Margaret Tregurtha:

Good afternoon to everyone who has joined us for this Australian government webinar on geographical indications. My name is Margaret Tregurtha and I'm the Deputy Director General of Policy and Corporate here in IP Australia. Firstly, I'd like to open by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the lands on which we're meeting today, for those of us in Canberra the Ngunnawal people, and extend my respect to their elders past and present. And I'd like to extend that respect to any Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who are joining us today.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Some housekeeping, for today's event we'll be taking questions through Slido at the link that's available on the screen there. And the event code is #GIW. And if I could just ask to make it easier for us in terms of answering questions, if you could identify yourself either in the Slido app or within the question itself, that would be really helpful. By way of introduction, in June 2018, the Australian government launched important negotiations for a comprehensive and ambitious free trade agreement with the European Union. This particular consultation seeks industry, business and community views on the type of system changes that may be considered in the event a negotiated outcome gives rise to changes to the way we currently protect GIs.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Importantly, the government has made no commitment to protect specific EU GIs. It would only consider doing so if the overall FTA deal was good enough for Australia, including on delivering on Australia's agricultural market access. Today, you'll hear from representatives from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and IP Australia who will provide an overview of the consultation process and answer any questions that you may have. Without further delay, I'd like to introduce Jan Hutton from DFAT, the deputy chief negotiator of the FTA. Over to you Jan.

 

Jan Hutton:

Thanks very much, Margaret. What I wanted to do briefly today in the time we have is just to give a bit of context to the Australia EU free trade agreement, and then just a short update on where we are at in the negotiations. Most of you on the line I'm sure are aware that Australia's economic success has always been very closely tied to our success as a trading nation. Australia already has a very large network of free trade agreements with almost all of our major trading partners. The EU is already Australia's third largest trade and investment partner. It represents a market of almost half a billion people with a GDP of over $15 trillion.

 

Jan Hutton:

Not surprisingly Australia has very significant interests in this FTA. We of course want to improve access for our exports into the very large and prosperous EU market. We want to boost our services trade and we want to underpin the already significant two way foreign direct investment flows. Like any negotiation, in order to secure the things that we want to get out of this negotiation, we need to engage the EU on its interests. And that includes geographical indications. Before I come to the EU's interests in GIs, I did just want to say a word or two about market access and really present a few facts or put into context the existing environment. Many of you on the call I'm sure are aware that Australia's existing access into the EU market is limited for some of our exports, particularly our agricultural exports. We haven't had that access improved since the multilateral Uruguay round of negotiations, which was more than 20 years ago.

 

Jan Hutton:

We know the EU only improves access to its market through the negotiation of free trade agreements. And we also are aware that many of our exporters are at a competitive disadvantage compared to some of their competitors in third country markets who have already completed a free trade agreement with the EU, so have that preferential access into the EU market. And that will of course be exacerbated as the EU continues to negotiate new free trade agreements with other trading partners.

Coming back to the issue of GIs, the EU has been very clear all along about its interest in GIs. I should say those interests aren't unique to Australia. The EU has pursued it's GI interests in all of its free trade agreements, including pending negotiations. I would note that the EU has managed to secure outcomes on some of its GI proposals in all of its recent FTA negotiations.

 

Jan Hutton:

So, what are we talking about? The EU has asked Australia to protect 172 food and agricultural terms and 236 spirit terms. Some of you would be aware that the Australian government ran a public objections process towards the end of last year seeking objections or your views on those specific terms. Now, one thing that I really can't emphasise enough, and I'm sure you'll hear us repeat ourselves over and over again in this forum and throughout the consultations is the very clear message from the Australian Government and the Trade Minister in particular, that Australia has not agreed to protect any GI terms in this negotiations, and will not agree to do so until later in the negotiations and only if the overall deal is good enough. And that includes securing new commercially significant market access for Australian agricultural products.

 

Jan Hutton:

Back to this consultation to explain what this consultation is: we focused on GI terms last year. This consultation is really seeking your input on the key questions and issues we would need to consider, were Australia to decide to establish our own GI system. We want to start thinking about those issues now to make sure that should a decision be taken to develop such a system,  we are able to design a system that is in the best interests of Australia and is informed by the views of our businesses, industries and consumers.

