for non-GE crops, would lobbying the EU to drop its restrictions not put the strong competitive advantage that Australian growers currently have at risk? (6) Does the minister agree that Australian support for this legal action poses a real threat to Australia’s existing GE labelling laws, one of the major US demands in the proposed Australia-US free trade agreement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am unaware of any consultation with the Western Australian Government on this matter. (2) The World Trade Organisation’s challenge brought by the US and others is about the failure of the EU to conduct scientifically based risk assessments of GMOs. The WA Government prefers that its trading partners’ import regimes are compliant with the WTO. (3) No. (4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(6) Does the minister agree that Australian support for this legal action poses a real threat to Australia’s existing GE labelling laws, one of the major US demands in the proposed Australia-US free trade agreement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am unaware of any consultation with the Western Australian Government on this matter. (2) The World Trade Organisation’s challenge brought by the US and others is about the failure of the EU to conduct scientifically based risk assessments of GMOs. The WA Government prefers that its trading partners’ import regimes are compliant with the WTO. (3) No. (4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am unaware of any consultation with the Western Australian Government on this matter. (2) The World Trade Organisation’s challenge brought by the US and others is about the failure of the EU to conduct scientifically based risk assessments of GMOs. The WA Government prefers that its trading partners’ import regimes are compliant with the WTO. (3) No. (4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am unaware of any consultation with the Western Australian Government on this matter. (2) The World Trade Organisation’s challenge brought by the US and others is about the failure of the EU to conduct scientifically based risk assessments of GMOs. The WA Government prefers that its trading partners’ import regimes are compliant with the WTO. (3) No. (4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(1) I am unaware of any consultation with the Western Australian Government on this matter. (2) The World Trade Organisation’s challenge brought by the US and others is about the failure of the EU to conduct scientifically based risk assessments of GMOs. The WA Government prefers that its trading partners’ import regimes are compliant with the WTO. (3) No. (4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(2) The World Trade Organisation’s challenge brought by the US and others is about the failure of the EU to conduct scientifically based risk assessments of GMOs. The WA Government prefers that its trading partners’ import regimes are compliant with the WTO. (3) No. (4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(3) No. (4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(1) Did the federal Minister for Trade, Mark Vaile, consult the Western Australian Government before supporting the United States’ action against the EU? (2) If not, what is the State Government’s position on the matter? (3) Does the minister believe that Australian support for this legal action will threaten the ability of Australian States to call moratoriums on the commercial release of genetically engineered crops? (4) If not, why not? (5) Given the strong and growing consumer preference for non-GE crops, would lobbying the EU to drop its restrictions not put the strong competitive advantage that Australian growers currently have at risk? (6) Does the minister agree that Australian support for this legal action poses a real threat to Australia’s existing GE labelling laws, one of the major US demands in the proposed Australia-US free trade agreement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am unaware of any consultation with the Western Australian Government on this matter. (2) The World Trade Organisation’s challenge brought by the US and others is about the failure of the EU to conduct scientifically based risk assessments of GMOs. The WA Government prefers that its trading partners’ import regimes are compliant with the WTO. (3) No. (4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(2) If not, what is the State Government’s position on the matter? (3) Does the minister believe that Australian support for this legal action will threaten the ability of Australian States to call moratoriums on the commercial release of genetically engineered crops? (4) If not, why not? (5) Given the strong and growing consumer preference for non-GE crops, would lobbying the EU to drop its restrictions not put the strong competitive advantage that Australian growers currently have at risk? (6) Does the minister agree that Australian support for this legal action poses a real threat to Australia’s existing GE labelling laws, one of the major US demands in the proposed Australia-US free trade agreement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am unaware of any consultation with the Western Australian Government on this matter. (2) The World Trade Organisation’s challenge brought by the US and others is about the failure of the EU to conduct scientifically based risk assessments of GMOs. The WA Government prefers that its trading partners’ import regimes are compliant with the WTO. (3) No. (4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(3) Does the minister believe that Australian support for this legal action will threaten the ability of Australian States to call moratoriums on the commercial release of genetically engineered crops? (4) If not, why not? (5) Given the strong and growing consumer preference for