Mr MARTYN EVANS (12:01 PM) —Like many good quotations, some of them were never actually uttered by the people to whom they are attributed, and that is certainly the case with the most famous quotation in respect of patents. In fact, the phrase `Everything that can be invented has been invented' was attributed to a patent commissioner in the United States in the mid-1800s. Of course, that phrase was not actually uttered by any such patent commissioner at the time. No matter how charming the phrase may appear in the context of history, 150 years later, sadly it is not an accurate reflection of what was actually said. It is someone's over-zealous interpretation of what Mr Ellsworth, the Commissioner of Patents from 1835 to 1845, wrote in his 1843 annual report, which has been misunderstood and misquoted ever since. He actually wrote:

Of course, that was neither true then nor true now; nor has it been true at any point in between. Indeed, human invention and human creativity have continued apace ever since. He was somewhat prophetic when he predicted the time when human improvement must end. The reality is that we are embarking now on a period when we may well engage in improving the very genetics of humans themselves. So rather than speaking in an overall sense about the human condition, human culture, human science improving, we may now be at the point where we can modify DNA, certainly of plants and animals and ultimately of human beings. Ultimately, humans will continue to improve. They may do so through direct intervention rather than through participation in an overall climate of increased creativity.

I raise this issue broadly because, in the 21st century, there is no doubt that human creativity and the regulation of that creativity by way of trademarks, patents and copyright will be the most important commodities with which our societies will trade. The reality is that those countries which are not able to participate fully in the trading of intellectual property, which do not rigorously protect the intellectual property of their citizens, which do not seriously promote the development of intellectual property rights, the development of creativity, the opportunity for inventors not only to create but to patent, subject to trademarks and copyrights, their cultural, scientific and technical inventions, will not succeed.

If one looks at the trend—where one compares GDP with patent counts; that is, the number of patents lodged in a country—there is a very clear linear relationship between success in patents granted and the GDP of the country. There is no doubt that the United States, Japan, Germany and the UK all track along the line of success in patenting and success in GDP. The two go hand in hand. Those who do not actively pursue the development of knowledge industries, the development of a knowledge nation, will certainly pay the price in terms of the welfare and the wealth of their populations.

The reality is that the economy which Australia has developed to this date is based on several major areas. Historically, it is primarily based on our success in agriculture and mining. These are the two primary industries on which we have relied significantly. Obviously, since the war, we have also participated very significantly in the development of our manufacturing industries, although we have not done as well in the elaborately transformed manufactures, the high-tech sector, as we perhaps should have done and as we need to do if we are to capture that slice of the market which yields a higher value.

It is false dichotomy to talk of the new economy and old economy because those old economy industries to which I just referred—agriculture and mining—will in the future, as they do in many ways already, rely very heavily on the development of new economy technologies. New economy technologies are principally those based around biotechnology in agriculture and mining software, mapping software, geophysical mapping, equipment inventions and productivity changes which we have seen in the case of mining. I dare suggest that some developments in biotechnology will certainly promote the advantage of our two most famous and significant allegedly old economy industries but, of course, they are new economy in many ways and are increasingly dependent on new economy to remain competitive in a global market.

How does Australia compare in the intellectual property stakes? How do we fare in this race? Unfortunately, in recent time, not that well. The United States is averaging between 15 per cent and 20 per cent growth in patents, whereas in Australia it has been somewhat less than that. US businesses are averaging five per cent investment in research and development. We have not kept pace with other industrialised economies in many areas of the knowledge nation race, and patents, trademarks and copyright in their various spheres of influence are good markers to look for in the context of what might be occurring in our society and in our economy.

One can see the value arising from that patenting process and from the trademark process in the US because they have the physical proximity to the inventors of the products and can ensure that they are able to pass on their knowledge, creativity and inventiveness to those who work in those industries. So it is important to physically tie together the invention and the creation of new knowledge with those who will commercialise and develop it to market. If you do not have that physical proximity, then ultimately you are a derivative economy and one which is not so successful. So I think the government's attitude in this regard must be revised if we are, in fact, to participate in the many profitable ventures which can flow from Australian ingenuity and creativity. That has always been the case in the past here, and we will have to invest very heavily in the future if that is to be the case here again.

