Robertson Grant: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20958. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I have great pleasure in rising to speak on the second reading of the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. I am sure it is a great honour for the Minister of Commerce to finally be delivering the second reading speech given that this bill was introduced by the Hon Judith Tizard on 8 September 2008.  
I remind those who are listening clinging to every word spoken in Parliament this evening under urgency that this bill was introduced on 8 September 2008. It was referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on 7 April 2009 submissions closed on 15 May 2009 and the select committee presented its report on 15 September 2009. This bill is so old that when it went through the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee Mr Hayes was twice the size he is now—he is now half the size—and I am twice the size I was then. That is how long ago it is since we put this bill before the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.  
When we look at the commentary on the bill it is somewhat odd to see that there was quite a deal of concern—and I recall this in the considerations of the select committee—about the question of some elements being brought into force by Order in Council. In fact the commentary states: “We accept that these are valid reasons for commencement by Order in Council and urge the Ministry of Economic Development to implement all aspects of the legislation expeditiously.” Well it has not exactly been an expeditious process. In fact it has been a very very slow process. This is not of course Mr Power’s area; it is Mr Brownlee’s and it was his responsibility well before the earthquake lest anyone think I am making any comments on that. This was all in 2009.  
So it does seem somewhat odd to be standing here in urgency discussing a matter such as this bill. Of course on this side of the House we can say that the Labour Party supports the bill. It is a useful bill to essentially put in place what New Zealand agrees to internationally. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What does it do? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I thank Ms Dean for asking that. The bill allows us to implement the Madrid Protocol the Nice agreement and the Singapore treaty. One thing I would note is that if one is an international negotiator in the area of trademarks and copyright one tends to go to reasonably nice places. I think that is one thing we could deduce from seeing that. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: “Nice” or “Neece”? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right. We do not see much of the “Khartoum Protocol” or anything like that do we? It is the Madrid Protocol the Nice agreement and the Singapore treaty.  
Essentially as we have already heard this bill is really about dealing with counterfeiting issues making sure we have internationally consistent trademark law and offering an important step forward in making us consistent. It has not been dealt with in the expeditious manner that was previously stated. The second purpose of the bill is to strengthen enforcement. I think it is important to note that the provisions around strengthening enforcement as already mentioned were changed by the select committee to be consistent with customs officers.  
With those very few words I can say that the Labour Party is happy to support this bill. It was given thorough consideration by the select committee and good changes were made. I am happy to commend it to the House.