Bills
Gene Technology (Western Australia) Bill 2025
Gene Technology (Western Australia) Amendment Bill 2025
Second reading
Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting.
Mrs Lorna Clarke (Butler) (4:02 pm): We turn now back to the Gene Technology (Western Australia) Bill 2025 and the Gene Technology (Western Australia) Amendment Bill 2025. I talked before about how this legislation will bolster innovation and the development of technology in WA. That is a big part of the Cook Labor government's Made in WA plan. I cannot let it slide today and must say that part of our Made in WA plan has been about trains and Metronet. I stand here as a proud Labor member to defend the Metronet project and the Yanchep line. Earlier today, the member for Cottesloe asked whether it was worth it. She said something along the lines of, "Is it worth it for something like this?" In response to what the member for Cottesloe said: Was it worth it? Yes, members, because you're worth it. Butler, you're worth it. Alkimos, you're worth it. Eglinton, you're worth it. Yanchep, you're worth it as well. I will always defend the Metronet line to Yanchep. I will always defend that Labor extended the freeway to Romeo Road and that we have delivered hundreds of millions of dollars in new schools—over $250 million, I think, from memory—since 2017.
This legislation is about technology. I hope members opposite support this. I hope that they look at the science— unlike what they seem to be doing on climate change and net zero—because to go against this legislation or to pick it apart would be anti-WA and would not be positive for WA when we look at the benefits that this legislation presents, particularly for various departments. We can see that it is mirror legislation of Commonwealth legislation and is an applied legislative model. Universities and private commercial entities do not have these restrictions, but at the moment a lot of the state departments do. I think people underestimate what kind of science, research and gene-based research is going on in our departments. For example, the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development is creating climate-smart crops that are tolerant of environmental conditions such as drought and frost, and is helping to increase the yield. It is creating crops that are resistant to certain pests and diseases. An example of that is genetically modified bananas that are resistant to the Panama disease, which is a severe threat to the banana industry. There is no cure and no banana varieties are resistant to it. It is currently found in Queensland and the Northern Territory, and the banana industries there are under quarantine. This bill will allow DPIRD to conduct research into that disease.
I ask members opposite to not do their usual trick of saying they will vote for this legislation and then pull it apart and sit here for hours and days on end in the consideration in detail stage going through every comma in the bills. The Gene Technology (Western Australia) Bill 2025 is a pretty routine bill, if members have a look at it, and it reflects what the Commonwealth and other states and territories already have in place. It will enable the creation of crops that are tolerant to specific herbicides to better target weeds and reduce the use of pesticides, and create crops with increased production of essential nutrients such as genetically modified canola that can increase omega-3 oils.
The Cook Labor government has a strong history and vision around strengthening our agricultural sector through the Diversify WA initiative. That is an economic blueprint between industry, government and the community that will strengthen our agricultural industries. For example, of the 2,000 FTE that sit within DPIRD, nearly 450 are researchers, technical specialists, economists and other staff who contribute to core agricultural research functions. Of the research and development staff, close to 150 are focused purely on grains research. This important research undertaken by DPIRD scientists has long provided benefits to WA producers and our economy.
The Minister for Agriculture and Food recently announced that the Cook Labor government has secured a new $55.7 million primary industries development research facility at Jandakot.
Mr Stephen Pratt: Hear, hear!
Mrs Lorna Clarke: The member for Jandakot has just said, "Hear, hear!" I am sure he can speak to the bill as it progresses.
That research centre will be a modern, functional workplace for research, development and innovation that will help futureproof WA's valuable agriculture and food sector.
Closer to my neck of the woods in the northern suburbs, DPIRD has also secured a 5.5 hectare site at Wanneroo for agricultural field trials, complementing more than 250 research trials spanning the metropolitan area and the regions. These new assets build on the government's extensive network of officers and dedicated agricultural researchers across the state.
Together with the $97 million State Biosecurity Response Centre that was announced at the end of 2024, our government's renewal program will ensure that WA's primary industries stay competitive on the global stage. This new primary industries research centre and the State Biosecurity Response Centre represent the largest investment of any government into metropolitan DPIRD facilities in decades. The Cook Labor government remains fully committed to providing a long-term fit-out for a metropolitan facility for DPIRD, with $320 million set aside for it in the budget.
That is just the impact of this bill on DPIRD. I will not take up more time. I am sure that many other members will speak about the impact this legislation will have on other departments such as the Department of Health and also on genetically modified organisms and bacteria, and the contribution that this kind of science made towards vaccines and COVID and what can be done in the future, particularly also around the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions and looking at invasive species.
In conclusion, I commend this bill to the house but I also want to say that in backing this bill, we are backing in WA, we are backing in our agricultural commercial sector and providing support to the agriculture sector and our scientists who sit within departments, universities, schools and the wonderful science discovery centres in Gingin and Neerabup. Go the Alkimos Tigers!
Mr Lachlan Hunter (Central Wheatbelt) (4:08 pm): I rise as the lead opposition speaker and shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food to make a contribution to the very important Gene Technology (Western Australia) Bill 2025 and the Gene Technology (Western Australia) Amendment Bill 2025. This legislation has been a long time coming. This government has a track record of delaying agriculture in Western Australia. Let me go through it. Like the member for Cannington, I too, when I was a young university student, younger than I am now, enrolled in the University of Western Australia—I do not know whether the member for Cannington is a UWA boy?
Mr Ron Sao: Murdoch.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: Our competitors.
Before I had ambitions to become a member of this place, I wanted to become a plant breeder. This bill actually governs the rights of plant breeders in the state of Western Australia. After I graduated from Cunderdin agricultural college and before I went to university, I spent a bit of a gap year working at Intergrain, which was then a state government agency part-owned by Monsanto and Syngenta that breeds wheat and barley varieties in the state of Western Australia. It was once based at the South Perth department of agriculture facility. That took me right around the state, including to Wongan Hills in my electorate, as well as to Emerald in Queensland and a place called Nuriootpa in South Australia, which is near the Barossa and where we were actually breeding the next generation of Western Australian cereal crop varieties. I spent a lot of time out in the paddock and in the glasshouse, but I made up my mind after 12 months that being a plant breeder was not a role for me. However, it gave me great depth of knowledge of our agricultural sector, our university sector in terms of the sciences, and the role that genetics can play in supporting the future crops of Western Australia.
As I was coming back from Northam just before question time, it was fascinating to listen to the contributions of members opposite on agriculture. I think this is the first time we have heard members of the government use the word "agriculture". It was quite remarkable. We know that this government does not prioritise the second largest industry in the state of Western Australia, because the poor old Minister for Agriculture and Food, Hon Jackie Jarvis—she is a good friend of mine; I knew her before I was in the Parliament—has a big job because she does not even have a parliamentary secretary. I know the member for Butler is yearning to climb the greasy ladder of the Labor Party. Maybe with the contribution that she just made, she could put in to the Premier or Deputy Premier to become the parliamentary secretary! It is the second largest industry, but the member for Butler's government did not even take a policy on agriculture to the people of Western Australia at the last election. All of a sudden, Labor members have been getting up and talking about it.
I want to remark on some of the contributions from members opposite around this bill. We are speaking about the gene technology bill, which will bring us in line with federal legislation. I was sitting in my car on Great Eastern Highway with grain trucks going past me, probably carrying crops that were genetically modified by our great university system, and the member for Mount Lawley was talking about AI. I know that government members do not get the opportunity to speak much in this place, but he got up and started talking about hospitals. He went from AI to hospitals, but when it came to talking about the future of food and agriculture in Western Australia, one of the largest industries—
Ms Cassie Rowe interjected.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: I will come to that, because the Labor Party has a very interesting track record when it comes to supporting genetically modified organisms in the state of Western Australia. I worked for a former agriculture minister in this state, Hon Terry Redman, when he had carriage of the GMO bill in Western Australia. Hansard is a friend to us in opposition, as we can go back and repeat some of the words of our colleagues in former Parliaments. But to talk about AI and hospitals under the GM bill? Give me a break! I know that the member for Mount Lawley does not get on the two-minute statement list very often, but to make that contribution on an important issue like this was quite remarkable. Then we got the member for Butler, who was a former councillor in Bassendean. She loves having a cosy relationship with the unions. The opposition has a little photo of the member for Butler having members of the union movement handing out her leaflets to get on to council. I know that the current member for Bassendean—
Several members interjected.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: I will have to go back—
Several members interjected.
The Deputy Speaker: Thank you! Are you taking interjections?
Mr Lachlan Hunter: Absolutely, Deputy Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: I knew that you would, but I am trying to prevent this from becoming a rabble. You are on your feet and I will give you some latitude, but you are obviously goading the government side. Go on; you have the floor.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. We have hit a nerve on the government side! The member for Butler, a former councillor in Bassendean, had her union mates—
Mr Dan Bull: That is wrong.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: It was Bayswater, sorry. I will correct the record. I am not au fait with all these Perth suburbs, I am sorry. It was not Bassendean. Was the member for Maylands the Deputy Mayor? What was he?
Mr Dan Bull: I think you should go do your research.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: I am not an expert on the eastern suburbs.
The Labor Party was handing out leaflets for a local government election.
Several members interjected.
The Deputy Speaker: Member for Bicton!
Mrs Lisa O'Malley: Tell us what the problem is.
The Deputy Speaker: Member for Bicton, thank you!
Mr Lachlan Hunter: I will tell the member for Bicton what the problem is.
Mrs Lisa O'Malley interjected.
The Deputy Speaker: Member for Bicton!
Mrs Lisa O'Malley interjected.
The Deputy Speaker: Member for Bicton, I am calling you for the first time.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: The member for Bassendean did not seem to get any awards at the Labor Party conference on the weekend. He was there supporting the anti-fracking agenda of the Labor Party, which hates agriculture in this state. The member for Butler could not become the member for Bassendean, so she moved up north.
Mrs Lisa O'Malley interjected.
The Deputy Speaker: Member for Bicton!
Mr Lachlan Hunter: The member of the right wing of the Labor Party faction was saying, "Well, I'm a local government councillor in this area." She traded her values and would represent anyone, as long as the Labor Party put her in a winnable spot on the ticket. That is how they operate over there. She also said about this bill that no universities were involved. What a joke! Actually read the bill. It says that our university sector is an imperative part of agricultural research in this state. I give kudos to the former agriculture minister in this state, Hon Alannah MacTiernan, who was awarded life membership of the Labor Party over the weekend, because she was probably one of—
Ms Cassie Rowe interjected.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: I read the news, member for Belmont.