 

Jan Hutton:

Just a quick word on where we're at in the negotiations. We just finished at the end of last week our eighth round of negotiations. The COVID-19 pandemic hasn't slowed down our negotiations. If anything, it's made us more determined to conclude those negotiations, as soon as we're able as it will be an important pillar of our economic recovery efforts.  What the COVID-19 pandemic has done of course has changed the way in which we negotiate. This last negotiating round and the May negotiating round before that were conducted virtually. For us that means two weeks I think of something in excess of 65 VTCs with the European Union. The next negotiation is in December. And of course we're both keen to keep the tempo of those negotiations up going forward with that goal of concluding a comprehensive and ambitious free trade agreement as soon as we are able. That's it from me, thanks Margaret.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Thanks, Jan. Our next speaker is Brendan Bourke from IP Australia. He manages the Geographical Indications team. Brendan.

 

Brendan Bourke:

Thanks Margaret. I just wanted to run through a bit about the consultation and the process. Just start off by firstly defining what a geographical indication is. Most people who have taken the time to register I'm sure are familiar, but a GI identifies a good as originating in a specific region. And also it's where a particular quality reputation or a characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to that geographic origin. Some examples of GIs are there on the screen in front of you. One is Australia Wild Abalone, an Australian GI, and Champagne and Darjeeling tea are a couple of finest international GIs.

 

Brendan Bourke:

How do we currently protect GIs? Australia has two systems for registering GIs. We have the certification trade mark system administered by IP Australia. Some examples of GIs protected under that system, Stilton and Parmigiano-Reggiano are protected as certification trademarks. Scotch Whiskey and Tequila, are a couple of other examples. There's also the Wine GI system, which implements the wine agreement between Australia and the EU. It protects both Australian and European GIs, and it's been well used by Australian industry. And there's also the Food Standards Code, the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code provides some additional restrictions on GIs for spirits. And there have been some examples where that's been enforced against fake scotch whiskey, for example. Additional to that of course is that Australia's consumer goal provides general protection against misleading and deceptive conduct, which could also apply to use of GIs.

 

Brendan Bourke:

Why are we consulting? As Jan mentioned, if we agree to protect European GIs, we're likely to need to amend our law. And also if we need to do that, we really want to get an idea from you, from Australian stakeholders on whether there would be benefits for Australian producers and consumers in implementing a GI system and what sort of features would need to do that. We have published our consultation paper on our website. It sets out a number of key elements of a possible Australian GI right. These are set out there on the screen – registration, standard of protection, use, and enforcement. So for registration, the list of European GIs will be dealt with in the free trade agreement, but we would also develop a system that allows for new applications for GIs from Australians or from other countries.

 

Brendan Bourke:

And so we would set out a system that has processes similar to other IP rights, such as examination and opposition. The standard of protection sets out the limit of what can be protected. And what sort of things are prevented by registration of a GI in terms of use. We're interested in stakeholder views on who can own a GI and who can use a GI, or who can apply for a GI is probably better than saying who can own it. And enforcement is really about what mechanisms are available for enforcing a GI. The consultation papers on our website goes into more detail on each of those elements, so I encourage you to have a look at that paper if you haven't already.

 

Brendan Bourke:

We are also running a number of round tables virtually to get into some of the details of some of these issues. The first one will be on standard of protection. The second one is the Australian use of GIs, and that's where we want to explore again what interests there is from Australia producers in protecting GIs and what sort of features would be required. The third round table is on the general operations. So just more of the nuts and bolts about the process - examination, registration, et cetera. And the final one is on GIs and Indigenous knowledge. And again, that's kind of to test of water to see if there are ways we can do this that provide benefits that Indigenous Australians can use to get involved in supply chains and protect their Indigenous knowledge.

 

Brendan Bourke:

If you're interested in any of those round tables, you can register at our website. We currently have one round table for each of those issues, but if there's sufficient interest, we'll look at holding additional round tables. Thank you.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Thanks, Brendan. And so we're going to move now into the main part of the session today, which is an opportunity for you all to ask questions. Before we do that, I'll just introduce the other members of our panels. We have Lauren Henschke also from DFAT sitting next to Jan. And Troy McGregor from the Department of Industry Science, Energy and Resources sitting next to Brendan. Slido I believe is open and we'll just give it a moment and the team will bring up some questions. The process will be that I'll read out the question to give the team the chance to work out who's best place to answer it. And then we'll throw to the person best placed to answer that question. Look, while we're waiting perhaps I might just kick off with a question that some people might have, which is why we're considering creating a new GI, instead of using or reforming existing GI protection systems. Is that one perhaps for you Brendan?

