Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make some brief remarks on Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2006, also as a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Economics. First I would like to place on record my thanks to the committee secretariat and members of the committee for what, as Senator Murray has outlined, was a very useful and informative process. As is often the case with the Senate economics committee, we were able to come to a fairly unanimous view in recommending some changes to this legislation.

As a member of that committee, I was particularly moved by the representatives of Nufarm Ltd about the need to progress the issue of the use and manufacture of generics in their industry as well as in the pharmaceutical industry. I was made aware of the large number of Australians who are employed by Nufarm and other companies, and I must say I was therefore a little concerned at the slow progress that has been made through the bureaucracy when it comes to addressing similar issues for that industry. The committee was informed that there is a paper around that addresses similar issues for the agricultural and fertiliser industry. However, that has been with the agency since August last year but as yet we have not had meetings with relevant agencies and actually progressed any draft legislation.

The committee was informed that there was a hope that we might get to see something that addresses the concerns of that industry by the end of this year. It would seem that we make very slow progress when it comes to dealing with these issues. I just want to place on record my concern that we do seem to hasten very slowly in this area—it is an area that is worthy of some reform—and put in a plea that we try to deal with this a bit more quickly than we dealt with the issues that are before us today.

I would also like to thank Professor Corones, who appeared by teleconference before the committee. He pointed out that he had become aware of our inquiry at a very late stage. In fact, it was his evidence that pointed out some of the inconsistencies that we had to deal with; hence the change in the explanatory memorandum. It is useful to note that the government did take the committee’s recommendations on board and gave us a new explanatory memorandum to address our concerns.

However, as Senator Murray has outlined, I do hope that that is all that is needed to address those particular concerns. Not being a lawyer I cannot guarantee that, but I do hope that we are getting this right. It was of some concern to me that it was Professor Corones who knew about the two pieces of government legislation—the proposed bill that we are now dealing with and the amendments that the government were making to their national access regime bill. However, agencies of government did not know about the inconsistencies between the two pieces of legislation. It took members of the economics committee and an outside academic to point out the inconsistencies in approach. When you are looking at aspects of trade practices reform, I think it is really important that all agencies pay attention to what is being done in that area because it affects all of us. Who knows what would have happened if Professor Corones had not got hold of the issue at such a late hour? Who knows what mess we may have ended up in?

I thank him for his evidence and I thank the members of the committee. I put in a plea hoping that we will progress the next stage of this reform for companies like Nufarm perhaps quicker than we have addressed this reform. I hope the new explanatory memorandum does in fact achieve everything that the government claims it does in addressing the committee’s concerns.