Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2015 amends the Gene Technology Act. It is not often that this piece of legislation, or indeed this subject matter, gets debated in this House, so I may take the opportunity to go through the regulatory regime and the importance of having a firm but enlightened regulatory system in place in this area of public policy. The Gene Technology Act 2000 is the Commonwealth component of the nationally consistent regulatory scheme for gene technology in Australia. The object of the act is to protect health and safety of people and to protect the environment by identifying risks posed by, or as a result of, gene technology, and by managing those risks through regulating certain dealings in GMOs. The act establishes a regulatory framework to provide an efficient and effective system for the application of gene technologies that operate in conjunction with other Commonwealth and state regulatory schemes relevant to GMOs and genetically modified products.

In 2000, a regulatory framework was established, with the Gene Technology Regulator responsible for making the majority of decisions relating to gene technology and GMOs. The regulator is an independent statutory office holder and is not subject to direction by anyone in relation to the performance of his or her functions—in particular, whether or not to grant a GMO licence with or without conditions. The regulator is responsible for the decisions on particular applications, is subject to guidance at a general level from the ministerial council and is ultimately responsible to this parliament.

In 2011, the Department of Health, formerly the Department of Health and Ageing, commissioned a review of the act on behalf of the Legislative and Governance Forum on Gene Technology, formerly the Gene Technology Ministerial Council. The review investigated three areas: firstly, emerging trends and international developments in biotechnology and its regulation; secondly, the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation of the act consistently across the national scheme for gene technology regulation in Australia; and thirdly, the interface between this act and other acts and schemes for regulation of related entities throughout the Commonwealth.

The review found that, overall, the act and the regulator were operating very well. The Gene Technology Regulator was found to be performing its functions in a very efficient manner, but there were aspects of the act's implementation at state and territory level that required attention. The review also noted that current consultation processes in relation to applications under the act were working well. However, it did make 16 recommendations. Of those, 14 were accepted by the ministerial council. This bill seeks to amend the act to implement five of those 16 recommendations. Those five were all agreed to by the ministerial council. In our view, they are minor and technical amendments that do nothing but enhance the overall operation of the regulatory scheme, but I will go to them in a little bit of a detail.

The amendments improve the act's operation without changing the underlying policy intent, the overall legislative framework or the legislative scheme. The bill discontinues quarterly reporting to the minister. That does not mean that reporting to the minister is not required. Importantly, those things that were once subjected to quarterly report are now incorporated into an annual report. It clarifies which dealings may be authorised by inadvertent dealings licences, and it updates advertising requirements for public consultations. It also removes the duplicate information about GM products authorised by other agencies from the record of GMO and GM products. This will have the effect of no longer tracking the GMO products approved by the Gene Technology Regulator. In essence, what this section of the bill does is remove the duplication. There will still be a publicly available register of these items, but they will be found within the register of the respective regulatory agencies—for example, the TGA, APVMA, the Food Standards Australia New Zealand registry and the NICNAS registry.

The bill changes licence variation requirements to give greater flexibility to licence holders but not at the risk of public health and safety. It updates considerations required before dealings may be scheduled as notifiable low risk dealings. It requires that emergency dealings determinations be entered on the GMO record as soon as practicable, but it removes the requirement that information on GM products be entered as soon as practicable. It also clarifies some ambiguous wording within the act.

I will say a little bit about gene technology, because this is an area of intense public interest. I know that the member for Moreton, who will be speaking on this debate, will have something to say about these issues. Put simply, gene technology refers to a number of ingenious methods whereby genetic material, DNA, in the cells of target organisms is altered in very specific ways. Gene technology works because there is a remarkable similarity between the central biochemical systems of plants, animals, bacteria and fungi. The potential benefits from the application of gene technology include: more efficient use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals, savings in energy inputs to farm production, and the recovery of degraded land or being able to grow specific crops on land that would previously have been not viable. It also enables research into causes of diseases and improved biopharmaceuticals and bioremediation.

However, the very characteristics of gene technology which produce many of the benefits also cause concerns in the community. These concerns relate to potential unintended effects on the health of people or the environment. Some of the risks identified when the 2000 bill was originally introduced into the parliament go to this point. If you read the regulatory impact statement to the Gene Technology Bill 2000, it talks about the risks of allergic reactions to genetically modified foods—the concern that these genetically modified foods have a higher risk of allergic reactions. It talks about the unknown long-term consequences that may not be able to be reversed or fixed once GMO is widely used. And it talks about crops, for example, which may become so strong as to constitute a weed or pest within the Australian environment. Of course, there are also broader concerns in this area about using gene technology, including some of the ethical, social and moral concerns about the impacts of human beings effectively playing God.

