Comments Off on Submission on the Review of the Moratorium on GMOs in Tasmania
Tasmania’s agricultural sector has suffered a net loss of $4 million per year due to a moratorium on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that has provided little tangible benefit to the state in return.
CropLife strongly recommends that the moratorium not be renewed and that it be allowed to expire in November 2014. Ten years of evidence shows that the moratorium has only managed to hurt the state’s economy and has failed to give local growers a demonstrable advantage in domestic and global markets.. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that this ongoing economic loss is likely to change were the GMO moratorium to be extended following this review.
Comments Off on Submission on the Productivity Commission’s Draft Report into The Compulsory Licensing of Patents
CropLife maintains its support for a strengthening of the status quo and agrees with the findings of the Productivity Commission that the existing provisions of the Patents Act 1990 provide an efficacious remedy where a patentee is abusing their exclusive rights to exploit a patent, or where the reasonable requirements of the public are not being met.
CropLife considers there is no basis to justify transforming a remedial mechanism into a tool of general market regulation. The current incentive for the market to maximise profit and the ability to profit from licensing dictates against systemic anti-competitive conduct.
In general, CropLife supports those recommendations made by the Productivity Commission that recommend strengthening the requirements for the granting of compulsory licences. CropLife supports the recognition by the Commission that concerns about compulsory licensing stem from an isolated case involving patenting of genes for medical testing and the emphasis that this is not representative of the behaviour of most gene patent holders.
CropLife comments the Productivity Commission for recommending explicit consideration of the right of the patentee to obtain a return on investment as part of a revised test for the granting of a compulsory licence.
CropLife has strong concerns that the repeal of s. 51(3) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 will result in business uncertainty and potentially a reduction in licensing activity in the plant biotechnology sector.
Comments Off on Productivity Commission Inquiry into the Compulsory Licensing of Patents
In responding to the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into the Compulsory Licensing of Patents, CropLife indicated its fundamental position as that of the status quo is working and existing compulsory licensing provisions of the Patents Act1990 provide an efficacious remedy where a patentee is abusing their exclusive rights to exploit a patent or where the reasonable requirements of the public are not being met. Perhaps even more significant is that the minimal or negligible need to use these provisions is a testament to the effectiveness of Australia’s current legal framework for patents.
The current incentive for the market to maximise profit and the ability to profit from licensing dictates against systemic anti‑competitive conduct. Recent, isolated incidents of abuse do not and should not justify transforming a remedial mechanism into a tool of general market regulation. Any amendment that lowers the threshold test for compulsory licensing will significantly undermine the efficacy of the system.
Comments Off on Adelaide Hills Council – Draft Genetically Modified Crops Policy
CropLife Australia commends the Adelaide Hills Council for having the foresight to engage in discussion on the future of agricultural biotechnology in the municipality. CropLife is, however, seriously concerned with the decision of the Council to produce a policy in an area where it has no jurisdiction. CropLife is also alarmed by the lack of depth of research and erroneous assumptions that form the foundations of this policy.
South Australia is uniquely placed to play an important role in achieving local and global food security sustainably. Policies like that currently under discussion act to inhibit this role, along with the economic and environmental well-being of the region.
CropLife recommends that the Adelaide Hills Council reconsider and retract its proposed policy in order to allow the South Australian Government to make its own policy decisions as to the future of agricultural biotechnology in the state according to science-based evidence.
Comments Off on Enabling Technologies Roadmap Study
CropLife Australia commends the Australian Government for having the foresight to examine the potential for enabling technologies to address Australia’s major national challenges. CropLife views the Enabling Technologies Roadmap as vital for guiding the development of national investment in agricultural biotechnologies to help sustain Australia’s global competitiveness and commercialisation of value‑added goods and services.
CropLife’s submission focuses on those parts of the Roadmap that relate to the opportunities, barriers and risks of agricultural biotechnologies. It also takes the opportunity to provide some updated data where available.
Comments Off on Review of the Western Australian Gene Technology Act 2006
Australia is a small market for agriculture by global standards. In wet years, the sale of Australian agricultural tools can comprise around 3 per cent of the global market, while in dry years it can be as little as 1 per cent of global sales. Given this small market, it is vital that agricultural regulations are harmonised nationally so that the regulatory burden is minimised and Australian farmers do not miss out on access to vital agricultural tools. CropLife Australia strongly supports a national approach for regulating GM crops in Australia and we note that this was the original intention of the gene technology regulatory scheme.
Comments Off on Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
CropLife strongly urges the Federal Government and all of Australia’s state governments to recommit to a national approach to genetically modified (GM) regulation and that such regulation is commensurate with risk.
The current Gene Technology Act as administered by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator is working well for approvals sought by the developers of GM crops. However, there are some problems with the legislation because of state government intervention and the involvement of other regulators, such as the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority creating regulatory duplication.
CropLife also believes that it is now time to increase the use of the GMO Register for genetically modified crops that have been sold commercially for several years without evidence of adverse effects. The GMO Register could also be used to list crops that are no longer commercially sold in Australia.
Comments Off on Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the bar) Bill 2011
CropLife Australia (CropLife) welcomes the opportunity to make this submission in response to the Exposure Draft of the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011.
CropLife congratulates the Australian Government, and in particular IP Australia, on this important reform initiative. We encourage the Government to bring these amendments into force as soon as possible.
CropLife believes that many of the issues that are raised with certain classes of patents, particularly biological patents, are most effectively addressed by general reforms to the tests for patentability. The amendments in the Exposure Draft do this and are a timely contribution to discussions about patent eligibility. They are also highly preferable to current legislation proposals that aim to ban all patents on specific types of materials.
Comments Off on Submission In Response To Patent Amendment
CropLife welcomes the opportunity to make this submission in response to the proposed Patent Amendment ( Human Genes and Biological Materials ) Bill 2010.
CropLife appreciates that the intent of the Senators introducing this Bill is to improve the access of Australians to important healthcare technologies. However, the Bill, in its current form, will have several unintended and very negative effects on innovation in many industries that are completely unrelated to human healthcare, including the agricultural biotechnology and crop protection industries. It will also reduce Australia’s similarity to other national patent systems and it is highly likely that it would also contravene international agreements that Australia is a Party to including the TRIPS and AUSFTA Agreements.