Streamlining and simplifying IP Regulation

Results updated 13 May 2026

The Australian Government is focused on improving productivity growth for the benefit of all Australians. A part of this agenda is better regulation to remove unnecessary compliance burdens.

From 3 March to 2 April 2026, IP Australia sought views on a range of proposals to streamline and simplify Australia’s IP system.

Thank you to everyone who participated in this consultation.

What we heard

We received submissions from a wide range of stakeholders, including small businesses, individuals, universities, plant breeders, IP attorneys, and professional and industry associations.

Overall, stakeholders broadly supported the goal to simplify Australia’s IP system and reduce unnecessary administrative burden and costs. Some stakeholders also encouraged IP Australia to continue to consider broader policy reforms that could benefit business.

Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026

Four of the proposals in the consultation paper were included in the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026 which was introduced to Parliament on 13 May 2026.

Two of these proposals had unanimous support:

• updating references to the Madrid Protocol, Madrid Regulations and the Nice Agreement (Proposal 5)
• introducing a grace period for PBR renewal fees (Proposal 10).

There was also strong support for awarding costs above the schedule in trade mark oppositions (Proposal 4) and closing the attorney re-registration loophole (Proposal 12). Some stakeholders identified the need for clear guidance and safeguards to ensure the Registrar’s discretion is exercised fairly and transparently when awarding costs above the schedule in trade mark oppositions. Others sought further details about the attorney re-registration requirements. We will consult further on the details of both of these proposals, that will be set out in the regulations.

Feedback on other proposals

Other proposals and policy issues in the paper were mostly supported or attracted mixed views. Some stakeholders had reservations about the lack of detail or evidence to support certain proposals. For example, most stakeholders warned against introducing shorter response deadlines or fixed limits on responses to examination reports for patents and trade marks, citing a range of reasons for delays in responding to reports. Many also challenged the evidence supporting concerns over the current patent timeframes raised in Policy issue 2.

IP Australia acknowledges that this was a high-level consultation and further consideration and consultation will be needed for such proposals, if they are taken forward.

Several submissions suggested alternative approaches to implement the policy intent or raised new policy ideas. IP Australia will consider these suggestions carefully and, where appropriate, include them on the Policy Register for future consideration.

Read more about all the proposals in the consultation paper here.

Published responses

Non-confidential submissions will be published in due course.

What happens next?

IP Australia will report the outcomes of the consultation to the Australian Government and is taking into consideration all views. Proposals that are relatively simple and uncontroversial may be taken forward, subject to the Government’s legislative priorities. More complex proposals and ideas requiring further development and analysis will be considered at a later stage. 

More information

You can contact us at consultation@ipaustralia.gov.au for more information about this consultation.

For more information on a range of policy issues IP Australia is exploring, see the Policy Register.

Disclaimer: The material on this webpage is provided for general information only. For further information please see IP Australia's Disclaimer which applies to all content on our website.