Legal responsibility for gene technology regulation is vested in many regulatory bodies, depending on the intended use of the relevant genetic technology. For example, foods are regulated under state and territory food acts and therapeutic goods are regulated under the Therapeutic Goods Administration. And I do pause to say that this is a very exciting area of new technology in fighting diseases that were once certain death sentences. There is an enormous amount of very good research going into this area, particularly in relation to biologicals. Human gene therapy is also regulated by the TGA. Agricultural and veterinary chemicals are regulated by relevant authorities. There is a national scheme administered by the National Registration Authority. Industrial chemicals are regulated by NICNAS. Imports and exports of GM products and GMOs are regulated under the Quarantine Act and the Imported Food Control Act, amongst other pieces of legislation. As you can see from this, there is a complex regulatory scheme. But at the centre of it lies the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.

Although the bill, on its face, seems non-controversial, given the subject matter and the keen community interest on this, when first appraised of it when it appeared before the parliament on the Notice Paper, we sought advice from a range of experts and stakeholders and asked that the Senate committee conduct a brief inquiry into it. That Senate committee has now reported. I am pleased to say that they received five submissions, including from CSIRO, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, the Australian Academy of Science, CropLife Australia and Food Standards Australia New Zealand. All five submitters to the inquiry supported the bill. There was no contra argument put to it. Notably, the Australian Academy of Science characterised the amendments as 'conservative and justified'. The CSIRO declared a strong support for the clear legislation of gene technology regulation. The bill enjoys the support of all Labor members on this side of the House. We will be supporting it.

I commend the legislation to the House. We commend all of those who have done the important work over many years to bring the matter before the House.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Throsby for his support and that of the Labor Party for what are, essentially, a very minor raft of alterations to existing legislation. As with all things though, they should be overhauled and looked at in time. The Gene Technology Amendment Bill reforms were telegraphed in the autumn repeal day bills. Of course, one of the government's very great commitments to the Australian people is that we will reduce unnecessary red tape and regulation on the population. We will continuously reassess the impact of government regulation. With the repeal days, $1 billion a year is the aim. We believe that up until now, including the last autumn repeal day, that total is at about $2.45 billion—well on track.

These bills, as I said, are relatively small reforms. The member for Throsby has just run through the effects of them in some detail. Amongst other things, they convert quarterly reporting to the minister to annual reports, because information and technology does not change that fast. Once a year is often enough to report to the minister. Also, it creates flexibility between licence holders. It is essentially good legislation. It is a non-controversial bill tidying up legislation that is now 15 years old. It is about making a system that is efficient and delivers a minimum of government interference to business trying to get about its work. It gives me a chance to talk about a few other things, too.

I am the current Chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry. We have just announced a new inquiry into the role of technology in increasing agricultural productivity in Australia. Before my time in parliament—almost eight years now—I was a farmer. I am amazed at the speed of technological change in just those eight years with modern guidance systems, mapping and the ability to deliver fertiliser at variable rates, which was around when I entered parliament but has been adopted on a wide scale now. So there is much change afoot in the agricultural industry, and it is thirsty for new technologies. I am looking forward to that inquiry.

Another area where I have seen great advances is animal husbandry. The ability of modern sheep farmers and cattle farmers now to lift fertility rates through stock testing and weeding unproductive animals out of their flocks is making a remarkable difference. As we gear ourselves for the opportunities this century will offer in Asia with quality green, clean food, these technologies—in this case, this added fertility in livestock industries—is very important. In fact there is a conference in Western Australia today, in Perth, entitled Innovation in Agriculture—Opportunities and Constraints. I will be looking very closely at the contributions that are made on this day. Unfortunately I could not be there, because of parliamentary commitments.

This bill is about gene technology. Gene technology is not the only tool available to farmers but it is one of the sharpest tools. As a wise old farmer once said to me when we were talking about ways in which we could increase our agricultural productivity, 'You never want to underestimate the amount of technology in one little grain.' He was so right. The breeding of grains and new cultivars for our farmers is nowadays intrinsically linked with our ability to read the gene sequences and then try to reach an alteration in those sequences. It might be achieved by artificial means or it might be achieved, as has always been done, by traditional breeding techniques. I have always been very puzzled by the green Left's attack on genetic modification technology. It is like being opposed to explosives because you can make weapons out of them—but of course you can build bridges and mines, things that are good for humanity. It is like being opposed to motor cars because they kill people—but of course the motor car is essential to our modern existence. We are often lectured by groups from the Left who say to us, particularly on the issue of climate change, 'Listen to the science.' But when the science does not coincide with their point of view, of course, they come to the conclusion that those scientists would not know anything at all. They say, 'Just listen to us' in that case.

