❓ A parliamentary question regarding the potential lifting of the moratorium on genetically modified energy crops in WA, the price premium for non-GM canola, and the costs associated with growing conventional canola. The Minister's response highlights the lack of commercial-scale trials and expresses disappointment in seed licensees.
AnsweredQoN 957Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ENERGY CROPS
Given that genetically modified crops may have more favourable characteristics for biomass yields, starch or oil output - (1) Will the government ever lift its moratorium on genetically modified dedicated energy crops? (2) What is the expected dollars-per-tonne premium to Western Australian growers of non-genetically modified canola versus the current world price available for genetically modified canola for this year’s harvest, which is already underway? (3) How does this price premium, if any, compare with the higher input costs, particularly for chemicals, of growing conventional non-genetically modified canola? (4) How does this price premium, if any, of the reduced production yield compare with that for genetically modified canola crops? Hon KIM CHANCE
Given that genetically modified crops may have more favourable characteristics for biomass yields, starch or oil output - (1) Will the government ever lift its moratorium on genetically modified dedicated energy crops? (2) What is the expected dollars-per-tonne premium to Western Australian growers of non-genetically modified canola versus the current world price available for genetically modified canola for this year’s harvest, which is already underway? (3) How does this price premium, if any, compare with the higher input costs, particularly for chemicals, of growing conventional non-genetically modified canola? (4) How does this price premium, if any, of the reduced production yield compare with that for genetically modified canola crops? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1)-(4) The question is multipart. I do not have a copy of the question but I think the preamble was that some varieties of GM canola may have a high biomass and seed yield. That has not actually been established in Western Australia or Australia in any commercial field trial. There have been very small trials of a few square metres. The yields from some of those trials have been encouraging, but, as yet, we do not know that that is the case. More recently, we have seen the release of some relatively high-yielding canola varieties that are not GM but hybrids. They look extremely promising. Some seem to have the capacity to tolerate much lower rainfall environments than conventional canola. The question, as I recall, seeks my view on the expected premium for non-genetically modified canola for the forthcoming season. That is a very difficult thing to predict because it depends on a number of supply and demand factors. However, my recollection is, on current Winnipeg prices against Australian prices, the difference between Canadian canola and Australian canola is about $A94 a tonne and $Can80 to $Can81 a tonne. That is the current differential, which has been maintained for some considerable time. Whether all that differential between Canadian and Australian prices is due to the non-GM nature of Australian canola, of course, is a debatable point and there may be local supply and demand factors and the basis points resulting from that that indicate that price differential. However, it is unusual to see a price differential of that magnitude lasting for such a long time in the market, and that is quite a long time. It begins to suggest that the take-up by the market for non-GM canola is strong. There does seem to be a premium for it, although I cannot claim that all that premium is due to the non-GM status. In relation to the latter part of the question, which seemed to relate to yield and cost of production differential, again, we will not know this until there are some commercial-scale trials. That is precisely why WA Farmers - the trade name for the Western Australian Farmers Federation - has been calling for more commercial-scale trials. I actually support that. I have provided my support for the one application I have so far received for a commercial-scale trial from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association in Esperance. Until we can hold some commercial-scale trials, it will be very difficult for farmers to make a commercial judgement on whether the adoption of the technology is desirable. At this stage, we are really fumbling around in the dark to determine whether there is a GM variety that is even remotely going to interest Western Australian farmers. Having given my support for the applicants of the commercial trial, it was very disappointing to then learn that the proponents of the trial have indicated uncertainty about whether the licensees of the seed will allow an independent body to carry out scientific trials at all. That is extremely disappointing because Western Australian farmers will now be asking the licensees of the technology whether they actually have something. They should also be asking: why are these people suggesting we should take up this technology if we cannot independently assess its performance? They want us to make a commitment to the technology before we actually know anything about its commercial performance. When I have discussed that with Western Australian farmers, they have certainly indicated their great disappointment in the holders of the licence.
(1) Will the government ever lift its moratorium on genetically modified dedicated energy crops? (2) What is the expected dollars-per-tonne premium to Western Australian growers of non-genetically modified canola versus the current world price available for genetically modified canola for this year’s harvest, which is already underway? (3) How does this price premium, if any, compare with the higher input costs, particularly for chemicals, of growing conventional non-genetically modified canola? (4) How does this price premium, if any, of the reduced production yield compare with that for genetically modified canola crops? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1)-(4) The question is multipart. I do not have a copy of the question but I think the preamble was that some varieties of GM canola may have a high biomass and seed yield. That has not actually been established in Western Australia or Australia in any commercial field trial. There have been very small trials of a few square metres. The yields from some of those trials have been encouraging, but, as yet, we do not know that that is the case. More recently, we have seen the release of some relatively high-yielding canola varieties that are not GM but hybrids. They look extremely promising. Some seem to have the capacity to tolerate much lower rainfall environments than conventional canola. The question, as I recall, seeks my view on the expected premium for non-genetically modified canola for the forthcoming season. That is a very difficult thing to predict because it depends on a number of supply and demand factors. However, my recollection is, on current Winnipeg prices against Australian prices, the difference between Canadian canola and Australian canola is about $A94 a tonne and $Can80 to $Can81 a tonne. That is the current differential, which has been maintained for some considerable time. Whether all that differential between Canadian and Australian prices is due to the non-GM nature of Australian canola, of course, is a debatable point and there may be local supply and demand factors and the basis points resulting from that that indicate that price differential. However, it is unusual to see a price differential of that magnitude lasting for such a long time in the market, and that is quite a long time. It begins to suggest that the take-up by the market for non-GM canola is strong. There does seem to be a premium for it, although I cannot claim that all that premium is due to the non-GM status. In relation to the latter part of the question, which seemed to relate to yield and cost of production differential, again, we will not know this until there are some commercial-scale trials. That is precisely why WA Farmers - the trade name for the Western Australian Farmers Federation - has been calling for more commercial-scale trials. I actually support that. I have provided my support for the one application I have so far received for a commercial-scale trial from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association in Esperance. Until we can hold some commercial-scale trials, it will be very difficult for farmers to make a commercial judgement on whether the adoption of the technology is desirable. At this stage, we are really fumbling around in the dark to determine whether there is a GM variety that is even remotely going to interest Western Australian farmers. Having given my support for the applicants of the commercial trial, it was very disappointing to then learn that the proponents of the trial have indicated uncertainty about whether the licensees of the seed will allow an independent body to carry out scientific trials at all. That is extremely disappointing because Western Australian farmers will now be asking the licensees of the technology whether they actually have something. They should also be asking: why are these people suggesting we should take up this technology if we cannot independently assess its performance? They want us to make a commitment to the technology before we actually know anything about its commercial performance. When I have discussed that with Western Australian farmers, they have certainly indicated their great disappointment in the holders of the licence.
