Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): It is a great pleasure to rise to speak on the second reading of the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Before I actually get going on the substantive nature of the bill I am just a little bit in shock that I got so many compliments from the member who just sat down. It is actually quite surprising to get so many compliments. I think I was counting about four things at least that he actually thanked me for. I thank the member. Compliments across the Chamber are way better than insults and I thank the member for his contribution to the select committee process.I would like to also thank the members of the public who in fact contributed to the select committee process as the Hon Clayton Cosgrove has said. The select committee is actually there to scrutinise the piece of legislation. I just want to remind the member—he has been here long enough—that select committee members meet often we actually examine legislation there are things that we may not like and select committees decide. In this circumstance the committee as a whole agreed that there were some elements within the legislation that needed to actually exit the legislation. I am thankful for the unanimous decision that we made as a committee and we in fact worked quite constructively.I think the important aspect of the bill is not the single patent application (SAP) and single examination process (SEP); it is actually the thing about the implementation of the single trans-Tasman registrations regime for the patent attorneys in our two countries. I know that we have actually had quite a lot of submissions from patent attorneys who were opposed on the grounds that it would perhaps impact on the competitiveness of the New Zealand patent attorneys that it might in fact increase costs to quality as a patent attorney in New Zealand and that it might actually reduce the level playing field with Australian patent attorneys. There were lots of concerns raised by submitters saying that as a country with such small numbers we may actually lose out to Australian patent attorneys.I think the committee actually agreed as a matter of course that in fact that might make us more competitive against the Australian patent attorneys. I think even the minority report of the Labour Party members actually acknowledges that in the sum of it all when we actually got to the bottom of it it was in fact because of the benefit for New Zealand and the benefit of the competitive nature of it that we were actually supporting it. I think having joint registration implementation of patent attorneys across the two countries is something that we value and we promote and we will have and I think it is a welcome decision. In relation to the SEP and SAP which we removed that was supported and the Hon Clayton Cosgrove has spoken extensively on that particular matter.I now move to the recommendation of the lack of unity of invention" grounds issue which I raised previously in my speech in the House. The issue that some people might actually have is the issue of retrospectively applying it from the date that the Patents Act 2013 entered into force which is 13 September 2014. We as a committee did in fact note the undesirability of retrospective law being passed by this House but we also understand that no application on file would be affected by this amendment and that it is important for any potential applicants to be aware of the potential law change so that there are no challenges based on the unintended provisions currently in legislation over the period between the bill's time in Parliament and the resulting passage into law.I think the New Zealand patent of course gives key intellectual property rights under the bill with the recommendations as proposed. We will see stronger protections for patents and the role that patent attorneys across Australia and New Zealand have to play in their development. We believe in ensuring our regulatory regimes are fair and effective for those businesses and companies that utilise them and I think it was agreed as a committee that we are here to protect the businesses so they can be competitive and having a shared regime between Australia and New Zealand will in fact improve the competitiveness of New Zealand's innovative business.It is a good bill. I thank the members of the committee for working constructively on this bill and I commend the bill to the House."