❓ A WA parliamentary question probes the Minister regarding the tabling of GM canola trial contracts, transparency, and protection for non-GM farmers in case of contamination. The Minister denies any implication of tabling contracts, asserts common law protection, and states neighbour notification is a pre-approval requirement.
AnsweredQoN 477Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
genetically modified crops free areas exemption order 2009 — contracts
My question refers to the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Exemption Order 2009; to the minister’s response to my question without notice 330 on 2 April 2009 in which he said that all contracts with GM canola trial farmers could not yet be tabled because they had not all been finalised; and to the minister’s answer to my question without notice 401 on 5 May 2009 in which it was conceded that there was no system for checking compliance with the requirement for GM canola trial farmers to notify their neighbours before planting GM canola. (1) Does the minister accept that there was a clear implication in his 2 April answer that when all the contracts with GM canola trial farmers had been finalised, they would be tabled in Parliament by the minister? (2) Does the minister accept, given that all the contracts with GM canola trial farmers are now finalised, that by refusing to table those contracts he is no longer running an open and transparent process, as referred to in his 2 April answer? (3) Is the minister still of the view, in the event of contamination by GM crops, that non-GM farmers will be sufficiently protected by common law—for example as outlined in question without notice 106 of Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm? (4) If yes to (3), on what basis is the minister of that view, given that the names and addresses of GM canola trial farmers will now not be made public and the government does not know whether GM canola trial farmers will inform their neighbours before planting GM canola? (5) If no to (3), how is it envisaged that non-GM farmers will be protected, if at all? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY
My question refers to the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Exemption Order 2009; to the minister’s response to my question without notice 330 on 2 April 2009 in which he said that all contracts with GM canola trial farmers could not yet be tabled because they had not all been finalised; and to the minister’s answer to my question without notice 401 on 5 May 2009 in which it was conceded that there was no system for checking compliance with the requirement for GM canola trial farmers to notify their neighbours before planting GM canola. (1) Does the minister accept that there was a clear implication in his 2 April answer that when all the contracts with GM canola trial farmers had been finalised, they would be tabled in Parliament by the minister? (2) Does the minister accept, given that all the contracts with GM canola trial farmers are now finalised, that by refusing to table those contracts he is no longer running an open and transparent process, as referred to in his 2 April answer? (3) Is the minister still of the view, in the event of contamination by GM crops, that non-GM farmers will be sufficiently protected by common law—for example as outlined in question without notice 106 of Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm? (4) If yes to (3), on what basis is the minister of that view, given that the names and addresses of GM canola trial farmers will now not be made public and the government does not know whether GM canola trial farmers will inform their neighbours before planting GM canola? (5) If no to (3), how is it envisaged that non-GM farmers will be protected, if at all? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) No. (3) Yes. (4) The notification of neighbours is a requirement prior to approval to plant GM canola. (5) Not applicable.
(1) Does the minister accept that there was a clear implication in his 2 April answer that when all the contracts with GM canola trial farmers had been finalised, they would be tabled in Parliament by the minister? (2) Does the minister accept, given that all the contracts with GM canola trial farmers are now finalised, that by refusing to table those contracts he is no longer running an open and transparent process, as referred to in his 2 April answer? (3) Is the minister still of the view, in the event of contamination by GM crops, that non-GM farmers will be sufficiently protected by common law—for example as outlined in question without notice 106 of Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm? (4) If yes to (3), on what basis is the minister of that view, given that the names and addresses of GM canola trial farmers will now not be made public and the government does not know whether GM canola trial farmers will inform their neighbours before planting GM canola? (5) If no to (3), how is it envisaged that non-GM farmers will be protected, if at all? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1)-(2) No. (3) Yes. (4) The notification of neighbours is a requirement prior to approval to plant GM canola. (5) Not applicable.
(2) Does the minister accept, given that all the contracts with GM canola trial farmers are now finalised, that by refusing to table those contracts he is no longer running an open and transparent process, as referred to in his 2 April answer? (3) Is the minister still of the view, in the event of contamination by GM crops, that non-GM farmers will be sufficiently protected by common law—for example as outlined in question without notice 106 of Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm? (4) If yes to (3), on what basis is the minister of that view, given that the names and addresses of GM canola trial farmers will now not be made public and the government does not know whether GM canola trial farmers will inform their neighbours before planting GM canola? (5) If no to (3), how is it envisaged that non-GM farmers will be protected, if at all? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1)-(2) No. (3) Yes. (4) The notification of neighbours is a requirement prior to approval to plant GM canola. (5) Not applicable.
(3) Is the minister still of the view, in the event of contamination by GM crops, that non-GM farmers will be sufficiently protected by common law—for example as outlined in question without notice 106 of Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm? (4) If yes to (3), on what basis is the minister of that view, given that the names and addresses of GM canola trial farmers will now not be made public and the government does not know whether GM canola trial farmers will inform their neighbours before planting GM canola? (5) If no to (3), how is it envisaged that non-GM farmers will be protected, if at all? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1)-(2) No. (3) Yes. (4) The notification of neighbours is a requirement prior to approval to plant GM canola. (5) Not applicable.