 

Brendan Bourke:

Yeah. Thanks, Margaret. In terms of our current system, the European Union are asking for a number of terms they're seeking to protect. They're also looking for rules around how those terms are protected. We thought that would be best done through a new GI right rather than making changes to the certification trade mark system, which may affect existing rights. And we thought that would be the most efficient way to implement a new right.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Thanks. I've got a question here from Jocelyn Bosse, has DFAT and/or IP Australia made any efforts to consult with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities on the FTA beyond the round tables? I don't know if anyone wants to pick that one up, Jan?

 

Jan Hutton:

Thanks very much for your question. Yes is the short answer. For these FTA negotiations, the government is genuinely committed to ongoing consultations with everyone who has an interest in this FTA. There's a number of mechanisms to do that. This existing consultation is simply one of those. Brendan already had up on the screen the dedicated round tables that are coming up on GIs and Indigenous Knowledge. For those of you who are interested in that issue, I certainly encourage you to tune into that one. But GIs is only one of the issues in the FTAs that our Indigenous communities have an interest in. There's a number of other issues, I won't go through them all. But absolutely we are very keen to hear from indigenous stakeholders in Indigenous communities.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Is there anything you wanted to add to that, Brendan, from the IP Australia point of view?

 

Brendan Bourke:

Jan has covered off the FTA, IP Australia has been consulting Indigenous Australians on IP generally. We've got an indigenous knowledge project, which we've got quite a bit of information up on our webpage about. And the consultation we are doing here compliments that.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Thanks. Just turn to a question there from Trent. If a submission has been made by the last process, so that I think perhaps is the public objection process, is it important to submit another one to this process?

 

Jan Hutton:

I'm happy to answer that one. The last process, the public objections process, I think is probably what this question is focused on. We have conveyed all of the objections we received from you as part of that process to the EU as part of the negotiations. And we'll continue to do that. The public objections process was focused specifically on GI terms, but some of you did take the opportunity to tell us that some of the concerns you had on specific GI terms was linked in part at least to the way in which the EU is asking us to protect those terms. If you took the opportunity to convey your views in that forum on those issues, rest assured we do have those and we've taken those into consideration. But of course we remain interested to hear those views again, or to hear views from others who didn't take that opportunity to raise those specific sets of issues. I think looking at the next question, what happened to the objections process? Again, I mentioned we have conveyed all of those responses to the EU as part of the FTA negotiations. Thanks Margaret.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Thanks. I think that the message there is that if you have provided information, be assured we have that information and it's part of informing our response, but we would welcome anything additional on the specific issues around the GI right creation, issues that we're talking here about or any further or additional concerns about particular terms as well. Just looking across to our next question. What would a new GI right mean for GIs currently protected in Australia? Brendan, do you want to take that?

 

Brendan Bourke:

Sure. The intention is that those GIs would continue to exist in their current form. The new GI system wouldn't affect those. If they're registered as certification trade marks, then it's up to the owner of those to decide whether they want to maintain that trademark if the same GI is also sought under the new system. And GI protected under the wine system would continue to operate as they do now.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Okay. Just while we're waiting for other questions to come through, I might ask about pre-existing trade marks. How would a GI system affect pre-existing trade marks and include GI terms? Brendan, if you want to respond to that.

 

Brendan Bourke:

Thanks. Obviously with the European list, that was one of the questions or one of the grounds of objection that was raised. Those will be considered in the context of the FTA. For any new applications that are filed, obviously there will be as one of the grounds of examination and objection will be a prior trade mark right. We'll continue the first in time principles. So if there's a prior trade mark, that will be a valid consideration when we're looking at registration of any new GI.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Thanks. There's a question about what support is going to be available for small communities through the process. Jan, did you want to take that?

