Coleman, David, MP

Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (18:56): It is good to have the opportunity to speak on the very important topic of intellectual property, and specifically the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2014, which we are considering this evening. Intellectual property is one of the bedrocks of a market economy, because in the absence of robust intellectual property laws people will be very reluctant to invest. The protection of one's unique ideas is really fundamental to our economic system. That is why we have an important intellectual property regime. It is not necessarily a front page issue, but it is an absolutely critical aspect of our economy. There is an important balance that needs to be achieved in the realm of intellectual property between encouraging and defending innovation whilst at the same time not making it too difficult for new competitors to enter the same market. So there is always a degree of tension between those two goals. A number of the initiatives in the amendment bill we are discussing this evening do address the very point of where that line should be. I think it is important to reflect on the importance of intellectual property in the Australian economy. Think of some of the amazing success stories we have achieved as a nation that would not have been possible without a strong and orderly system of intellectual property regulation. One of the government's key goals is a simple and orderly set of structures for business and the removal of unnecessary burdens of red tape, so ably led by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. It applies in the intellectual property space, as well. Think of a company like Cochlear, an extraordinary Australian success story, employing about 3,000 people and having $4 billion in value for its quite revolutionary ear implant and related technologies. It would not be possible to build a company like that without a strong system of intellectual property, and the patent laws that are related to that. So it is very important that we as a nation have in place laws that encourage the next Cochlear to come along, because we want to be a nation of innovators. It is interesting and notable that many companies that rely upon intellectual property tend to have high-quality, high-paying, high-skill jobs. Those are the jobs of the future, and those are the jobs that we need in this nation. There are many other examples of great Australian companies that have benefited from intellectual property development. Radiata, through the CSIRO, developed wireless LAN technology many years ago and has generated very substantial revenues through the various settlements related to that important development. And we have other great examples, like ResMed. ResMed is a world leader in products related to sleep apnoea. This is an enormous company that has innovated extraordinarily, has world-leading patents, employs more than 4,000 people around the world, and has a market value of more than $8 billion—and none of that would be possible without a robust system of intellectual property. It does not have to be that very big-picture level either; the intellectual property system is at work right throughout our economy. Just recently, the Prime Minister and I visited a business called Ace Gutters, in Mortdale in my electorate of Banks. Ace Gutters is a fantastic Australian manufacturer and supplier of guttering and other plumbing products. Ace Gutters benefits from our IP system as well, because they have trademarks around their brands and around the various processes that are so important to their business. The trademarks regime is also extraordinarily important in industries like media. Having come from that world myself, I can tell you that immense value is placed on the protection of the value of trademarks on things like magazines, such as the Australian Women's Weekly and many others that rely enormously on the IP system. Then we have the world of copyright and, again, it is the intellectual property regime which protects the unique ideas of creators. The next great Australian film—whether it is the next Gallipoli, Shine or Red Dog, or whatever it is—will again rely on the robust system of intellectual property that we have in this nation. So we have to be careful when we make amendments to the intellectual property system, because the last thing we would ever want to do is to discourage innovation in this space. We want to give Australian innovators every opportunity to put their best foot forward, knowing that if they do have unique intellectual property, it will be defended by our system. Another thing that we have to do in this space is, frankly, to make it easier for people to navigate through the world of intellectual property exploitation. This is a somewhat arcane area of law. I would hazard a guess that there would be no more than a small number—a few thousand people—in Australia who would have a detailed understanding of all of the various ins and outs of IP. It is a very complex area. As someone who has been involved in applications for patents over the years, especially in the area of business method patents—which is a very important area for many businesses—I can say it is not easy. It is not easy to navigate through the IP system. And that is why the change proposed in this bill, to have a one-stop shop for the application process for patents in Australia and New Zealand, is such a great reform—because, Deputy Speaker, if you want IP protection in Australia, you probably want it in New Zealand as well. There is no shortage of forms to fill out in this space and there is no shortage of documents to be lodged, and if you can do one set of forms for two countries, so much the better. And this is so consistent with the government's agenda of eliminating red tape wherever we can in the economy. If passed, Deputy Speaker, this bill will mean that if you are an Australian innovator and you successfully go through the patent process, you are protected not only in Australia but in New Zealand as well. We as a government are always working to increase international cooperation in this space. The fact is that people who are applying for patents have to fill out many different applications for different jurisdictions around the world. There has been a trend in recent decades towards trying to simplify that as much as possible, but there is always more that can be done; we are certainly committed to working with business and with the broader community to help make that happen. The changes in relation to the TRIPS scheme which are part of this bill are also very important. This really gets to the heart of the balancing act that we have in intellectual property law—because, as I said before, we must protect the innovators who have done the hard yards and created this intellectual property, but we need to be cautious that in so doing we do not disadvantage members of the broader community. The TRIPS changes that are proposed in this bill would enable generic manufacturers of drugs to apply for a compulsory licence to be able to manufacture those drugs and provide them to developing nations. We would all absolutely support the very noble sentiment that underlies that policy change, but it is important that those who have manufactured those drugs and who have created those inventions in the first place are not cut out entirely from the process of monetising those drugs. The reason that it is important, frankly, is that if there is not a sufficient commercial return in the creation of new drug types and new drug categories, fewer people will do it. And if fewer people and fewer companies seek to innovate and create the groundbreaking drugs that we need to address the many horrendous diseases that we as a community face, that reduction in innovation can be of no benefit to the people who need help. So that is the balance that needs to be achieved. There needs to be a commercial reason for companies to seek to develop innovative drugs. That is why it is very important that as part of this proposed TRIPS reform, the original IP owner would be compensated when the generic manufacturer provides those drugs to developing countries. We all want, of course, life-saving drugs to be provided to developing countries. It is appropriate that this bill provides for that to be done as cheaply as possible. It is also appropriate and it is also important that the bill provides that the IP owner is compensated, because, as I said, the last thing we would ever want to do, no matter how noble the sentiment, is create a situation where pharmaceutical companies cease to innovate—we do need the innovation that they produce. Another important change in the bill is in relation to the whole world of plant breeders' rights. The plant breeders regime in Australian IP law is relatively new—it was only recognised as a specific class of intellectual property in 1994; prior to that it was jumbled up in various other categories. Now—and this is another compliance red-tape issue and again very consistent with the agenda of simplifying things for Australian businesses—rather than a plant breeder who feels that their rights have been infringed having to go to the full Federal Court, and you can imagine the costs that are attendant in such a process, it is now possible to go to the Federal Circuit Court. This is much simpler with a little bit less pomp and ceremony, and it is a much quicker, more cost-effective process for plant breeders. That is a really important reform and very consistent with the other reform in the bill in relation to a consistent approach in Australia and New Zealand. This is a very important piece of legislation—intellectual property, as I said at the outset, is not necessarily a top-of-mind issue for the majority of Australians but it is an absolute bedrock of our system. It helps businesses at the local level—businesses like Ace Gutters from Mortdale in my electorate; businesses that are innovating—and importantly it helps businesses that are going the extra yard to create new intellectual property that leads to new innovation. Those are the businesses that will tend to have the higher growth capacity and they will tend to be in higher growth sectors of the economy and it is very important that there is a sensible regime to enable them to compete. These three important changes—in the TRIPS space, in the Australia-New Zealand application process and in the protection of plant breeders' rights and allowing them access to the cheaper legal remedies through the Federal Circuit Court—are all really important changes and I certainly commend the bill to the House.