Curran Clare: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Curran Clare: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:21021] 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. As we have heard Labour supports this bill and as my colleague the very esteemed Hon Pete Hodgson has said it is a moving feast and it is important. It is important for a range of reasons. 
I would like to make a couple of points about this bill. The first is that it is interesting that the bill was first introduced into the House in I think September 2008 and had its first reading at the beginning of 2009. I was just flicking through some information about it and noted that an article in an esteemed publication I think it was the 
 Independent 
 talked about how the bill was going to be passed in 2009 and I note that it has taken a while to come back and finish its hearing in the House. 
The bill has not had a lot of public discussion. There has been a bit of public discussion on it but when we actually contrast it with another piece of legislation that dealt with copyright issues that has been before this House and was recently passed earlier this year which certainly did have a lot of public discussion on it it is quite interesting to make that contrast. The contrast I make is essentially a positive one in the sense that this bill is about harmonising our laws with international standards which makes a lot of good sense. It is about New Zealand playing its part and leading some areas of standards development in this area. It is about enabling innovative New Zealand companies to more easily protect their trademarks in multiple jurisdictions. Those are really important things. 
The key to that—and the thing that I am trying to point out here—is that it is what we should have been doing with the other controversial legislation that came before the House in this term and admittedly in the previous term particularly around harmonising and playing a part in leading the way enabling innovation to occur and encouraging our own business community. That legislation is still surrounded by controversy because it has not been dealt with or acknowledged as being part of a much bigger issue which is about how to deal with a very fast-changing environment how to deal with private sector involvement in it and how to deal with the role that the Government should play. Those are really important points because essentially we are still confronted with that issue in this country. We have passed legislation that is essentially propping up failed business models. 
I am making that point in relation to Part 1 of this bill because there is a growing problem around the world relating to the manufacture distribution and sale of counterfeited goods and pirated works for the purpose of selling them—not for the purpose of downloading them and then sharing them with our mates or watching them ourselves but accessing them and then selling them. The World Customs Organization estimates that counterfeiting and piracy accounts for 5 percent to 7 percent of global merchandise trade which I think was estimated as being up to US$500 billion. This comes from the Ministry of Economic Development regulatory impact statement on this bill. The World Health Organization estimates that up to 10 percent of medicines sold worldwide are counterfeit which is extraordinary when we think about it. Goods typically targeted by counterfeiters are those items sold at premium prices and well in excess of the cost to manufacture.