 

Jan Hutton:

Thanks again for your question. Look, what we are really hoping is that through this FTA we deliver opportunities for all of Australia's rural and regional communities right across the country. And in fact, the government will only do a deal where we are providing those benefits for Australia. In talking more specifically about GIs, as part of this consultation we're interested to hear from you, small communities and  regional communities, your interest in GIs. We are of course looking at whether there are Australian GIs that we would like to pursue as part of these FTA negotiations.  Also, through this consultation and through the broader FTA negotiations, we of course continue to want to hear from you on the impact on you, whether you're a community, whether you're a small business, whether you're an industry, of what some of the issues we're looking at in the negotiations are.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Thanks. Our next question is about an application process for GIs. Brendan, did you want to speak to that?

 

Brendan Bourke:

In terms of application processes, what we would be looking at is processes similar to other IP rights. A person applies for a GI and that person would need to be a legal body such as a natural person or a body or a company, or a collection of producers would get together and apply for a GI with IP Australia. It would then go through an examination process, be open to opposition processes, similar to the trade mark system in many respects and before registration.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

And our next question from Helen Thomas. Thanks, Helen. Has there been a consideration given or decision made so far on how the GI system might be enforced? For example, through the ACCC or a body such as Wine Australia.

 

Brendan Bourke:

It's certainly one of the issues we've been looking at and the model we've put out in the paper would allow for the rights holder to take action, and one of the questions we've specifically asked views for is whatever enforcement actions should be available, so that's something we're particularly interested in hearing from people about.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

And there is, as Brendan mentioned, a specific round table on enforcement. If that scenario is of particular interest for you please do sign up for that round table. We can dig into the detail of the enforcement issue. Question around cost, how much a new GI system is going to cost Australian taxpayers? Jan, did you want to respond to that?

 

Jan Hutton:

The short answer is we don't know. And the reason we don't know is because we haven't decided to actually create a new GI system. What we're doing at the moment is essentially looking at all of the threshold questions and issues we would need to consider should the government decide to create a GI system. Of course, if a decision is made to do that, then consideration would need to be given to how that system would be funded. The EU has been clear with us, that it expects Australia to protect its GIs without charging fees. But to be very frank, that's not something that we have agreed to at this stage of the negotiations.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Thank you. And will the NICE classification be used for goods in the new system? Is that something that we're looking at Brendan?

 

Brendan Bourke:

Yeah, that's certainly something that we're looking at very closely whether it makes sense to use NICE, there's some benefits in that, as it allows a single register to be searched for GIs and trademarks. But whether we use NICE or a more specific product category is something we are thinking  through.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Thanks. There's a question about whether as part of the process we would intend to accede to the Lisbon Agreement. Is that something that you're able to respond to there? You take that one, Brendan.

 

Brendan Bourke:

It's not something we're looking at doing through for this process.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

That would be a separate issue for Australia. Okay. I've got a question there, just wanting a bit more detail about the outcomes of the objection process. We've heard that those submissions on the objections were passed through to the EU as part of our negotiation process. And then what happens next?

 

Jan Hutton:

Thanks again for that question. Yes, just to reiterate that point, we have passed on or discussed, in fact, all of the objections we received from you as part of the public objections process. The public objections process was a very formal process to seek objections on specific GI terms the EU has asked us to protect. But it wasn't a set and forget process. What the public objections process did for us as negotiators, is really informed our knowledge on which terms Australia cares most about, how we use those terms in the Australian market and overseas markets. And so we are in a much better position in the negotiations to prosecute the interests of Australian producers, consumers, and industry.

 

Jan Hutton:

But what I would say is we continue to want to have that very close engagement with you. We continue to want to hear from you how EU proposals on GIs will affect your interests. The public objections process was one part of the process. But it's certainly not something we've done, ticked that box and moved on from.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Thanks, Jan. There's a question about country of origin labelling and how this is different to that. Perhaps Troy, you might be able to help us with that?

 

Troy McGregor:

The country of origin labelling system is a domestic labelling system, which is designed to give consumers information about the origin of the foods in particular, which was expressed through the consultation process, to develop it to the Australian content of those goods. This will be different obviously two way, and that I should say from the outset is that system for foods and beverages is free to use. The GI system is ... and I'm not the expert on GI system itself, but if one was introduced that is, this is an IP right, which is based on the characteristics of goods in relation to a particular geography, and that's somewhat different to what a country of origin system has been set up to do.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

And Brendan did you want to add anything to that?