Australians need to be part of that knowledge nation infrastructure—one which not only is a creative infrastructure but also encourages people to have the capacity, the education, the government incentive, the rigorous intellectual property laws which we are about today. They also need leadership from the government, investment in basic science and technology— which unfortunately has been falling in recent years since the election of the Howard government—and, ultimately, industrial R&D. Investment in industrial R&D, while rising in most other OECD countries quite dramatically along with investment in education, is sadly in decline in this country. It is a trend that must be reversed urgently if we are to have the high wage, high skilled jobs which our future generation demand and, indeed, which we have every obligation to offer them.

The trademarks bill, which we are specifically looking at this afternoon, is a relatively minor bill. It does provide the opportunity for trademark staff to assist inventors in preparing their applications, something they were specifically prohibited from doing before—and that obviously is an advantage. I can see why in earlier times that may have been prohibited. The reality is that these days it is quite important that the staff of government departments be able to assist people—although obviously not in the preparation of their invention or in securing rights for them which others do not have—with general assistance to taxpayers, inventors and those who would like to lodge a trademark application in preparing the necessary bureaucratic forms around which these things inevitably seem to revolve.

One would like to see more work done in reducing the level of bureaucracy around these things. It is important also when securing property rights—because that is what these are—to be sure that you have tied up all of the necessary paperwork and all of the loose ends. Given the globally competitive nature of this business, it is also essential that we cooperate with other countries through the international agreements which revolve around patents, trademarks and copyright and that we maintain our competitive position, and that we also rigorously protect the intellectual property of others. They will not respect our intellectual property unless we respect theirs.

It is quite critical that we enforce, on a global basis, the protection of that intellectual property. At times that will seem harsh, unreasonable and almost unconscionable. One looks at the protection of drugs in relation to AIDS, for example, in the Third World and in Southern Africa, where human lives are at stake and where intellectual property fetches whatever price the market will bear—but where companies are under duress and pressure to reduce the cost of those drugs, as they have done. There will be those exceptional circumstances where more needs to be done to ensure that people receive vital medicinal requirements and other essentials of life. But that should be done on the basis of assistance and grants and work with those countries and with the owners of intellectual property. It should not be done on the basis of confiscation of intellectual property.

I believe we can achieve the necessary humanitarian results while remaining within an essential framework of intellectual property. Patents, for example, expire after a limited period of time. Patents on drugs run for 25 years; patents generally run for some 20 years. In the case of drugs it takes some 10 years to develop them in the first place, so you have limited opportunities to retain your intellectual property in these things, which often vast sums of money are part of. Australia must continue to take a lead in protecting intellectual property throughout the world. It must continue to take a lead in pursuing intellectual property agreements, and the reform of our law domestically is an essential part of that. So the opposition has much pleasure in supporting this legislation, even though it is a relatively minor bill.

I think we pay insufficient attention to the legislative trappings of intellectual property. In the past century we have looked very closely through the states at real property law. We have sought to refine and develop real property law in a very serious way. It is time that we paid that kind of attention to intellectual property rights because they will become very transitory in time and of course totally lacking in any physical manifestation. Nonetheless, those intellectual property rights will be the trading commodities of the 21st century. They will be the premier basis on which countries can secure their intellectual capital, human capital and the wealth of their people, rather than their investment in real property or in other physical commodities, which of course will continue to provide work and an economic underpinning.

But the growth and the most exciting potential is in those new things that we have yet to develop and the things which we are, as we speak, commercialising now. They are the things that will change lives; they are the things that will ensure commerce flows quickly in this country and they are the things which will protect the very basis of the society we are all seeking to develop. I encourage the parliament to pass the legislation and I encourage the government to rethink its attitude to investment by the country as a whole in intellectual property. This is a serious matter and one which I believe the next parliament will give far more attention to under different leadership.