Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill. I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Trade Marks Amendment Bill 2006 will amend the Trade Marks Act 1995. The current act was introduced as the result of a working party set up to review and streamline trademarks legislation. The act replaced legislation that had been in place since 1955.

The act has now been in force for 10 years. The government has carried out a review of trademarks legislation in keeping with our policy to keep legislation relevant and up-to-date.

The review sought comment from interest groups. The government released three issues papers and received comments from interested parties, including intellectual property professionals and small businesses. An industry reference group consisting of intellectual property professionals and industry representatives was set up to help in the consultations. The review found that the trademarks system was working effectively, but there were some changes that could be made to enhance the system. This bill implements changes to the trademark system arising out of that review.

A strong trademark right is a valuable asset that can help increase recognition of a brand. Registered owners have the exclusive right to use their registered trademark on their goods and services. They can sell or license the trademark.  They can also ask Customs to seize goods coming into Australia if the goods infringe their trademark, to prevent the flow of counterfeit goods.

A strong trademark system provides a benefit to the public. It provides members of the public with assurance that when they buy something, they are buying genuine goods that have the quality they have come to expect from that brand.

The changes made by the bill will improve the trademarks system in a number of ways. The bill will strengthen trademark rights, providing greater certainty to trademark owners and the general public. The bill includes provisions that will reduce the regulatory and administrative burden on the users of the system. It will also increase the transparency of the trademark system, and increase alignment of the trademark system with other intellectual property rights.

The government is committed to encouraging innovation and to providing Australia with a strong trademark system that meets the needs of all Australians. We are also committed to reducing the regulatory burden on Australian businesses in registering trademarks. This bill reflects those commitments.

Amendments in this bill strengthen trademark rights by enabling trademark owners to more effectively protect their trademark. For example, owners of trademarks with a reputation in Australia can now more readily protect their trademarks against registration of other trademarks whose use is likely to lead to confusion in the marketplace.

A trademark can be opposed by members of the public if it will affect their business or they believe the trade mark should not be registered. Amendments in this bill will clarify the basis on which an opposition may be taken, and allow a trade mark to be opposed because it was made in bad faith. This will increase the strength of registered trademarks and help weed out bad ones.

Over half of the trademark applications are filed directly by the owner of the business. Many of these are small and medium sized enterprises. These smaller businesses can be greatly affected by the burden of regulation and administration in the trademark system. It is our policy to reduce this burden wherever possible.

Amendments in this bill reduce the administrative and regulatory burden on trademark owners in a number of ways. Some of the changes reduce complexity in the system while other changes make it easier for trademark owners to correct their application if they do make a mistake.

Trademark owners will also find it easier to request Customs to seize goods that might infringe their trademark. Notices requesting seizure will stay in effect for longer and trademark owners will be able to provide a written undertaking to repay any expenses incurred by the Commonwealth, instead of paying a cash security up-front as is currently required. Small business owners, in particular, will find it easier to use the trademark system to prevent importation of counterfeit goods.

A trademark is a valuable right and certainty of ownership is necessary for both the owner and also for anyone who may have an interest in the trademark. Amendments set out in this bill increase certainty of ownership of a trademark and increase the public’s certainty that the information on the Register of Trade Marks is correct and up to date.

Amendments in this bill also clarify parts of the Trade Marks Act that have confused trademark owners in the past. By clarifying these requirements, it will make it easier for people to apply for a trademark.

The amendments set out in the bill also increase transparency and alignment with other intellectual property acts. Many businesses hold a number of intellectual property rights. For example they may own a patent for an invention and a trademark for the invention’s proprietary name. It is more convenient for the owner of these rights if there is consistency when seeking patent and trademark protection. The amendments in this bill bring some of the administrative aspects of the trademark system into line with the patents and designs systems.

