Long time coming, page-26

I am not so positive about it.  Save for Japan and Singapore,  not a lot of IP comes out of Asia.  It is shown in the WIPO stats.  In my own experience of 20+ years working in large attorney practices, I can count on one hand the combined total number of filings from Indonesia, Malaysia etc.  You get much more work from India than SE Asia.

Chinese IP is not a ticket to growth.  Chinese IP filings are driven by government policy.   Patent filings are a proxy for innovation and the Chinese government provides significant financial incentives to file patents.  Businesses can make a profit filing invalid patents.  The below article may help.
http://chinapower.csis.org/patents/

The outward patent filings from China amount to about 0.5% of their filings, and is largely from a few large, export-oriented firms in consumer electronics mainly Huawei and ZTE.  Watermark (XIP) does most of the Huawei work and DCC (QIP) does the ZTE, altogether about 100 Australian filings a year.

Shiva is right that PCT national phase is a major risk and this is recognized by the attorney profession.  When it was first proposed IPTA sent a warning to all members regarding the serious financial impact of the proposal.  I can only guess as to when it will happen.

The more immediate issue is the code of conduct review: - https://www.ttipattorney.gov.au/code-conduct-review
The current proposal is to require commonly owned firms minimum obligations concerning disclosure of their ownership status to prospective and existing clients.  You should expect further client losses as a result.  Also the Board proposes to introduce Guidelines on the governance and management structures and procedures required to ensure that commonly owned practices are operated independently.  This conflicts with Bell Potters positives regarding "Integration/other synergies".