Coates BarryBARRY COATES (Green): As a new MP I am going to try to be constructive with all my interventions as I said in my maiden speech. However I should say that in this case I find that to be a major challenge. I am obviously new to considering this Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill but I have benefited from discussions with my colleagues. In reading through the history of this bill and the submissions so far and the discussions of the Commerce Committee I am deeply concerned at the performance of the Government on this bill. It has been poorly drafted legislation and poor Government policy direction. There was obviously a serious problem with the previous legislation enacted in 2013 which had to be rectified by retrospective legislation. This is an extreme measure that the House should avoid wherever possible. However due to poor drafting we agree that it is necessary in this case and reluctantly the Green Party will support this removal of the lack of unity for invention in order to rectify the problem with the Patents Act 2013.The first version of this bill included a single patent application and a single examination process. These were strongly opposed by submitters by the Green Party and ultimately by the Commerce Committee itself—and I echo my thanks to the chair and members of the committee from all sides of the House for their acceptance of the need for change to this bill. The officials eventually agreed that the joint mechanisms with Australia would not be in New Zealand's interest and have recommended deleting clause 5 from this bill. The Green Party agrees but it questions how the draft bill was able to get to this stage without proper analysis. The process around this bill has been flawed. There was inadequate consultation on the provisions of the draft bill—a point made by many submitters.The remaining substantive provision in this bill is the trans-Tasman licensing regime for patent attorneys. We believe this needs careful consideration particularly in light of the failings outlined previously. We accept the case for updating and modernising the existing licensing regime under the Patents Act 1953. It is as has been observed over 60 years old and we agree it is no longer fit for purpose. However we have got continuing concerns over the remaining proposals in this bill and we are mindful that they were opposed by all 13 submissions from patent attorneys and the submission from Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. For clarification the opposition from these submissions is opposing the licensing provisions as well as those provisions that have already been taken out of the bill.We are particularly concerned by the lack of joined-up thinking around the licensing regime. A more coherent approach would have ensured that the key elements were in place before instituting trans-Tasman licensing—notably a New Zealand trademark or attorney scheme a New Zealand qualification scheme and an extended period for a New Zealand patent attorney to register in Australia. We urge the Government to put these missing elements in place. To not do so we think would result in prospective New Zealand patent attorneys being disadvantaged in comparison with their counterparts across the Tasman—and being required to bear higher costs.More broadly we think there needs to be a review of the effectiveness of trans-Tasman harmonisation arrangements to ensure that there are not unintended consequences for New Zealand professionals. The establishment of this licensing scheme should not be regarded as a model for other professions—other than how not to do it. An ideological push for harmonisation will not work. Any change needs serious work and analysis and we believe this is a cautionary tale for other attempts for cross-Tasman harmonisation. The licensing regime would as the Government has pointed out create a level playing field in some respects; for example the same set of criteria to register and practise would apply to New Zealand and Australian patent attorneys. However since the locus for registration and licensing will be in Australia it is likely that New Zealand patent attorneys will need to bear additional costs for travel particularly if it is a protracted process such as a disciplinary hearing.There are also issues of governance that will not be so subject to a level playing field. In particular a domination of Australian representatives on the governing council and disciplinary board established under Australian law is likely to mean that future development of licensing is likely to be more oriented towards the needs of Australian firms and not to New Zealand patent attorneys. It will be similar with the disciplinary process and rules. It may well be that the identical qualifications and codes of conduct would achieve the Government's aims of harmonisation and cost-effectiveness but with the sacrifice of local flexibility and governance.The Green Party accepts that major changes have already been made to this bill. We would however like there to be greater attention paid to the concerns raised by submitters and particularly to the issues of joined-up thinking on a trademark scheme and New Zealand qualification scheme. This should be done as a matter of urgency and we would look to have assurances in that respect. We also consider there may be a process of governance that would allow the establishment of something like a governance and disciplinary subcommittee of the board that would be specific to dealing with the application of a common base of qualification standards and rules for application in New Zealand.We look forward to analysis about the impacts of the remaining elements of the bill on small business. That is a crucial consideration that we consider has not yet had sufficient scrutiny. In closing we have concerns but we would be prepared to support the bill if there were assurances that these issues would be addressed in the implementation of the bill and we would be looking forward to further amendments at the next Committee stage. Thank you.