The bill will result in stronger registered trademark rights and improve the administration of the trademark system.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Trade Marks Amendment Bill 2006 and offer Labor’s support for these measures. The bill amends the Trade Marks Act 1995 to strengthen trademark rights and provide greater certainty to trademark owners and the general public. It also includes provisions that reduce the regulatory and administrative burden on the users of the system. The bill also increases the transparency of the trademark system and increases the alignment of the trademark system with other intellectual property rights.

The major provisions of the bill will enable owners of trademarks with a reputation in Australia to more readily protect their trademarks against registration of other trademarks whose use is likely to lead to confusion in the market place. It will also clarify the basis on which a trademark may be opposed and allow a trademark to be opposed if it was made in bad faith. It also makes it easier for trademark owners to request Customs to seize goods that might infringe their trademark, and notices requesting seizure will stay in effect for longer. Trademark owners will be able to provide a written undertaking to repay any expenses incurred by the Commonwealth instead of paying cash security upfront as is currently required. The bill will also clarify parts of the act that have previously confused trademark owners, making it easier for people to apply for a trademark.

The amendments contained in the bill are sensible though overdue improvements to Australia’s trademark regime that enhance efficiency, improve transparency and reduce the regulatory and administrative burden on trademark applicants and owners. That is why Labor supports these measures and welcomes them.

The second reading debate on this bill also gives me an opportunity to outline some of Labor’s proposals in this area which I think are very significant. I am referring specifically of course to Labor’s innovation blueprint. Labor’s innovation blueprint is a plan to turn Aussie brilliance into Aussie dollars to make our economy competitive with the rest of the world once again.

Innovation is central to the nation-building agenda and will deliver for this country. A federal Labor government will kick-start the next generation of innovation in the private sector. Reform is urgently needed in areas such as research and development investment arrangements. We need to look more closely at developing the capacity and diversity of our universities, not just trying to seize control, which the current government is doing. We also need to rebuild Australia’s great research institutes, including the CSIRO. These are the innovative drivers—the forces and the levers—that government has available to it to ensure that we drive innovation and that we provide the tools necessary for Australians to move forward in this area.

There is a lot of brilliance in Australia but young people and start-up companies are often not assisted by government or regulation in providing the necessary push to achieve their dreams and their goals. This government has failed abysmally, particularly in the area of R&D, to provide the right mechanisms and tools. More thought needs to be put into research and development and how those investment arrangements are made. Certainly the government needs to form greater partnerships with our universities to develop innovation, technology and new systems—from ideas through to in-country development—and to turn them into Australian dollars and Australian jobs, which would enable our skilled people to achieve much more.

The key initiatives that a Beazley Labor government would put into place on coming to office would include enterprise connect centres, which could be used as the conduit between the marketplace and universities and innovators out there on the street doing their work. Knowledge transfer partnerships are a better mechanism for taking initiatives from a knowledge based start through to creating systems. Venture capital reforms in this country have had very little attention. Venture capital in most countries is a key driver of innovation that develops those new ideas into products in the market. That is something that Australia could do much better.

Health research is another area. Australia has a great reputation in the area of medical and health research and that needs to be focused on more heavily. More needs to be done in the area of modern information and communications technology. We need to rebuild our national icons, for example the CSIRO, and make sure they are independent and that they have the funding available to them to do the things they are chartered to do. Labor will commission the Chifley Research Centre to report on the future of R&D incentives—in particular, the greater incentives for increased and additional R&D investment rather than just the overall levels. Labor will look at better targeting the money to be spent. We will look at converting the benefits of different rates into a single concession for new investment. We will look at expanding the base of the current concession on increased and additional investment and converting the R&D concession into a program of loans and grants. Labor will provide more mechanisms and tools and a greater focus in the area of research and development, which this government has not done.

In respect of innovation centres, we need to adapt new ideas in research. We need to take up new technology. We need to test new products, new ideas and new processes. But all of this does take time, and it costs money. There needs to be that partnership between government, people and institutions to see this through to the market. Labor’s commitment is to initially establish up to 10 enterprise connect centres, including one for advanced manufacturing. This is a very important issue that this government has not looked at. Labor will contribute up to $20 million to each centre over four years—a solid, worthwhile commitment.

