LACKEN, Ms Alma, Director, Policy and International Affairs, IP Australia LEWIS, Ms Edwina, General Manager, Policy and Stakeholders Group, IP Australia PERRY, Ms Alexandra, Treaties Manager, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade C ommittee met at 11:45 CHAIR ( Ms Chesters ): I declare open this public hearing of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties for its inquiry into the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge I begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet today and pay my respects to elders past and present. I also extend that respect to any Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples joining us today. In accordance with the committee's resolution of 31 July 2025, this hearing will be broadcast, and proof and official transcripts of the proceedings will be published on the parliament's website. I remind all present that, as the chair, I will ensure proceedings are conducted in an orderly, respectful and courteous way. I remind members of the media of the need for fair and accurate reporting of the proceedings of the committee. I'd now like to call our first witnesses for today's hearing, representatives of IP Australia and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, to give evidence. Although the committee does not require you to give evidence under oath, this hearing is a legal proceeding of the parliament and therefore has the same standing as proceedings of the respective houses. The giving of false or misleading evidence is a serious matter and may be regarded as contempt of parliament. The evidence given today will be recorded by Hansard and attracts parliamentary privilege. It's the responsibility of witnesses to accurately record any questions on notice that are taken. Would you like to make an opening statement? Ms Lewis : Yes. Thank you for the invitation to appear at the hearing. We have a short opening statement, and then we'd be pleased to answer any questions. IP Australia is the government agency responsible for administering the patents, trademarks, designs and plant breeders' rights systems, and we sit within the Industry, Science and Resources portfolio. The World Intellectual Property Organization Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge, or the GRATK treaty, relates to the use of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in the patent system. Joining the treaty is a unique opportunity to bridge Western legal methods of protecting knowledge and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander systems of knowledge creation and management that have existed in Australia for 60,000-plus years. The treaty increases transparency by asking for the source of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge if an invention relies on them. This information would then be publicly available. Implementing the treaty would focus on asking patent applicants for information they have available. The treaty would not introduce changes to other patent requirements or to the fees payable to file or maintain a patent. Negotiations for this treaty extended over many years and considered the diverse views and interests of stakeholder groups internationally, including indigenous peoples, industry and government. The submissions to this inquiry appear to echo some of the diversity of views heard during the negotiations, and the treaty provisions reflect significant work, including by Australia, to find an approach to help balance these views. Prior to the treaty's conclusion, IP Australia ran two public consultations seeking views on policy proposals relating to protections for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' culture and knowledge. We heard support from stakeholders, including from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders peoples, for a disclosure of source requirement in the Australian patent system. The benefits of implementing the treaty may include that it establishes a clear mechanism to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples where their knowledge is key to an invention. It supports patent applicants to meet a baseline of respectful acknowledgement. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples sharing their knowledge can know that the patent system is transparent and that they can track the use of their knowledge in patentable inventions. It will be visible when Australian genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge are being used to create new inventions, and it can provide information about opportunities to explore new collaborations and partnerships. It can also assist in patent examination, informing the search and analysis that IP Australia does to determine whether a patent should be granted. The treaty opened for signature in 2024, and there have been 44 signatures and three ratifications to date. Australia signed on 12 December 2024. Many of the other signatories are countries that, like Australia, have rich and unique biodiversity and linked traditional knowledge, including from regions across South America, Africa and the Caribbean. In our region, Indonesia and Vanuatu are amongst those countries that have signed. Switzerland is an example of a like-minded European country that has signed. We expect it will take time to build up ratifications. This presents an opportunity for Australia to take a leading role and model how effective implementation could occur, balancing the need to provide clear recognition of Indigenous peoples' contributions with the need to also have an effective and certain patent system. Thank you for the opportunity, and we are happy to answer any questions. CHAIR: This is an unusual treaty for us to receive, so I can imagine it must have been quite a journey for yourselves and the department to get to this point. I want to touch on where you left off before I go to some specific concerns that have been raised through other submissions. You mentioned that with the processes we need at least 15 eligible parties to have ratified the agreement for it to come into force. Is that correct? Ms Lewis : That's correct. CHAIR: To date, there are only two that have, but 44 countries