(2) What is the expected dollars-per-tonne premium to Western Australian growers of non-genetically modified canola versus the current world price available for genetically modified canola for this year’s harvest, which is already underway? (3) How does this price premium, if any, compare with the higher input costs, particularly for chemicals, of growing conventional non-genetically modified canola? (4) How does this price premium, if any, of the reduced production yield compare with that for genetically modified canola crops? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1)-(4) The question is multipart. I do not have a copy of the question but I think the preamble was that some varieties of GM canola may have a high biomass and seed yield. That has not actually been established in Western Australia or Australia in any commercial field trial. There have been very small trials of a few square metres. The yields from some of those trials have been encouraging, but, as yet, we do not know that that is the case. More recently, we have seen the release of some relatively high-yielding canola varieties that are not GM but hybrids. They look extremely promising. Some seem to have the capacity to tolerate much lower rainfall environments than conventional canola. The question, as I recall, seeks my view on the expected premium for non-genetically modified canola for the forthcoming season. That is a very difficult thing to predict because it depends on a number of supply and demand factors. However, my recollection is, on current Winnipeg prices against Australian prices, the difference between Canadian canola and Australian canola is about $A94 a tonne and $Can80 to $Can81 a tonne. That is the current differential, which has been maintained for some considerable time. Whether all that differential between Canadian and Australian prices is due to the non-GM nature of Australian canola, of course, is a debatable point and there may be local supply and demand factors and the basis points resulting from that that indicate that price differential. However, it is unusual to see a price differential of that magnitude lasting for such a long time in the market, and that is quite a long time. It begins to suggest that the take-up by the market for non-GM canola is strong. There does seem to be a premium for it, although I cannot claim that all that premium is due to the non-GM status. In relation to the latter part of the question, which seemed to relate to yield and cost of production differential, again, we will not know this until there are some commercial-scale trials. That is precisely why WA Farmers - the trade name for the Western Australian Farmers Federation - has been calling for more commercial-scale trials. I actually support that. I have provided my support for the one application I have so far received for a commercial-scale trial from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association in Esperance. Until we can hold some commercial-scale trials, it will be very difficult for farmers to make a commercial judgement on whether the adoption of the technology is desirable. At this stage, we are really fumbling around in the dark to determine whether there is a GM variety that is even remotely going to interest Western Australian farmers. Having given my support for the applicants of the commercial trial, it was very disappointing to then learn that the proponents of the trial have indicated uncertainty about whether the licensees of the seed will allow an independent body to carry out scientific trials at all. That is extremely disappointing because Western Australian farmers will now be asking the licensees of the technology whether they actually have something. They should also be asking: why are these people suggesting we should take up this technology if we cannot independently assess its performance? They want us to make a commitment to the technology before we actually know anything about its commercial performance. When I have discussed that with Western Australian farmers, they have certainly indicated their great disappointment in the holders of the licence.
