Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The women's football World Cup is great for this nation. Go, Matildas! Bad luck, Canada! Only adding to the excitement is the knowledge that the 2032 Paralympics and Olympics are just around the corner—under nine years away. Of course, there'll always be a few naysayers, perhaps including a few in this House, but the vast majority of the people of Brisbane, Queensland and Australia are excited about the legacy projects that the Paralympics and Olympics will deliver not just for South-East Queensland but also for the rest of the state.

That green and gold runway will deliver a boon for the arts, tourism and disability access to sports, to name just a few. Australia will be on the world stage, and who wouldn't want to come to the Sunshine State? That's a question I often ask myself when out playing sport on a freezing, gloomy Canberra morning, after being taken out by the member for Macnamara on the soccer field, while my family are bathed in sunshine, enduring a mild 20 degrees back home and contemplating whether they should wear a jacket or go to the beach. Although about 85 per cent of sporting facilities are extant, hosting the Olympics and Paralympics does deliver the opportunity to construct new and upgraded infrastructure. This includes opening new tourism opportunities and delivering better access for women and people with disabilities to sport—both as participants and as spectators. Nevertheless, there are a number of challenges around things like intellectual property and the Olympics and Paralympics.

I suspect there wouldn't be too many people in Australia who, when they see the Olympic rings insignia or logo, don't know what it is—those distinctive five coloured rings. Maybe the Paralympics emblem, the agitos, is not quite as well known, but that will change in the next nine years, and that is what this bill is designed to do. It will remove loopholes in the Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987 in preparation for the 2032 Brisbane Paralympic and Olympic Games. The amendments will make it clear that only the Australian and International Olympic Committees can register Olympic insignia as trademarks in Australia. The bill will also give effect to several improvements in the Trade Marks Act 1995 and Patents Act 1990. These amendments will streamline the use of the intellectual property system, correct some minor inconsistencies in the legislation and reduce legal uncertainty. The timely production of the bill is required to provide regulatory certainty in view of the upcoming 2032 Brisbane Paralympics and Olympics. The Australian and International Olympic Committees are in support of the amendments to the Olympic Insignia Protection Act.

The changes in the bill are minor, uncontroversial and ready for implementation. The key change will deliver legal certainty to the Australian Olympic Committee and International Olympic Committee, clarifying that only these committees can get protection for trademarks containing the aforementioned Olympic insignia. We need to move on this early so as to minimise the risk of bad-faith trademark applications from other parties which seek to profit from association with the Olympics. We've seen how certain countries and certain companies try to sportswash what they do with things like the Olympics and other sports.

Most people might be thinking, 'Why do we need to do this now, with some eight years plus to go and two other Paralympics and Olympics to be held in between in Paris and Los Angeles?' The reason is that these applications can be filed years in advance of the games, so we need to do this now before it becomes a huge problem much closer to the games. We don't want to be spending time, effort and resources sorting this out and weeding out those bad actors as things ramp up closer to 2032, when all the focus should be on the delivery of the games.

The bill also makes some minor amendments to the Trade Marks Act and the Patents Act to close gaps, increase certainty and correct some minor inconsistencies. It will align grace periods for late payment of a renewal fee across different circumstances to ensure consistency across all renewal dates. It will align provisions for revoking registration of a trademark. It will enable ANONA to defend their trademark registration against non-use action if they miss a due date but are eligible for an extension of time. It will ensure government can communicate crucial information about trademarks to the public in a modern and flexible way and will repeal spent provisions in the Patents Act 1990 that have had no effect since February last year.

The changes align the wording of the Olympic Insignia Protection Act with the Trade Marks Act so they work together to prevent the unauthorised registration of trademark applications containing Olympic insignia. In relation to grace periods for trademarks currently, in exceptional circumstances where a trademark application is still pending after 10 years, the available grace period for paying a renewal fee is up to 10 months after renewal is due. The amendment changes the grace period for this situation to six months, aligning with the grace period for renewal fee payments under normal circumstances. Importantly, this amendment will provide consistency across all trademark renewal due dates. This will also ensure that trademark registrations that are no longer active can be removed in a timely way.

With regard to the revocation of registration detail, this amendment simplifies and clarifies provisions dealing with these revocations of the registration of a trademark where a component of a notice of opposition to registration of that trademark has been overlooked. The amendment aligns the provisions for revoking registration in those circumstances with other current opposition processes. With the restoration of trademarks to the register, this bill's amendments clarify provisions to enable restoration of trademark registration where an owner missed a deadline to respond to a type of opposition but is later granted an extension of time to respond. The amendment means an owner can continue to defend their registration if they miss a due date but are eligible for an extension of time.

