Patents accessibility review

No.

In general, especially early on, professional fees are not a barrier. It depends on the firm of course, but in general the firms I have worked with to file patents have been very reasonable with their cost structures. However, over time as applications progress to national phase in multiple international jurisdictions then the cost burden can become too much, and in many of the spin-outs and SMEs we work with the result is culling of the patent family to fewer national filings and accepting the reduction in global IP coverage.

In general the information resources from IP Australia and AusGov seem adequate. Other support options would include those identified in the discussion paper, including litigation support, subsidised litigation / infringement insurance subject to certain criteria, arbitration support - I agree that the major costs of these are a powerful disincentive for SME's to pursue / maintain patents as a deterrence to competitors (these factors do not detract from the incentive for SME's to pursue patents as a tool to attract investment and major industrial partners). Better out-reach might involve programs to co-opt the population communication channels of the day - social media, youtube, etc - with IP Australia sponsoring short informative segments or appearances on popular, relevant "innovation" channels or the accounts of popular entrepreneurs for example. Another option might be to create a short course segment to be delivered over one afternoon to all year 12 students as part of the standard curricula, and so increase the likelihood that SME owners of the future have a better-informed base to start with.

I would say so - I agree with the sentiment / truism that "a patent is only as good as your ability to defend it in court." While an average SME might be able to afford patent coverage across a few major jurisdictions, only a fraction of those will be able to afford litigation costs to enforce the patent if necessary. Even large SMEs and institutions can balk at the cost of litigation. That being said, SMEs are not just faced with the fear of litigation costs disincentivising them, they are also faced with the fear of not receiving investment or industrial partnerships if they don't have patents or IP protection. Government might explore incentives for investment or partnerships linked to SME patents as a means of tilting the perceived risk-reward for SMEs to pursue patents.

See answer to #5.
Even for Universities, I suspect that most would have to be very confident of success in court plus very confident of a substantial, material pay-off in order to justify the initiation of litigation - but Universities are subject to slightly different incentives and risk priorities of course.

I agree with the points raised in the discussion paper. Even if capping costs were possible, when looked at from a higher level to judge what is in the best interests of Australian citizens it isn't clear whether this would be a net benefit or loss.

Try to convince them that it is in their best interests to do so. Provide lots of relevant case studies and examples of similar SMEs successfully doing so and deriving benefits for long-term sustainability, growth, and profitability for their business. Promote a certain number of such case studies every year through mass media, social media, trade journals, etc. Understand that patents are not a panacea - the discussion paper is correct in summarising feedback to the effect that sometimes patents are not appropriate and trade secrets might be preferable.

1) If an SME desires a patent in order to attract investment and industrial partnerships then the present system is accessible enough for that purpose.
2) If an SME desires a patent in order to deter / prevent / litigate against competitors / infringers, then the system is probably not accessible enough for that purpose. While this is arguably not a good thing, it is not clear that it is not entirely a bad thing either.
3) Continue to innovate the innovation system - AND the patent system. Do something different to everyone else. Review whether the present system is truly delivering a net benefit to Australian citizens and their longterm future prosperity and security. Should patent lifetimes be shortened or extended depending on industry or patent class? E.g. digital goods granted a shorter patent lifetime but pharmaceuticals a longer lifetime? Proof of use within a time frame or suffer lapse? Consider counter-intuitive ideas such as those arrived at by Research conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, which considered, if they could re-do the system from scratch, whether they would even have a patent system at all? What other government incentives or regulations might best promote innovation and entrepreneurship?