Several members interjected.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: They did not accept me being their guest speaker on their ag policy, member for Belmont. Good on Alannah MacTiernan for the work that she did for the agricultural industry in this state. She is deserving of that life membership award. She actually started the WA Agricultural Research Collaboration, which I have spoken about previously in this place. The member for Butler came in here and said that this bill has nothing to do with our university sector, yet her own government started the WAARC, which is based out of the University of Western Australia. Go figure! Members opposite are talking about agriculture in this state, but Minister MacTiernan did that. I have had very distressed people from the university sector in this state come to me, as the shadow minister, and say, "Lachie, you know what? The funding for this model is uncertain because the Labor Party didn't have an agriculture policy at the last election." As the shadow minister in this place, I do not even have anyone to ask a question to; I have to ask it to a minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Food because they could not find a parliamentary secretary suitable for the second largest industry in Western Australia.
Ms Hannah Beazley interjected.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: I know the Minister for Local Government does a great job representing the Minister for Agriculture and Food, but she has a lot on her plate at the moment. I think it just goes to show this government's priorities when it comes to agriculture and its lack of knowledge, really, when it comes to the bush. The Leader of the Opposition and I, and my colleagues in the other place Hon Rob Horstman and Hon Steve Martin, were out at Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd, which does a lot of great work in Western Australia helping our agricultural sector get its product to port. The member for Butler went on to talk about health workers when talking about the gene bill. She had finished canning agriculture. The union boys helped her get elected in Bassendean but she did not get preselected for that seat so she moved up north. She also talked about Metronet. How many Metronet projects are grown in glasshouses in Western Australia? When I was working for Intergrain on the future of Western Australia's agriculture, we were out there in the member for Bibra Lake's electorate doing our little glasshouse stuff and it was absolutely amazing. We know that when it comes to agriculture, this government has not funded WAARC past its use-by date. I put that on notice for members opposite.
I know that the member for Bicton likes to rock up at agriculture events every now and then. She actually started bagging me at one of them. There were members of the National Party there and they came and told me, so the member for Bicton should be very careful about who she speaks to. I know that she likes to verbal members of the opposition, but I will go on to someone who verballed people in regional Western Australia, and that was a former member of the other place. Do you remember him, Deputy Speaker? His name is Darren West—he is not honourable anymore. He purported to be the only farmer in Parliament. That is what he said; he said he was the only farmer in Parliament. Then he went on to say something before the last federal election. I hope all those grain growers in the electorate of O'Connor are listening. The Deputy Speaker's electorate is in the federal electorate of O'Connor. In fact, I will read out the state electorates that are in the federal electorate of O'Connor. There is Kalgoorlie, with its fine member for Kalgoorlie; Roe; Central Wheatbelt; Albany—there is the member for Albany; Collie–Preston; and Warren–Blackwood. These are my questions to those Labor members who hold those seats: Do they agree with the former parliamentary secretary—he got the gig of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Food—that they represent one of the dumbest electorates in Western Australia? Do they agree with that? Does the member for Warren–Blackwood agree? Does the member agree with the Labor Party's only farmer in Parliament that those hardworking farmers growing genetically modified crops that feed the world are dumb? That is the behaviour we get from members opposite. Do we need to take a trip down memory lane as well to when the Premier of Western Australia got up here and made animal noises at the member for Roe when he asked a legitimate question about supporting the live sheep trade? Do you remember that, Deputy Speaker?
Ms Cassie Rowe: No, he didn't.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: Yes, he did. He made animal noises! Does the member for Belmont know what he did say, actually? I will take that interjection, member for Belmont. When he referred to the live animal export trade, he said it was like, "a dog returning to its vomit." That is what the Premier of the state of Western Australia said about those hardworking, decent farmers, many of whom I represent.
Actually, I am not finished with the member for Butler because she talked about the National Party's position on net zero. I went over to Canberra recently. I was there with our federal colleagues at our national conference, as was the Leader of the Nationals WA. We spoke about net zero. In regional Western Australia, the farmers and the agricultural industry in our state will be paying for net zero. Members opposite talk about National Party members somehow being climate change deniers! We are somehow climate deniers on this side, but we can then actually go back and say: Does the Labor Party in Western Australia have a net zero policy?
Several members interjected.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: I cannot hear you! No, there is no net zero policy from the little lefty woke groups over there on the other side who seem to like to verbal the National Party about being climate deniers in this state.
The state government of Western Australia, with the power it has, does not even have a net zero policy. It does not have a net zero policy at all. Be very careful coming in here and criticising us on our stance for people.
Several members interjected.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: I hear the "member for Woodside!" or was it the "member for anti-fracking"? He just got outed by his own Premier in question time. I saw the photo on the member for Bassendean's Facebook. I heard that the member for Butler is after his seat, but she has to maybe shift factions to the left side; I am not quite sure where that all sits.
We know that this government does not prioritise agriculture. I want to go back to our former friend Darren West—the only farmer in Parliament and in the Labor Party.
The Deputy Speaker: Just to clarify the record, he still goes by the title of Hon Darren West.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: Does he? Okay.
The Deputy Speaker: Yes, he does.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: Right. Maybe it was because he was a parliamentary secretary. I will correct myself: Hon Darren West. He was not so honourable when he was calling the people of regional Western Australia, the people of O'Connor whom the Labor Party purports to represent, "dumb". I do not think that is very honourable at all, but we will put that on the public record and let others judge the tone of his debate.
The Labor Party loves to say that this side of Parliament stalls things and that we hate assisted reproductive technology. I think the member for Butler said we like to ask questions and talk for hours. Oh—a little bit of transparency in the parliamentary and democratic process!
Let us go back to our old mate, Hon Darren West, and debate in the other place in 2016. I am reading from an ABC article headed "MP Darren West accused of dragging out debate on GM crops legislation". This is the genetically modified crop legislation that this government now supports. It is a bit like when the member for Bassendean, who was once a frontbencher and a cabinet minister, tried to nationalise the crayfishing industry. They thought: "He's a bit weird. Off the frontbench you go. Right to the back!" Now he is supporting the non-frackers! I do not know what the Minister for Mines and Petroleum thinks about that. Is he supporting the rank and file of the Labor Party that moved a motion at the conference at the weekend?
Mr David Michael: Do you support net zero?
Mr Lachlan Hunter: Absolutely not. I will put that on the public record—absolutely not. Farmers in my electorate will be the ones paying for that disgraceful way.
Ms Cassie Rowe: What about future generations?
Mr Lachlan Hunter: Let us talk about future generations. I have a quote from our honourable gentleman from the other place, who said:
As of Tuesday night, Mr West had spoken for six-and-a-half hours in total on the legislation.
The Labor Party actually opposed GM back when it was in opposition. Labor members love to get preferences from their left-wing mates in the Greens because of their views on agriculture. We now see this bill coming into this place, which has actually been in the Parliament of Western Australia before; it was introduced in 2014 in fact. That goes to show how much priority has been placed on agriculture in the state. To the member for Belmont's point about supporting our future generations, the National Party actually believes in climate change and in doing something about it.
Mr David Michael: There's a change. What about George Christensen?
Mr Lachlan Hunter: Absolutely, they believe. The Minister for Mines and Petroleum should stop listening to the ABC and start listening to the people of regional Western Australia. His government is so tone deaf when it comes to supporting regional Western Australia that it lost three seats at the last election. The Labor Party should keep on going with its coalition. Is the member for Bassendean going to join the Greens now? He cannot even get preselected! Come on; your time is done, mate!
Several members interjected.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: Let the member for Butler—
The Deputy Speaker: Order!
Mr Lachlan Hunter: I need a drink.
The Deputy Speaker: Thank goodness for that. You need more than a drink, I have to tell you! Just please have some respect for Hansard trying to record what is being said in this house. I know you like the theatrics, member for Central Wheatbelt. This is a place where you are debating on your feet and I am giving you a lot of latitude, but your inciting of interjections is causing this. Please have some respect for Hansard. From the other side, please try not to interject or I will get up again and again.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: I have obviously hit a nerve with the member for Bassendean. As I said before, if he continually interjects on my speech, I am happy to take that. We know that the member for Butler is after his seat at the next election when he is eventually booted from his role.
When it comes to GM, the government has a very lopsided approach. Sorry, I was getting to the member for Belmont's point around supporting the future generations of Western Australia. The National Party, a modern political party that has represented farmers—
Mr Dave Kelly interjected.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: I am the youngest member of this place and I represent one of the most National seats of the state's electorates. The member can characterise it and laugh however he wants, but I actually represent a section of our community of innovators in the agricultural sector. My brother and his wife are now running our family farm. They are innovators in the agriculture space. This bill, along with the previous Liberal–National government, under former responsible minister Terry Redman, were nation-leading in supporting the agriculture sector in this state, backed by the National Party and backed by science.
The "no-alition" over there is a coalition with the Greens to make sure that the member for Fremantle is re-elected into this place. I know they will be scurrying in their relationship with the Greens coming up to the next election because they will be relying on their preferences.
Mr David Michael: And you will be relying on One Nation. You'll be relying on One Nation.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: Absolutely not. What we will be doing is—
Several members interjected.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: As former senator for Queensland Ronnie Boswell once said, "He's not pretty, but he's pretty effective", but One Nation has no place in regional Western Australia.
When we come into this place and talk about supporting our agricultural sector, the "no-alition" with the Labor Party and the Greens said, "We're not going to support GMOs." I remember being at a National Party conference down at Margaret River. The Greens were out placarding to say, "No GM". We had Hon Darren West flipping on which side he supported. Former Minister Alannah MacTiernan actually stuck to her word and supported the GMO industry in Western Australia. However, I remind members that it is the Labor Party that has shut down the live sheep trade. I hope the Minister for Wheatbelt is listening because this absolutely affects her ministerial responsibility. I hope the Minister for Wheatbelt gets out to see the amazing crop in Western Australia being taken off, which is commencing at the moment.
Because our climate is changing and we are living in a drying environment with less and less rainfall, our farmers have to get better at doing it. Because the Labor Party in Canberra and Western Australia have shut down the live sheep trade, farmers are going to have to grow more and more crops. That is just the reality we face at the moment. That is why the former Liberal–National government introduced the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Repeal Bill to allow GM canola.
I have some stats coming in from CBH Group on the amount of GM canola growing in Western Australia. It is quite staggering. In 2022, 42.42% of the canola crop was GM. In 2025, the last crop season, 72.88% of our state's canola crop was grown from GM, thanks to a conservative government that believes in the future of agriculture in this state. There are increasing numbers of genetically modified organisms in WA. We know that the type of oil used from the end product of canola will play a critical role in sustainable aviation fuel . We know the role of GMOs in chemical reduction, member for Belmont.
Back in the day, I remember going out on the spray with my grandfather Barry at one of our farms in Hyden. He would mix up a concoction. I know the member for Roe and probably the member for Warren–Blackwood remember going into the chemical shed and pouring in this chemical and that chemical. It was a lot of chemicals for the environment to take in. I remind the member for Butler that universities are very involved in this process because it takes around 12 years to breed a variety of wheat, canola or barley into the production stages so it can be safely grown in the Western Australian environment.