The amendments concerning the official journal allow IP Australia greater flexibility in how it makes trademark information available to the public, including providing information about trademarks through an online search portal instead of an official journal—which is so last century! Customers mostly use IP Australia's online platforms to view trademark information. As you can imagine, in 2023 only a small number of users still use that official journal. So it will benefit business, providing a single, up-to-date source of official trademark information. With regard to the spent provisions, the bill will repeal transitional and saving provisions in the Patents Act 1990. This proposal is machinery in nature and ensures that the statute remains up to date.

I know that throughout this process Minister Husic has been working closely with Minister Wells's office around Olympics trademark amendments and our advising the Queensland state government that the reforms will soon be introduced to this parliament. We also worked closely with the AOC and IOC with the proposed changes as part of the previous Regulator Performance Omnibus Bill 2022. Both the AOC and IOC provided minor feedback which was incorporated in the proposed amendments, and they support these changes.

Lastly, when it comes to the Patents Act 1990, the changes are repealing some transitional and savings provisions in that act that basically haven't been operating since February last year. As I said, they are machinery in nature. The regulatory certainty delivered by the changes contained within this bill are needed now as an important component of a successful Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2032. I'm proud to be Prime Minister Albanese's representative on the Brisbane Organising Committee for the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, along with Minister Anika Wells. These games will deliver positive change in south-east Queensland and throughout the state and, in terms of tourism and other connections, in the rest of Australia. There will be legacy projects and concepts that will shape us well into the future beyond 2032 and show how wonderful Queensland is. I commend this bill to the House.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Regulator Performance) Bill 2023 seeks to close a loophole in trademark legislation that would have allowed anyone to register a trademark for the Olympic insignia. The bill clarifies that only the Australian Olympic Committee or the International Olympic Committee can register such a trademark, providing important consumer protection. The Greens support of this particular bill, however, shouldn't be considered support or endorsement of where the IOC, the AOC and the federal, state and local governments are actually heading with the Brisbane 2032 Olympics. Hosting the Olympics in 2032 should be something that Brisbane residents can really get excited about. If well planned, the Olympics could leave us with an incredible legacy. But I fear this isn't where we're heading with these Olympics at the moment.

Just yesterday morning, residents of Kangaroo Point got the news that their much loved Raymond Park will be completely destroyed for a warm-up track—a warm-up track for a four-week sporting event. This is not to mention the ridiculous waste of our taxpayer dollars on the Gabba stadium. In fact, if you looked up the definition of madness in the dictionary you might find this: the state Labor government plans to knock down and rebuild the Gabba stadium for the Olympics, only to have to convert it back afterwards. In this process, they will actually destroy a beloved and important heritage school and disrupt a whole community. And what's the budget for this? It's already tripled to $2.7 billion, and construction hasn't even started yet.

That's $2.7 billion—likely much higher by the time it's done, given what's happening with building costs at the moment—for a state government vanity project. $2.7 billion for knocking down and rebuilding a stadium? No thanks. That's $2.7 billion we could actually spend on building thousands of beautifully designed public homes, $2.7 billion that could be spent expanding our public transport network with more high-frequency routes or $2.7 billion that could be spent on creating beautiful parklands, community libraries and public swimming pools. But, no. This is clearly not what is actually happening.

What kind of legacy is this lack of rational planning leaving? Who will these Olympics actually benefit? Clearly not the community. If the community doesn't have the ear of the Olympic planners, who actually does? We know that the property industry—and I understand this industry—and developers are absolutely salivating at the prospect of government support to build so-called affordable housing and other infrastructure without an overall vision for the future of the city, without a plan or proper controls to ensure long-term benefit for the city and its citizens and, indeed, without any definition of affordable houses. Land close to these Olympic venues is going to increase in value without landowners, who are often those very development companies, having to lift a finger, which actually incentivises land banking and thus exacerbates the housing crisis.

While the Greens are supporting this bill to clarify the use of the Olympics logo, we're not endorsing the way the state and federal governments are going about the 2032 Brisbane Olympics to date. Devastatingly, it looks like the usual story—the frankly venal and ultimately economically shortsighted prioritisation of the big end of town over the needs of the community. This massive expenditure could truly catalyse a transformative vision for the sustainable subtropical city, yet what we have here is a missed golden opportunity.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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