Obviously anything coming out of the gene technology pool should be monitored and approved on a case by case basis. That is why we have regulation. It is like a new chemical, for instance. We should approve the use of a good new chemical. If it is going to cause extensive environmental harm or kill the crops, obviously we will not approve it. I am given to reflect on quite a famous case in South Australia back in the sixties, when a new clover was bred for Kangaroo Island. It was bred by traditional means. There was no GMO technology in those days. It actually sterilised the flocks. It was a disaster. That shows that it can happen under any technology. Every item that is registered for use should be perused and properly checked, and of course gene technology is no different.

Dr Patrick Moore is the co-founder of Greenpeace. Greenpeace is implacably opposed to the use of GMOs around the world. Dr Patrick Moore, after founding Greenpeace, actually quit the organisation because he became offended by Greenpeace's commitment to politics rather than science. The reason I raise that is that Dr Patrick Moore and others are champions of a GMO product called golden rice. Golden rice was developed with the support of Bill and Melinda Gates through the Gates Foundation, which is normally applauded around the world for the wonderful things it does for deserving and needy communities. Golden rice is a vitamin-A-rich rice. There are 250 million children in the world who suffer from vitamin A deficiency. Each year between 250,000 and half a million of them become blind. Half of them die within 12 months. Golden rice has the ability, at least in the cultures that use rice as a staple, to address that issue. Yet it is opposed by champions of the Left who are just opposed to GMO technology. It is a disgrace of the first order. I wonder what they think GMOs are. Is golden rice developed using monkeys' livers? Is it developed using spiders' eyes? After all, it is to help you see better; perhaps spiders' eyes help. But, no, it is a gene lifted out of maize, another grass—from one grass to another. It is impossible to understand how people can with a clear conscience deny the half a million children a year who are going blind, the 250,000 a year who are dying, access to this commodity.

That brings me to some other GMOs that are enormously successful, now embedded in our society and accepted. Worldwide, including in Australia, the use of Bt cotton, or GM cotton, has reduced pesticide and herbicide use by more than 50 per cent. This makes a significant contribution to looking after our environment. Given the debates that surround this place at the moment we might consider how many skinks and ornamental snakes may be saved by not pumping pesticides into the environment. Bt cotton is an outrageous success. It has been taken on worldwide and has had an enormous environmental impact. The cottonseed, the remnants, is used for stockfeed, and we do not have any problems in that area either. A Chinese study completed in 2012 found that the use of GM cotton, or Bt cotton, halved the amount of chemical application and—get this—doubled the number of ladybirds. It is a good-news story.

Another GMO that has gained widespread acceptance in Australia and worldwide is canola. Unfortunately my state has an attitude that I think belongs in the dark ages. It has categorically ruled out, at least for some years, the use of GM products in South Australia. I believe we should be looking at the products product by product as they are presented. There were all kinds of scare stories around canola at one stage: 'Countries won't buy your canola' and 'You'll be able to get a premium for GM-free canola'. In fact that is not the case. There is no premium. People are not prepared to pay extra for GM free, because it is a perfectly safe and environmentally friendly cultivar and so it has been adopted on a worldwide basis.

So I urge those who run unreasonable debates in this area to think about what it is they are opposing. So many people are influenced by low-grade and low levels of information that they make sweeping statements on. If you care about our environment, if you care about our society, if you care enough to lodge a protest vote, care enough to find out what it is you are protesting about.

With those remarks, I conclude my comments and come back to the original premise. I support the legislation of course.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mary Aldred, the CEO of Committee for Gippsland—

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Outstanding woman!

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

both of the honourable members at the table are acquainted with her—said last night or the night before, when she was a speaker before Professor Chubb, that her standing there as she was with Professor Ian Chubb and speaking before him was like Al Gore introducing the then President Clinton and saying that he was there as the precursor to Elvis Presley or, in that case, the president of the day. Mary's dream was to be the warm-up act for Ian Chubb, speaking on the general theme of science at the Gippsland campus of Federation University at Churchill. I am a great admirer of Professor Chubb myself and an admirer of his passion for science and the important role that it plays in so many aspects of our daily lives. It is sad that he is retiring at the end of this year, so today's discussion is a good opportunity to take a few moments to pay tribute to Professor Chubb's enormous contribution to every part of our nation. There is hardly a member of this House who has not interfaced with Professor Chubb at some stage on some aspect of health and the social surrounds of health and all its intricate parts. Professor Chubb's speech the other night paralleled the topic of today's debate. Last night or the night before Professor Chubb talked about 'patience capital'. By that he means the investment of patience and time. Some might call it the long road in the long haul. It calls on us to understand that the results of science sometimes take a long time to mature but, in the end, they can reap enormous dividends for the community. One of Professor Chubb's living examples of this goes all the way back to 1971, when President Richard Nixon spearheaded the war against cancer bill. Professor Chubb reminded us of the patience capital when he said that only in the last year or two 19 new cancer drugs have come on the market as a result of the legislation in 1971.

