2016-08-18
Hon Lynn MacLaren MLC
This year has not been a promising one for advocates for GM free crops in WA: organic farmers Steve and Sue Marsh lost their High Court appeal for compensation for losses after their GM free crops were contaminated; and, despite vehement Greens opposition, a government-initiated bill to repeal WAs GM free areas Act passed the Legislative Council.
If the GM Free Areas Repeal Bill is passed by the lower house later this year, WA will relinquish any control over GM crops in our state.
In 2003 the WA state government introduced a GM Crops Free Areas Act. The purpose of this Act is to protect the States markets for non-GM crops and to protect the States reputation as a “clean, green” source of agricultural products. Under the Act, the Minister has the power to seek an exemption which would permit specific genetically modified crops to be grown in WA.
One of the many reasons the Greens originally supported the Free Areas Act and actively oppose its appeal is that it provides protection for farmers*. These protections first began to be eroded in 2010 when the Minister for Agriculture and Food issued an exemption order to permit GM canola in WA. At that time I predicted that this decision would damage the livelihood of non-GM farmers; I sought to revoke the order, moving a disallowance motion in Parliament. I campaigned relentlessly with my constituents at anti GM rallies and in the chamber. However, when the motion was debated, while WA Labor supported it, the National and Liberal MPs – who have a majority - voted against the motion defeating it.
Steve and Sue Marshs crops were contaminated the same year as the exemption order on GM canola was put in place. Their neighbour Michael Baxter had windrowed GM canola to dry and it blew onto the Marshes land scattering millions of seeds.
In the intervening six years, the Marshes have not only lost their GM-free status and endured years of litigation, they now have to pay court costs. The state government has provided no protection for the Marshes which serves as a powerful precedent for other farmers who choose not to plant GM crops. The Marshes did nothing wrong, yet they have all but lost their livelihood and there is no legal recourse for them.
When deliberating the Marshes case, Chief Judge Carmel McClure strongly backed compensation for them. Two other judges disagreed with McClure so the case was lost but her clear judgement may offer scope for the Marshes to appeal if they have the resolve and funds to do so.
Judge McClure found that the Marshes had spoken to Baxter, written to him and posted signage warning the GM canola was a hazard to their organic certification. Mediation before the trial also failed, refuting Baxters claim that they could have settled the issue 'over the fence and a beer. As Monsanto indemnified Baxter for his legal costs, there were no financial implications for him but the Marshes may now lose their farm.
The Marshes struggle represents a fight for choice: they fought for WA farmers to be able to grow organic and GM-free crops for a lucrative market without concerns about uncontrollable contamination. This choice filters down to consumers who want the option of GM-free and organic alternatives to GM – this concerns us all.
Rather than remove protections as the repeal the GM Crops Free Area Act will do, I argue that there is a need for putting in place greater protections for farmers and the broader community. In WA we know that less than a third of our farmers currently grow GM crops – we should be ensuring that the remaining 70 percent are protected.
Due to the shortcomings of current laws, the only course open to Steve and Sue Marsh was to sue their neighbour or absorb the costs themselves. In 2000 when governments set up the Gene Technology Act they agreed that the courts and common law were the way to settle claims of damage from GM contamination. It is clear, however, that the vast majority of WA farmers who remain conventional or organic producers are unprotected.
Governments should now create a Farmer Protection Fund with a levy of $1 per kg on all GM seed sales so that the GM industry pays for the harm it does. The fund would automatically pay out GM affected landholders for proven economic loss, extra costs or harm.
My South Australian Greens colleague Mark Parnell has made repeated attempts to ensure that such legislative protections are in place for South Australian non-GM farmers. He introduced legislation into parliament which sought to enable farmers to claim for damages if their crops were contaminated but to no avail.
The fact that there is so much opposition to these kinds of protections reinforces my point of concern – ensuring segregation of crops is incredibly difficult to do and there is little appetite from those on the conservative side of politics to meaningfully protect farmers who choose not to be steamrolled into growing GM crops. Contamination of GM material on roadsides is well documented. Natures well designed system of pollination puts our environment at risk of contamination by GM material. A precautionary approach, spelled out in Greens policy, should prevail until we can be assured that there is no risk of contamination.
This is a real David and Goliath contest that we find ourselves in. Individual farmers like the Marshes do not have the same political clout as large pro-GM organisations. The Greens in WA will continue to stand alongside and advocate for these farmers and for consumers who would like to be able to choose to buy GM free products.
*To find out more about why the Greens oppose GMOs you can read my second reading speech here http://www.lynnmaclaren.org.au/parliament/speeches/genetically-modified-crops-free-areas-repeal-bill-2015-second-reading
Photos: Header ̶ Canola, the major crop in WA grown with GM varieties DAFWA; Anti-GM protesters Photographer unknown