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

Unnecessary information, it's been suggested by the minister opposite. But it simply means that I have more of a particular personal interest in the subject matter of this bill than, perhaps, some other members. I can say in a heartfelt way that we are pleased to support the changes being brought forward by the government in this bill, the purpose of which is to make improvements to Australia's intellectual property laws to ensure that they better meet the objectives of promoting and incentivising investment in creativity, innovation, research and technology. To this end, this bill amends the following federal acts: the Copyright Act 1968, the Designs Act 2003, the Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987, the Patents Act 1990, the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 and the Trade Marks Act 1995.

I want to make some comments on the plant breeder's rights amendments. Plant breeder's rights is an area of intellectual property law that has developed, to some extent, separately from other parts of patent law. The reforms in this bill are likely to bring the plant breeder's rights part of intellectual property law more into line with other IP rights, and that's important. It's important that both practitioners and users of all parts of the intellectual property system should find it as easy as possible to understand. The more that all of it can be brought into alignment, the better.

Plant breeder's rights has, perhaps, grown up separately, because it deals with somewhat different subject matter to other parts of intellectual property law, but it's been made clear, through the Productivity Commission report and through the inquiry that's been conducted by the Economics Legislation Committee, that the current plant breeder's rights legislation does not provide adequate protections to farmers and other small businesses. That was the comment made by the Economics Legislation Committee in its report. It's the case that farmers and other small businesses that benefit from the ability to obtain rights through the plant breeder's rights system are—as are other rights holders in other areas of intellectual property law—vulnerable to unjustified threats and infringement proceedings. One of the consequences of the government going through an exposure draft process for this bill and going through an inquiry by the Economics Legislation Committee is that it has been possible to determine that there is wide support for the proposed amendments. In the form in which they're being introduced, what they will do is introduce some capacity for rights holders—for farmers and other small businesses who develop unique varieties of plants—to obtain protection from unjustified threats of infringement and to obtain additional or exemplary damages in situations of flagrant or wilful infringement.

In particular, what these amendments deal with is providing protection of registered varieties to EDVs—essentially derived varieties. They are varieties which share all of the characteristics of a registered plant variety, but are distinct and qualify for a plant breeders right's registration in their own right. These amendments, as I say, will provide more protection to farmers and small businesses that rely on the plant breeder's rights scheme to protect their intellectual property, and, as with the other changes to the other acts that I've mentioned, these are useful amendments to the intellectual property system.

Labor supports these changes. The Senate Economics Legislation Committee noted in one of the final paragraphs of its report, paragraph 2.62:

The committee notes that key parts of the bill originate from recommendations made by independent reviews, and that the provisions of the bill have been subject to extensive consultation. In particular, the committee commends IP Australia for its thoughtful response to the public consultation on the exposure draft of the bill which ultimately led to provisions of the bill being altered in important aspects.

Labor supports this bill as making balanced and reasonable reform to intellectual property law. As always, we will continue to consult with stakeholders on whether further changes to intellectual property laws are needed to ensure that they continue to be fit for purpose. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context