We know that our climate is changing. That is why our side of politics invests in agriculture and our primary industries. This government did not even have a policy—I will keep on saying it—until 2029. Whoever is in the background of the Labor Party better start getting their talking points out and say it has an agriculture policy come 2029 because this is a significant industry for Western Australia. We are literally feeding the world. Western Australia is one of the nation's and the world's leading canola growers. We know what happened with the war in Ukraine. We were heavily relied upon to produce more and more grain to feed our cousins right around the globe. This is an important step forward.
It is disappointing that it has taken this long for the bill to come into this place. We are literally the last state in Australia to introduce this modernising piece of legislation. It is a pretty straightforward piece of legislation that will some acts. We do not have much to ask on this bill during the consideration in detail stage and the industry supports it. Industry has been calling for a long time for WA to catch up to the rest of the country, but we know that the government is prioritising things like the racetrack.
There were some interesting comments by former Premier of Western Australia Hon Carmen Lawrence on ABC radio this morning. She said she was very concerned by the Premier's rushed State Development Bill. I urge members opposite to listen to the very esteemed former Premier of WA—our first female Premier in this state—Dr Carmen Lawrence, who I know does a lot of work at the University of Western Australia. She is from a farming family herself. She was born in my electorate of Central Wheatbelt in Northam. She had a lot of concerning things to say about the State Development Bill that has just been pushed through this Parliament by a government that has been—
Mr Dave Kelly: She doesn't think much of you, Lachie, I'll tell you.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: I do not think she thinks much of the member for Bassendean, either, and nor does the Labor Party, clearly. It is so far behind it forgot where the member was. The member might have been at the Woodside annual general meeting—I am not quite sure—or the anti-fracking rally down at Fremantle there getting their preferences from the Greens.
I will wrap up my contribution on this very important legislation. It has come far too late for our agricultural sector in Western Australia. I put on the public record that the National Party and my colleagues in the Liberal Party—I know the member for Murray–Wellington will be making a contribution after me—support the primary industries. That is why we were resoundingly returned to this place at the last election. People who live in regional WA know that if they are in either the agriculture or primary industry, the National Party has their back. We have their back. We are not turning on pet projects about racetracks or supporting some left-wing woke agenda that is sort of keeping the Greens at bay. The National Party will bring practical, commonsense solutions to support those people who are feeding our nation and our world.
Mr David Bolt (Murray–Wellington) (4:35 pm): I always enjoy following the member for Central Wheatbelt, so I thought I might—
A member interjected.
Point of order
Mrs Michelle Maynard: The Leader of the Opposition is making an interjection when he is not in his chair.
The Deputy Speaker: I uphold that point of order. The Leader of the Opposition was not in his seat for either of those comments. Thank you. Member, please continue.
Proceeding resumed
Mr David Bolt: I am going to focus a little bit more on the bill itself. I think we have heard a little bit about—
Several members interjected.
Mr David Bolt: I will make a contribution to the Gene Technology (Western Australia) Bill 2025 and the companion Gene Technology (Western Australia) Amendment Bill 2025. These bills are more than just technical instruments. We know that they represent an important reform for Western Australian science, research and agricultural sectors. They also raise broader questions about how our state participates in national regulatory frameworks. That is one of the areas I would like to highlight. We need safeguards for community confidence. It ensures that science and innovation proceed hand in hand with transparency and accountability. We know this reform is long overdue. We have heard others talk about it. Other jurisdictions in Australia have already modernised their laws to reflect the advances of the past two decades. Western Australia has been the outlier, operating under legislation that has really been frozen since 2006. This situation has limited our capacity to participate fully in national research and regulatory activities. At its core, these bills are about balance. They will ensure strong oversight, transparency and public confidence while also enabling innovation in science, medicine and agriculture to move forward responsibly.
I could not leave this opportunity alone to talk about gene technology. I recall many years ago when I was working with the Intel Corporation, we supported an organisation that had a day called "Jeans for Genes". I do not know whether members remember it, but I think "Jeans for Genes" is still going. It was created by the Children's Medical Research Institute. At the time, I did not know that about one in 20 kids face a birth defect or a genetic disease like cancer, cystic fibrosis or other incurable lifelong effects. The work that the Children's Medical Research Institute does to raise funds around the "Jeans for Genes Day" is something that I think we should highlight. It also brings me back to a time when one of our promotions—we were supporting this activity with the company that I ran—would get artists to paint famous people's jeans. We would get the famous person to wear a pair of jeans, get a famous Western Australian artist to paint the jeans and then sell them at auction. I remember being at an auction with Ernie Dingo. Being at an auction with Ernie Dingo is quite an experience, I can tell you! I was trying to be straight-faced and talk about the importance of this matter, and Ernie just wanted to make jokes. We sold the jeans—some for tens of thousands of dollars.
I remember putting my hand in my pocket and buying one pair of jeans worn by Nathan Cavaleri, the young guitarist, and painted by Pro Hart. We had this pair of jeans with a beautiful Pro Hart picture on them. I must have spent $3,000 or $4,000 on these jeans. I thought they would be a good thing for the office. When I left that company, I forgot to take them with me. I am sure they are sitting in an office somewhere in Australia. They are probably worth a fair bit of money. If anybody watching finds a pair of Nathan Cavaleri's jeans painted on by Pro Hart—I think there were some dragonflies or something like that—look after them. Pro Hart has now passed away. If they would like to give them back to me, I would be happy to take them back, but I think they could be sold for a pretty sum. If they are sold, give the money to Jeans for Genes Australia research as well. I just highlight that little story to say that this is not just about crops; it is about medical research. It is important that we in Western Australia have the opportunity to use the great skills and technology we have here for the benefit of our community.
We know that the bill itself retains essential safeguards that protect public health and the environment. It relies on the independent Gene Technology Regulator to assess risks, enforce compliance and maintain a transparent register of dealings involving gene technology. That is an important element. Importantly, the bill also maintains the coordination with Commonwealth legislation, ensuring national consistency while preserving the state's ability to manage local environmental and ethical concerns. These oversight mechanisms are really, really important. They are the reason Australia's gene technology framework is widely recognised internationally as both rigorous and trusted, and we need to maintain that reputation. However, it is important that these vital mechanisms do not lead to the erosion of scrutiny as well. They are parliamentary instruments of accountability and must be treated as such and trusted.
This bill is part of a long continuum of science-based reform and agricultural innovation in the state. Looking back, one of the most significant steps in history came when—I think it was under a Liberal government—the moratorium on genetically modified crops was lifted. I think it was in 2016. Although many people had different views at that time, with many people arguing for it and against it, the decision was grounded in a faith in the capacity of WA farmers to make informed, responsible choices. I think that has been borne out since that time and we are seeing the benefits. That reform was emblematic of a philosophy that science, enterprise and responsibility still go hand in hand. We trusted Western Australia's farmers and researchers to make informed choices supported by transparent regulation. By removing an outdated barrier, it empowered farmers to compete on a level playing field with their counterparts nationally and internationally. It gave them the freedom to choose the best technologies for their land and business while maintaining the safeguards managed by the Gene Technology Regulator and the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development. The results are clear. My colleague mentioned the growth of the GM canola industry, which now accounts for the majority of canola plantings across the state. Farmers have seen higher yields, lower input costs and improved pest and weed management translating directly into clear profitability and competitiveness internationally. These gains have supported WA's reputation as one of the most productive and sustainable grain export regions in the world. It is one we want to continue to grow and support.
Beyond the farm gate, that decision opened the door to new partnerships between science and industry that allowed our universities, research institutes and CSIRO to collaborate on gene research and crop development projects that were once out of reach. This has driven real progress in drought resilience and tolerance, salinity resistance and crop nutrition. These are vital innovations for farming in an area of climate vulnerability and will be very important going forward. That experience demonstrated, and this bill will build upon, how sound science and effective oversight can coexist with innovation.
As I mentioned, the Gene Technology Act 2006 has remained frozen in time since its commencement in 2007 even though the Commonwealth act has been amended 15 times. That neglect effectively locked out our state agencies, including the Department of Health, the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, and the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, from participating in research or regulatory functions involving genetically modified organisms. We cannot let that continue. Private institutions such as universities could continue their work under the national scheme but state agencies could not. That is not just a technical inconvenience; it has meant lost capability, lost opportunity and lost partnerships for Western Australians. For a state that prides itself on research excellence, that was an unacceptable constraint, and I am so glad to see it is being lifted with this bill. This bill will correct that constraint by adopting the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000 and its instruments as law in Western Australia, bringing us back into the National Gene Technology Scheme established under the 2001 intergovernmental agreement and, in simple terms, allowing our departments, universities and research centres to operate under one consistent regulatory framework governed by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.
This bill imports Commonwealth law, and although that offers administrative efficiency, it carries real implications for Western Australia's legislative sovereignty. We must be clear-eyed about what is being asked of this Parliament. Once this legislation is enacted, the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000 will operate automatically as WA law unless we actively move to disallow future changes. It is not an insignificant or small matter. Clause 8 provides the power for either house to reject any future Commonwealth amendment, but the effectiveness of that safeguard depends entirely on how alert and willing this Parliament is to use it. We cannot let this become just a symbolic clause. The government must commit to promptly informing members of all Commonwealth amendments, not merely just by a Government Gazette notice but through a clear, timely briefing to both houses. Otherwise, we risk waking up to find that significant policy changes have quietly taken effect in Western Australia without the scrutiny or consent needed. We know that clause 19, the so-called Henry VIII clause, is an even more sensitive provision. It allows the state to make local regulations to modify or override aspects of the applied Commonwealth law when inconsistencies arise with WA statutes. If it is used carefully, it might preserve coherence in our legal system, but if it is used loosely, it will risk becoming a back door for executive lawmaking without proper parliamentary debate. To protect against that, any use of this clause must be transparent and justified. I believe the minister should be required to explain to Parliament the rationale for, consultation on and impacts of any modifications.
These safeguards are only as strong as the Parliament that upholds them. If we fail to exercise vigilance, we could find ourselves with Commonwealth law determining Western Australia's gene technology policy by default. The message must be clear. Cooperation does not mean surrender and WA's participation in the national scheme must always remain subject to the continuing authority of the Western Australian Parliament. It is an issue many members have raised with me. This bill will import the Commonwealth law but it does not surrender state sovereignty.
Community confidence is critical. The public must know that gene technology in Western Australia is subject to rigorous, transparent regulation. The process of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator is science based but it must also be open and communicative. Public notifications, consultation on licence applications and clear information about research being undertaken in this state should be standard practice. Governments must also invest in public understanding. Transparency is not just about publishing reports; it is about building literacy and confidence so that the community understands both the benefits and the safeguards in place. I encourage the minister to commit to regular reporting to Parliament on WA's participation in the national scheme, including the number of licences issued for work within Western Australia and any compliance actions and the outcomes of the statutory review required under clause 32.
