Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Hansard source

The purpose of the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 1 and Other Measures) Bill 2018 is to make a number of changes to Australia's intellectual property laws. Most of the changes in the bill, as the title suggests, are based on the recommendations of the Productivity Commission in its inquiry report Intellectual property arrangements, which was published in December last year.

There is a recent report of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee on this bill which clearly outlines the findings and recommendations of the Productivity Commission for reform of our intellectual property laws. Those findings and recommendations include the following. Australia's IP arrangements fall short in many ways, and improvement is needed across the spectrum of IP rights. IP arrangements need to ensure that creators and inventors are rewarded for their efforts. Australia's patent system grants exclusivity too readily, allowing a proliferation of low-quality patents, frustrating follow-on innovators and stymieing competition. Copyright is broader in scope and longer in duration than needed, and innovative firms, universities and schools and consumers bear the cost. Timely and cost-effective access to copyright content is the best way to reduce infringement. Commercial transactions involving IP rights should be subject to competition law. While Australia's enforcement system works relatively well, reform is needed to improve access, especially for small- and medium-sized enterprises. The absence of an overarching objective, policy framework and reform champion has contributed to Australia losing its way on IP policy. International commitments substantially constrain Australia's IP policy flexibility. Reform efforts have more often than not succumbed to misinformation and scare campaigns. Steely resolve will be needed to pursue better balanced IP arrangements.

All of that is the kind of finding and recommendation that we've come to expect from the rigorous work that's done by the Productivity Commission, and I have to say that Labor is very happy to participate in ongoing reform of our IP laws. Labor has long advocated that there should be an ongoing process of review of the law in all areas of Commonwealth responsibility and that reform should be undertaken when change is required. With the rapid changes that are being brought about by ongoing technological change, this need for ongoing law reform is particularly important in the area of intellectual property law. Intellectual property law is an area that I practised in from time to time in the 20 years that I practised as a barrister.

See this speech in context