Australia's last unexamined monopolies are about to face public scrutiny.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The temporary monopolies granted to authors, composers, filmmakers and the designers of everything from buildings to drugs have been off limits for competition law reformers until now, being regarded as legal rather than economic protections.
In the early 1990s the lawyers lifted Australia's patent term from 16 to 20 years without an economic evaluation.
In the early 200s the lawyers lifted Australia's copyright term from 50 years after the author's death to 70 years as part of the US-Australia free trade agreement, also without an evaluation.
The 1994 Hilmer competition review decided not to examine patent and copyright protection even though it acknowledged that it was a government-guaranteed monopoly that stood in the way of competition.
This year's Harper competition review also decided not to examine intellectual property, but recommended instead that the entire field be examined by the Productivity Commission in a landmark year-long inquiry that would constitute Australia's first economic analysis of the worth of its copyright and patent rules.
It wasn't assured of a good reception. Attorney-General George Brandis has declared himself a strong supporter of Australia's present laws. He says they are "central" to the ongoing success of Australian art, music, literature, film and television.
Presented 20 months ago with a Law Reform Commission report that recommended easing some of the provisions, he promised "careful consideration" and did little.
Trade Minister Andrew Robb is hostile to the idea of the Productivity Commission anywhere near his trade agreements that contain intellectual property provisions.
Unexpectedly, Joe Hockey has prevailed. On Tuesday the Treasurer asked the commission to examine Australia's entire intellectual property system and its effect on investment, competition, trade, innovation and consumer welfare.
No one can be certain what it will find. Until now our intellectual property laws have owed more to lobbying than to dispassionate analysis.
The commission is about to be inundated with self-interested submissions from industry telling it that things are just fine as they are. But it is used to such submissions. The inquiry couldn't be put in better hands.
Peter Martin is economics editor of The Age.
