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

I rise to support the motion put forward by the member for Fremantle. In April 2003 scientists announced that they had mapped around 20,000 genes in the human genome, a truly great endeavour for humankind—up there with Galileo Galilei’s heliocentric solar system, Florey’s penicillin and the Wright brothers’ first flight. With this achievement came a lot of hope that there would be new opportunities for the treatment and diagnoses of many diseases—hope also that, through genetic testing, families facing recurrent unexplained illnesses might finally have some answers. But this hope has not yet turned into reality. Our grasp has not quite matched our reach.

It is troubling, then, that we are now hearing reports that gene patents are in fact stifling research and making access to genetic testing more difficult and more expensive for patients. More surprising still that companies like South Australian-based Bionomics should use $1 million of taxpayers’ money to fund their research and then through Genetic Technologies charge $2,000 for the genetic test—a cost far out of reach of many Australians. They are denying taxpayers the benefit of the research that taxpayers themselves funded.

A similar company in the US, Myriad Genetics, charges $3,000 per test. In March this year a New York court ruled that Myriad Genetics did not have the right to patent genes linked to breast cancer and ovarian cancer as they were a ‘product of nature’.

The Australian Cancer Council is one body among many in Australia who believe that natural biological materials should be freely available for research and public health. The patent system has created a monopoly for the companies who ‘own the gene’, consequently driving up the cost of tests for patients and all but prohibiting the sharing of important medical knowledge. Back in 2008, the Australian licensee for the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 demanded that public laboratories stop conducting diagnostic tests. And there was nothing to stop them from doing so. These are diagnostic tests, as other speakers have mentioned, that are connected with breast cancer. I should declare that my mum had breast cancer and aunts both on my mother’s side and my father’s side and my sister have all had breast cancer. But this is not the hereditary gene type of breast cancer, fortunately, I guess.

President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair believe that genetic information should be used for the greater good, not for the profit of the patent holders. They mentioned this at the official commemoration of the decoding back in March 2000. But while the patenting of genes continues, there seems to be no way to stop corporate overreaching overwhelming the public interest. I know the balance is hard. We want scientific endeavour to continue and this needs funds, and funds flow from protecting intellectual property rights. I understand it is a balance. But the Cancer Council points to a commonsense way forward. In their submission to the Senate inquiry on 5 August 2009 they made a compelling argument for reform and they continue to push for an overhaul of gene patents. This is happening as the Gillard government facilitates a review of the patent system. The Cancer Council said:

As we sit on the cusp of a huge surge in the use of genes in diagnostics, treatments and cures for major illnesses, it is clear that the patent law system has not involved adequately to handle sophisticated substances such as human genes and needs to be overhauled to exclude genes.

If we allow patenting of genes, we are basically allowing patenting of ourselves. The patent system should be about protecting true inventions, such as medicines developed from genetic data, but not the data itself.

Australia should set a global precedent and put public interest at the forefront of genetic science by invalidating the patenting of genes.

I echo the sentiments of the Cancer Council and call for reform of gene patents because medical research should not be just about the bottom line, particularly taxpayer funded research. I am not against the profit motive or smarter industries—Queensland has a new but already proud record in this area. Professor Ian Frazer has been mentioned by a few, working out of the PA hospital and the University of Queensland. However, the human genome project and its offspring are supposed to be about better understanding for humanity of who we are and creating a healthier future for all of us, not just the well-heeled.

I thank the member for Fremantle for bringing this matter before the House and acknowledge her efforts to support the basic human rights of all people, both here in Australia and all around the world. I commend the motion.

See this speech in context