From an agricultural perspective, this bill opens the door for new innovation. Farmers in the regions have seen how biotechnology can deliver benefits, from improved crop yield to disease-resistant stock, while facing legitimate questions about coexistence and market choice. In WA, we have seen the value of innovation through research partnerships supporting improved crop resilience and disease management. These initiatives show how science can directly translate into regional economic value. This legislation will ensure that state agencies can again undertake regulated research under the same framework as the rest of the country, and that means local producers can access innovation safely, transparently and supported by the same regulator that oversees other Australian jurisdictions. We know we have the companion Gene Technology (Western Australia) Amendment Bill, which incorporates references to the Commonwealth Gene Technology (Licence Charges) Act 2000 and under this section of the Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899, any bill imposing tax must deal only with that imposition. The changes in question are licence fees set nationally to recover the cost of regulating genetically modified organism licences. They ensure that licence holders in Western Australia contribute their fair share to the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator's cost recovery framework, the same as in other states.
Clause 32 requires an independent review within four years of commencement however, and that review must be conducted by at least two suitably qualified individuals, one of whom must be independent of both the state and commonwealth governments. The report must be tabled in Parliament within 12 months of that anniversary. We believe this is a sound accountability mechanism. Other jurisdictions that adopted the applied law earlier have already conducted reviews confirming the effectiveness of the national scheme. Western Australia should use that experience to refine our own oversight. I believe the government should also commit to a formal response so that the review occurs within a defined timeframe and its recommendations are acted upon and not just shelved.
This bill will ensure that WA remains aligned with the national framework and can respond to new technologies such as gene editing, synthetic biology and medical therapeutics, which were barely imagined two decades ago. Who knows where this will end with new technology. It provides certainty for our scientists, researchers and innovators, whether they are working on drought-tolerant crops, new vaccines or methods to combat invasive species. It ensures that Western Australia remains a trusted and responsible partner participant in the global scientific community. Good regulation is not about stopping innovation; it is about guiding it safely, ethically and transparently.
In conclusion, these bills are overdue but essential. They restore WA's participation in a national science-based regulatory system. They unlock our public sector's ability to engage in cutting-edge research. They give industry and the community confidence that gene technology in WA is properly governed. At the same time, they remind us that national consistency should never come at the expense of our state's sovereignty or transparency. The shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food has rightly called out the government's delay in bringing this legislation forward, but we are glad to see it finally tabled. My comments today have been for ensuring that now it is before us, it works as intended, with accountability, oversight and respect for community values. The story of gene technology in Western Australia is one of partnerships between science and society. This bill is about not only catching up with the rest of the nation, but also ensuring we lead responsibly, with transparency, with courage and with respect for both innovation and integrity. If we get that balance right, the benefits to our farmers, researchers and communities will be enduring. With those safeguards fairly on the record, I support the bills and commend them to the house.
Mr Peter Rundle (Roe) (4:52 pm): I, too, rise to support the Gene Technology (Western Australia) Bill 2025 and the Gene Technology (Western Australia) Amendment Bill 2025, following the lead of the member for Central Wheatbelt. I would like to give a bit of a history lesson on a few things in relation to genetically modified canola. In 2010, the then Minister for Regional Development, Hon Terry Redman, announced that genetically modified canola could be grown in Western Australia from that year, bringing the state into line with the other major grain-growing states—New South Wales and Victoria. He did that at some personal cost at the time. He certainly received some correspondence from a variety of people and parties. But true to his word, he stuck with that. Well done to him because now GM canola is a very important part of our canola-growing program in Western Australia. The exemption to the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003 also applied to cotton grown in the Ord irrigation scheme.
The GM technology allowed for efficient weed control and ease of management, including the option to dry seed. It obviously provided an additional tool for WA growers. That comment about dry seeding is important. To provide those opposite with a bit of education, quite often nowadays—it happened again in some areas this year—people start seeding their GM canola in, say, late March, early April, when maybe it has not rained. When the weeds come up after it rains, they are able to spray with glyphosate. The GM canola will come through and weed control is much better. Otherwise, we have to wait for the rain and for the weeds to come up and then take them out with some sort of chemical. There is a very important element to that.
As a matter of interest, I recall the member for Central Wheatbelt mentioned Hon Darren West. From memory, he spoke about GM canola for 13 hours.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: And they go off at Hon Nick Goiran for talking.
Mr Peter Rundle: Yes, absolutely. Hon Darren West, supposedly the only working farmer in Western Australia, gave us his pearls of wisdom. Luckily, I was not in that chamber. Luckily, it was over in the Legislative Council. He gave a 13-hour spiel on GM canola.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: He still did not get preselected. Poor old Darren. He must be kicking rocks now or something, is he?
Mr Peter Rundle: That is right. Hopefully, his preselection speech was not that long or he definitely would not have been preselected. Nonetheless, he is probably up in Goomalling harvesting canola as we speak. That is just an interesting fact that I thought members opposite would be interested in.
Several members interjected.
The Deputy Speaker: Thank you! Thank you, minister!
Several members interjected.
The Deputy Speaker: Member for Central Wheatbelt! There is no excuse for just arguing across the chamber. You incite this. The minister is responding because you bait them. If you want to give it, you have got to take it. You interjected on your own member. How about you let him speak. You have had your turn. Let us hope you do not go for 13 hours, member for Roe!
Mr Peter Rundle: I look forward to welcoming the Minister for Wheatbelt. She is more than welcome to come into the upper part of the Roe electorate and check out some canola harvesting. That would be excellent. I think the minister would enjoy it. Nonetheless, GM canola planting in 2019 was 38% of the canola crop. I heard the member for Central Wheatbelt say it is now 72.8%, quoting figures from CBH. That demonstrates how important GM canola now is to everyone's program. I will talk a little later about what has happened. As members know, I like talking about sheep and our sheep flock and what has happened due to the federal Labor government and, to a lesser extent, the state Labor government has altered the way agriculture is now done in Western Australia.
Just for interest's sake, as of lunchtime today, the price for non-GM canola was $822 a tonne and for GM canola, it was $697 a tonne. There is a discount for GM canola and that is all balanced; generally, the yield is higher with GM canola because of weed control and the like. There is always a balance that growers need to work out for themselves. One thing about farmers is that they are quick to adapt to new technologies and practices. I look at the way that our farmers have adapted in Esperance, which is not far from the electorate of Kalgoorlie. I remember when I was working in the Esperance area back in the 1980s. I went back the following year and said to the farmer who I was working with that I was sure there was a fence there last year. He said, "There was, but now it's covered in sand." That is what used to happen in the Esperance area before they adapted to these new technologies and no-till practices. They now come in once with the chemical, put the seed in and then deal with any weeds with chemicals afterwards. These practices are very important. The difference in Esperance from the 80s through until now in grain yields, the value of farmland and farming practices is just incredibly impressive, to be honest. I always marvel at the difference.
I remember when I first came to Parliament that one of the first motions I spoke on was moved by my good friend the member for Belmont. The motion was along the lines of glyphosate being the next asbestos of our time. Look, that is fine. We begged to differ at the time. I was trying to explain how valuable glyphosate was to the current farming system. I know it is well publicised worldwide and that there are differences of opinion, but in the Wheatbelt and the electorates of Roe, Geraldton, Mid-West, Warren–Blackwood and probably parts of Albany as well—there are some good crops around Mount Barker—
Ms Cassie Rowe: You might recall I was referring to the use of it in areas around parks.
Mr Peter Rundle: Yes, absolutely. As I said, we begged to differ at the time, but I think it was a good experience for both of us to explain our points of view and work through those issues. I was trying to point out to members opposite how important glyphosate was to our farming system. That obviously plays back into the GM canola situation.
I just want to point out a couple of things in relation to the value of agriculture. As I think the member for Central Wheatbelt tried to point out, the way that our farming communities are feeling at the moment is that this state government does not value agriculture. When I look back at the last election, I am now very pleased to be surrounded by the members for Warren–Blackwood, Albany and Geraldton, which is due in no small part to the anti-agriculture policies of the state government. I do not think there is anyone here who would disagree with that. The member for Warren–Blackwood will be well and truly aware of the way that his community—Manjimup, Pemberton and the like—was messed up by this government's forestry policy. Hon Mark McGowan just came out of nowhere one day and said that the government was banning that industry. There was no consultation and no preparation. What were we going to do now? We were going to import timber from Indonesia and South America. What have we got now? We have the shot-hole borer. The idea of it not being in our backyard appealed to the Greens members down in Fremantle and the like. They wanted to ban forestry. They did not care about South West communities and the families who were involved in that industry. What have we got now? We have the shot-hole borer. Deforestation is also happening in Indonesia and South America. So, they did not want it in our backyard and not in the south-west corner of WA, but they do not care about what happens to the rest of the world. That was a very short-sighted policy.
I want to go back to sheep numbers, because this is directly related. What has happened now with the federal government's decision and the feeble effort of the state government to back our live sheep export industry is that about a third of our sheep growers in WA have thrown their hands up in the air and said that this was the final tipping point. They are saying, "I've had enough. I'm not getting any support. They've pulled the rug out from under me to satisfy some preference deal with the Animal Justice Party in Melbourne or Victoria or somewhere." The poor old Western Australian sheep growers are suffering the consequences. What has happened? We have gone from having a sheep flock of 12.5 million to it now being around 8.5 million. We have lost nearly a third of the WA sheep flock. We have lost the critical mass to self-replace the merino sheep flock. That is what has happened. That has now driven people into more cropping. Now when people drive on Great Eastern Highway out in the member for Central Wheatbelt's electorate between Perth and Merredin, they battle to see a mob of sheep. It is all crop. That is what has happened.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: Windows are going to be smashed because the road is buggered.
Mr Peter Rundle: Yes. That is what has happened. It will have other consequences, but I think the biggest consequence is that our regional constituents are feeling like this government does not care.
It has been one thing after another. There were the firearm regulations. Okay, Hon Mark McGowan kept us safe in 2021, but what was the next plan? What was the government going to frighten the people of Western Australia with at the 2025 election? It was the law-abiding licensed firearm owners—that is what they chose to frighten them with at that election. What is it going to be for the 2029 election? That is what I want to know. It is quite upsetting. As I said to the police minister the other week, he has no idea about the amount of grief that our electorate officers and our constituents—law-abiding firearm owners—are going through. There was that one. The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act was another one. It was poorly prepared and poorly delivered. There were 600 people lined up at the Esperance Civic Centre; I can remember it as clear as day. We just about had to close the door as we were battling to get any more people in there. Basically, that poorly planned legislation caused disarray. I will give Premier Cook one piece of congratulations in that he could see that it was not well designed at all and he threw in the towel on that one.
