Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2015, a bill that proposes some minor and technical changes to the Gene Technology Act 2000. The Gene Technology Act 2000, in concert with the corresponding state and territory legislation, established and controls the national gene technology regulatory scheme. The object of the Gene Technology Act is to protect human health and safety, and the environment, by identifying risks posed by or as a result of gene technology, and by managing those risks through regulating certain dealings with GMOs, genetically modified organisms.

As this is a national scheme, it is underpinned by the intergovernmental Gene Technology Agreement, which, I suggest, is an example of the federation working effectively. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Gene Technology has ministerial representation from the nine Australian jurisdictions, and the forum ordered an independent review of the regulatory scheme in 2011—very important as this technology is developing at an incredible rate. That review of the governance forum made 16 recommendations and 14 of those recommendations have been accepted by the forum. The bill before the chamber implements a number of those recommendations.

The amendments contained in the bill are of a minor or technical nature. While I did teach science for one year at Marcellin College in the early 1990s, I definitely do not claim to be a scientist. While I am here at the dispatch box, I do apologise to those kids whom I taught science to for that year. I was definitely an English teacher called in at the last moment, but hopefully I did not do them too much damage.

Labor has sought the views of scientists, industry, government and the regulator when considering this bill. This bill was referred to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee and the committee recommended that the bill be passed. Submissions to that committee reflect broad support in the scientific community. The Australian Academy of Science says:

The changes proposed … are conservative and justified on the basis of the OGTR's—

the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator's—

accumulated experience of implementing Australia's system for the regulation of dealings with GMOs.

The Academy concurs with the Explanatory Memorandum's assertion that the changes, if approved, would improve the Act's operation without changing the underlying policy intent or overall legislative framework of the regulatory scheme.

The Acting Gene Technology Regulator, Dr Robyn Cleland, says:

I consider that the amendments would clarify and enhance the operation and administration of the Act and support achieving its object "to protect human health and safety, and the environment, from risks posed by or as a result of gene technology, by managing those risks through regulating certain dealings with genetically modified organisms". The amendments would not alter the policy settings of the regulatory scheme.

CropLife Australia in its submission—to hear an alternative voice—says:

CropLife fully supports the minor and technical amendments to the Act proposed by the Bill to make gene technology regulation in Australia more efficient, more effective and clearer.

There is clear support for this bill from scientists in Australia, those charged with regulating GMOs and those involved in the industry. The bill has been well considered and has been through the committee process, which heard from all of the stakeholders that a sensible government should listen to.

We should, however, be cautious when we are considering any legislation concerning the regulation of genes. As the member for Throsby touched on in his speech, science is a wonderful thing and our world has gained enormously from discoveries through science that no-one had dreamed of years ago. Lives have been saved; people have been fed throughout the Third World; diseases have been treated—all because of gene technology. But therein lies the problem. As a lawyer and a politician, I am all too aware of the unintended consequences that might flow from unregulated research in gene technology. As I said, whilst I did teach science before becoming a lawyer, I was never a scientist at all, but I have watched with much wonder and a little horror at the development of patent law over genetic materials. The concept that materials that form part of our own genetic make-up can be patented by somebody else is quite difficult and challenging to comprehend. We are literally talking about our own DNA—the essence of me; the essence of us. All sorts of consequences can flow from that, including limiting the availability of the use of patented genes for life-saving health procedures, something also touched on by the member for Throsby in his speech. We must balance appropriate remuneration for private research—if we do not, the research will not occur—with public good and public ownership where appropriate.

The Full Court of the Federal Court last year handed down a judgment in the case of D'Arcy and Myriad Genetics Inc. The joint judgment in that case held:

In Australia, there is no statutory or jurisprudential limitation of patentability to exclude "products of nature". To the contrary, the High Court has specifically rejected such an approach.

In contrast, a similar patent that was challenged in the United States was found to be invalid. D'Arcy and Myriad Genetics Inc. has been appealed to the High Court and special leave has been granted. It will be interesting to watch how this case plays out. I refer to that case specifically as an example of the way science is evolving far faster than our laws can possibly keep up—so all strength to the oversight committee to the forum. We do need to be ever vigilant and constantly alert to any unintended consequences of this rapidly evolving area of science.

The bill before us today, as I have said, is well supported by all of the peak bodies and by the stakeholders, including the scientists that Labor has consulted with, and the community's voice has been listened to. Labor supports this bill.

See this speech in context