a long-term solution to increasing cost and access problems associated with patented genetic material. The submission details how gene patenting can actively discourage scientific research and discovery to a larger extent that it rewards innovation. While conceding that legislative action alone is not an effective long-term solution, the Cancer Council stresses the importance of increasing the availability of resources to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission. This proposed solution is in line with the ALRC's report recommendation for a more extensive application of the Trade Practices Act 1974. These views were not shared by the Australian biotechnology industry, as represented by AusBiotech. AusBiotech's submission to the inquiry sends a message to the Senate that such patents have global relevance across the industry, and further details how the need for patent protection in the biotechnology industry is the starting point for the development of potential products. The submission concluded that any proposed amendment to current legislation would prevent a significant proportion of the Australian biotechnology industry from protecting innovations, resulting in an adverse effect on potential commercialisation opportunities and reduced investment. The end result would be argued as having a detrimental effect on the Australian healthcare and medical research industries. In 2010, the Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee inquiry into Gene Patents concludes. A divided Committee did not support a ban on human genetic materials but rejects IP Australia's justification for patenting genetic information. Senator Bill Heffernan, a minority member of the committee, introduces a private members bill to ban the patenting of human genetic materials and 'biological materials' drafted with the assistance of Sydney-based IP lawyer and academic, Dr Luigi Palombi. Senator Heffernan's Patents Amendment (Human Genes and Biological Materials) Bill 2010 was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for review in 2011 and rejected after fierce lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry. At the inquiry, Australia's Department of Health and Ageing presented evidence supporting the "intention" of the Bill, but not its specific language. Possible causes of action The case for invalidation of gene patents in Australia seems unlikely, chiefly because of the growing nature of the biotechnology industry and its inherently high dependence on patents. Existing invalidation mechanisms in the Patents Act 1990 seem to offer little assistance in the matter. Section 50(1)(a) of the Act gives the Commissioner of Patents the discretion to reject a patent application on the grounds that the use of the