There are a couple of other issues that I think are relevant to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. One, obviously, is the headquarters of the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development. It is very important that we get trial work done. Our ag trial workers and DPIRD employees need to be working on canola and grain trials to make sure that they can actually pass on those benefits to our growers. The barrier fence is the other one that I want to mention to the minister across from me. The member for Central Wheatbelt is well aware of this as well. This has been dragging on for the best part of eight or nine years—since I have been in here. We need some action. This government has really dropped the ball on that one down in the Esperance–Ravensthorpe district. There are biosecurity issues and issues with dogs attacking sheep. The previous minister could not get it happening and the current minister does not seem to be doing much better. I would certainly like this minister to pass those comments on to the current Minister for Agriculture and Food. That needs to be fast-tracked and there are people in the Esperance area who are willing to help out. We cannot seem to get much progress from the department. Those sorts of things are frustrating. Obviously, the member for Geraldton is well aware of the fishing situation as well, but I will not spend time on that one. I also want to mention the disallowance mechanism. Although I support the bill, I raise concerns with the disallowance mechanism in the legislation. Under this mechanism, any amendment to the Commonwealth act must be tabled in WA Parliament for 18 sitting days, during which time a disallowance motion can be made. Although intended as a safeguard, this provision introduces regulatory uncertainty, particularly for businesses and researchers looking to invest in gene technology in WA. It opens the door to politically motivated disallowance motions made not on scientific or regulatory grounds, but for ideological or populist reasons.
(Member's time extended.)
Mr Peter Rundle: As I said, it opens the door for that politically motivated disallowance, and risks undermining the very consistency and predictability that the national scheme is designed to deliver. I do not believe there is any need for this mechanism because Parliament continues to exercise the constitutional powers of this great state. As such, a responsible government, with the support of this Parliament, will always remain able to change the law, or act to do so, if changes to the Commonwealth law are not in the interests of Western Australia. Hopefully, when this government wraps up its tenure in 2029 and the Liberal–National government comes into play, we will be more than happy to go down that track.
Several members interjected.
Mr Peter Rundle: That is it. We will straighten out the arrangements on disallowance motions.
I want to take this opportunity to enlighten those in the chamber about the way that I think people in the agricultural regions of WA are feeling. We had high-quality candidates, who are now members of Parliament. The members for Warren–Blackwood, Albany and Geraldton came into the mix. A combination of good-quality candidates and poor Labor Party anti-agriculture policies saw those members come into the mix and I am very pleased to have them in here with me.
I want to translate how the people of agricultural WA feel. GM canola is important. There are no two ways about that. Due to the fact that our sheep numbers are now dropping, we are seeing the price of lamb and the like increase. A lot of people have thrown in the towel on sheep growing and gone into crops. That is where GM canola comes into the mix. I support the member for Central Wheatbelt and this legislation in general. I think it is a good opportunity for those opposite to reflect on the way people of regional WA feel and maybe have a think about it when they are looking at the budget and what it can do for their regional constituents. Have a think about the way they are feeling.
Mrs Kirrilee Warr (Geraldton) (5:13 pm): I, too, rise to speak to the Gene Technology (Western Australia) Bill 2025 and the Gene Technology (Western Australia) Amendment Bill 2025. I wish to put some comments on the record. I thank the members on this side who contributed previously and I will try not to cover all of what they have already said, but we have a lot to say on this considering we are very passionate about agriculture and the farming industry. Being a farmer myself, having run a farming business in the height of harvest, I know we have some challenges with the weather. We have had some thunderstorms raging up there and there are some bushfires that our lovely volunteer firefighters have been attending for the last three days. As members can imagine, it is a busy time for farmers out there in the Wheatbelt and across Western Australia, and we wish them well in their harvest.
All I can say is that it is about time this bill was introduced. I feel the government has been dragging its feet on this. As previous members mentioned, it was first introduced in 2014, and we have not been keeping pace with the national legislation, which comes at a cost. It comes at a cost to the industry, Western Australia and the broader population. While the science and the research in the industry have all moved ahead, the Labor government has been standing still. We welcome this opportunity to comment on this, and that the government has brought it forward for discussion and is going to progress it. We see the reasons for doing this. I think there is no dispute around that. No-one will argue that this is not long overdue. For years, WA has operated under outdated legislation that has failed to keep pace when the Commonwealth law changed. Let me refer to these notes I have here. It changed 15 times, from memory. That is quite a few times it has changed at a Commonwealth level and yet we are still here trying to work out what we are doing in WA. It has changed 15 times since 2007. Because of that, we have lagged behind, creating confusion and sometimes duplication and unnecessary red tape for industry and research institutions. The bill is playing catch-up and is another example of waiting, waiting, waiting while industry wants to move forward. Let us be clear that gene technology is not about science fiction or unchecked experimentation. It is a practical, safe and evidence-based innovation work that drives productivity in agriculture, aquaculture and the breeding of animals. It improves biosecurity and supports our food security. I think we can all say that is very important in the world we are working in at the moment.
I represent very strong regional and agricultural communities in the Geraldton area. I have seen firsthand how important this type of technology is for industry. Like I said, I am a farmer myself and we are currently getting the crop off. This year we planted 2,600 hectares of GM canola at a cost of approximately $50,000 per tonne of pedigree seed. Obviously, we do not seed per tonne. If members want to get technical about farming, I am more than happy to have that conversation with them. Having been a farmer now for a few generations in the family—myself for 20 years—farming is quite technical. We pride ourselves on advancing with technology. We want to keep pace. I have to say that we do not plant per tonne; it is usually per gram, or per kilogram per hectare. It costs approximately $50,000 a tonne for pedigree seed depending on which one is chosen because there is not just one—believe it or not. It comes at an expense and input cost. We have to remember the value of GM to WA in particular. It is over $1.2 billion. It is the third largest broadacre crop and is a good rotational crop. It helps with agronomy, weed management and the like. It also contributes to a new industry here that we are trying to get off the ground. I think this would be of interest to members of the government in and around the decarbonisation policy and the opportunity to contribute to biofuels and bioagricultural gas. Canola would be one of the biggest products contributing to that.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: Saff as well.
Mrs Kirrilee Warr: Safflower is a developing crop too. We have some trials of saff in the local area within the Mid West. Unfortunately, because saff is a developing crop and new to WA, marketing it can be a little bit tricky. We are waiting with bated breath as to where we are going to head with these investments and what that might mean. We have heard announcements in the past around biofuel facilities and what that might look like, particularly in the Kwinana precinct. I see the member for Kwinana—actually, the member for Kwinana is not here.
I think it is important to understand that we must back our industry with confidence, whether that is investors who are going to use the product, those who are planting it at a primary producer level, or those who are researching it. We must back them in. We must have some confidence. I think legislation to back that in is important. I think that is why it is important that we debate this today and move this bill as fast as we can through the next house, considering the pace at which it has been going of late.
Knowing what we know about that, it is really important to understand that farmers are producing some great, wonderful crops. When I talk about how seed varieties, GM or otherwise, and other things are developed within the agricultural industry, it takes years and sometimes decades. As much as we might want a drought-tolerant wheat or the like—we have researchers out there trying to discover that right now—we know that it can take years to go from the infancy of research right through to commercial-scale planting of those types of crops.
It starts sometimes in the far north, in Kununurra. We heard the member for Roe talk about cotton, which is also a really important fibre, which we are very proud of growing across Australia. We understand that cotton is a natural fibre, and we know people and consumers are looking for more natural fibres so it is very important that we try to back cotton in, as well as the investment around the cotton gin in Kununurra; that is important. Upscaling and processing are really important because they create the market locally. Because of the size of our state and where we are positioned in the national markets, Western Australia operates a little bit differently in agriculture. The majority of our crops are exported rather than sold domestically, but that does not mean the opportunity is not there should the right crops and market be available, hence why I talk about biofuels and what it means. When the industry is backed, investment can be sought and people can feel certain about what they are doing into the future.
That resolves the GM canola debate. As the member for Roe and the member for Central Wheatbelt outlined, it is an important crop that we use across the landscape. It is nothing to be fearful of and has been now well used within farming practices. It is regulated to a degree and we pay royalties to use those seeds as well, might I add. It does not come cost free—you know, we go and grow this, the science is there and then off you go; it is the user-pays system. We also have to register that and have licences to use that.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: End point royalties.
Mrs Kirrilee Warr: End point royalties. There is always a clip and a take when it comes—
Several members interjected.
Mrs Kirrilee Warr: What it comes down to is: Where are we going to get our food from? Where do we want to move forward to if we are looking at different fuel sources? If we are dinkum as a Western Australian Parliament in backing that in, I call on all sides of politics to get behind agriculture. As we have known in the first six to seven months of this Parliament, we have heard a lot about agriculture and perhaps the lack of investment that we are seeing.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: Or policy.
Mrs Kirrilee Warr: Or policy—look, they did not even take a policy piece to the last election. That has been stated and I will state it again just for the record. That concerns people in the regions. People in the regions want to hear that they have a government that believes and trusts in them, and they want the government to back them. At the moment they are not feeling that at all. No policy was taken to the election and there is no parliamentary secretary in this place with whom we can raise questions on agriculture. We have to go through the Premier. I invite the Premier to come to Geraldton anytime. If he wants to come right now I am happy to take him to the farm and give him a bit of a tour.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: Jump on the header.
Mrs Kirrilee Warr: Yes, jump on the header, and maybe the chaser bin.
Mr Dave Kelly: He can come to the opening of Geraldton hospital.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: I hope he invites the chair of the development commission as well, the former failed Labor candidate.
Mrs Kirrilee Warr: Maybe we should talk about jobs for mates.
Several members interjected.
The Acting Speaker: Members!
Mrs Kirrilee Warr: We are talking about the gene bill but I will take that interjection, considering the member wants to talk health care in Geraldton. I was born in a hospital in Geraldton.
Mr Dave Kelly: Congratulations. Your parents should be very proud of you.
Mrs Kirrilee Warr: They are. Likewise, I admire them because they have taught me a hell of a lot about what it means to be a community member, use my voice, stand up in Parliament and, may I add, fight for the people I represent. I do not hear that right now from this government. They are telling me they do not feel safe in their homes and that health care is failing them. On a number of occasions farmers have told me there is overreach and a top-down approach. If the member wants to get me fired up and talk about the hospital, he is more than welcome to have a conversation about the hospital any day of the week, because I see that rising out of the ground. Yes, we welcome that, but guess what? It is well overdue and it is well over budget.
Point of order
Ms Cassie Rowe: Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that the member is clearly not speaking to the bill when she is referring to health and everything else under the sun.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Ron Sao): Thank you, member. I will not be upholding that point of order. Member for Geraldton.