(3) How does this price premium, if any, compare with the higher input costs, particularly for chemicals, of growing conventional non-genetically modified canola? (4) How does this price premium, if any, of the reduced production yield compare with that for genetically modified canola crops? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1)-(4) The question is multipart. I do not have a copy of the question but I think the preamble was that some varieties of GM canola may have a high biomass and seed yield. That has not actually been established in Western Australia or Australia in any commercial field trial. There have been very small trials of a few square metres. The yields from some of those trials have been encouraging, but, as yet, we do not know that that is the case. More recently, we have seen the release of some relatively high-yielding canola varieties that are not GM but hybrids. They look extremely promising. Some seem to have the capacity to tolerate much lower rainfall environments than conventional canola. The question, as I recall, seeks my view on the expected premium for non-genetically modified canola for the forthcoming season. That is a very difficult thing to predict because it depends on a number of supply and demand factors. However, my recollection is, on current Winnipeg prices against Australian prices, the difference between Canadian canola and Australian canola is about $A94 a tonne and $Can80 to $Can81 a tonne. That is the current differential, which has been maintained for some considerable time. Whether all that differential between Canadian and Australian prices is due to the non-GM nature of Australian canola, of course, is a debatable point and there may be local supply and demand factors and the basis points resulting from that that indicate that price differential. However, it is unusual to see a price differential of that magnitude lasting for such a long time in the market, and that is quite a long time. It begins to suggest that the take-up by the market for non-GM canola is strong. There does seem to be a premium for it, although I cannot claim that all that premium is due to the non-GM status. In relation to the latter part of the question, which seemed to relate to yield and cost of production differential, again, we will not know this until there are some commercial-scale trials. That is precisely why WA Farmers - the trade name for the Western Australian Farmers Federation - has been calling for more commercial-scale trials. I actually support that. I have provided my support for the one application I have so far received for a commercial-scale trial from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association in Esperance. Until we can hold some commercial-scale trials, it will be very difficult for farmers to make a commercial judgement on whether the adoption of the technology is desirable. At this stage, we are really fumbling around in the dark to determine whether there is a GM variety that is even remotely going to interest Western Australian farmers. Having given my support for the applicants of the commercial trial, it was very disappointing to then learn that the proponents of the trial have indicated uncertainty about whether the licensees of the seed will allow an independent body to carry out scientific trials at all. That is extremely disappointing because Western Australian farmers will now be asking the licensees of the technology whether they actually have something. They should also be asking: why are these people suggesting we should take up this technology if we cannot independently assess its performance? They want us to make a commitment to the technology before we actually know anything about its commercial performance. When I have discussed that with Western Australian farmers, they have certainly indicated their great disappointment in the holders of the licence.
(4) How does this price premium, if any, of the reduced production yield compare with that for genetically modified canola crops? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1)-(4) The question is multipart. I do not have a copy of the question but I think the preamble was that some varieties of GM canola may have a high biomass and seed yield. That has not actually been established in Western Australia or Australia in any commercial field trial. There have been very small trials of a few square metres. The yields from some of those trials have been encouraging, but, as yet, we do not know that that is the case. More recently, we have seen the release of some relatively high-yielding canola varieties that are not GM but hybrids. They look extremely promising. Some seem to have the capacity to tolerate much lower rainfall environments than conventional canola. The question, as I recall, seeks my view on the expected premium for non-genetically modified canola for the forthcoming season. That is a very difficult thing to predict because it depends on a number of supply and demand factors. However, my recollection is, on current Winnipeg prices against Australian prices, the difference between Canadian canola and Australian canola is about $A94 a tonne and $Can80 to $Can81 a tonne. That is the current differential, which has been maintained for some considerable time. Whether all that differential between Canadian and Australian prices is due to the non-GM nature of Australian canola, of course, is a debatable point and there may be local supply and demand factors and the basis points resulting from that that indicate that price differential. However, it is unusual to see a price differential of that magnitude lasting for such a long time in the market, and that is quite a long time. It begins to suggest that the take-up by the market for non-GM canola is strong. There does seem to be a premium for it, although I cannot claim that all that premium is due to the non-GM status. In relation to the latter part of the question, which seemed to relate to yield and cost of production differential, again, we will not know this until there are some commercial-scale trials. That is precisely why WA Farmers - the trade name for the Western Australian Farmers Federation - has been calling for more commercial-scale trials. I actually support that. I have provided my support for the one application I have so far received for a commercial-scale trial from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association in Esperance. Until we can hold some commercial-scale trials, it will be very difficult for farmers to make a commercial judgement on whether the adoption of the technology is desirable. At this stage, we are really fumbling around in the dark to determine whether there is a GM variety that is even remotely going to interest Western Australian farmers. Having given my support for the applicants of the commercial trial, it was very disappointing to then learn that the proponents of the trial have indicated uncertainty about whether the licensees of the seed will allow an independent body to carry out scientific trials at all. That is extremely disappointing because Western Australian farmers will now be asking the licensees of the technology whether they actually have something. They should also be asking: why are these people suggesting we should take up this technology if we cannot independently assess its performance? They want us to make a commitment to the technology before we actually know anything about its commercial performance. When I have discussed that with Western Australian farmers, they have certainly indicated their great disappointment in the holders of the licence.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1)-(4) The question is multipart. I do not have a copy of the question but I think the preamble was that some varieties of GM canola may have a high biomass and seed yield. That has not actually been established in Western Australia or Australia in any commercial field trial. There have been very small trials of a few square metres. The yields from some of those trials have been encouraging, but, as yet, we do not know that that is the case. More recently, we have seen the release of some relatively high-yielding canola varieties that are not GM but hybrids. They look extremely promising. Some seem to have the capacity to tolerate much lower rainfall environments than conventional canola. The question, as I recall, seeks my view on the expected premium for non-genetically modified canola for the forthcoming season. That is a very difficult thing to predict because it depends on a number of supply and demand factors. However, my recollection is, on current Winnipeg prices against Australian prices, the difference between Canadian canola and Australian canola is about $A94 a tonne and $Can80 to $Can81 a tonne. That is the current differential, which has been maintained for some considerable time. Whether all that differential between Canadian and Australian prices is due to the non-GM nature of Australian canola, of course, is a debatable point and there may be local supply and demand factors and the basis points resulting from that that indicate that price differential. However, it is unusual to see a price differential of that magnitude lasting for such a long time in the market, and that is quite a long time. It begins to suggest that the take-up by the market for non-GM canola is strong. There does seem to be a premium for it, although I cannot claim that all that premium is due to the non-GM status. In relation to the latter part of the question, which seemed to relate to yield and cost of production differential, again, we will not know this until there are some commercial-scale trials. That is precisely why WA Farmers - the trade name for the Western Australian Farmers Federation - has been calling for more commercial-scale trials. I actually support that. I have provided my support for the one application I have so far received for a commercial-scale trial from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association in Esperance. Until we can hold some commercial-scale trials, it will be very difficult for farmers to make a commercial judgement on whether the adoption of the technology is desirable. At this stage, we are really fumbling around in the dark to determine whether there is a GM variety that is even remotely going to interest Western Australian farmers. Having given my support for the applicants of the commercial trial, it was very disappointing to then learn that the proponents of the trial have indicated uncertainty about whether the licensees of the seed will allow an independent body to carry out scientific trials at all. That is extremely disappointing because Western Australian farmers will now be asking the licensees of the technology whether they actually have something. They should also be asking: why are these people suggesting we should take up this technology if we cannot independently assess its performance? They want us to make a commitment to the technology before we actually know anything about its commercial performance. When I have discussed that with Western Australian farmers, they have certainly indicated their great disappointment in the holders of the licence.
