Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

In summing up, I would like to thank my fellow senators for their contribution to the debate on the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2014. I would like to acknowledge and thank the New Zealand government for its cooperation in the development of the trans-Tasman provisions of this bill. I would also like to thank all the industry stakeholders who contributed to the development of the bill. This proposed legislation, as many in this place would know, has been the subject of extensive consultation in recent years.

The proposed legislation will reduce a number of barriers and regulatory costs for Australian businesses using the intellectual property system. Introducing a trans-Tasman patent attorney regime, and patent application and

examination processes, will reduce costs for businesses operating in both countries. Implementing the TRIPS protocol will allow Australian manufacturers of generic pharmaceuticals to provide assistance to developing countries. The Howard government accepted the terms of the protocol in 2007. We have heard from the current opposition that they supported them in government and the Abbott government is now pleased to deliver on this important change.

Enabling the owners of plant breeders rights to use the Federal Circuit Court will give them a faster and, in particular, a more cost-effective way to protect their rights. Repealing unnecessary provisions on the storage of documents will reduce warehousing costs and increase efficiencies.

Whilst I note that no changes are sought here, I would just make a brief response to those issues brought up by the Greens. We understand that the member for Melbourne did seek to introduce amendments to the Crown use provisions. In the other place, these amendments were not supported.

The challenges placed by both the government and the opposition in the other place indicated that if those amendments had been supported they would have created significant challenges to the legislation. There were challenges to the scope of the terms used in those amendments and they failed to address recommendations made by the Productivity Commission in its 2013 review of compulsory licensing and the Crown use of patents. It is for these reasons and others that it was not supported in the other place. Again, I commend the bill to the house.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.