Proceeding resumed
Mrs Kirrilee Warr: I will go back to agriculture and what it means. It means a hell of a lot to Australia. If we want food security, we need to back our farmers, which means listening wholeheartedly to what they are saying—I mean listening—and then acting on some of the solutions that they are offering because they are very, very adaptable. That is how they have kept pace and how they are leading productivity across Australia. Farming is the industry that has had a 70% productivity increase in the last few years. I do not know many other industries that have grown that fast or by that much.
Why is it that this Western Australian Government does not want to back our farmers in? I would love to sit down and have a conversation about that because we can work together if the government wishes to. If it wants to listen to some solutions, it should start getting out there and thinking about what it would like. This interacts; this really is not a metro versus country thing. If we want clean, green food produced in Australia and food security around that, I think it is high time we start looking into what we are doing to provide for our producers, whether they are apple orchardists, cotton growers in Kununurra's Ord Valley, or wheat growers in the vast fields of the broadacre areas of the Western Australian Wheatbelt, I think it is really important.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: Or going to the Show.
Mrs Kirrilee Warr: Or going to the Perth Royal Show, where kids can learn about where their food comes from. I heard the chickens were very popular, along with the little piglets, down in the animal sanctuary shed. I had the opportunity to walk through there and it was fantastic. It was flat out. The line for the photo booth with the little chickens was about 200 metres long and an hour's wait. That was great at the Royal Show.
Like I say, concerns have been raised around this bill. The disallowance mechanism has been built into this bill. Eighteen sitting days is a long time for regulatory uncertainty. It allows for a politically motivated disallowance motion to come in based on ideology rather than the science that we all look to underpin our decision-making, whether that is in agriculture or fishing. At the moment in fishing we have got a raging debate around who is to blame with the sustainability stocks, but we have aquaculture as well, right? That could benefit from this gene technology bill as well, should that opportunity arise in terms of breeding fish stocks. That would also be an interesting conversation to have.
Industry and researchers and those who are investing in this sector want consistency and predictability. They do not need politically motivated ideology or populous thinking when it comes to the ability to move disallowance motions because of the legislation delay. I know that others will be talking to it in consideration in detail, but I will be recommending some ideas to maybe circumvent that little loophole and how we can best progress this bill. The broad regulation-making powers, the so-called Henry VIII clauses, also deserve close scrutiny.
Whereas farmers and regional industries plan ahead, this Labor government is reacting. In fact, we heard today from the member for Butler about us over here being climate deniers. I hardly believe that. I rely on the climate and I study the weather. My husband, if you ask him, has about five apps open at any time and is always looking for the long-term forecast. We have records dating back well and truly into the early 1950s and 1960s.
Ms Cassie Rowe: Read the news.
Mrs Kirrilee Warr: You want to ask me about that, too? We can have a conversation about that, too. I care for the environment. I am a steward of the environment. I care for the land. If I do not have the land and rain coming out of the sky, as a farmer I cannot grow crops. It is as simple as that; I cannot produce food. All this government wants to do is turn good productive farming land into wind turbines and solar panels.
I have stated in this house before that I am not against renewables. I am against the cost to food security, so do not come at us with the accusation that we are climate change denialists. We care for country, the environment, our farmers and our regional communities. That is exactly why I stood up to talk to this bill. I sat here for my first seven months and allowed people on that side of the Parliament to come at us and say, "You don't believe this. You don't believe that", but guess what? I have been sitting here, listening to what they have been saying, and I have been waiting for an opportunity to stand up and start telling them what we believe out there in the regions.
If they come to the regions—
Several members interjected.
Mrs Kirrilee Warr: Yes, let us talk about the government's policy around net zero. It does not have one; it does not even have a target. Do you know what? I have had industry proponents walk through the door and tell me, "We don't know if we can actually get our wind farm up here, because we don't have transmission lines."
Several members interjected.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Ron Sao): Members!
Mrs Kirrilee Warr: Guess what? They are saying, "The state government doesn't even have a target. It doesn't even have its own target." This is the only state in the country that does not have a target.
Several members interjected.
The Acting Speaker: Members!
Mrs Kirrilee Warr: I would love to understand that because as soon as we can have a conversation around how we can protect agricultural lands for food security—which includes growing GM canola, which this government has delayed talking about for more than eight years—it will be a really, really important conversation to have. I will commend this bill to the house based on the fact that we need to proceed with this debate. We need to get this through because it has been waiting for far too long.
Mr Dave Kelly (Bassendean) (5:31 pm): I rise to make a short contribution to debate on the Gene Technology (Western Australia) Bill 2025 and the Gene Technology (Western Australia) Amendment Bill 2025. Given that it is Remembrance Day, I want to give a shout-out to the Bassendean—
Mr Lachlan Hunter interjected.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Central Wheatbelt, please!
Mr Dave Kelly: Given that it is Remembrance Day, I want to give a shout-out to the leadership of the Bassendean RSL, who put on a fantastic Remembrance Day service today: Andrew Robertson, the president, who is a veteran of the Somalia missions; Justin Hughes, the vice president, who served in the Navy in the first Gulf War; and David Beacham, who is not an office bearer, but he MCs all their events and he served at the Butterworth base in Malaysia. I just wanted to give a shout-out to the leadership of the Bassendean RSL. They do a fantastic job.
This bill is all about meeting our obligations to be part of the national gene framework. One of the industries that we have heard so much about that will benefit from the passage of this bill is the agriculture industry. That is completely right. This bill is important for that industry. I want to comment on some of the misguided information put out over the last two hours by some members opposite. Some members who are absolutely new to this house obviously do not know the history of what it was like when the Nationals WA were actually in government. What it did to agriculture during that time was really quite astounding. We had a Liberal–National coalition government; one would have thought that with the National Party in government it would have been: "Agriculture, let's go." Colin Barnett, the then Premier, got so fed up with the National Party that he stripped it of the agriculture ministry. The last two agriculture ministers in the Barnett Liberal–National government were Ken Baston and Dean Nalder—two Liberals!
Point of order
Mr Lachlan Hunter: My good friend the former upper house member should be referred to by his correct title: Hon Ken Baston MLC.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you, member.
Proceeding resumed
Mr Dave Kelly: Hon Ken Baston, a Liberal Minister for Agriculture and Food, and Hon Dean Nalder, a Liberal Minister for Agriculture and Food. The Premier was so fed up with the National Party that he stripped it of the agriculture ministry. For the last years of the Barnett government, we had Hon Mia Davies as Minister for Water, Hon Terry Redman as Minister for Regional Development, and then we had Liberal agriculture ministers. They were basically at war with each other. Hon Mia Davies as Minister for Water created a fund called Water for Food. She was so desperate to have some involvement in the agriculture ministry that she created a slush fund called Water for Food. That is how dysfunctional the Barnett government was when it came to agriculture. The two parties were at war with each other and the last thing Premier Colin Barnett wanted was to let the National Party anywhere near the agriculture portfolio. That is a fact.
Mr Lachlan Hunter interjected.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Central Wheatbelt!
Mr Dave Kelly: When we came to government there was an absolute fiscal cliff in the department of agriculture and food. The Nationals stripped hundreds of millions of dollars out of the agriculture portfolio—absolutely stripped it out. When we came to government, Hon Alannah MacTiernan had to restore the agriculture budget, and she did a damn fine job of it. When Nationals WA members come in here and talk about their commitment to the ag region, it is a complete joke. As water minister during that time, there had only ever been two water deficiency declarations in this state. We had a really bad couple of years. We had, I think, 12 water deficiency declarations all in the one season, and when we sat down with farmers and asked, "Well, how do you deal with this issue?", they said, "Well, the biggest problem was that under the previous government, the department of water never talked to the department of agriculture." The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation did not talk to anyone, and no-one talked to the Water Corporation, so what we did, myself and Alannah MacTiernan, was to get all those agencies in the one room, and we delivered water deficiency declarations and water to farmers—14 of them, I think it was—in one season.
That is the recent history —
Mr Lachlan Hunter interjected.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Central Wheatbelt, please!
Mr Dave Kelly: I will just finish. There was some commentary about Hon Darren West and his standing for the former Agricultural Region. In the 2021 election, the last election in which Darren West headed the Labor Party Agricultural Region ticket, what were the election results? The results, with Darren West as Labor's number one candidate, were 45% for Labor, 26% for the Nationals and 12% for the Liberals, so in the 2021 election, more people in the Agricultural Region voted for Labor than for the Nationals and the Liberal Party combined, so the member should rethink his standing. The National Party is so cock-a-hoop; the member for Roe is so pleased that he has some new friends to keep him company in the chamber—so happy! What did the Nationals WA get? It got 5% at the last election. The National Party wants to represent regional WA. It got only 5% at the last election and Nationals members are so happy! How did it get its vote up from 2% to 5%? It ran candidates in the metropolitan area. The Nationals argued during the last election that we should be spending Royalties for Regions money in outer metropolitan seats, in Gosnells!
Several members interjected.
Mr Dave Kelly: Darren West used to call them the "MetroNats" because they spent more time in the metropolitan area than in regional WA. There you are: they want to spend Royalties for Regions money in Gosnells to win a few votes.
This bill is very important for agriculture and very important for health. The she comes in here and wants to talk about health when we built the Geraldton hospital shows the absolute gall of the member for Geraldton. It was the Gallop Labor government.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: It's built, is it?
Mr Dave Kelly: The original one is.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: Oh, the original one, not the new one. It is done?
Mr Dave Kelly: We built it.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: Is it finished?
Mr Stephen Pratt: You don't know what you are talking about.
Mr Dave Kelly: Give him a kick, will you?
The Acting Speaker: Members!
Mr Dave Kelly: The Gallop government built the Geraldton hospital. All through the Barnett years, no investment was made in the Geraldton hospital. Now, with the McGowan and Cook Labor governments, we are building the second stage of the Geraldton hospital. The member for Geraldton has been sitting here—
Point of order
Mr David Michael: There is a little bit of hilarity going on in the chamber, but the member for Central Wheatbelt continues to interject and interject. You have called him and called him. You have asked him and asked him. I ask that you call him properly for the third time today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Ron Sao): Thank you, Leader of the House. I will not be upholding that point of order. Member for Central Wheatbelt, I would ask you to desist. Thank you very much, member for Bassendean.
Proceeding resumed
Mr Dave Kelly: For the member for Geraldton to be talking about health without any recognition that it was Labor that delivered a modern hospital to Geraldton and is building a rejuvenated hospital for the people of Geraldton does not go down well.
What have we heard today from the Nationals WA, which gets 5% of the vote? Nationals members come in here thinking they are the kings and queens of the agricultural region, but if we look around regional WA, there are outstanding Labor members representing the regions. The Nationals will remain a party that struggles to get 5%. I noticed that One Nation got four and a bit per cent. I know that it is panicking about One Nation. That is why it is ditching net zero. It is making ridiculous claims about the gun laws. If members want to do something constructive for regional WA, they should come here with more than just a load of noise and rhetoric. They should come with some policies, and then they might do a little bit better.