We also need to find a new collaboration of at least one business and a university, a public research agency or a TAFE, to work on specific projects such as improving production and management processes or building and testing new prototypes or a new product launch. Labor commits to providing $10 million in each full year to fund up to 200 knowledge transfer partnerships for projects of up to two years. This is needed urgently in this new-age economy where there is a skills crisis. The jobs of tomorrow will be built around innovation and skilling people, and there needs to be a partnership between all of the institutions involved and government.

Lastly, I will make a couple of comments on venture capital. Labor intends to consult on the establishment of an enterprise investment scheme similar to that adopted in the United Kingdom which provides tax incentives for investors who subscribe to innovative companies and on the establishment of a new venture capital exchange to help foster a risk capital market for emerging companies. I commend this bill and Labor supports it. It contains a number of measures that are worth while, that strengthen the trademark rights of individuals and companies. It is well and truly overdue.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the member for Oxley that the chair has been very generous and may not be so generous in future about speaking to the bill.

Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Trade Marks Amendment Bill 2006 is important legislation. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources on the way in which he has progressed this significant issue. It is important for our nation that we protect our innovation and our innovators. People around the world are seeking to knock off Australian creativity and ingenuity and we must protect and safeguard it. Some of our great brand names are now owned by foreigners. It is a tragedy that Vegemite is no longer Australian. But that is not what this is about. They have not bought the trademark; they have bought the business. So that is a different issue.

Today we are looking at some of the changes to the act. In general terms—I will turn to the specifics shortly—what this legislation does is to decrease the administrative and regulatory burden that confronts applicants when they apply for or seek to vary a trademark. This is a very welcome change. The complexity of the current act has led to a number of inconsistencies, which I am aware of, that make it difficult in some instances for Australian trademark applicants to succeed. We welcome measures to toughen trademark legislation and reduce the administrative and regulatory burden to make it easier for people to find their way through a process which can be quite complex. The process is certainly not as complex, in many ways, as it is when applying for a patent. A trademark does not provide the same sort of protection as a patent but, nevertheless, it is often the lifeblood of a company. A well-known trademark is something to be valued and prized; it is of great merit and great financial value. The legislation provides greater certainty once a trademark has been issued. Once a trademark right is issued, the scope with which people can come in under that trademark with something similar is more restricted than was the case previously. That is also a welcome measure.

The parliamentary secretary will be aware of a particular interest I have in an Australian company. An overseas firm was seeking to come in under an Australian firm with similar presentations—I forget the legal term—and almost show itself off as the Australian company. This legislation will restrict the prospect of that occurring. The increase in the predicability of the trademark system and clarity of the Trade Marks Act is welcome. Transparency and alignment with other intellectual property acts such as the Patents Act are the broad issues that the bill seeks to deal with.

I guess most people in this place would say that this is a pretty dry old subject, but it is a very intense and important subject for Australian business. It should not be underestimated. It is the very key to advertising, market recognition, promotion and advertising. The extent of market reach can be so strongly identified with a trademark. It is a critical commercial product that we should not dismiss lightly. We need to take a great deal of care in the way in which trademarks are managed. It is one of the most critical and commercially viable parts of the intellectual property of a business.

The enhancement of the trademark system reflects the government’s commitment to encouraging innovation and protection of Australian business. It provides Australia with a strong trademark system that meets the needs of Australian business. This bill, which will become the law of Australia, follows an inquiry and review of the 1995 act and associated regulations. It is probably about the right length of time to have a review of these sorts of things after 10 years.

Some may complain that it is too long since the Trade Marks Act was reviewed. That is not the case. A 10-year span is needed for people to become aware of an act but also to be able to manage their business and their trademarks and their intellectual property with certainty. So I congratulate the government on the review and these changes. As I have indicated, the bill reduces the administrative burden on those trying to register trademarks and it also gives the Registrar of Trade Marks the power to initiate court action in trademark matters. All of those are welcome points.

