Bills Digest no. 99 2015–16
PDF version [490KB]
WARNING: This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the Bill.
Roger Beckmann and Sophie Power
Science, Technology, Environment and Resources Section
15 March 2016
Contents
Purpose
of the Bill
Background
Committee consideration
Policy position of non-government parties/independents
Position of major interest groups
Financial implications
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
Key issues and provisions
Concluding comments
Date introduced: 25
February 2016
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio: Agriculture
and Water Resources
Commencement: Sections
1–3 commence on Royal Assent. Schedule 1 commences on a day to be fixed by
Proclamation.
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the
Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent, they
become Acts, which can be found at the Federal
Register of Legislation website.
All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as at March
2016.
The purpose of the Biological Control Amendment Bill 2016 (the
Bill) is to amend the Biological Control
Act 1984 (the Act) to clarify that the definition of ‘organism’
includes viruses and sub-viral agents.[1]
Biological control is the process of deliberately
introducing a species (known as a biological control agent) to an area or
ecosystem so as to help reduce the population of another species (the target
species or pest species) that is deemed to be causing problems. A well-known
example is the introduction of the myxomatosis virus into Australia to control
the rabbit population. Usually, the control agent would be a predator, pathogen
or parasite of the target species—in other words, a natural ‘enemy’ of it.
Biological control forms part of integrated pest management, which involves a
broad approach to managing a pest species.[2]
The Biological Control Act provides a legislative
framework for biological control activities in the Australian Capital Territory
(ACT). It is supported by mirror biological control legislation in all states
and the Northern Territory (NT).[3]
The Act defines biological control as control of one ‘kind’ brought about by
the release of live organisms of ‘another kind’. The Act provides a mechanism
to assess and authorise biological control activities to ensure they are in the
public interest. The Act also contains provisions to prevent certain legal
proceedings being brought in relation to the release of an organism in
accordance with the Act or state mirror legislation.[4]
The Bill proposes to amend the definition of organisms
(living things) in the Biological Control Act. The Bill attempts to deal
with an issue in biology as to whether a virus is a living organism. The Act currently
does not specify if viruses are included in the phrase ‘prescribed live
organisms.’
Viruses, which are thousands of times smaller than
bacteria, consist of genes (encoded in a length of DNA or RNA) covered with
protein molecules and, in some types, a piece of cellular membrane.[5]
On their own, they are unable to reproduce or to perform the chemical reactions
of life (known as metabolism). It is only after a virus particle has entered a
living cell that these features of life become possible, using the machinery of
the invaded cell. The virus contains instructions on how to make more virus
particles but the actual manufacture of these particles is carried out by the
host cell. Therefore it can be argued that viruses are not technically alive—especially
when they exist outside a cell. They are not dead either. They are merely
collections of complex chemicals, in a semi-crystalline state, that are not doing
anything. They cannot carry out the reactions of life without entering the
cells of a living thing. If a virus is not actually a living organism, then it
is not covered by the current terms of the Biological Control Act as a
biological control agent. Not all biologists agree on the definition of life or
the definition of a living organism, so the proposed amendments remove any
ambiguity, and permit the use not only of viruses but also of ‘sub-viral agents’.
A sub-viral agent is even smaller and simpler than a
virus, and has even less of a chance of being considered ‘alive’. Examples are
satellite viruses and viroids, which are essentially strings of DNA or RNA
without a protein component.
Prions, which were not fully understood when the original
Act was written, are also classified as a type of sub‑viral agent. A
prion is a defective form of a particular protein molecule, derived from a
living organism, which can cause sickness and death if it enters a host
organism where it induces normal proteins to become defective. Mad cow disease
is caused by prions. Known prion diseases are rare, but it is conceivable that
in the future newly discovered prion proteins could be used as biocontrol
agents, and viroids and satellite viruses certainly could be, so the Bill’s
amendments would permit their inclusion as control agents.
The Bill is particularly relevant to the suggestion of
biological control for common carp, an introduced freshwater fish. Carp are now
the worst aquatic pest in the rivers and lakes of south-eastern Australia, and
are responsible for declines in populations of native fish. Biologists have
discovered that a naturally occurring type of herpes virus infects carp but not
native fish, and could therefore possibly be used as a biological control
agent.[6]
The amendments in the Bill would ensure that there would be no ambiguity as to the
legal status of the virus if it were deliberately released into the wild as a
control agent.