The member for Roe knows exactly what I am talking about. The Nationals talk a big game on forestry because on this side of the house we decided to end commercial logging in native forests.
Mr Lachlan Hunter interjected.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Central Wheatbelt!
Mr Dave Kelly: The Nationals members talk a big game. They are very critical of the decision to end logging in native forests, but at the last election, did they say that they would restart the industry if they got elected? No! Absolute crickets! They come in here, make a lot of noise—especially some of the new members—and provide a lot of rhetoric but very few actual policies.
I commend the bill to the house, and I will finish on that note.
Visitors
The Acting Speaker (Mr Ron Sao): Just one moment, please, member for Cockburn. Before I give you the call, on behalf of the member for Mount Lawley, I would like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery the Deputy Mayor of the City of Fremantle, Councillor Fedele Camarda, and from the Fremantle Fishing Fleet Festival Association, which blesses the fishing fleet, its president Mr John Minutillo and vice-president Mr John Alberti OAM. Welcome!
Proceeding resumed
Mr David Scaife (Cockburn—Parliamentary Secretary) (5:43 pm): I will start by talking up the Nationals WA. The Gene Technology (Western Australia) Bill 2025 has, from what I can gather, bipartisan or even tripartisan support, I guess I should say, yet somehow the opposition has turned it into a fight. I thought that today I would turn a new leaf for "Dad". I do not want to disappoint him after the lecture today. I am going to talk up the Nationals because I talk up the Nationals all the time, right? If members do not believe me, ask the member for Warren–Blackwood. I said such nice things that he even clipped my speech and put it on his LinkedIn. I am not sure that was the smartest decision by his digital organiser.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: It was on his Facebook as well.
Mr David Scaife: Did he do it on his Facebook as well? I only had the LinkedIn post drawn to my attention by a colleague. I connected on LinkedIn with the member for Warren–Blackwood. I have to say that I reckon that the member for Warren–Blackwood should mention that to the member for Churchlands. I reckon the member for Churchlands should start clipping some of the things that I say about him in this chamber and putting them up on his Facebook page and his LinkedIn, too. I am only too happy for the Liberal Party to take a leaf out of the National Party's book when it comes to the endorsements I give the opposition in this chamber, that is for sure.
I will talk them up in that sense, but I am actually going to disagree a little bit with the member for Bassendean about the electoral fortunes of the National Party. It should be proud. The party got about 5% of the vote and it has almost as many members as the Liberal Party. It is almost still the official opposition.
Mr David Michael: Only one member has to switch.
Mr David Scaife: I do not know if the member was here, but I have already told the member for Murray–Wellington that we do not even have to move his seat. If he flips over to the green team—
Mr Lachlan Hunter: Dark green!
Mr David Scaife: If he flips to the dark-green team, the member for Mid-West is back in the top-dog role. At least then, if we had the member for Mid-West back, we would have a Leader of the Opposition with some convictions and some values as well.
I liked the lines about us not taking policies to the last election. If there was a policy-free zone in the last election campaign, it was with the Liberals and the Nationals. It was so embarrassing that the Liberal Party did not take a single industry policy to the election. The party of free enterprise and business did not take a single industry policy to the election. Do not worry, the member for Churchlands is on a listening tour now! He has found Henderson. He has found the Kwinana strip. It is probably the first time that he has ever been to the Kwinana strip. I have great hopes that we might actually see some policy for the next election. He could at least listen to and reproduce what other people tell him, which is what he is famous for in this place—reading out the work of other people.
I think it is a bit cute of the National Party to come in here and criticise the Labor Party for a lack of policy. The opposition had policy-free zones across major areas, including the area of defence industries. It now has a shadow Minister for Defence Industries and AUKUS, but it did not have a policy on the defence industry. It is the single biggest transformational change to the Western Australian economy in decades and the Liberal Party had nothing to say about it. It is pretty cute of the National Party to come in here with that kind of criticism.
The issue of climate change really seemed to provoke a response from the member for Geraldton. I am sorry, but the member for Geraldton belongs to a political party and has all the benefits and baggage that come with that. She knows as well as the rest of us that there is a lot of baggage in Canberra on their side of politics. They cannot even say that it has not bled over here because the Nationals leader was out just last week declaring that the National Party in WA would be reviewing its position on net zero to follow the position of the federal Nationals under people like Barnaby Joyce.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: What is your position?
Mr David Scaife: What is my position? I believe in climate change. I believe in net zero by 2050, and I believe in the great work that the Cook Labor government is doing to decarbonise industry, whether it is agriculture or downstream processing. I mean, mate, pick a fight on something in which I actually have some weaknesses. Climate change is not your strong suit at the moment. The member for Geraldton should not take it personally. It is not a criticism of her per se. She has to accept that in her party the tail is wagging the dog when it comes to climate change, climate science and net zero.
The last thing I want to touch on is the interjections on the issue of health. I will be very brief. Because members have already gone there, I think I can, but I accept that it is not relevant to this bill. I make the observation that there were some interjections today from the member for Central Wheatbelt. When we pointed out that we had built the original Geraldton hospital and we are now delivering the redevelopment, he kept pointing out that we lost the seat of Geraldton. There is a terrible assumption in there. There is an implication that governments should only deliver for areas that vote for them. That is the implication. The problem is that that says much more about the opposition than it does about the Labor government, because I am proud to be part of a government that delivers transformational infrastructure and services for areas like Geraldton regardless of whether or not our candidate was successful at the election.
Those interjections were a very poor reflection on the National Party, which, famously, the last time it was in government—
Mr Lachlan Hunter: Cheeky pork-barrellers over here.
Mr David Scaife: Yes, famously the last time it was in government, it ran around shamelessly using a government program—Royalties for Regions—for pork-barrelling and partisan-political purposes to the extent that they branded the giant novelty cheques in National Party colours.
Mr Lachlan Hunter interjected.
Mr David Scaife: Again, even after I pointed out that the implicit assumption is that governments should only deliver for people who voted for them, the member for Central Wheatbelt goes back to the fact that we did not win the electorate. It does not matter. We are the party that delivers quality services and quality infrastructure for people all around Western Australia, whether in metropolitan or regional areas and whether they vote Labor, Liberal or National. That is the way that it should be.
Mrs Lisa Munday (Dawesville) (5:51 pm): I will make a very quick contribution because I have to be in the chair at 6:00 pm. My contribution was going to be tied up with gene technology, but I see that we have "no holds barred" conversations happening today so I might just cut to the points I want to make and then we will give more people a chance to speak.
I rise today in support of the Gene Technology (Western Australia) Bill 2025. This bill repeals and replaces the old gene technology legislation. The scheme safeguards public health and the environment by ensuring that any potential risks from gene technology are properly identified and managed, just as we do with all modern science.
As someone who has worked in health in an acute sense, as a paramedic and later as a psychologist, I have seen how much trust the community places in science and how easily trust can be eroded, especially in today's world in which people have access to Google and ChatGPT and end up down a rabbit warren. There are a lot of often loud voices—influencers on TikTok and Instagram—who have no idea and do not understand the significance of evidence-based science.
I had a few examples, but the one I really want to talk about is the United States, which has a conspiracy theorist as its Secretary of Health and Human Services who makes outrageous and unscientific claims such as that paracetamol causes autism. As a mum with two autistic sons, I can probably use a lot of words here, but I will just say that it is baloney. That is probably the best and most professional word I can come up with—not that I am even entertaining the idea. I rarely took Panadol during either of my pregnancies, but this kind of unscientific rubbish makes me question myself. It makes me think, "Did I take this? Did I do this? Is this my fault?" It creates fear in a lot of women who have autistic or neurodivergent children. Today I stand up and say that I did not make this happen. I did not, and neither did anyone else who has a neurodivergent child. But if there is a causal link between eating too many Weetbix and autism, then maybe we have an issue, because I know I ate more than my fair share of Weetbix during my pregnancies. We could have a problem there but I have not seen that one yet.
Trust in science is one of the most powerful assets a community can have. It is not loud or flashy—not like an influencer. It is quiet and steady and lifesaving. It takes decades to build trust in science, but about three TikToks and a Facebook live to undo it. We have all seen it. We have seen the rise of keyboard experts. Everyone in this place has had keyboard warriors against them for whatever legislation, bill or topic. People have done 15 minutes of googling and suddenly they have cracked the medical code that somehow escaped every epidemiologist, neurologist and immunologist on the planet. My point is: when influencers or public figures throw around baseless claims, it spreads fear, and fear erodes trust. When trust in science is damaged, vaccination rates drop, herd immunity weakens and lives are put at risk. As every year goes by, the number of outbreaks of measles and whooping cough are on the increase. That is purely because of unscientific claims and the fear of vaccination growing. The kicker is that it is often the louder voices, not the smarter ones, that shape the conversation. The algorithms on our feeds do not reward accuracy, they reward outrage. It is far easier to share a meme than to read a peer-reviewed paper. That is why, for all of us, our role is bigger than just passing laws. It is about defending good science from bad actors, from misinformation and from those who think YouTube documentaries beat decades of rigorous research and science.
While I am so far out on the tangent from gene technology, I would like to give a huge shout-out to the Premier, the Treasurer, the Minister for Health Infrastructure and the Minister for Health before the member for Central Wheatbelt shouts me down.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: No, you go on.
Mrs Lisa Munday: I thank them for all the work leading up to this week's announcement of a brand-new hospital at Peel Health Campus. It is an absolute ripper. The member for Mandurah and I were super excited to see this announcement on the weekend. It is a whole new hospital—six storeys, an expanded 39-bay emergency department, a dedicated mental health emergency facility and additional inpatient beds. There is so much more. Also in the health area, in line with the brand-new hospital is the Kara Maar Specialist Community Eating Disorder Service and the mental health service, which are separate to the hospital but are really important.
I will quickly segue back to gene technology so I can pick up the ethics part of my conversation. Ethics is such a big point of research more broadly. The benefits are clear. The researchers get clarity and consistency. Industry gets less red tape and more certainty. Government agencies like health and agriculture can work competently.
I have to share one more story. When I was doing my psychology degree, part of it involved earning 30 credit points as part of my unit by assisting in other people's research. That basically meant I was a guinea pig like everyone else. The harder or stranger the experiment, the more credit points you earned. So, naturally, me being me, I went hunting for the three and four-point credit studies, and the ethic processes for those projects were incredibly thorough. Often it took longer than the whole honours thesis just to get your ethics through, and for good reason. I took part in studies for which electrodes were attached to my scalp for EEG readings while I answered certain questions for them. I had a small punch biopsy taken from my hand—though to this day I have no idea what that was for. I had to put my hands in freezing cold water and swear and let them know if it was a reduced pain threshold—swearing with freezing cold water—
Mr Geoff Baker: Did you do the same course as me?
Mrs Lisa Munday: Were you at Murdoch University?