have signed. Is that right? Ms Lewis : There are three ratifications to date and 44 signatures. CHAIR: Can you give us an update on what you might know about where the others might be at? Are they going through a similar process to that which we're going through here in Australia? Do you have an idea about who might be advancing forward like we are? Ms Lewis : I don't have specific information on which countries are looking at the treaty at the moment. I would expect that—and this is an expectation—that a number of the signatories from the African region and from Central and South America would be actively looking at the treaty. This is a treaty that has been long asked for from those countries. In terms of countries that are usually like-minded with Australia on the patent system, I don't have any specific knowledge, but we can certainly take that on notice. CHAIR: That would be great if you could. From learning about the history of it, you can see, just by who's signed on, that it does feel like there's a strong push for this one that's come from South America and Africa. Why is that, if you look at the Asia-Pacific, there are only a few countries there. Why do you think that there are so few in our region that signed? Ms Lewis : Our experience in the negotiations was that there was strong interest, particularly from the Pacific. We worked very closely with Pacific Islander colleagues in the negotiations. We saw countries like Indonesia very strongly advocating for the treaty during the negotiations. The Marshall Islands and Vanuatu have signed as well. We can certainly take on notice whether or not our ASEAN colleagues are considering the treaty. But they were certainly active participants in the negotiations. CHAIR: What role do you think Australia could play if we move to ratify this one before the rest of our region? Ms Lewis : I think the real benefit for Australia is that we know and have heard from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples through many years of consultation that they are very interested in this treaty and see value in a disclosure of traditional knowledge particularly but of genetic resources in the patent system also. Australia is very much recognised as a developed country that has rich biodiversity and strong Indigenous culture. Our benefit, in joining the treaty, is being able to demonstrate how this treaty could be implemented in a sophisticated patent system in a sensible and pragmatic way. We would also have the opportunity to influence future developments around the protection and management of traditional knowledge and cultural expressions. We played a very strong bridge-building role in the negotiations, which helped to bring together many of the different perspectives on genetic resources and traditional knowledge. We could also help influence the approach of other countries, which would support consistency, allow engagement in sharing mutual understanding and maximise transparency around when genetic resources and traditional knowledge are used across the world. It also provides a basis for engagement and discussion in the region. As I mentioned earlier, our Pacific Islander colleagues were active voices in negotiations, and we worked very closely with them in the lead-up to the diplomatic conference to help conclude the treaty. It also means we can be a member of a future assembly and be part of shaping the future of both this treaty and the implications of that for the patent system generally. CHAIR: Does that mean that we would appoint our own people to be part of that treaty process—our own First Nations people to be part of that? Or would it be a delegation that participates in that process? Ms Lewis : IP Australia has lead agency responsibility for the World Intellectual Property Organization, which would be the UN body under which this treaty would be concluded—or was concluded, under the auspices of WIPO. I'm happy to talk about our approach to treaty assemblies in WIPO. Australia is a signatory to—off the top of my head—24 treaties under WIPO. Each of those treaties has their own assembly. IP Australia would attend as part of the assembly with regard to any treaty that we are a member of. For the negotiations and for the future assembly, my expectation is that there would also be Indigenous caucus that would support the member states in relation to work on the treaty. IP Australia works with an Indigenous knowledge panel. We have three Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who support us when we're looking at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues, and we also support attendance for observers to WIPO meetings that discuss these issues. I would see Indigenous voices being very strong observers, in the treaty assembly itself, to support member states in making sure that they understand the issues in relation to Indigenous people's needs and interests. CHAIR: Do you envisage those roles to be a bit rotating? For example, the First Nations people in my part of the world would have a very different foundation and knowledge base of the native fauna and flora around central Victoria compared to what may exist or what the focus is of people in northern Australia. Ms Lewis : It's a good question. One of the challenges we face as public servants is how to make sure we are hearing and understanding the diversity of views and voices across Australia. We are very conscious, when we are working in this area, to seek to hear the views of a broad range of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. In terms of supporting attendance at these meetings, because IP is quite a specialised area—it's very technical—we tend to reach out to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that we have engaged with who have an interest and an understanding. There are experts, in this area, in Australia. For example, Terri Janke is a very well-known Aboriginal lawyer and she's been very closely involved in conversations about this issue for many years. I would certainly recommend her as an expert to reach out to, to speak to. In our consultations—over 20 years—we have really sought to make those consultations as broad as possible