Consultation Workshop on the Next Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations

Speech by Minister for Trade The Hon Mark Vaile MP to the Advisory Committee on Industrial Property

Canberra, 12 October 1999

(Check Against Delivery)

Owen Malone (Chair, Advisory Committee on Industrial Property), other ACIP members, Ladies and Gentlemen.

With the Seattle WTO Ministerial meeting fast approaching us, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to you today. I would like to thank my parliamentary colleague, Warren Entsch, and IP Australia for their role in organising today's meeting.

Consultation with industry and other stakeholders has been a key feature of the Government's approach to the Seattle meeting. Success in today's international trade environment demands effective coordination between government and industry. Meetings such as today are therefore a great help in setting our objectives for Seattle and for future WTO work.

Intellectual Property and Trade

There is a growing appreciation, in Australia and internationally, of the link between intellectual property and trade. Failure to protect IP effectively is recognised to be a serious distortion and impediment to trade. This understanding led to the WTO TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement, concluded as part of the Uruguay Round.

TRIPS is a valuable template for strong IP protection. In fact the TRIPS Agreement's scope and detail and its lack of carve-outs already make it a more complete package than the WTO agreements we have on agriculture and services. Yes there are some unresolved issues, and some lack of clarity, but even as it stands TRIPS is gradually bringing consistency, transparency and a sound level of protection to the IP regimes in our trading partners.

The barriers to market access caused by high tariffs and similar protectionist measures, particularly agricultural ones, are immediate and obvious. IP's role in ensuring genuine market access is more subtle, but no less important. I'm sure everyone here today will know of cases where the lack of IP protection in overseas markets has meant the effective denial of market access to Australian enterprises. We need to draw on such practical experiences to shed light on the hidden costs to our trade interests caused by inadequate or poorly enforced IP laws in overseas markets.

Seattle and Intellectual Property

Australia is pushing for a short, sharp WTO round focused on market access as the key outcome from the Seattle Ministerial meeting. Key priorities are reduced barriers to our exports, stronger rules, fairer competition and ensuring commitments are honoured.

There is still much work to do in ensuring that our trading partners carry out existing TRIPS commitments. Given the scope of these commitments, and their value to our export interests, this is where TRIPS can deliver most on market access.

TRIPS commits developing countries to the establishment of a comprehensive intellectual property regime by 2000. This has proved a difficult and complex objective to meet. Implementation of TRIPS has therefore been the prime focus of international cooperation in recent years. At the same time, developing countries are beginning to reap the benefits of their enhanced IP systems, and therefore coming to understand that effective IP protection is not just in the interests of rich countries or multinationals.

Because of the remaining implementation agenda, and the need for greater understanding about the existing IP system, I believe the WTO will need to focus more on reinforcing the existing standards embodied in TRIPS, rather than pushing ahead at this stage to create new TRIPS rules.

Of course, some improvements are needed. TRIPS was concluded just prior to the explosion of electronic commerce, which has been a boon for trade, and has spawned many new enterprises. Many rely on having effective IP rights in the digital environment. But the Internet also poses new IP enforcement challenges. It has created entirely new IP issues - the link between domain names and trademarks, for example.

TRIPS standards will need, in time, to be adapted and extended to take account of new issues. We need to start thinking about how this will be best achieved. Intellectual property issues are complex and it can be difficult to gauge national interests. Others are now coming forward with proposals on IP issues for consideration at Seattle, some impractical, some premature, and some with the potential to upset the balance of interests in TRIPS. Today you will be looking at these issues, and your deliberations will help us determine how best to promote Australian interests.

TRIPS implementation and maintaining TRIPS standards

TRIPS is not yet in force in many important markets, including most APEC economies and indeed almost all Asian countries. Trade prospects are often untapped due to concerns about intellectual property enforcement. Ensuring IP protection for our exporters to these markets must therefore remain a major priority.

For many developing countries, implementing TRIPS has been a major undertaking. Inevitably, some will not be fully TRIPS compliant by the deadline. This is unfortunate, but a fact of life.

This is one of the areas where APEC provides valuable support through the APEC Intellectual Property Experts Group. IP Australia, the Attorney General's Department and my own Department work energetically within this Group to promote genuine APEC-wide commitment to full TRIPS implementation

ACIP Priorities

ACIP has already articulated, in a recent letter to me, the strong interest for Australia in the IP standards represented by the TRIPS Agreement. Full and effective TRIPS implementation among our trading partners is indeed a high Government priority. ACIP's endorsement is a welcome sign that we are on the right track, and properly serving the interests of Australian industry.

The specific issues your letter touched on - biotechnology, geographical indications, software and electronic commerce - also illustrate the wide range of industry interests at stake in the protection of IP, and the potential long-term costs to Australia if the right balance is not struck in international trade rules.

At the same time, good IP rules, fully implemented, do not create exports. Export success ultimately depends upon a dynamic private sector. It is innovation and shrewd IP management that count.

Ted Kunkel has attributed the success of Fosters to "the unbeatable combination of strong brands and Australian expertise," a formula for success that should be applied more widely. Strong brands like 'Fosters' represent much more than strong IP rules. They capture innovation, vigorous marketing and distinctive Australian qualities, and through the IP system turn them into major assets for our economy.

Conclusion

Our goal is to ensure that the market access we secure for our exporters extends also to their ideas. To achieve this, we need to consider the emerging international IP issues, but also to bear in mind the potential costs of weakening existing rules, and of delaying their full implementation.

Thank you for making your expertise and practical know-how available to us by means of this workshop. We will do our utmost, in the WTO and elsewhere, to promote the interests that you identify today.