Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This bill, though short in title and length, is long on impact. The proposed changes to the Gene Technology Act are: removing a restriction on licence variations to broaden the circumstances in which stakeholders can vary licences rather than apply for new licences; updating the considerations required for declaring a GMO dealing to be a notifiable, low-risk dealing to enable more low-risk dealings with GMOs to be downgraded to the notifiable category instead of requiring licences; discontinuing quarterly reporting to the minister on activities under the Gene Technology Act; elaborating on activities allowed under an inadvertent dealings licence to ensure reasonable activities are explicitly authorised; updating newspaper advertising requirements for notifying the public of consultations on licence application assessments; removing the requirement to include genetically modified, or GM, products authorised by other agencies on the Record of GMO and GM Product Dealings—the GMO Record; and clarifying wording.

This bill continues the work of the red tape reduction mission as epitomised in the two previous red tape repeal days. Moreover, it is consistent with the economic plan, as articulated in 'Our plan', which is the document we put before the people at the federal election in 2013. That plan is elegant and effective. It is to cut waste, cut the red tape and let business get on with business, thus creating the conditions for more job growth and opportunity.

The Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2015 will make amendments to the Gene Technology Act 2000 to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the gene technology regulatory scheme. The amendments will not make any significant changes to the framework or policy settings of the act. In line with the government's deregulation agenda the amendments will decrease regulatory burden for regulated organisations and help ensure that regulatory burden remains commensurate with risk into the future. This bill is part of the response to an independent review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 conducted for the Legislative and Governance Forum on Gene Technology.

'Gene technology' is the term given to a range of activities concerned with understanding gene expression, taking advantage of natural genetic variation, modifying genes and transferring genes to new hosts. We use gene technology in crop and animal research, to improve the sustainability and productivity of agriculture and to protect plants, animals and humans from disease.

Today, only a small proportion of research funding and investment related to gene technology comes from the private sector. Involving companies and industry is important to get commercial uptake of new products and ensure the intended benefits are realised. Private investment is important and we need more of it. Hence, this Gene Technology Amendment Bill must be viewed as a part of a holistic strategy where all parts of the legislative program work to a common end. This bill is about making Australia a better place to conduct and invest in research. Indeed, it is impossible to mention research in this place without drawing attention to our government's announcement of a world-first, $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund. This is truly a world beater and world first that demonstrates that Australia and the Abbott government are serious about science.

The benefits of genetics to vaccine production are manifest and real. Vaccines produced by genetic engineering offer an advantage that the microbial strains from which the proteins are extracted do not contain complete viruses. Thus, there are no risks of accidental inoculation with live virus. Cloning directly into vaccinia virus DNA holds great promise, although vaccines so produced are not yet on the market.

Recombinant vaccinia viruses—for example, a gene from the genital herpes virus within its DNA—can multiply and subsequently be inoculated into humans. The vaccinia virus produces mild infection, expresses some of the herpes virus protein and produces immunity. This is very similar, in a way, to what Edward Jenner did centuries ago when he introduced the first vaccination scheme which eventually led to the extinction of smallpox. Vaccines can be produced using recombinant DNA technology or using cell culture. Vaccines of common use are usually produced by cell cultures or animals. Such vaccines contain weakened or inactivated pathogens.

Crop plants can bear cheaper bioreactors to produce antigens to be utilised as edible vaccines. These edible vaccines are said to be a cheap alternative compared to recombinant vaccines. The transgenic plants are treated as edible vaccines, and consumption of these transgenic plants via, for instance, transgenic banana or tomato, cure diseases like cholera and hepatitis B. Foot and mouth diseases can be cured by feeding them transgenic sugar beet. In the near future these vaccines can be used as conventional vaccines. Humulin was the first therapeutic product to be made commercially by genetically engineered bacterium.

Recently a genetically engineered malarial vaccine, SPF66, has been produced. Genetic engineering promises to have an enormous impact on the improvement of crop species. Genetic transformation can boost plant breeding efforts for developing disease-resistant varieties.

Australians bring unique strengths to the scientific table. Our lateral thinking and novel ideas allow us to solve worldwide problems. In particular, Australians are great team players. It is our scientific teams that form the engine rooms which fuel our major discoveries, from astrophysics to biochemistry.

This is a really exciting time in genome and epigenome research. The cost of sequencing a human genome is over one thousand times cheaper than it was just a few years ago. One can now sequence one's entire genome for just $1,000. In the coming years, this genomics revolution will become much more apparent to us as it brings transformative advances in agriculture and medicine. This will touch everyone and have major economic benefits, so it is a perfect opportunity for Australia to play a leading international role in the area of genomics.

Being serious about science means having a long-term vision and a workable, affordable, costed plan. We must, as a nation, invest in the cheap end of the innovation pipeline and invest in the cheap end of the health equation. This means putting further money into research and preventative medicine. Concomitantly, the same is true for our climate challenges. Australia must invest more in energy research and remove the artificial barriers and legislative restrictions. As we move up the value chain the increase in labour costs makes red tape and compliance costs even more expensive. That is why this bill, which seeks to reduce the red tape requirement, is so important.

As an aside, this bill provides an opportunity to comment on the face of parliament. Today there are far too few scientists in this place. Such is the dearth that Labor members reading this bill may take gene technology as being the name of the denim department in their local mall. As a polity, we must decide how we view and value science and scientists. We must also ask the question in earnest, 'What type of members do we want in parliament?' The trend may be for a new breed of professional politician, but what we know from genetics is that diversity in the gene pool gives you long-term success. So too must it be the case in the Australian parliament.

Australia must compete in the global economy by creating high-value-added goods and services. Science is exactly the industry where we can excel and have done so many times in the past. CSIRO is a beacon institution that points the way for Australia as a world beater.

In terms of gene technology and the benefits that accrue, I have a very personal story to tell here. I had two second cousins who both had cystic fibrosis. Anyone who has come across people who have cystic fibrosis knows it is a terrible disease. I remember my second cousins struggling for breath. They lived to comparatively old ages for cystic fibrosis sufferers—one lived into his mid-thirties and one to his early forties. That is way too short and the quality of life is way too low. Genetic engineering gives you the potential to solve some of those problems by, for instance, having a genetically modified virus that you either ingest, as I have mentioned previously, through eating, or take through something like a nasal spray, which can then modify the genetic structure within the lungs to prevent the problems that you have with cystic fibrosis. There are numerous other diseases that have similarly debilitating effects and are enormously expensive to treat medically. Cystic fibrosis is hugely expensive, particularly when you need to have lung transplants or even heart and lung transplants and so on. It is enormously expensive. How exciting it would be for us to be able to give a cure to a young child who is desperately struggling for breath.

I will finish by quoting Carl Sagan. He once said:

Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact.

Clear and simple laws allow for hard but fruitful research.

See this speech in context