Mr Geoff Baker: Yes.
Mrs Lisa Munday: Researchers were always keen for left-handers, so I was in high demand there. Being a mature-aged student in my late 40s was an extra bonus. That experience gave me deep respect for the way good science operates. It operates with consent, transparency and genuine care for participants, and it is why we can trust that ethical standards are not barriers to progress; they are what makes progress meaningful.
What else can I say? Public trust in science does not come from complex regulation; it comes from people knowing that innovation will be used to help and not harm. When I was a paramedic, I often saw how science saved lives with new drugs, new vaccines, new technology and ambulances. But I also saw that people need to know the "why". If we explain gene technology clearly as a tool for improving health and environmental outcomes, then we can build the community confidence that good science deserves.
In closing, this gene technology bill is about modernising the framework. It will align WA with the national system and strengthen oversight.
I commend the bill to the house.
Mr Hugh Jones (Darling Range) (5:58 pm): There is a famous clip on YouTube with Brian Blessed. He is a Shakespearean actor who puts his arm into a trough of cold water to see how long he can last. He can last a lot longer when he is swearing!
I rise to talk about the Gene Technology (Western Australia) Bill 2025. Following on from the member for Cockburn, I had a National Party candidate in Darling Range as well. He did not do very well and was outvoted by the One Nation candidate. The One Nation candidate was very hardworking. He was on pre-poll every minute of the day, whereas the Nationals guy was not. I could be a Nationals guy anyway because—this is no word of a lie—I was walking the passageway, and someone was saying, "Scott. Scott!" I turned around and he said, "Oh, no, you're not Scott Leary." I said, "No." For Hansard, Scott Leary is the member for Armadale and he is bald like me.
Several members interjected.
Mr Hugh Jones: Albany! Sorry, he is the member for Albany, and he is bald like I am.
Gene therapy is a medical approach that aims to treat many conditions, including epilepsy. There are forms of epilepsy that are the result of genetic background or mutations or what have you. There are two standard gene therapy techniques for epilepsy. These include gene addition, which treats genetic epilepsy by adding genetic material to a person's cells to compensate for a missing or abnormal gene, and gene editing, which treats genetic epilepsy by directly modifying a person's gene. This could include gene inactivation or gene correction.
That brings me to this segue and why I stood up, which is to talk about Epilepsy WA. I had a big few days with Epilepsy WA. On Thursday, I was at the Armadale support group, funnily enough in Armadale; they meet on the first Thursday of every month at the Armadale Dôme Cafe. It is a group of people with epilepsy and a nurse convener or facilitator. People who have epilepsy just get together. It is not a clinical activity or medical thing necessarily. It is people who are impacted by epilepsy and they talk about and compare their lives and support each other.
I went along. I do not have epilepsy. I do not have anyone in my family with epilepsy, but I went along to learn a bit more about it. I am never going to be a doctor—I am too old for that—but I can understand the impacts. For example, there was a gentleman there the other day who had had a seizure when he was driving on Armadale Road. He ended up in the middle of it and wrote off a car. The police officers attended and said, "You need to sort your life out, mate", because they thought he was affected by drugs or alcohol or something, but that was the first seizure he had ever had. He was probably in his 50s. He has now had to adapt to a life with epilepsy and the impacts it has had on his driver's licence. There are many more examples from over the couple of years I have been there, which helps me to understand the impact it has on people's lives.
On Friday, I went to the Epilepsy WA conference on behalf of the Minister for Health. I had the honour of opening the conference. There was a panel of experts who spoke about the impacts of epilepsy and things to consider like pregnancy and breastfeeding. There were discussions about vagus nerve stimulation techniques. Again, I will not pretend to understand it, but the presenter cited the benefits of that procedure for some people with epilepsy. There was talk about the experience of people having their first seizures. Professor David Henshall from Dublin in Ireland spoke about gene therapies. That was a great event hosted by Epilepsy WA. Karl Langdon emceed. It was a great event.
To cap it all off, because Epilepsy WA did not have enough organising work to do, on Saturday night it held the Purple Shadow Gala at the Pan Pacific on Adelaide Terrace in Perth. It was a great fundraising event. That was hosted by Tim Gossage, who was actually very funny. He could be a Speaker because he kept control of the room. There were some pretty rowdy people there after a few beers. There was a guest appearance from Lucy Durack. She was not publicised, but she came and did three songs, such is the relationship that Epilepsy WA has with, I do not know if I can say stars, but entertainers and people in the community. That was a great thing.
I sat on a table with Maddie Milton. She recently completed the Light Horse Ultra Marathon, which is a 50-kilometre run. That was in honour of her cousin Evie, who passed away in 2024. Evie would have just turned 17 on 1 November. She was lost to sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. Also at the table was her father, Andy, his wife, Alinda, and his mum, Joan. As part of the gala, there was a video display and photographs at the start. There was a photo of Andy there. Not long after his daughter Evie passed away, he was at the Purple Walk For Epilepsy. The emotion in his eyes was just pain. Phil and Karen Makin were also there. They lost their son Daniel to sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP). He would have been 42 years old now.
Both those families are great campaigners for epilepsy awareness. They concur with Epilepsy WA's reason for being: to raise awareness of epilepsy and bring it out of the shadows. There are many people who suffer with seizures and epilepsy who do not want to raise it because there are certain consequences of an epilepsy diagnosis. It even impacts your driver's licence. Epilepsy WA wants to raise awareness in schools and in the community so that if people do have seizures, they can react. It also advocates for therapies like gene editing technology and the provision of technologies like seizure mats to assist sufferers with epilepsy. I said I was going to be five minutes; I am not sure how long I will be. Seizure mats help families manage epilepsy, particularly in children, so that they can sleep well at night knowing that if their child has a seizure, they will wake up to an alarm and can manage the situation.
Melissa Northcott was the brain's trust behind the Purple Shadow Gala. There was an attempt to stand one up last year, but it did not happen. Melissa pressed on. Melissa was born with cerebral palsy. Her voice is quite quiet. She finds it difficult to vocalise, but when she does vocalise, people hear her. She is very persuasive. I think she was the one behind Tim Gossage's and Lucy Durack's appearances. She did not take no for an answer. She is also a former City of Armadale councillor. She is a very wonderful lady who has pushed through her own disability. She does not have epilepsy, but she is a great advocate for the organisation in raising awareness. I just wanted to put that on Hansard.
I cannot forget about Emma Buitendag, the CEO. She is a great, hardworking CEO. She is faced with so much sorrow and heartache. When families come to Epilepsy WA, it is quite often after they have lost someone. Emma hears it all. When I first met Emma, I remarked to her that I thought she needed psychological supervision and someone to debrief to when hearing all these stories, but she is just unstoppable. She is a great advocate for epilepsy as a whole and she has my full support.
I commend this bill to the house.
Ms Hannah Beazley (Victoria Park—Minister for Local Government) (6:07 pm) in reply: I rise to thank members for their contributions to the debate on the Gene Technology (Western Australia) Bill 2025 and the Gene Technology (Western Australia) Amendment Bill 2025. These important reforms will modernise WA's gene technology legislation, bringing us into lockstep nationally to support research and innovation in WA. This will be achieved by applying the Commonwealth act as Western Australian law and revoking the Gene Technology Act 2006. As the Gene Technology (Western Australia) Bill 2025 is an applied law, it ensures ongoing uniformity with the national scheme without requiring the state act to be amended whenever the Commonwealth act is amended. This will give WA corresponding gene technology legislation to fully participate in the national scheme.
The bill provides for disallowance of amending acts by either house of Parliament to maintain Western Australian parliamentary sovereignty over these amending acts. The intent is that these powers be used only in limited circumstances when deemed appropriate and necessary. The bill also provides the power to make regulations to modify the applied law. This provides the state with the required flexibility to ensure that when the applied law is inconsistent with another Western Australian law, it can be modified to suit Western Australian requirements in a timely manner if needed. I welcome the clear support for this bill, which is so important for WA's science and research industry and innovation. It is a pleasure to be here on behalf of Hon Jackie Jarvis, the Minister for Agriculture and Food.
In response to the member for Central Wheatbelt, the honourable—
Mr Lachlan Hunter: Not yet!
Ms Hannah Beazley: I take it back, member. The member for Central Wheatbelt made comments regarding government delays. I note that the previous 2014 bill was introduced by the then Liberal government into the Legislative Council and was referred to the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review.
Mr Lachlan Hunter interjected.
Ms Hannah Beazley: I am happy to work with the member for Central Wheatbelt's timetable today, but his constant interjections are actually delaying us.
The committee tabled its report and the 2014 bill was passed in March 2015. In 2017, the bill lapsed due to an election. The former Liberal–National government had three years to pass legislation for its priority agricultural industry and it did not—we are. But I will be kind and assume that during that time the government of the day was trying to work out how to address the issues raised by the committee more broadly, as there were common criticisms of uniform bills at the time. We have done that work and the issues have now been addressed in these bills, which have progressed in line with the government's ambitious legislative reform agenda.
In addition to progressing this legislation, the Cook government recognises the important research undertaken by the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD) scientists, who have long provided benefits to WA producers and our economy. Hon Jackie Jarvis MLC, Minister for Agriculture and Food, recently announced a new $55.7 million primary industries development research facility at Jandakot. The Primary Industries Research Centre will be a modern, functional workplace for research, development and innovation that will help futureproof Western Australia's valuable agriculture and food sector. In addition, DPIRD has secured a 5.5 hectare site at Wanneroo for agricultural field trials, complementing more than 250 research trials spanning the metropolitan area and the regions. These new assets build on the government's extensive network of offices and dedicated agriculture research facilities across the state. Together with the $97 million State Biosecurity Response Centre announced at the end of 2024, our government's renewal program will ensure WA's primary industries stay competitive on the global stage. The new Primary Industries Research Centre and the State Biosecurity Response Centre represent the largest investment of any government into metropolitan DPIRD facilities in decades. The Cook government also remains fully committed to providing a long-term fit-for-purpose metropolitan facility for DPIRD, with $320 million set aside in the budget.
As mentioned earlier, it is worth noting that of the 2,000 FTE at DPIRD there are nearly 450 researchers, technical specialists, economists and other staff contributing to core agriculture research functions. Of those R&D staff, close to 150 are focused purely on grains research.
I encourage members to support this legislation because it will bring Western Australia in lockstep with the Commonwealth gene technology legislation. By passing this bill, the state will enable WA's full participation in the national scheme for the regulation of gene technology. This will ensure the protection of the health and safety of people and the environment by identifying risks posed by gene technology. It will also ensure management of identified risks through the regulation of genetically modified organisms. I urge members, after all this time, let us not have any further delays and let us get these reforms in place.
Question put and passed.
Gene Technology (Western Australia) Bill 2025 read a second time.
Leave denied to proceed forthwith to third reading.