For those two younger members sitting at the front bench today—the member for Aston and the member for Canberra—think of what your age was and where you were in 1971. Think of what you were doing, in 1971, when the American government made this decision and understand the enormity of the dividend from that ambitious investment.

Too often, governments of all persuasions bear criticism for a lack of interest in or lack of support for science. Professor Chubb rightly said that shining a light on the role and rewards of science is a responsibility we all share—that is, government, industry and the education sector. Having said that, it is not all positive. A perfect example, Professor Chubb gave last night, is when John Howard came to office and was very interested and supportive of science. Mr Howard wanted to invest and initiate. Professor Chubb said that in response to this he set off to gather the support of 21 captains of industry who could co-sign a letter commending Howard's interest and encouraging him to pursue it.

It was not a letter to 'have a go' at Howard, in any way. On the contrary; it was a letter designed to have Australia's business leaders say to the government of the day, 'We stand with you on this. We will work with you on this. We will go with you.' Professor Chubb said he could only get one person to sign the letter. The moral of the story is that science and its proliferation is everyone's responsibility—even those, like me, who are not tertiary educated. It is about government, it is about industry and it is about community. That is patience capital, and it reaps due rewards for our nation.

There have been some difficult issues in this parliament on embryonic stem-cell research and this has been an enormous struggle for many members in this place. In that address, I said to the House that I came from a conservative position but I had a staff member who was determined to take me down a different path and show me what benefits and rewards could be reaped. I was finally convinced when I sat with a professor, a surgeon, in this area of immune technology. He said:

Mr Broadbent, I want you to do me out of a job. The research and capacity that this legislation will enable may do me out of a job. I am the person who looks after the drugs and enables the transplants for those who have diabetes. I enable that part we put into their body not to be attacked by the immune system.

He put it in my language. That changed my whole approach.

Since that great debate—and the slippery slide we went through over embryonic stem-cell research—the debate has moved on. There was meant to be a re-inquiry about it three years later and then five years later. Those who then, I believe, opposed that issue are now great proponents of stem-cell research and the benefits it is providing to this generation and will provide to the next generation and the one after that. Here we are, the product, in this place, in this parliament. We were able to take it through the parliament and get that legislation in place. It allowed the opportunity for our scientists and those amazing people who work around them and with them to make a radical difference to the lives of people throughout this nation and probably the world.

The legislation today allows for the fact that we need to, whether it be in the natural process of gene technology—which I remind everybody our farmers have been doing for yonks, forever. They have been improving their breeding stock, improving our wheat stocks, grain stocks and sugar stocks, and all of those issues. They have been doing that. That is what our parents and grandparents did. Our scientists today are born with the knowledge, training, money and skills to enhance what our parents and grandparents were already doing—to pick the best lamb, to pick the best bull, to pick the best cow, to get the greater milk output. Now we are using science to do that.

Exactly that process—the science and education that have come into agriculture and all facets of my electorate—is being celebrated in every area of activity by the VFF and the National Farmers Federation. Everybody understands how important it is for this science to be implemented for the betterment of our rural communities. What will they then do? We are already feeding the world. We can feed the world some more. We can feed the rest of South-East Asia and have an input into that.

The worst part about this is that I know there are at least five members—I am looking at—who could speak on this subject for an hour without stopping and on how important the new technologies are for rural communities across this nation and for every other aspect of our lives and the benefits they give.

You are about to cut me off, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott. That is a great disappointment to me, because I was thoroughly enjoying what I was saying to you. I understand that you will have time limits in this place but one thing we do not have a time limit on his brilliance. We do not have a time limit on the people who are able to achieve for this nation in a way that members of this House can never do. And that is the science community. Professor Ian Chubb, we pay tribute to you and all that you have done and every opportunity that you have taken—even the instructions you gave me about my personal life, which I was not prepared to accept at the time.

Debate interrupted.