Biodiscovery and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019
Plain English Summary
Overview
This bill strengthens protections for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traditional knowledge used in biodiscovery — the process of collecting native biological materials for scientific analysis and commercial purposes like pharmaceuticals and bioplastics. It requires researchers and companies to obtain consent and negotiate benefit sharing with First Nations custodians before using their knowledge, aligning Queensland with the international Nagoya Protocol.
Who it affects
First Nations peoples gain the strongest traditional knowledge protections of any Australian state, with the right to consent and negotiate benefits. Biodiscovery researchers and companies must comply with new obligations but benefit from simpler approvals and better international standing.
Key changes
- Researchers and companies must obtain agreement from First Nations custodians before using traditional knowledge for biodiscovery, with a maximum penalty of 5,000 penalty units (over $690,000) for non-compliance
- A traditional knowledge code of practice will be developed with First Nations peoples and industry to guide compliance — no one can be prosecuted until the first code is approved
- The traditional knowledge obligation applies state-wide, regardless of whether biological material is taken from State land or private land
- Biodiscovery plans are no longer required, simplifying the approval process for researchers
- 64 plant species covered by the FAO Treaty are exempt from the Act when used for food or agriculture, reducing regulatory overlap
Bill Story
The journey of this bill through Parliament, including debate and recorded votes.
▸Committee26 Nov 2019View Hansard
Referred to Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee
The Innovation, Tourism Development and Environment Committee examined the Biodiscovery and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 over approximately three months, receiving four submissions and holding a public briefing and hearing. The committee recommended the bill be passed, noting broad stakeholder support for recognising and protecting First Nations traditional knowledge used in biodiscovery. However, the recommendation was contentious, with three of six committee members filing statements of reservation raising concerns about the absence of a draft Code of Practice and unresolved practical questions about implementation.
Key findings (5)
- Stakeholders broadly supported the intent of the bill, particularly the recognition and legal protection of First Nations traditional knowledge in biodiscovery activities.
- Key concerns centred on the absence of a draft Code of Practice, which was considered essential for identifying traditional knowledge custodians, defining consent processes, and resolving disputes over benefit sharing.
- Griffith University raised concerns that the traditional knowledge obligation may unintentionally extend to digital sequence information accessed separately from physical biological material, potentially rendering the provision unworkable.
- The committee identified potential fundamental legislative principle issues, including a maximum penalty of $667,250 for breaching the traditional knowledge obligation and questions about whether the Code of Practice should be subordinate legislation subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
- The Department of Environment and Science advised the Code of Practice would be developed within 12 months of the bill's passage, but could not provide a draft for the committee's review.
Recommendations (1)
- The committee recommends the Biodiscovery and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 be passed.
Committee report tabled
▸Second Reading11 Aug 2020View Hansard
▸10 members spoke6 support4 mixed
As Minister for Environment, introduced the biodiscovery bill to align with the Nagoya protocol and protect traditional knowledge in biodiscovery. Defended the traditional knowledge obligation and code of practice approach.
“No-one has a better knowledge of Queensland's biodiversity than the First Nation peoples who have understood and utilised it for many thousands of years. That is why I am proud to say that this bill will give the custodians of traditional knowledge the means to benefit from, and participate in, biodiscovery.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
Acknowledged the need to empower First Nation peoples in biodiscovery but criticised the absence of the code of practice, unknown timelines for its development, and delegation of authority to unelected bureaucrats with penalties of up to $600,000.
“We do not know what the code is and we do not know its implications but we do know that it cannot be done in a period of time that we had initially said that it would be done.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
As former committee chair, spoke in support of the biodiscovery bill, emphasising its importance for Queensland's biodiscovery industry and First Nation peoples. Rejected claims the debate was rushed.
“Environmental protection and biodiscovery will be increasingly important in Queensland's future.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
Supported the intent but argued the bill was half-baked and undercooked, criticising the absence of a code of practice, hefty penalties for undefined obligations, and the handover of unchecked power to government.
“How can a government say, 'We are going to fine you potentially $600,000', without putting the provisions that enact those offences before the parliament? It is outrageous.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
Supported the bill as a former committee member, highlighting how it would enable Queensland's biodiscovery industry to remain globally competitive and open up economic opportunities for First Nation communities through the Nagoya protocol.
“With these amendments in place, it is hoped that First Nation peoples will feel more confident to share their knowledge about native plants and animals, some of which could lead to new drugs, therapies and bioproducts that attract international investment and benefit all Queenslanders.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
Supported the bill for its protection of traditional knowledge and creation of new economic opportunities for First Nation peoples through the traditional knowledge obligation.
“This bill introduces a traditional knowledge obligation—a requirement that users of traditional knowledge in biodiscovery take all reasonable steps to only use traditional knowledge with the agreement of the custodians of that knowledge.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
Acknowledged the honourable intent of the bill but expressed deep concerns about the lack of detail on how the code of practice would handle disputes between groups claiming traditional knowledge, and the department's confusion over onus of proof provisions.
“While the bill does contain an honourable intent, unfortunately it falls far short of what it should actually do. I have deep concerns as to how this will progress in the future.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
Supported the bill's intent but raised concerns about the absence of a code of practice, potential delays to lifesaving medical advancement, and the complexity of managing traditional knowledge held by multiple groups.
“In such an important and complex arena—which may be instrumental in, for example, curing cancer, dementia or even COVID-19—it would have given reassurance to all stakeholders as well as those examining this bill to have those documents available.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
Supported the bill for providing First Nation peoples a place at the table in biodiscovery. Rejected LNP concerns that traditional owners could not resolve disputes over knowledge, calling such objections indicative of casual racism.
“It is quite incredible to hear someone like the member for Theodore say, 'Look, it is noble and honourable in intent but, quite frankly, it is too difficult because we do not think traditional owners can come to an agreement over who owns the rights here.'”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
Supported the biodiscovery bill for its protection of Indigenous traditional knowledge rights in line with the Nagoya protocol, citing the spinifex processing facility near Camooweal as a positive example.
“This type of product cannot be developed using traditional knowledge without the express permission of the custodians of this knowledge. This opens up substantial business development opportunities and jobs for our First Australians.”— 2020-08-11View Hansard
Assent date: 29 March 2019
Referenced Entities
Legislation
Organisations
Programs & Schemes
Places
Sectors Affected
Classified using AGIFT/ANZSIC Australian government standards