Baldwin, Bob, MP

Mr BALDWIN (Paterson—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) (20:14): I would like to thank my colleagues in this House for their very wide-ranging contributions to this debate, many of the contributions of course not focusing on the bill before them at this point in time, the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2014. I would also like to thank the New Zealand government—in particular, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand—for its cooperation in the development of the trans-Tasman provisions of this bill. I would also like to thank the many industry stakeholders who contributed to the development of this bill. The proposed legislation has been the subject of extensive consultation over 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 process 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, and the Abbott government is now delivering on this important change. Enabling the owners of plant breeders rights to use the Federal Circuit Court will give them 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. This bill is designed to reduce red tape, which has been one of the hallmarks of this coalition government. I would like to respond to a few of the points that have been raised by my colleagues in this House. As pointed out by many members of the opposition, in 2013 the former Labor government attempted to make changes to Crown use provisions of the Patents Act 1990. I understand these changes were in response to recommendations made by the Productivity Commission following its inquiry into compulsory licensing. At the time these amendments were introduced into the parliament on 30 May last year, just three days after the Productivity Commission had publicly released its final report, it was readily apparent to anyone that the Labor government had not adequately considered or consulted on these measures. Things like this should not be rushed through the parliament. You need to take people on the journey with you—politicians, professionals and industry alike. Both industry stakeholders and members of parliament were concerned that the amendments were rushed and lacked detailed consideration, and thankfully these changes were not passed by the parliament. I acknowledge how important the Crown use provisions are. The government has not progressed any related amendments at this stage as further detailed consideration and consultation is necessary. I note that the member for Melbourne has an amendment that he intends to put in relation to bringing Crown use provisions as part of this bill. But, again, where has the consultation been? This is a rushed effort. The first we have heard about this intention was tonight. I introduced this bill months and months ago and the member for Melbourne could have come and seen me if it was so important and discussed it, and perhaps some stakeholder engagement could have been undertaken, rather than being ambushed on the night that the bill was being finally summed up. One of the key considerations in relation to all this is the Myriad case. The Myriad case is in a position at this point in time where there has been leave sought to appeal to the High Court, and we need to wait for that decision. That decision will come down sometime in the New Year. We do not want to pre-empt that decision. We want to have that finding and understand exactly where it is at. As I said, this bill was never intended to address the issue of the gene patents debate. Many speaking on this bill have raised it, but it was never intended or designed to address the gene patents debate. Deputy Speaker Kelly, as you would be aware, in September this year the full bench of the Federal Court of Australia released its decision in the D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc. case. Shortly after, the application for special leave to appeal this decision was lodged with the High Court. The decision of the full Federal Court that isolated gene sequences are patentable affirmed the existing practice in Australia of granting patents for biological materials which are new, inventive and useful. I want to be very, very clear here that genes in their natural state in the human body are not—never have been—patentable in Australia. Most of our major trading partners share the same approach to allowing these gene patents: Europe, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, China and Korea all grant patents for isolated gene sequences. The United States is out of step with many other developed countries because of a decision by the United States Supreme Court back in 2013 that found that isolated gene sequences were not patent eligible. Let me be clear here also: the US law is no way binding upon Australian law. Let me restate that for the record: US law is no way binding upon Australian law. The United States is still coming to grips with that 2013 decision and it is not clear what impact it will have on investment in the biotechnology and medical sectors. The Australian government has always been conscious of balancing the needs of innovators whilst upholding the competitiveness of the Australian research and development industry. As I said, the government is considering the implications of the full Federal Court decision. However, until such time as we know the outcome of the High Court leave application, any legislative amendments in relation to gene patents would simply be premature and, as I said, are not a part of this bill. To conclude, the intellectual property system is vital to the strength of Australia's economy because it encourages invention and investment in new technologies, products and markets. This bill helps to ensure that we have an efficient and streamlined intellectual property system. It is an important step forward in reducing the red tape and regulatory costs for Australian businesses, and that is what is critically important. I commend this bill in its original form to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time.