BILLS DIGEST NO. 99, 2015–16              15 March 2016

Biological Control Amendment Bill 2016

Roger Beckmann and Sophie Power
Science, Technology, Environment and Resources Section 

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.

Purpose of the Bill

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]

Background

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]

Committee consideration

Selection of Bills Committee

The Selection of Bills Committee recommended that the Bill not be referred to a committee for inquiry and report.[9]

Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills

The Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee had no comment on the Bill.[10]

Policy position of non-government parties/independents

At the time of writing, non-government parties and independents do not appear to have commented on the Bill.

Position of major interest groups

At the time of writing, no major interest groups appear to have commented on the Bill.

Financial implications

The Explanatory Memorandum states that there is no financial impact associated with the Bill.[11]

Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

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.

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights

At the time of writing, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights had not considered the Bill.

Key issues and provisions

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.

Concluding comments

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.

© 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.

[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.