Coates BarryBARRY COATES (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I would also like to echo the condolences and support for those affected by the earthquake. At such times communities come together and we see the amazing resilience and strength at a community level that really makes this country special. So our thoughts are with those who are having to put their lives back together again after the earthquake.I would like to make some comments on this bill the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I echo many of the previous speakers who have been highly critical of what the passage of this bill has represented. The genesis of this bill came from a high-level political announcement from Prime Minister John Key and the then Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in August 2009. Unfortunately political announcements and particularly those driven by a particular ideological position do not necessarily make for good legislation. I think that what we have found in this case is that there has been a major political problem. What started out as being an attempt to deepen the level of economic integration between Australia and New Zealand has ended up as legislation that has been poorly translated through the political process into a bill and I would note that it was agreed to by Cabinet in November 2011.We see the process as having been deeply flawed particularly the single patent application process and the single patent examination process which were subsequently withdrawn from this bill. We see the remaining elements as being firstly a retrospective amendment to section 92 of the Patents Act and we do not regard retrospective amendments as being good legal practice and good parliamentary practice. We reluctantly agreed to this basic correction of an error in the previous legislation. The final element that is remaining is the trans-Tasman joint registration regime. We have considerable misgivings about this part of the bill but we have rather reluctantly decided to accept the suggestion of the Commerce Committee and support the legislation.We echo the concern of previous speakers about the poor process used in this legislation. Submitters uniformly complained about not having been consulted. We regard that as being more than an oversight. It indicates a failing to undertake properly the work that is required on this bill. We see that submitters uniformly opposed the proposals put forward. I think there is a wider implication here that other professions in New Zealand should be looking anxiously at this politically motivated process. I think that as parliamentarians we need to remember that part of our role is to defend New Zealand's interests when there are costs that fall on New Zealand professions from harmonisation proposals.We consider that the remaining legislation would generate some potential benefits in terms of joint licensing depending on how the legislation is implemented. We support the submitters who emphasised that there could be flanking measures that help—so for example locally responsive governance so that New Zealand patent attorneys are not disadvantaged by additional travel costs which was a point raised by many submitters and not disadvantaged by rules that are not appropriate for the New Zealand market.We also think there are other measures to support this legislation that should be put in place such as a New Zealand trademark attorney regime in parallel with the Australian trademark attorney regime. New Zealand does not have one at present and it would go a long way to making sure that this legislation is not disadvantageous to New Zealand patent attorneys. Secondly a New Zealand qualification scheme—there needs to be a New Zealand - accredited course of study because there are differences between the New Zealand and Australian legislation and the market.So the Green Party supports a sound system for patenting and innovation that is New Zealand - relevant and not just borrowed as we have seen in the relentless drive to import patent regimes from other countries. We have seen it most evident in trade agreements such as the recently demised Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) where the patent provisions come primarily from the interests of the major patent-holding companies in the United States and in other cases from the European Union. I think we need to be very careful that our innovations system is not being loaded down by excessively strong patents and copyright. We note that in the TPPA negotiations there was a reference from officials to overly burdensome regulation that would be introduced by the patents proposals under the TPPA.In summary we support this legislation. We call for the flanking measures—as I have outlined—to ensure that New Zealand patent attorneys and the sector more generally are not disadvantaged vis-à-vis Australia. We rather reluctantly support this bill but would exercise a strong note of caution with regard to harmonisation proposals that affect other professions. Thank you.