John Forrest (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to support the member for Fremantle’s motion. I commend her for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. This is an issue that was obviously going to go under the radar until she raised it in the House some time ago, and I support the motion’s direction. This is one of the longest private member’s motions I have seen in a long time. It calls on the parliament to note various things. I will start where it finishes. It says:

That this House:

       …         …         …

(4) calls for amendment of the Patents Act 1990 to ensure that patents cannot be granted over any biological materials which are identical or substantially identical to what exists in nature.

I note that the member for Fremantle adopts a compassionate, humanitarian approach. The member for Moore adopts a medical approach. Mine is just a simple pragmatic and scientific approach. It seems to me an oxymoron that the discovery of a human gene brings with it the entitlement to patent it. If anybody owned the gene, it would be nature itself. I think we have seen examples now in two great societies: the United States, which the resolution refers to, in legal cases; and Great Britain as well, which the member for Moore mentioned. I think it is time that we grew up and had that patent law amended to ensure that, particularly, cancer sufferers are not denied an opportunity to have access to the best medical testing at an affordable rate.

The member for Fremantle’s resolution draws attention to one particular case which was funded by taxpayers, by AusIndustry, with a sizeable grant. For that particular company to take advantage of taxpayer funded research is not, in my view, a patent or legitimate. I am disturbed that such an event has occurred, and I support the member for Fremantle in her call. It is true that many would argue that scientific investigation and experimentation costs an enormous amount of money, with the laboratory time and the patient time, and that therefore there is an entitlement for that level of investment to be returned. Opportunity exists for that in the charging of fees for service, but not at the extortionate amounts that are described in this resolution.

The call that the member for Fremantle brings to our attention is supported by a large number of significant groups in Australia: Cancer Council Australia, the Breast Cancer Foundation of Australia, the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, the Human Genetics Society of Australasia and the Australian Medical Association. I think it is fitting and suitable that this parliament takes up this cause, and I look forward to the ongoing opportunity—and I have no doubt that the member for Fremantle will continue to agitate until this revised legislation is brought to the attention of this place to ensure that people who suffer from cancer are not denied an opportunity to access their cure.

On Friday night, I was in my home town of Swan Hill, participating in the walkathon. I was thinking of three people I knew who we lost to cancer just in one year. One of them was Albert Heslop, who was my mentor when I was first elected as a rookie to the Swan Hill Rural City Council, and he followed my career from there. He was a great man. Sadly, he left his visit to the doctor till too late, and from diagnosis to his passing from prostate cancer was only a matter of weeks. I said to the group, ‘We’ve got to find this one last cure for what is one of the nation’s most debilitating diseases.’ (Time expired)

See this speech in context