I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1)-(4) The question is multipart. I do not have a copy of the question but I think the preamble was that some varieties of GM canola may have a high biomass and seed yield. That has not actually been established in Western Australia or Australia in any commercial field trial. There have been very small trials of a few square metres. The yields from some of those trials have been encouraging, but, as yet, we do not know that that is the case. More recently, we have seen the release of some relatively high-yielding canola varieties that are not GM but hybrids. They look extremely promising. Some seem to have the capacity to tolerate much lower rainfall environments than conventional canola. The question, as I recall, seeks my view on the expected premium for non-genetically modified canola for the forthcoming season. That is a very difficult thing to predict because it depends on a number of supply and demand factors. However, my recollection is, on current Winnipeg prices against Australian prices, the difference between Canadian canola and Australian canola is about $A94 a tonne and $Can80 to $Can81 a tonne. That is the current differential, which has been maintained for some considerable time. Whether all that differential between Canadian and Australian prices is due to the non-GM nature of Australian canola, of course, is a debatable point and there may be local supply and demand factors and the basis points resulting from that that indicate that price differential. However, it is unusual to see a price differential of that magnitude lasting for such a long time in the market, and that is quite a long time. It begins to suggest that the take-up by the market for non-GM canola is strong. There does seem to be a premium for it, although I cannot claim that all that premium is due to the non-GM status. In relation to the latter part of the question, which seemed to relate to yield and cost of production differential, again, we will not know this until there are some commercial-scale trials. That is precisely why WA Farmers - the trade name for the Western Australian Farmers Federation - has been calling for more commercial-scale trials. I actually support that. I have provided my support for the one application I have so far received for a commercial-scale trial from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association in Esperance. Until we can hold some commercial-scale trials, it will be very difficult for farmers to make a commercial judgement on whether the adoption of the technology is desirable. At this stage, we are really fumbling around in the dark to determine whether there is a GM variety that is even remotely going to interest Western Australian farmers. Having given my support for the applicants of the commercial trial, it was very disappointing to then learn that the proponents of the trial have indicated uncertainty about whether the licensees of the seed will allow an independent body to carry out scientific trials at all. That is extremely disappointing because Western Australian farmers will now be asking the licensees of the technology whether they actually have something. They should also be asking: why are these people suggesting we should take up this technology if we cannot independently assess its performance? They want us to make a commitment to the technology before we actually know anything about its commercial performance. When I have discussed that with Western Australian farmers, they have certainly indicated their great disappointment in the holders of the licence.
(1)-(4) The question is multipart. I do not have a copy of the question but I think the preamble was that some varieties of GM canola may have a high biomass and seed yield. That has not actually been established in Western Australia or Australia in any commercial field trial. There have been very small trials of a few square metres. The yields from some of those trials have been encouraging, but, as yet, we do not know that that is the case. More recently, we have seen the release of some relatively high-yielding canola varieties that are not GM but hybrids. They look extremely promising. Some seem to have the capacity to tolerate much lower rainfall environments than conventional canola. The question, as I recall, seeks my view on the expected premium for non-genetically modified canola for the forthcoming season. That is a very difficult thing to predict because it depends on a number of supply and demand factors. However, my recollection is, on current Winnipeg prices against Australian prices, the difference between Canadian canola and Australian canola is about $A94 a tonne and $Can80 to $Can81 a tonne. That is the current differential, which has been maintained for some considerable time. Whether all that differential between Canadian and Australian prices is due to the non-GM nature of Australian canola, of course, is a debatable point and there may be local supply and demand factors and the basis points resulting from that that indicate that price differential. However, it is unusual to see a price differential of that magnitude lasting for such a long time in the market, and that is quite a long time. It begins to suggest that the take-up by the market for non-GM canola is strong. There does seem to be a premium for it, although I cannot claim that all that premium is due to the non-GM status. In relation to the latter part of the question, which seemed to relate to yield and cost of production differential, again, we will not know this until there are some commercial-scale trials. That is precisely why WA Farmers - the trade name for the Western Australian Farmers Federation - has been calling for more commercial-scale trials. I actually support that. I have provided my support for the one application I have so far received for a commercial-scale trial from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association in Esperance. Until we can hold some commercial-scale trials, it will be very difficult for farmers to make a commercial judgement on whether the adoption of the technology is desirable. At this stage, we are really fumbling around in the dark to determine whether there is a GM variety that is even remotely going to interest Western Australian farmers. Having given my support for the applicants of the commercial trial, it was very disappointing to then learn that the proponents of the trial have indicated uncertainty about whether the licensees of the seed will allow an independent body to carry out scientific trials at all. That is extremely disappointing because Western Australian farmers will now be asking the licensees of the technology whether they actually have something. They should also be asking: why are these people suggesting we should take up this technology if we cannot independently assess its performance? They want us to make a commitment to the technology before we actually know anything about its commercial performance. When I have discussed that with Western Australian farmers, they have certainly indicated their great disappointment in the holders of the licence.
