Bond RiaRIA BOND (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and take a call on the second reading of the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supported this bill to the Commerce Committee in its first reading. At the time it seemed like this bill was a pretty straightforward bill that had all the answers to fix all the outdated issues the poor drafting results and the things that were wrong for the patent profession. In my first reading speech I referred to the comprehensive redrafting of the Patents Act 2013 which took effect in September 2014. That was at the time a mammoth exercise where we saw sweeping changes introduced to the Act and now 18 months later here we are again in the House fixing unintended consequences. That is why New Zealand First supported this bill in the first reading—so it could go through the select committee process and go through the scrutiny it needed to have. When this bill came to the Commerce Committee we were provided with advisers which is the normal process. I believe that when advisers are appointed to any select committee the chief purpose of the advisers is to be the specialists for those members of that select committee. Therefore they are to provide documentation evidence facts things that actually could be wrong with the bill and recommendations that we need to consider when going through the bill under that scrutiny process. I absolutely believe that advisers need to be professional at all times. They need to be organised they have to be informed and they must treat members with respect. Above all I believe that should there be any potential personal interest in a bill and its passage through the select committee and this House then it should be treated by advisers with the professionalism that I would expect them to give to a bill. I do not wish to slam the advisers too heavily but I do feel really strongly about the lack of transparency. I felt at the time quite concerned about the fact that when advisers were pushed they really did not want to give members the answers that we wanted—like the cost analysis of the implementation which we expected to be informed about by the advisers. I found that that whole process was a Mickey Mouse outfit. I found that it was like drawing blood out of a stone to get the advisers to answer the questions. So I echo what members of the Labour Party have said this evening—that the performance of the advisers overall was really poor. Had I known at that time that there was a process that members were actually allowed to perform I would have actually insisted on that and had an outcome happen with those advisers. So I believe it was a hindrance to the members and it was really frustrating. Through my contribution tonight I will address why this bill is still not fit for purpose. After what the Labour Party and Green Party members have just said I cannot understand why they are still supporting this bill. It is critical that this bill has buy-in from the profession itself and the industry. I feel that with the amendments and with the submissions that came through the Government still does not have buy-in on this bill. I think it is imperative that we make the right choices and we look after the industries that we say this bill will look after. There were 20 submissions that came to the select committee. We heard six oral submissions and there were two supplementary submissions. As has already been echoed through the House there was an absolutely overwhelming opposition from the submitters—the patent attorneys—which was to do with the single patent application process (SAP) and the single patent examination process (SEP) and the aim to implement a pilot project to see whether this project would work across the Australia and New Zealand jurisdiction. However the advisers advised the select committee that a new electronic procedure for filing patent applications had been put in place by the World Intellectual Property Organization—WIPO for short—and this was not only endorsed by the industry itself but used effectively. They had alerted advisers that the pilot project preferred by our advisers would actually make the SEP and the SAP undesirable and therefore redundant. This was the issue that New Zealand First had when we first considered the bill and that is what raised a red flag. I just want to also add to the fact that had the SAP and SEP not been removed from this bill it would have put an absolute financial burden on the patent profession itself. What I do want to address is that clearly the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs was not aware that the proposed SAP and SEP proposed by his advisers was merely a pilot programme that advisers wanted to put to the test through legislating a pilot programme inside of this bill which came into the House on 9 February this year. They wanted this pilot programme to be put inside of this bill so that it could be tested to see whether or not it was going to be successful. I seriously ask how the legislating of a pilot programme because of the belief of an adviser that this would work in this country can be a responsible use of the time of this House.In terms of the submitters who came to the select committee I was alerted to the fact that they felt that they were absolutely not consulted with at all and that their industry overall performed quite well. The first time they knew that there were issues was actually when this bill came to the House. I would like to actually read some of the concerns from the submitters specifically a submission from the New Zealand Institute of Patent Attorneys. It said: It is our view that consultation with the New Zealand profession has focussed solely on how a joint registration regime should be implemented rather than on whether it is wanted or required or how it would benefit New Zealand businesses and/or the New Zealand patent attorney profession. The NZIPA can only see increased costs and compliance for the New Zealand profession as a consequence of joint registration." Another submitter Mr Matt Adams stated: "We don't seem to have been consulted on whether we want a joint registration regime. The assumption is that we need one."—the assumption was that they needed one. He continues: "If we are going to go down this route we need to make sure that we have a level playing field. What I see proposed needs amendment to ensure a level playing field." Another question that came up was the qualification pathway of patent attorneys through this proposal. A very well-known submitter with a lot of credentials in this field submitted about the fact they were worried about the watering down of patent attorneys here in New Zealand and their being overtaken by the Australian system. What this submitter Elspeth Buchanan said in her submission was: "Further since New Zealand will have only a tiny representation on the governing council it will be very easy for the governing council to set (for example) continuing education requirements and training requirements to suit the Australian profession only. As matters stand at present it is doubtful whether it is going to be possible to train patent attorneys in New Zealand in the same manner as prescribed in Australia. If in fact all training has to be done in Australia this is a truly enormous cost burden for any of the New Zealand firms and the end result could easily be that New Zealand firms cannot accept trainees. Persuading Australian staff to come across to work in New Zealand firms (which in general pay substantially lower salaries) is extremely difficult and it is not scaremongering to predict that the New Zealand patent attorney profession could in fact cease to exist within a few years." That was a huge concern when we were within the select committee listening to the submissions. In closing New Zealand First is absolutely not in favour of supporting bad legislation and this bill is no different. Sadly the National Government has brought bills like this to the House many times. They are written badly not fit for purpose and not fit for the profession that they say they are going to protect. This bill does not justify the fact that the Government has been forced to do a complete U-turn scrap the SEP process and the SAP and has still continued to ignore what the majority of the submitters said—that "We are an industry that acts above the expectations of New Zealand and this bill is going to do nothing but wipe us out." Thank you."