I want to refer to some of the details of the bill itself and comment on the reader’s guide, which is a welcome innovation and is part of legislation to make it easier for those seeking information about trademarks to access some of the details before they start paying lawyers. One of the amendments, an important amendment, relates to section 6 of the Trade Marks Act. Section 6 defines ‘person’ as including ‘a body of persons, whether incorporated or not’. That leaves to one side the capacity of trusts, business names, trading names and partnerships. They are not usually able to own property, and ownership is an important part of the trademarks system. Ownership is generally limited to people who have a legal personality. However, there has been some confusion in this area about who can own a trademark, in particular in relation to trusts and business names.

There is an exception in the definition of persons able to own a trademark. International agreements oblige Australia to allow an association to own a collective trademark. The current definition of ‘association’ in section 6 excludes incorporated associations, of which we have many, and it has been the practice in Australia to incorporate associations because of legal protections, insurance and a whole range of other things. Item 64 of the Trade Marks Amendment Bill 2006 seeks to remove that restriction and allow incorporated associations to apply for collective trademarks. The rights of unincorporated associations to own collective trademarks are preserved. So it is a very good suggestion, a very good change.

The grounds for rejecting an application are not in the same place in the act but in section 31 of the act, which states that the registrar must examine and report on whether or not there are any grounds, under division 2 of part 4, for objection to the application. So what this section does is bring together the grounds for objection and opposition, which are important provisions. Further on in the bill there are provisions about a registration opponent’s earlier use of a similar trademark—this is an area which is often contested—and I read from the explanatory memorandum to clarify the point:

A person may obtain acceptance and registration for a trade mark under section 44(4) even though an earlier similar trade mark has been registered for similar goods and services. The person must be able to show that they have used the trade mark before the filing date of the earlier trade mark on those particular goods or services.

It goes on:

However the owner of the earlier trade mark may have used their trade mark before applying for trade mark registration and accrued common law rights. As it stands the owner of the earlier registered mark has no basis on which to oppose registration of a trade mark accepted under subsection 44(4), even where their use pre-dates that of the accepted application.

And:

The new section will provide a basis for the Registrar to give consideration to these issues in opposition proceedings.

That brings us to the case that the parliamentary secretary brought up and that I am aware of—and it applies to the goods scheme. This fixes up the problem that the Pirotelli family have found, and the attack by Estee Lauder on this Australian company. Estee Lauder employed a firm of solicitors to go hunting for trademarks and names that they could use for their cosmetic products. The Pirotelli family had those brands and had the products up and running. They had applied for registration and, owing to some fault in the advice they received, whether from IP Australia or others—I suspect IP Australia—they withdrew one trademark and Estee Lauder were able to get in there and say, ‘We claim this trademark.’

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Mitchell willing to give way?

Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As reluctant as I am to draw the member’s attention to the legislation, I feel he is straying very dramatically from the point of the legislation.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Shortland is completely wrong. The member for Mitchell is speaking to the bill.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Talking about Estee Lauder?

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is speaking to the bill and is talking about trademarks.

Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The matter is the claim by Estee Lauder of an Australian trademark. That is what it is about. They are trying to grab the trademark of an Australian company. This bill fixes the problem. What we are talking about is protecting trademarks of Australian companies. That is an important thing for Australian business. Being sure of their trademarks applies to employment and opportunity for Australian companies. I am explaining why this amendment to the current act has been necessary. It is necessary to protect Australian business against raiders like Estee Lauder who seek to knock off Australian companies. It is a very important issue and it is right on the button of what this act is about. That just explains that the Australian Labor Party are off the mark in everything that they do—in the parliament, on the economy, on Work Choices and everything else they get into. They do not understand the implications for the Australian community, Australian workers or Australian businesses.