In relation to the latter part of the question, which seemed to relate to yield and cost of production differential, again, we will not know this until there are some commercial-scale trials. That is precisely why WA Farmers - the trade name for the Western Australian Farmers Federation - has been calling for more commercial-scale trials. I actually support that. I have provided my support for the one application I have so far received for a commercial-scale trial from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association in Esperance. Until we can hold some commercial-scale trials, it will be very difficult for farmers to make a commercial judgement on whether the adoption of the technology is desirable. At this stage, we are really fumbling around in the dark to determine whether there is a GM variety that is even remotely going to interest Western Australian farmers. Having given my support for the applicants of the commercial trial, it was very disappointing to then learn that the proponents of the trial have indicated uncertainty about whether the licensees of the seed will allow an independent body to carry out scientific trials at all. That is extremely disappointing because Western Australian farmers will now be asking the licensees of the technology whether they actually have something. They should also be asking: why are these people suggesting we should take up this technology if we cannot independently assess its performance? They want us to make a commitment to the technology before we actually know anything about its commercial performance. When I have discussed that with Western Australian farmers, they have certainly indicated their great disappointment in the holders of the licence.
(1) Will the government ever lift its moratorium on genetically modified dedicated energy crops? (2) What is the expected dollars-per-tonne premium to Western Australian growers of non-genetically modified canola versus the current world price available for genetically modified canola for this year’s harvest, which is already underway? (3) How does this price premium, if any, compare with the higher input costs, particularly for chemicals, of growing conventional non-genetically modified canola? (4) How does this price premium, if any, of the reduced production yield compare with that for genetically modified canola crops? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1)-(4) The question is multipart. I do not have a copy of the question but I think the preamble was that some varieties of GM canola may have a high biomass and seed yield. That has not actually been established in Western Australia or Australia in any commercial field trial. There have been very small trials of a few square metres. The yields from some of those trials have been encouraging, but, as yet, we do not know that that is the case. More recently, we have seen the release of some relatively high-yielding canola varieties that are not GM but hybrids. They look extremely promising. Some seem to have the capacity to tolerate much lower rainfall environments than conventional canola. The question, as I recall, seeks my view on the expected premium for non-genetically modified canola for the forthcoming season. That is a very difficult thing to predict because it depends on a number of supply and demand factors. However, my recollection is, on current Winnipeg prices against Australian prices, the difference between Canadian canola and Australian canola is about $A94 a tonne and $Can80 to $Can81 a tonne. That is the current differential, which has been maintained for some considerable time. Whether all that differential between Canadian and Australian prices is due to the non-GM nature of Australian canola, of course, is a debatable point and there may be local supply and demand factors and the basis points resulting from that that indicate that price differential. However, it is unusual to see a price differential of that magnitude lasting for such a long time in the market, and that is quite a long time. It begins to suggest that the take-up by the market for non-GM canola is strong. There does seem to be a premium for it, although I cannot claim that all that premium is due to the non-GM status. In relation to the latter part of the question, which seemed to relate to yield and cost of production differential, again, we will not know this until there are some commercial-scale trials. That is precisely why WA Farmers - the trade name for the Western Australian Farmers Federation - has been calling for more commercial-scale trials. I actually support that. I have provided my support for the one application I have so far received for a commercial-scale trial from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association in Esperance. Until we can hold some commercial-scale trials, it will be very difficult for farmers to make a commercial judgement on whether the adoption of the technology is desirable. At this stage, we are really fumbling around in the dark to determine whether there is a GM variety that is even remotely going to interest Western Australian farmers. Having given my support for the applicants of the commercial trial, it was very disappointing to then learn that the proponents of the trial have indicated uncertainty about whether the licensees of the seed will allow an independent body to carry out scientific trials at all. That is extremely disappointing because Western Australian farmers will now be asking the licensees of the technology whether they actually have something. They should also be asking: why are these people suggesting we should take up this technology if we cannot independently assess its performance? They want us to make a commitment to the technology before we actually know anything about its commercial performance. When I have discussed that with Western Australian farmers, they have certainly indicated their great disappointment in the holders of the licence.
