Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (18:02): I rise to speak on the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 2 and Other Measures) Bill 2019. This bill makes some technical amendments to Australia's intellectual property arrangements. They're largely noncontroversial and we will be supporting the legislation. Obviously, I commend the amendment moved by the member for Hotham and thank her for her fine contribution, and also that of the member for Lilley. The bill does contain one significant change to the patent system in schedule 1: the abolition of the innovation patent system. This is a special eight-year patent design for small- to medium-sized enterprises. The abolition of this patent system will leave the standard 20-year patent as the only form of protection. The innovation patent has its shortcomings. It wasn't my area of law, but I do know that. Labor understands that, but abolishing the innovation patent scheme without ensuring fair and affordable access to patent protection will have a negative impact on SMEs in Australia that require IP protection. Removing the innovation patent scheme without any alternative mechanisms being put in place simply creates a significant and serious gap for small and medium businesses seeking support to access the patent system and to innovate. This gap now stands as the primary concern of the opposition, even as we support the broader reform and improvement objectives of this bill. To address this gap, Labor has put up amendments to extend the grandfathering period for the innovation patent. Put simply, innovation is the process of commercialising new ideas. As consumers, we get excited when a business delivers new products or services. For the business, those new innovations create more profit. But businesses need to protect their IP, or their intellectual property, in new innovation. IP protection is central to an innovative economy. The success of an organisation hinges on its ability to bring valuable new products and/or services to the market. The proper management of intellectual property will lead to improved revenues and profitability. New ideas and innovation don't just happen. They take work—often years and years of work—behind the scenes before they are able to be taken to the market. First, there is the basic conception of the idea. It takes talent and ability to apply that talent to practical and marketable products. Research and development is crucial to innovation. Universities should be given their fair share of credit for their role in research and development in Australia, and I will also add in there some of the TAFEs. I've seen TAFEs at Acacia Ridge in my electorate that do incredible work when it comes to welding in the gas industry. That's just one example. They're able to solve problems that the professors at Harvard couldn't solve. During the research and development stage, investigations of other third-party IP patents will need to be made, so intellectual property owned by other parties is also protected. The commercialisation of a product requires funding. One of the considerations that a potential backer of a product will look at is whether the intellectual property is protected and to what extent—as in: will they get a return on their money? Once it goes out into the public domain or people are copying it without protection, the money invested might not come back. IP ownership is also important when entering into partnerships with third parties, particularly if there is going to be manufacturing taking place in another country that doesn't necessarily have our strong protections or even our common law system. If a partner adds further technical development, it may be necessary at this stage to further identify and protect intellectual property. Once the product goes to market, the IP patent should be completely locked down. Once at the market, the product is ripe to be copied if the IP patent is not tightly held by its owner. This part of this piece of legislation is a significant concern for me. Generally, as I said upfront, we'll be supporting it, and the minister knows that. But we have put forward some amendments that we ask the government to consider. I know that the current patent system is difficult, especially for SMEs, to access. As a general observation, SMEs aren't using the innovation patent very much at all. Meanwhile, sadly, on the Coalition government's watch, Australia's innovation ranking has fallen on the World Intellectual Property Organisation's Global Innovation Index. This is not just a statement for lawyers. This means that we are effectively going backwards, because in the world today you must run fast just to stay in your current place, and you need to run even faster to get ahead as a country in this digital revolution that we are experiencing. IP lawyers and innovation systems experts must concede the status quo isn't good enough as it currently stands. Some of the stakeholders have acknowledged this current inadequate state of play in discussions with the opposition in recent weeks. That is why the opposition is urging the government to promptly address the need for greater support for Australian SMEs in protecting their intellectual property through the standard patent. Smaller businesses should be given more time before the innovation patent is removed, and they ought to have greater opportunities to present their case to officials about how the innovation patent is being used in individual cases and what can be done going forward to ensure a replacement system is put in place in a timely way. We urge the government, particularly in these difficult economic times, to support Labor's amendments, and, in so doing, do the right thing by smaller- and medium-sized businesses that are especially frustrated by the government's approach to date. I have some faith in the minister at the table, the member for McPherson. I know that she understands business, comes from a business background, and came through with an engineering degree at a time when there weren't a lot of women taking up engineering. And I've worked on the committee with the minister. But I do have some concerns about the Prime Minister when it comes to innovation. I don't know the Prime Minister well. I haven't ever been on a committee with him, but someone who does know about him is former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. An article by Lucy Cormack on 22 November last year says: Malcolm Turnbull has told a technology conference in Sydney that innovation is not Prime Minister Scott Morrison's 'comfort zone ... he doesn't have the background or enthusiasm …' So that's the former Prime Minister, who worked closely with his trusted Treasurer. So we know that the Prime Minister doesn't have an appetite for innovation. Perhaps focusing on the past is where he's comfortable, rather than the challenges of tomorrow. One of those challenges is obviously the fact that Australia is not producing enough graduates in science, technology, engineering and maths. We know the opportunities that will come. The previous speakers, the members for Hotham and Lilley, have detailed the opportunities that will come in the IT and STEM areas. Basically, enrolments are the lowest they've been, as a percentage, for the last 20 years. That means there will be a shortage of jobs for young Australians and instead we'll be turning to people overseas. I would urge the minister and the Prime Minister to not stick with the status quo. We are not doing enough. We are effectively going backwards. We have seen the productivity figures that reflect much of this in terms of where the economy is either flatlining or worse, and that will only be exacerbated by not having enough STEM graduates. I commend the legislation and particularly the amendments put forward by the member for Hotham.