 

Brendan Bourke:

Yeah, I think Troy touched on it in that last part. A GI isn't just a badge of origin, there also has to be some characteristic or reputation that is essentially attributable to its origin.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

There's a question about whether or not the current three systems are going to remain. You will recall that Brendan at beginning of the presentation talked about certification trade marks, existing GIs, and the wine system. And GIs is going to be an additional method of protection. Is that the current thinking, Brendan?

 

Brendan Bourke:

That's the current thinking. In the consultation paper, we do briefly touch on whether there may be in future opportunity to combined some of those systems. But in terms of currently what we're initially proposing is a system that would be an extra system, but it should be flexible enough to give us policy flexibility in the future.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Yeah, I think there's, just to follow up there around complexity. So will this addition of an additional right increase complexity rather than making it easier for people to engage with the protections. I think Brendan touched on there. That's something that'd be really interesting to hear from communities and business groups on, what do you think about that as an issue? But in terms of that issue in particular, Brendan, I don't know whether you wanted to make any comment about the increasing complexity of adding an additional right.

 

Brendan Bourke:

Yeah. And certainly, I guess in terms of that, we're interested in hearing from people on what the complexities in the current systems are and whether we can avoid some of those if we do create a new GI right. And certainly we would want to make this as simple as possible while also still maintaining rigor around what is protected.

 

Jan Hutton:

Margaret, if I might just jump in to add to that question of complexity. Of course any GI system that Australia decides to create would have to take into account any negotiated outcomes on GIs in the EU FTA. But Australia will remain free to decide how we operationalise those outcomes. And really that's what this consultation is about, focusing on how we would design an Australian GI system that best served our interests. And that's what we're really interested to hear views from you on, on what makes the most sense for Australia knowing that we would of course need to accommodate any outcomes that arose from the FTA.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Thanks, Jan. There's a question about how GIs might operate sort of together, where you might have a product that would fit potentially within two registered GIs. Is that something that could be possible under the new system that we might design? Is that something that businesses might want or would it increase complexity? I think we'd be interested to hear from people about what you think about that. Brendan, is there anything you wanted to add to that?

 

Brendan Bourke:

Yeah. Under the wine system, a particular wine might fall into this type of category. For example, it might fall in the GIs for Barossa which might apply along with South Australia and there's also a GI for Australia. There is a cascading tier of GIs. I assume that under this system, a similar outcome could be achievable depending on how people want to market their products. But again, we're interested in views on that.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Thanks, Brendan. The next question is about the negotiation. Have there been any trade off for Australian GIs being protected in Europe? Lauren.

 

Lauren Henschke:

Thanks Margaret. We're still considering whether to propose Australian GIs in the context of the negotiations. As you're aware, the EU has provided us with a list of terms that they want protected. And we're still considering whether or what kind or how we would be submitting any Australian GIs for protection within the context of the FTA. I think also, the FTA will establish this list of terms or specific GIs. It will also be establishing standards around the protection of those terms. And I think we can also remember that it is possible for Australians to apply within the EU system to protect GIs currently within their existing system, so the FTA is not the only channel. But these are things that we're open to and we welcome submissions or comments around interest in proposing Australian GIs. Thank you.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Thanks, Lauren. There's a question about the interaction between certification marks and geographical indications, and whether you'd be able to sort of transfer or apply for an additional one. Take that.

 

Brendan Bourke:

Thanks. Another good question, another one we've been thinking about, if it's something people are interested in doing how could we do that in a way that reduces the burden on people to do that? Certainly it's something we're interested in looking at further. There are advantages to certification trade marks and possible advantages to GIs, so it may be that people want one or both of those. We're certainly interested in looking at how we can enable people to get the most suitable protection for their commercial businesses.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Thanks Brendan. And so I've got a specific question about a specific GI term there, Prosecco. Who's best placed, Jan?