non-GE crops, would lobbying the EU to drop its restrictions not put the strong competitive advantage that Australian growers currently have at risk? (6) Does the minister agree that Australian support for this legal action poses a real threat to Australia’s existing GE labelling laws, one of the major US demands in the proposed Australia-US free trade agreement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am unaware of any consultation with the Western Australian Government on this matter. (2) The World Trade Organisation’s challenge brought by the US and others is about the failure of the EU to conduct scientifically based risk assessments of GMOs. The WA Government prefers that its trading partners’ import regimes are compliant with the WTO. (3) No. (4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(4) If not, why not? (5) Given the strong and growing consumer preference for non-GE crops, would lobbying the EU to drop its restrictions not put the strong competitive advantage that Australian growers currently have at risk? (6) Does the minister agree that Australian support for this legal action poses a real threat to Australia’s existing GE labelling laws, one of the major US demands in the proposed Australia-US free trade agreement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am unaware of any consultation with the Western Australian Government on this matter. (2) The World Trade Organisation’s challenge brought by the US and others is about the failure of the EU to conduct scientifically based risk assessments of GMOs. The WA Government prefers that its trading partners’ import regimes are compliant with the WTO. (3) No. (4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(5) Given the strong and growing consumer preference for non-GE crops, would lobbying the EU to drop its restrictions not put the strong competitive advantage that Australian growers currently have at risk? (6) Does the minister agree that Australian support for this legal action poses a real threat to Australia’s existing GE labelling laws, one of the major US demands in the proposed Australia-US free trade agreement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am unaware of any consultation with the Western Australian Government on this matter. (2) The World Trade Organisation’s challenge brought by the US and others is about the failure of the EU to conduct scientifically based risk assessments of GMOs. The WA Government prefers that its trading partners’ import regimes are compliant with the WTO. (3) No. (4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(6) Does the minister agree that Australian support for this legal action poses a real threat to Australia’s existing GE labelling laws, one of the major US demands in the proposed Australia-US free trade agreement? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am unaware of any consultation with the Western Australian Government on this matter. (2) The World Trade Organisation’s challenge brought by the US and others is about the failure of the EU to conduct scientifically based risk assessments of GMOs. The WA Government prefers that its trading partners’ import regimes are compliant with the WTO. (3) No. (4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am unaware of any consultation with the Western Australian Government on this matter. (2) The World Trade Organisation’s challenge brought by the US and others is about the failure of the EU to conduct scientifically based risk assessments of GMOs. The WA Government prefers that its trading partners’ import regimes are compliant with the WTO. (3) No. (4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am unaware of any consultation with the Western Australian Government on this matter. (2) The World Trade Organisation’s challenge brought by the US and others is about the failure of the EU to conduct scientifically based risk assessments of GMOs. The WA Government prefers that its trading partners’ import regimes are compliant with the WTO. (3) No. (4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(1) I am unaware of any consultation with the Western Australian Government on this matter. (2) The World Trade Organisation’s challenge brought by the US and others is about the failure of the EU to conduct scientifically based risk assessments of GMOs. The WA Government prefers that its trading partners’ import regimes are compliant with the WTO. (3) No. (4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(2) The World Trade Organisation’s challenge brought by the US and others is about the failure of the EU to conduct scientifically based risk assessments of GMOs. The WA Government prefers that its trading partners’ import regimes are compliant with the WTO. (3) No. (4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(3) No. (4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(4) WA’s Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 has been reviewed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in terms of compliance with Australia’s WTO obligations and no problems have been identified. (5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(5) I do not believe our exports to the EU would be at serious risk while GM food crops are not cultivated commercially here or elsewhere in Australia. As the member is aware, Western Australia and most other jurisdictions are taking action to prevent GM canola being introduced at this stage because of the marketing risk. (6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
(6) The Government will maintain its support for the labelling of GE foods and would strongly object if the existing GE labelling laws faced real threat. Labelling laws are not under challenge or in the scope of the dispute with the EU, so our GE labelling laws should not be threatened.
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.