I return to the topic. In this instance, the Australian family who were owners of the trademark thought that they were covered by the current act, and the amendment certainly improves their prospects of success. However, part of this act really does open up some difficult issues, in my opinion, about the capacity for non-Australian companies or, for that matter, Australian companies to seek information, under freedom of information, about the nature of the trademark application. They can seek to gather the papers behind the application, the details of that application for a trademark, and examine them, tear them apart and challenge them under freedom of information, and I believe that information is commercial-in-confidence. Anybody applying for a trademark does so believing that they are applying to a government agency that will safeguard their commercial property.

It is no fault of the department, IP Australia or anybody else; it is the way the act works and it needs to be changed. I am unhappy with this process because the capacity for somebody to get behind an application and gather commercially confidential information—because we have a Commonwealth arrangement for freedom of information—allows them to go into an area where I do not believe they have any right to go. I believe that IP Australia and the agencies of government need to make the decisions. If their decision is flawed, that should be challenged, but not the nature of the commercial application. That should not be challenged.

In this instance, this family have put forward papers to back up their trademark and explain why it needs to be as it is. They are required to present their marketing plan, their target market and details of their product—not the total chemistry—in their application for the trademark. That information under freedom of information can be available. The officers of IP Australia, who manage trademarks, can look at the release that they are about to make and decide—and we are asking a person who is an employee of the Commonwealth to decide—what is commercially valuable and what is not. It is not the role of a trademark official to be able to do that sort of thing. I do not believe that we should be putting those people in a position of deciding issues of commercial significance when an application for a trademark or to grab a trademark has been made and is being challenged by an overseas company, as in this instance. When the application is being challenged by an overseas company, the officer of IP Australia should decide issues of commercial significance. I guess that is my one complaint against the legislation.

What has been done by the government has been excellent. It needed tidying up. All of the measures contained in this legislation are a vast improvement. They are really good. But the freedom of information area is not covered by this legislation; it is covered by the general freedom of information legislation. I do not think the drafters ever considered trademarks when they drafted that original legislation. The original legislation was to allow the public to see whether proper decisions were being made, whether things were being hidden by the executive government and whether things were being done that were open and fair. But to allow that process to go one step beyond what is open and fair and permit an examination of details of policy and decision making within government, and in this instance encourage it to go beyond that and examine the details of the commercial background of a trademark application, I believe is absolutely wrong. It should not be allowed. Those companies are dependent on their trademarks for their future. To allow the details of that trademark and the marketing plans and all the rest, which are a critical part of the application and must be provided with the application for a trademark, to be accessed by a raider cannot be tolerated.

I know that in his area the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources and the government have done everything possible to assist these circumstances. This legislation goes one step further, which is excellent. My complaint is that the only flaw now resting in trademarks for Australian trademark applicants is that the freedom of information legislation almost destroys, in some way, the protections that this legislation grants. I thank the parliamentary secretary, my colleague and friend, for his support on this issue.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a question to the member.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Mitchell happy to take a question?

Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. I hope it is more on the mark than the last one.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note the member’s concerns and that the area in the legislation that he disagrees with is in relation to freedom of information. Has the member got an alternative to the current situation? It is all very well for him to note he has a concern, but if he has a concern let us hear what his alternative is.

Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The alternative is that it does not lie with this legislation and I would be straying off the subject if I were to go into amendments to the Freedom of Information Act.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I’m happy for you to stray off the subject.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member is answering your question. Is the honourable member for Shortland seeking to ask a question?

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I’m happy for the member to stray off this piece of legislation.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Mitchell happy to allow a question?

Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would be happy to comply privately with the member’s request, but I know I am constrained by the standing orders and I need to stick with the topic. I do not care what you think.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I promise I won’t take a point of order!

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Shortland will desist from interjecting.

Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that I need to comply with the standing orders of the Committee. The standing orders indicate that I should deal with the issue before the Committee—that is, the Trade Marks Act, which I have been dealing with completely. I have complimented the government on these changes because they have solved many of those problems that I identified with this case—that is, a previous application, something lapsing and a previous use of a product are now resolved and much more easily managed. That is a real improvement. The opponent’s capacity for an earlier use of a similar trademark and all of those things are dealt with satisfactorily under section 58A. The Freedom of Information Act is too wide and does affect trademarks, and that is where changes need to be made.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—The Trade Marks Amendment Bill 2006 amends the Trade Marks Act of 1995, which is now over 10 years old. The amendments arose out of regular reviews of the act which were carried out by IP Australia, the government agency with responsibility for administering the Trade Marks Act. There was extensive consultation with the public and stakeholders as part of that review. During this consultation, IP Australia utilised the expertise of an industry reference group to help assess the merits of the issues that were raised. The industry reference group comprised dedicated representatives from key stakeholders who willingly contributed their time, and I thank them for their efforts.

I thank the member for Oxley for his comments today. In a total of eight minutes, the only part of the bill that he addressed properly was the title and his concerns about the time frame. He said that it had gone on too long. The government has a general policy of reviewing legislation every five to 10 years. This review was undertaken as a part of that general policy. This review commenced in 2002 and took a considerable time because of the extensive consultation with industry and with the people whom we seek to represent in the trademarks area. We make no apology for being thorough in our job.

In contrast, the member for Mitchell is one of the most passionate advocates on IP and trademarks that I have seen in this parliament. The gall of the member for Shortland to stand up and ask the member for Mitchell to be brought back to the bill shows her ineptitude—she did not even read the bill. Unlike the member for Oxley, who only addressed the bill in title, the member for Mitchell went through and analysed aspects of the bill and the requirements of his constituents, such as the Piratelli family, on whose behalf he has passionately advocated. He made representations to my office and had a partial result on that in the previous IP bill, which amended parts of the Freedom of Information Act.

There is no greater passionate advocate for intellectual property or his constituents’ rights than the member for Mitchell. That stands in contrast to the ineptitude and arrogance of the member for Shortland, who is nothing more than a time waster in this parliament and in the community broadly. The member for Shortland, who did not even bother to read the bill to familiarise herself with its content, then raised questions against the member for Mitchell. This shows her absolute arrogance, illiteracy and ineptitude.

Getting back to this bill, the Trade Marks Act provides for registration of trademarks and sets out and protects the rights derived from the registration. Trademarks assist Australian businesses to increase their competitive advantage. Trademarks signify the origin of goods or services to the public so the public can recognise the trade origin of the goods or services. The member for Mitchell correctly said that trademarks are an asset of the business. Recently, IP Australia held a contest for the favourite trademark of the century. The trademarks entered were narrowed down to 10 finalists: Qantas, the Wallabies, Arnotts, Weet-Bix, RM Williams, Penfolds, David Jones, the ABC and Woolmark. They were judged and assessed by outstanding people, such as Ken Done, Carla Zampatti, George Gregan—the Wallabies captain—and Simon Reynolds, who is an industry leader in this area. They understand the value of a trademark—and so does Coca-Cola. A trademark can be valued in the billions of dollars. That is not something that is easily given away. It is a critical asset, a bottom-line measure to a company.

I am glad that the public voted for Weet-Bix as the top Australian trademark of the century. We understand the value of trademarks. We also understand the need to protect trademark rights. This bill makes a number of changes to the act that will simplify aspects of the trademark system, particularly for small businesses. Over 50 per cent of trademark applicants are self-represented. Many of these applicants will benefit from the changes that clarify and simplify provisions in the Trade Marks Act. In general, the amendments made by the bill will improve the administration of the trademark system to make it easier to use. The bill reflects the government’s commitment to encourage stronger trademark rights that meet the needs of all Australians.

I thank all of the members for their contributions. As I said, the most outstanding contribution, delivered with passionate advocacy, was that of the member for Mitchell. I enjoy working with him—in particular, I enjoy the forthright way in which he represents his constituents on issues such as this—

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Hall interjecting

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in contrast to the member for Shortland, whose greatest contribution to this place is to make objections and motions for quorums or that members no longer be heard and who has no substance in what she says. So she stands on her own merit, which is very little.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have never moved such a motion. The member is misleading the House.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Shortland!

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.