(2) What is the expected dollars-per-tonne premium to Western Australian growers of non-genetically modified canola versus the current world price available for genetically modified canola for this year’s harvest, which is already underway? (3) How does this price premium, if any, compare with the higher input costs, particularly for chemicals, of growing conventional non-genetically modified canola? (4) How does this price premium, if any, of the reduced production yield compare with that for genetically modified canola crops? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1)-(4) The question is multipart. I do not have a copy of the question but I think the preamble was that some varieties of GM canola may have a high biomass and seed yield. That has not actually been established in Western Australia or Australia in any commercial field trial. There have been very small trials of a few square metres. The yields from some of those trials have been encouraging, but, as yet, we do not know that that is the case. More recently, we have seen the release of some relatively high-yielding canola varieties that are not GM but hybrids. They look extremely promising. Some seem to have the capacity to tolerate much lower rainfall environments than conventional canola. The question, as I recall, seeks my view on the expected premium for non-genetically modified canola for the forthcoming season. That is a very difficult thing to predict because it depends on a number of supply and demand factors. However, my recollection is, on current Winnipeg prices against Australian prices, the difference between Canadian canola and Australian canola is about $A94 a tonne and $Can80 to $Can81 a tonne. That is the current differential, which has been maintained for some considerable time. Whether all that differential between Canadian and Australian prices is due to the non-GM nature of Australian canola, of course, is a debatable point and there may be local supply and demand factors and the basis points resulting from that that indicate that price differential. However, it is unusual to see a price differential of that magnitude lasting for such a long time in the market, and that is quite a long time. It begins to suggest that the take-up by the market for non-GM canola is strong. There does seem to be a premium for it, although I cannot claim that all that premium is due to the non-GM status. In relation to the latter part of the question, which seemed to relate to yield and cost of production differential, again, we will not know this until there are some commercial-scale trials. That is precisely why WA Farmers - the trade name for the Western Australian Farmers Federation - has been calling for more commercial-scale trials. I actually support that. I have provided my support for the one application I have so far received for a commercial-scale trial from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association in Esperance. Until we can hold some commercial-scale trials, it will be very difficult for farmers to make a commercial judgement on whether the adoption of the technology is desirable. At this stage, we are really fumbling around in the dark to determine whether there is a GM variety that is even remotely going to interest Western Australian farmers. Having given my support for the applicants of the commercial trial, it was very disappointing to then learn that the proponents of the trial have indicated uncertainty about whether the licensees of the seed will allow an independent body to carry out scientific trials at all. That is extremely disappointing because Western Australian farmers will now be asking the licensees of the technology whether they actually have something. They should also be asking: why are these people suggesting we should take up this technology if we cannot independently assess its performance? They want us to make a commitment to the technology before we actually know anything about its commercial performance. When I have discussed that with Western Australian farmers, they have certainly indicated their great disappointment in the holders of the licence.
(3) How does this price premium, if any, compare with the higher input costs, particularly for chemicals, of growing conventional non-genetically modified canola? (4) How does this price premium, if any, of the reduced production yield compare with that for genetically modified canola crops? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1)-(4) The question is multipart. I do not have a copy of the question but I think the preamble was that some varieties of GM canola may have a high biomass and seed yield. That has not actually been established in Western Australia or Australia in any commercial field trial. There have been very small trials of a few square metres. The yields from some of those trials have been encouraging, but, as yet, we do not know that that is the case. More recently, we have seen the release of some relatively high-yielding canola varieties that are not GM but hybrids. They look extremely promising. Some seem to have the capacity to tolerate much lower rainfall environments than conventional canola. The question, as I recall, seeks my view on the expected premium for non-genetically modified canola for the forthcoming season. That is a very difficult thing to predict because it depends on a number of supply and demand factors. However, my recollection is, on current Winnipeg prices against Australian prices, the difference between Canadian canola and Australian canola is about $A94 a tonne and $Can80 to $Can81 a tonne. That is the current differential, which has been maintained for some considerable time. Whether all that differential between Canadian and Australian prices is due to the non-GM nature of Australian canola, of course, is a debatable point and there may be local supply and demand factors and the basis points resulting from that that indicate that price differential. However, it is unusual to see a price differential of that magnitude lasting for such a long time in the market, and that is quite a long time. It begins to suggest that the take-up by the market for non-GM canola is strong. There does seem to be a premium for it, although I cannot claim that all that premium is due to the non-GM status. In relation to the latter part of the question, which seemed to relate to yield and cost of production differential, again, we will not know this until there are some commercial-scale trials. That is precisely why WA Farmers - the trade name for the Western Australian Farmers Federation - has been calling for more commercial-scale trials. I actually support that. I have provided my support for the one application I have so far received for a commercial-scale trial from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association in Esperance. Until we can hold some commercial-scale trials, it will be very difficult for farmers to make a commercial judgement on whether the adoption of the technology is desirable. At this stage, we are really fumbling around in the dark to determine whether there is a GM variety that is even remotely going to interest Western Australian farmers. Having given my support for the applicants of the commercial trial, it was very disappointing to then learn that the proponents of the trial have indicated uncertainty about whether the licensees of the seed will allow an independent body to carry out scientific trials at all. That is extremely disappointing because Western Australian farmers will now be asking the licensees of the technology whether they actually have something. They should also be asking: why are these people suggesting we should take up this technology if we cannot independently assess its performance? They want us to make a commitment to the technology before we actually know anything about its commercial performance. When I have discussed that with Western Australian farmers, they have certainly indicated their great disappointment in the holders of the licence.
