The Australian Law Reform Commission produced a report on this in 2004 after the Howard Government commissioned it to look into the issue a year or two earlier:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/99/index.html

It recommended:

7-1(a) to exclude genetic materials and technologies from patentable subject matter

I realise the whole report may have had parts that needed working out, but it's been six years!!

I really wonder what happens in Canberra at times.

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

When should a company be able to own a patent over something which exists naturally - such as our genes?

NEVER!

So this means we need to patent the genes of our Red Gums (trees) ? etc.

The issue is the US serving its own interests.
These patents were issued around the period as the Digital millennium copyright Act. As the US sees its dominance in IP and tech diminish its only option is to extend its copyright for ever as its one of the few assets they still have.

Yes, it appears that the U.S. and the corporations it represents are serving their own own interests., aided and abetted by the W.T.O., the World Bank and the IMF.
In her Reith 2000 lecture, Indian commentator and activist, Vandana Shiva spoke about gene patenting saying:
"Patents and intellectual property rights are supposed to be granted for novel inventions. But patents are being claimed for rice varieties such as Basmati...Rice Tec, a U.S. based company has been granted Patent 5,663,484 for Basmati rice lines and grains.
Basmati, neem, pepper, bitter gourd, turmeric...every aspect of the innovation embodied in our indigenous food and medical systems is now being pirated and patented. The knowledge of the poor is being converted into the property of global corporations, creating a situation where the poor will have to pay for the seeds and medicines they have evolved and have used to meet their own needs for nutrition and health care."
Unbridled capitalism has no shame.

The basmati rice patent fiasco shows that we just can't be complacent when it comes to our laws and corporations or individuals who want to exploit them. After all, people who make laws are still people - mistakes and loopholes are the reason we have lawyers (as popular as they may be).

I'm not sure if there have been any more developments in the basmati patent affair, but the following article seems to indicate that most of the patent claims were withdrawn: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/25/business/india-us-fight-on-basmati-rice-is-mostly-settled.html?pagewanted=all

I totally agree that patents should be awarded to "new" products, whether they are mechanical or genetic and that the patent application demonstrates that significant work has gone into making a new product. The naming of that new product is a different matter, especially for foods - that falls into protected regional status for products such as wines and cheeses (particularly in Europe) - which in my opinion is another way to stymie free trade, especially when food labelling laws have improved considerably, but that is a whole other argument.

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/