and have endeavoured to reach out to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across Australia. In terms of future attendance at an assembly, I think that would be something where we would be looking to guidance from our Indigenous knowledge panel and other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on how we could maximise the diversity of views in any future process. CHAIR: If we go to some of the other submissions that we've received, whilst they didn't oppose ratification of the treaty some did raise concerns about the implementation and impact on innovation. They had an emphasis on the complex patchwork that we have between the states and First Nations. I'm wondering what thought might have been given towards that concern that's been raised and whether, if we enter into this treaty, there's been some work done on how we can ensure that a good opportunity isn't lost in that complex patchwork between federal, state and First Nations communities. It's just the reality of where we're at. Our states are in very different places, when it comes to their relationships with First Nations people, and we have to work with the states. Could that, potentially, put some roadblocks in the way of what could otherwise be some very good outcomes? Ms Lewis : That's a really good question, and they're really important considerations as we think about what implementation would look like. If I take the first part first, in terms of impacts on patenting and innovation, we don't see any reason for the treaty to significantly impact innovators or patent filers, because the treaty requirement is focused on transparency and asking applicants for a patent to name a source. It doesn't seek extensive descriptions or information beyond this; it only asks applicants for information they have available. There's an opportunity to state that the source information is not known. It allows for corrections to the information provided, and it doesn't affect the certainty around patent rights. Because the treaty only creates obligations around providing information to the patent office so that that information is public, it doesn't deal with the more complex issues of, for example, access and benefit sharing, for the access to the knowledge or the genetic resources, or issues around free, prior and informed consent for the use of that. We acknowledge those issues, and we have certainly heard that those are very important for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and Indigenous people more broadly across the world. It was one of the most difficult negotiating elements to solve, with the solution being that this treaty itself does not make obligations around those issues. Whether you are in an industry or a researcher working in Victoria or New South Wales or anywhere in Australia, the relationships that are made with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities who might be providing the knowledge or the resources and the circumstances under which that is shared are governed by other requirements. For example, access and benefit-sharing requirements under environmental legislation and issues around consent and agreement to commercialise knowledge through the patent system would be governed by whatever existing legal mechanisms exist. This treaty just allows for the transparency of that use so that it can be seen and tracked in the patent system. I agree that there is complexity there, and I agree that the relationship between different states and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities that they may be working with will differ, but, because this is a simple transparency mechanism, I would say the underlying efforts in those particular areas are not significantly impacted by a subsequent question about where the information came from. CHAIR: Senator Sterle has a few questions. Senator STERLE: My question goes to the whole panel. I'm really interested in how AI rolls out. Of course, you've got to own up, don't you? You've got to actually say, 'Okay, I'm using this technology.' If you're self-declaring, how the heck, with AI, would we be able to enforce that with clients that don't even know that they exist? Ms Lewis : That's a really good question, and it's certainly something that we've been thinking more about. We certainly understand the need to consider any IP changes in light of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence. I would say the interaction of AI and the IP system as a whole is a question we are strongly focused on. The patent system is designed to be technology neutral, so it can adapt to change. The treaty itself includes a review clause to allow for future consideration about how it interacts with new technologies and new ways of innovating. I think this is also something we would have to look very carefully at as part of domestic implementation. The treaty itself doesn't touch on these issues. I think the key aspect that gives me a bit of comfort is that the treaty or any domestic implementation, in the first instance, just asks applicants for information they have available. If the information is not available, there's nothing to disclose and they can say that it's not known. It also allows for that information to be corrected and fixed over time. I will say, as someone who's been working on this treaty for nearly 20 years, that AI wasn't invented for much of that time. But, yes—really important considerations. Senator STERLE: Yes, it'll be very interesting to watch this space. For the record, I have a lot of issues around self-declarations. The good people always do, but not everyone may be operating at the same level of decency or honesty. That's my concern. CHAIR: That brings us to the end of our questions. Thank you for your attendance. You'll be sent a copy of the transcript of your evidence and will have the opportunity to request corrections to any transcript errors. If you've been asked to provide any additional information, the secretariat will be in contact. We do have a little bit of time on this one because we're about to go into the winter recess. Thank you for your time today. Ms Lewis : Thank you so much. I appreciate the opportunity..