(4) How does this price premium, if any, of the reduced production yield compare with that for genetically modified canola crops? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1)-(4) The question is multipart. I do not have a copy of the question but I think the preamble was that some varieties of GM canola may have a high biomass and seed yield. That has not actually been established in Western Australia or Australia in any commercial field trial. There have been very small trials of a few square metres. The yields from some of those trials have been encouraging, but, as yet, we do not know that that is the case. More recently, we have seen the release of some relatively high-yielding canola varieties that are not GM but hybrids. They look extremely promising. Some seem to have the capacity to tolerate much lower rainfall environments than conventional canola. The question, as I recall, seeks my view on the expected premium for non-genetically modified canola for the forthcoming season. That is a very difficult thing to predict because it depends on a number of supply and demand factors. However, my recollection is, on current Winnipeg prices against Australian prices, the difference between Canadian canola and Australian canola is about $A94 a tonne and $Can80 to $Can81 a tonne. That is the current differential, which has been maintained for some considerable time. Whether all that differential between Canadian and Australian prices is due to the non-GM nature of Australian canola, of course, is a debatable point and there may be local supply and demand factors and the basis points resulting from that that indicate that price differential. However, it is unusual to see a price differential of that magnitude lasting for such a long time in the market, and that is quite a long time. It begins to suggest that the take-up by the market for non-GM canola is strong. There does seem to be a premium for it, although I cannot claim that all that premium is due to the non-GM status. In relation to the latter part of the question, which seemed to relate to yield and cost of production differential, again, we will not know this until there are some commercial-scale trials. That is precisely why WA Farmers - the trade name for the Western Australian Farmers Federation - has been calling for more commercial-scale trials. I actually support that. I have provided my support for the one application I have so far received for a commercial-scale trial from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association in Esperance. Until we can hold some commercial-scale trials, it will be very difficult for farmers to make a commercial judgement on whether the adoption of the technology is desirable. At this stage, we are really fumbling around in the dark to determine whether there is a GM variety that is even remotely going to interest Western Australian farmers. Having given my support for the applicants of the commercial trial, it was very disappointing to then learn that the proponents of the trial have indicated uncertainty about whether the licensees of the seed will allow an independent body to carry out scientific trials at all. That is extremely disappointing because Western Australian farmers will now be asking the licensees of the technology whether they actually have something. They should also be asking: why are these people suggesting we should take up this technology if we cannot independently assess its performance? They want us to make a commitment to the technology before we actually know anything about its commercial performance. When I have discussed that with Western Australian farmers, they have certainly indicated their great disappointment in the holders of the licence.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1)-(4) The question is multipart. I do not have a copy of the question but I think the preamble was that some varieties of GM canola may have a high biomass and seed yield. That has not actually been established in Western Australia or Australia in any commercial field trial. There have been very small trials of a few square metres. The yields from some of those trials have been encouraging, but, as yet, we do not know that that is the case. More recently, we have seen the release of some relatively high-yielding canola varieties that are not GM but hybrids. They look extremely promising. Some seem to have the capacity to tolerate much lower rainfall environments than conventional canola. The question, as I recall, seeks my view on the expected premium for non-genetically modified canola for the forthcoming season. That is a very difficult thing to predict because it depends on a number of supply and demand factors. However, my recollection is, on current Winnipeg prices against Australian prices, the difference between Canadian canola and Australian canola is about $A94 a tonne and $Can80 to $Can81 a tonne. That is the current differential, which has been maintained for some considerable time. Whether all that differential between Canadian and Australian prices is due to the non-GM nature of Australian canola, of course, is a debatable point and there may be local supply and demand factors and the basis points resulting from that that indicate that price differential. However, it is unusual to see a price differential of that magnitude lasting for such a long time in the market, and that is quite a long time. It begins to suggest that the take-up by the market for non-GM canola is strong. There does seem to be a premium for it, although I cannot claim that all that premium is due to the non-GM status. In relation to the latter part of the question, which seemed to relate to yield and cost of production differential, again, we will not know this until there are some commercial-scale trials. That is precisely why WA Farmers - the trade name for the Western Australian Farmers Federation - has been calling for more commercial-scale trials. I actually support that. I have provided my support for the one application I have so far received for a commercial-scale trial from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association in Esperance. Until we can hold some commercial-scale trials, it will be very difficult for farmers to make a commercial judgement on whether the adoption of the technology is desirable. At this stage, we are really fumbling around in the dark to determine whether there is a GM variety that is even remotely going to interest Western Australian farmers. Having given my support for the applicants of the commercial trial, it was very disappointing to then learn that the proponents of the trial have indicated uncertainty about whether the licensees of the seed will allow an independent body to carry out scientific trials at all. That is extremely disappointing because Western Australian farmers will now be asking the licensees of the technology whether they actually have something. They should also be asking: why are these people suggesting we should take up this technology if we cannot independently assess its performance? They want us to make a commitment to the technology before we actually know anything about its commercial performance. When I have discussed that with Western Australian farmers, they have certainly indicated their great disappointment in the holders of the licence.