Other than clarifying the nature of the control agents
covered by the Act, the Bill is not likely to affect any other existing
scientific standards and safety procedures applying to biological control. The
introduction and release of biological control agents also requires assessment
and approval under other legislation, including the Quarantine Act 1908
(which will be replaced by the Biosecurity Act
2015 in June 2016), the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and
the Agricultural
and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994.[7]
Note that the definition of ‘organism’ in the EPBC Act, for example,
already specifically includes viruses.[8]
The Selection of Bills Committee recommended that the Bill
not be referred to a committee for inquiry and report.[9]
The Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee had no comment on
the Bill.[10]
At the time of writing, non-government parties and
independents do not appear to have commented on the Bill.
At the time of writing, no major interest groups appear to
have commented on the Bill.
The Explanatory Memorandum states that there is no
financial impact associated with the Bill.[11]
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the
Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared
in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The Government
considers that the Bill is compatible.[12]
Note that the definition of ‘organism’ under the Biological Control Act 1984
specifically excludes humans.
At the time of writing, the Parliamentary Joint Committee
on Human Rights had not considered the Bill.
There are two main changes proposed by the Bill: firstly,
the definitions of the word ‘kind’ and the word ‘organism’ in subsection 2(1)
of the Act will be amended to include viruses and sub-viral agents;[13]
secondly, the word ‘live’ is proposed to be removed from the phrase ‘prescribed
live organisms’ that was used in the Act.[14]
This covers the possibility that viruses are not live organisms, and also
permits sub-viral agents.
In item 4, the Bill is careful to ensure that its new
definition of ‘prescribed organism’ in subsection 2(1) will not allow the
inclusion of vaccines as a control agent. Some vaccines contain active virus
(sometimes called ‘live’ virus) and other vaccines may contain components of
viruses. Even though these are chemically similar to sub‑viral agents,
they are specifically excluded in this amendment.
Note that the Act, and the proposed amendments, only apply
to the Australian Capital Territory. However, the changes in the Bill, if it is
passed, are expected to be mirrored in existing legislation in the states and
the Northern Territory (NT). Currently the state and NT governments have their
own ‘mirror laws’ to the Biological Control Act 1984. The relevant
governments have been consulted during drafting of this Bill and it is expected
that complementary amendments to existing legislation will be pursued by
parliaments of the states and the NT.[15]
This is in keeping with the original Act, to ensure that biological control has
a uniform basis throughout Australia.
The Bill’s aim of ensuring that there is no ambiguity
about the use of potentially non-living infectious agents is unlikely to be
controversial.
Members, Senators and Parliamentary staff can obtain
further information from the Parliamentary Library on (02) 6277 2500.
[1]. Biological Control Act
1984.
[2]. For
further information, see, for example, CSIRO, ‘Biological
control of invasive alien species’, CSIRO website.
[3]. Biological
Control Act 1985 (NSW); Biological
Control Act 1986 (Vic); Biological
Control Act 1987 (Qld); Biological
Control Act 1986 (WA); Biological
Control Act 1986 (SA); Biological
Control Act 1986 (Tas); Biological
Control Act (NT).
[4]. Biological
Control Act, sections 36 and 37.
[5]. Biological
definitions and explanations in this Digest draw on common biological knowledge
as well as information sourced from:
E Martin and RS Hine, eds, Oxford
dictionary of biology, 7th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015;
RC King and WD Stansfield, eds, A
dictionary of genetics, 6th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002;
P Singleton and D Sainsbury, eds, Dictionary
of microbiology and molecular biology, 3rd edn, John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester, 2001.
[6]. See
further, for example, CSIRO, ‘Reducing
Australia’s carp invasion’, CSIRO website.
[7]. B
Joyce, ‘Second
reading speech: Biological Control Amendment Bill 2016’, House of
Representatives, Debates, (proof), 25 February 2016, p. 1.
[8]. EPBC
Act, section 528.
[9]. Selection
of Bills Committee, Report, 3, 2016, The Senate, Canberra, 3
March 2016.
[10]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Alert digest, 3, 2016, The Senate, 2 March
2016, p. 1.
[11]. Explanatory Memorandum, Biological Control
Amendment Bill 2016, p. 3.
[12]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at page 4 of the
Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill.
[13]. Items
1 and 2.
[14]. Items
4–8.
[15]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 3.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Entry Point for referral.