Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It's always a pleasure to present my views particularly on this member's bill. Labour is opposing the bill because we believe the current patent law is adequate and already offers simple and accessible protection for intellectual property. And I wonder if this is really a priority for National. I'm unsure why they didn't include the two-tier system when they introduced the Patents Act 2013. Perhaps it's because a system like the one that was proposed was contrary to the advice of the officials from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment at the time: that such a system would potentially impose significant costs on New Zealand for little compensating benefit." So it appears that the current law is working well and on that basis we're reluctant to make changes when the demand for the two-tier system seems to be non-existent.We believe that the patent law must continue to promote innovation and economic growth while providing an appropriate balance between the interests of inventors and patent owners and the interests of society as a whole. We also don't believe that the bill achieves that and in fact it is likely to do the exact opposite. So I applaud the sentiment but the mechanism is not well considered and actually has a range of unintended consequences which therefore make it fundamentally flawed.It's not hard to agree with making protection of intellectual property more accessible quicker and more cost-effective but it's even harder to ignore the disaster of the Australian model which I believe the member's bill is based on. Funnily enough the Australians are now in the process of abolishing their version because it appears to have had no benefit particularly for the intended target group and that was small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and entrepreneurs. Instead it's not only added costs but created confusion.So the member's promotion of her bill is I'm sure sincere and well meaning but I'm persuaded really by the Australian Productivity Commission inquiry that found that the second-tier system experiment has failed. It found that the easier-to-get second-tier patent system was more harmful than helpful including perversely for SMEs. In fact in Australia the system has encouraged a multitude of low-value patents causing uncertainty for other innovators who are unsure whether they are infringing on another party's patent. That's hardly an endorsement.I'm also nervous that if the proposed advancement patent were to come into effect overseas competitors of New Zealand - based manufacturers could easily attain these low-threshold patents and then apply for an injunction to prevent New Zealand - based manufacture for all markets. An example is that a multinational company could use an advancement patent in New Zealand which it could not obtain in the US or Europe to prevent a New Zealand manufacturer from making products in New Zealand and selling those products anywhere in the world. I think this is a real threat to New Zealand - based manufacturers that are selling their products on the world stage. And I thought really that the Opposition cared for New Zealand - based manufacturers. I thought there was a real authentic and genuine care for those last remaining manufacturers who do a great job on the world market but it's not so.If you took an icon company like Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd that company is currently being forced to take legal action against a competitor's patent filed under the old New Zealand patent system which had like this member's bill a lower threshold. That's really the guts of it. It's a time-consuming and expensive and unnecessary process they have been through to defend their New Zealand - based manufacturing operations. We oppose this bill. Thank you."