(4) If yes to (3), on what basis is the minister of that view, given that the names and addresses of GM canola trial farmers will now not be made public and the government does not know whether GM canola trial farmers will inform their neighbours before planting GM canola? (5) If no to (3), how is it envisaged that non-GM farmers will be protected, if at all? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1)-(2) No. (3) Yes. (4) The notification of neighbours is a requirement prior to approval to plant GM canola. (5) Not applicable.
(5) If no to (3), how is it envisaged that non-GM farmers will be protected, if at all? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1)-(2) No. (3) Yes. (4) The notification of neighbours is a requirement prior to approval to plant GM canola. (5) Not applicable.
Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1)-(2) No. (3) Yes. (4) The notification of neighbours is a requirement prior to approval to plant GM canola. (5) Not applicable.
(1)-(2) No. (3) Yes. (4) The notification of neighbours is a requirement prior to approval to plant GM canola. (5) Not applicable.
(3) Yes. (4) The notification of neighbours is a requirement prior to approval to plant GM canola. (5) Not applicable.
(4) The notification of neighbours is a requirement prior to approval to plant GM canola. (5) Not applicable.
(5) Not applicable.
(1) Does the minister accept that there was a clear implication in his 2 April answer that when all the contracts with GM canola trial farmers had been finalised, they would be tabled in Parliament by the minister? (2) Does the minister accept, given that all the contracts with GM canola trial farmers are now finalised, that by refusing to table those contracts he is no longer running an open and transparent process, as referred to in his 2 April answer? (3) Is the minister still of the view, in the event of contamination by GM crops, that non-GM farmers will be sufficiently protected by common law—for example as outlined in question without notice 106 of Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm? (4) If yes to (3), on what basis is the minister of that view, given that the names and addresses of GM canola trial farmers will now not be made public and the government does not know whether GM canola trial farmers will inform their neighbours before planting GM canola? (5) If no to (3), how is it envisaged that non-GM farmers will be protected, if at all? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1)-(2) No. (3) Yes. (4) The notification of neighbours is a requirement prior to approval to plant GM canola. (5) Not applicable.
(2) Does the minister accept, given that all the contracts with GM canola trial farmers are now finalised, that by refusing to table those contracts he is no longer running an open and transparent process, as referred to in his 2 April answer? (3) Is the minister still of the view, in the event of contamination by GM crops, that non-GM farmers will be sufficiently protected by common law—for example as outlined in question without notice 106 of Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm? (4) If yes to (3), on what basis is the minister of that view, given that the names and addresses of GM canola trial farmers will now not be made public and the government does not know whether GM canola trial farmers will inform their neighbours before planting GM canola? (5) If no to (3), how is it envisaged that non-GM farmers will be protected, if at all? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1)-(2) No. (3) Yes. (4) The notification of neighbours is a requirement prior to approval to plant GM canola. (5) Not applicable.
(3) Is the minister still of the view, in the event of contamination by GM crops, that non-GM farmers will be sufficiently protected by common law—for example as outlined in question without notice 106 of Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm? (4) If yes to (3), on what basis is the minister of that view, given that the names and addresses of GM canola trial farmers will now not be made public and the government does not know whether GM canola trial farmers will inform their neighbours before planting GM canola? (5) If no to (3), how is it envisaged that non-GM farmers will be protected, if at all? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1)-(2) No. (3) Yes. (4) The notification of neighbours is a requirement prior to approval to plant GM canola. (5) Not applicable.
(4) If yes to (3), on what basis is the minister of that view, given that the names and addresses of GM canola trial farmers will now not be made public and the government does not know whether GM canola trial farmers will inform their neighbours before planting GM canola? (5) If no to (3), how is it envisaged that non-GM farmers will be protected, if at all? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1)-(2) No. (3) Yes. (4) The notification of neighbours is a requirement prior to approval to plant GM canola. (5) Not applicable.
(5) If no to (3), how is it envisaged that non-GM farmers will be protected, if at all? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1)-(2) No. (3) Yes. (4) The notification of neighbours is a requirement prior to approval to plant GM canola. (5) Not applicable.
Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: (1)-(2) No. (3) Yes. (4) The notification of neighbours is a requirement prior to approval to plant GM canola. (5) Not applicable.
(1)-(2) No. (3) Yes. (4) The notification of neighbours is a requirement prior to approval to plant GM canola. (5) Not applicable.
(3) Yes. (4) The notification of neighbours is a requirement prior to approval to plant GM canola. (5) Not applicable.
(4) The notification of neighbours is a requirement prior to approval to plant GM canola. (5) Not applicable.
(5) Not applicable.
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.