I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. (1)-(4) The question is multipart. I do not have a copy of the question but I think the preamble was that some varieties of GM canola may have a high biomass and seed yield. That has not actually been established in Western Australia or Australia in any commercial field trial. There have been very small trials of a few square metres. The yields from some of those trials have been encouraging, but, as yet, we do not know that that is the case. More recently, we have seen the release of some relatively high-yielding canola varieties that are not GM but hybrids. They look extremely promising. Some seem to have the capacity to tolerate much lower rainfall environments than conventional canola. The question, as I recall, seeks my view on the expected premium for non-genetically modified canola for the forthcoming season. That is a very difficult thing to predict because it depends on a number of supply and demand factors. However, my recollection is, on current Winnipeg prices against Australian prices, the difference between Canadian canola and Australian canola is about $A94 a tonne and $Can80 to $Can81 a tonne. That is the current differential, which has been maintained for some considerable time. Whether all that differential between Canadian and Australian prices is due to the non-GM nature of Australian canola, of course, is a debatable point and there may be local supply and demand factors and the basis points resulting from that that indicate that price differential. However, it is unusual to see a price differential of that magnitude lasting for such a long time in the market, and that is quite a long time. It begins to suggest that the take-up by the market for non-GM canola is strong. There does seem to be a premium for it, although I cannot claim that all that premium is due to the non-GM status. In relation to the latter part of the question, which seemed to relate to yield and cost of production differential, again, we will not know this until there are some commercial-scale trials. That is precisely why WA Farmers - the trade name for the Western Australian Farmers Federation - has been calling for more commercial-scale trials. I actually support that. I have provided my support for the one application I have so far received for a commercial-scale trial from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association in Esperance. Until we can hold some commercial-scale trials, it will be very difficult for farmers to make a commercial judgement on whether the adoption of the technology is desirable. At this stage, we are really fumbling around in the dark to determine whether there is a GM variety that is even remotely going to interest Western Australian farmers. Having given my support for the applicants of the commercial trial, it was very disappointing to then learn that the proponents of the trial have indicated uncertainty about whether the licensees of the seed will allow an independent body to carry out scientific trials at all. That is extremely disappointing because Western Australian farmers will now be asking the licensees of the technology whether they actually have something. They should also be asking: why are these people suggesting we should take up this technology if we cannot independently assess its performance? They want us to make a commitment to the technology before we actually know anything about its commercial performance. When I have discussed that with Western Australian farmers, they have certainly indicated their great disappointment in the holders of the licence.
(1)-(4) The question is multipart. I do not have a copy of the question but I think the preamble was that some varieties of GM canola may have a high biomass and seed yield. That has not actually been established in Western Australia or Australia in any commercial field trial. There have been very small trials of a few square metres. The yields from some of those trials have been encouraging, but, as yet, we do not know that that is the case. More recently, we have seen the release of some relatively high-yielding canola varieties that are not GM but hybrids. They look extremely promising. Some seem to have the capacity to tolerate much lower rainfall environments than conventional canola. The question, as I recall, seeks my view on the expected premium for non-genetically modified canola for the forthcoming season. That is a very difficult thing to predict because it depends on a number of supply and demand factors. However, my recollection is, on current Winnipeg prices against Australian prices, the difference between Canadian canola and Australian canola is about $A94 a tonne and $Can80 to $Can81 a tonne. That is the current differential, which has been maintained for some considerable time. Whether all that differential between Canadian and Australian prices is due to the non-GM nature of Australian canola, of course, is a debatable point and there may be local supply and demand factors and the basis points resulting from that that indicate that price differential. However, it is unusual to see a price differential of that magnitude lasting for such a long time in the market, and that is quite a long time. It begins to suggest that the take-up by the market for non-GM canola is strong. There does seem to be a premium for it, although I cannot claim that all that premium is due to the non-GM status. In relation to the latter part of the question, which seemed to relate to yield and cost of production differential, again, we will not know this until there are some commercial-scale trials. That is precisely why WA Farmers - the trade name for the Western Australian Farmers Federation - has been calling for more commercial-scale trials. I actually support that. I have provided my support for the one application I have so far received for a commercial-scale trial from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association in Esperance. Until we can hold some commercial-scale trials, it will be very difficult for farmers to make a commercial judgement on whether the adoption of the technology is desirable. At this stage, we are really fumbling around in the dark to determine whether there is a GM variety that is even remotely going to interest Western Australian farmers. Having given my support for the applicants of the commercial trial, it was very disappointing to then learn that the proponents of the trial have indicated uncertainty about whether the licensees of the seed will allow an independent body to carry out scientific trials at all. That is extremely disappointing because Western Australian farmers will now be asking the licensees of the technology whether they actually have something. They should also be asking: why are these people suggesting we should take up this technology if we cannot independently assess its performance? They want us to make a commitment to the technology before we actually know anything about its commercial performance. When I have discussed that with Western Australian farmers, they have certainly indicated their great disappointment in the holders of the licence.
In relation to the latter part of the question, which seemed to relate to yield and cost of production differential, again, we will not know this until there are some commercial-scale trials. That is precisely why WA Farmers - the trade name for the Western Australian Farmers Federation - has been calling for more commercial-scale trials. I actually support that. I have provided my support for the one application I have so far received for a commercial-scale trial from the South East Premium Wheat Growers Association in Esperance. Until we can hold some commercial-scale trials, it will be very difficult for farmers to make a commercial judgement on whether the adoption of the technology is desirable. At this stage, we are really fumbling around in the dark to determine whether there is a GM variety that is even remotely going to interest Western Australian farmers. Having given my support for the applicants of the commercial trial, it was very disappointing to then learn that the proponents of the trial have indicated uncertainty about whether the licensees of the seed will allow an independent body to carry out scientific trials at all. That is extremely disappointing because Western Australian farmers will now be asking the licensees of the technology whether they actually have something. They should also be asking: why are these people suggesting we should take up this technology if we cannot independently assess its performance? They want us to make a commitment to the technology before we actually know anything about its commercial performance. When I have discussed that with Western Australian farmers, they have certainly indicated their great disappointment in the holders of the licence.
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.