Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to 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.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, don't tell us that!

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

Why not, Warren?

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unnecessary information!

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to 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.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 1 and Other Measures) Bill 2018. While some members in this House may not find intellectual property fascinating, I can say with absolute confidence that I find it to be an incredibly interesting and incredibly fascinating area of public policy. Anyone who understands the economy—I accept there are some members opposite who do not—understands the power and the role of property rights as the foundation of markets and tradeable goods and services. And, of course, property rights sit at the heart of an innovative economy.

Particularly, intellectual property rights sit at the heart of an innovative economy, because if you don't have some form of property right that sits at the heart of an innovation you cannot trade it, you cannot sell it, you have no sense of ownership, you have no incentive to invest and you do not have the advantage or the opportunity to be able to trade it and for other people to learn of it. One of the great tests of intellectual property is to make sure that innovations and inventions are disclosed so that you can inform the market. It acts as an incentive for other people to be able to learn from the knowledge that other people have invested in so that we can continue not only economic progress, technological progress and social progress, but, ultimately, human progress. While this bill only seeks to amend components of intellectual property laws, it's nonetheless very important, following a long inquiry by the Productivity Commission, as part of the need to make sure that our intellectual property regime keeps pace with the changing nature of the Australian economy and the global landscape.

One of the amendments included in this piece of legislation is directly related to parallel imports. Parallel imports, as some members may be aware, come up from time to time when people import products that have trademarks applied to them. I've just seen Mr Gosling walk into the House, wearing an interesting outfit, to say the least! Clothing is not protected by intellectual property, just so you know. Fashion is not a subject matter, so you'll not be able to claim exclusive rights! But with parallel importation of goods that are trademark protected, having simple, measured, proportionate reforms to parallel import restrictions is incredibly important, because people should be able to import goods into this country and have their property rights respected even if they do not originate in this country.

A few years ago, I was involved heavily in the debate around parallel importation of copyrighted books, up until the point that the Rudd government, frankly, squibbed it, after it was bought off by the arguments of, unfortunately, a small number of people who argued defensively not in the interests of intellectual property, despite the deception that was advocated, but in the interests of people who wanted to protect their industry. It had no impact on culture; that was a great lie put out there by the Australian Labor Party, among a number of other political parties.

With, for instance, copyrighted books, you have two types of property: you have the physical property, which is the pages, the binding and those sorts of things, and then the words, the copyrighted component. What parallel import restrictions did on books was protect the physical part of the book but not the intellectual property component of the book. It was a great deception imposed on this country, which led to people continuing to pay more for books, meaning fewer opportunities for children to learn and fewer opportunities to be able to secure the benefits of education and broaden the knowledge base of the nation, just to protect the interests of commercial operators. It is a shameful chapter in this nation's history, as far as I'm concerned.

Parallel importation should make sure that royalties are paid to the people who hold the IP. That is resolutely the case. What this amendment seeks to do is respect the IP and respect the royalty payments that are deserved, but not protect the interests of—well, these days, the modern Labor Party prefer to refer to them as the top end of town. That was the objective of parallel import restrictions under the models that they preferred in the past. So, this is a good reform.

Similarly, the reforms around plant breeder's rights, as an anomaly, are a consequence of how the intention of the system is designed to work to encourage people to create derivatives directly associated with the innovation and crossbreeding of plant varieties. That's incredibly important, particularly in a nation like ours, with so many unique flowers and plants that are part of our nation and the natural bounty of our Commonwealth. We should be encouraging the value and the extraction of the value of each one of those natural embodiments and endowments. We also have to make sure that we properly reward those people who invest in this type of invention and this type of innovation to the welfare and the benefit of humanity. That's what IP regimes are designed and set up to do. But, when you have an anomaly, where people who don't register certain plant varieties, and, therefore, don't get certain types of—it can undermine the protection of others, and is a disincentive to investment.

Finally, the last provision around the grace period and the extension from three years to five years—

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The member for Goldstein has leave to continue when the debate may be resumed at a later hour.