 

Jan Hutton:

On Prosecco, that's a term that we have absolutely heard the very strong views of Australian stakeholders and how important Prosecco is to them, to industry, individual businesses, and indeed the Australian economy. We've heard that throughout the negotiations, so rest assured that message is very, very clear to us. We continue to think the wine agreement serves our interests well, serves both ours and the EU's interests well. And we have asked the EU to continue to respect the terms of the wine agreement. That is one of the reasons why we didn't include Prosecco in the public objections process that we ran at the end of last year.

 

Lauren Henschke:

I was just going to say to be crystal clear that at this stage wine is not part of the FTA. And as Jan said, that's why it wasn't included in the public objections process.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Thanks. Next question is about comparison with New Zealand, whether it would make sense for our systems to be similar given the closeness between the countries. Is that something for you, Jan?

 

Jan Hutton:

I'll tackle it first of all, and then if Brendan, Troy, have anything to add, please feel free to jump in. The first point I'd make is just as we're negotiating an FTA with the EU, New Zealand is also negotiating an FTA with the EU. They are separate negotiations. Australia has different interests in the negotiations to New Zealand. We're very much running those negotiations separately. We are aware of course that the EU has similar GI interests with New Zealand to Australia as it does with all of its FTA partners, as I said at the beginning.

 

Jan Hutton:

And of course we're aware that there are crossover issues and for many of you the concerns you have are both in the Australian market and in New Zealand. Because of the stage we're at in the negotiations we haven't agreed to any GI terms nor agreed to any of the ways the EU has asked us to protect those terms, we're not yet at the point where it would make sense for us to work closely with New Zealand. We are pursuing our own individual interests. But at some point, yes, absolutely, we'll need to talk to New Zealand and make sure that we are looking at things that make sense for both of us and serve both of our interests.

 

Brendan Bourke:

Jan's covered that pretty well. I'll just add some industries have said to us that they do use common branding across Australia and New Zealand, so that is something we're conscious of as well.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Thanks for that. We don't currently have any additional questions there. If you did have a question you wanted to ask, I'd really encourage you to send that in now, and while we're waiting to see whether we do have any final questions, I might just throw it to the panel and see if there's any concluding remarks or key issues. Oh, they've got another question in there. Before I throw the final remarks, I'll just ask this one, which is about cheese. Will we be able to get our brie into Paris? That's an exciting thought.

 

Jan Hutton:

We're trying to get to the nub of this question. I think what the question is really getting to is the market access side. Look, all I can say is the Trade Minister, Minister Birmingham cannot be any clearer in saying that we haven't agreed to any GI terms. We won't agree to any GI terms until later in the negotiations and only if the overall deal is good enough. And that includes new commercially significant market access for Australia.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Thanks, Jan. All right. I might then ask the panel, if there's anything in conclusion you'd like to say to wrap up. Perhaps Troy, is there anything you'd like to add? No, he's good. Brendan, is there anything you'd like to conclude with?

 

Brendan Bourke:

No, I just encourage people to have a look at the consultation paper and there's a series of questions in there, or there's a shorter survey. But if there are other issues that aren't in the paperwork and you think are important, we're also interested in hearing about those.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Jan.

 

Jan Hutton:

Thanks Margaret. Look, just for me, just to say thanks for the large number of people who have taken the time out of their busy day to join us today. We do really appreciate your engagement in this process. We are really keen to continue to engage you both on GIs, but also other issues in the FTA. There's a large number of mechanisms and ways in which you can do that. And of course we're always more than happy to hear from you directly. Thanks Margaret.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

Thanks, Jan. I'll just reiterate that. Thanks. We know that there's a lot going on for people at this moment in time, and we do appreciate you taking the time to join us. For those who couldn't join us, perhaps colleagues that you may know who were interested, we will make available the slides and the recording of this webinar, so people can look at it later. And we really do encourage you to engage, there's a range of ways. As we've said, there's the round tables, there's the invitation to make submissions in writing. And there's also a telephone number on our consultation website page, so many ways which you can use to engage with us.

 

Margaret Tregurtha:

And again, I probably just say again, as Jan said, you've heard this before, but I think it's important to make it clear that the purpose of this consultation is to get some views in relation to the way we might implement GIs, if there is a decision to do so in the context of the agreement as a whole. That's a really important point to bear in mind that I thought I would close with. But thank you very much for joining us. And we look forward to further engagement on this issue. Thanks.

Last updated: 
Friday, October 9, 2020