Cosgrove ClaytonHon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): If I may just before I begin on this piece of legislation could I as others in this House have done pass on firstly my condolences to those people who have lost loved ones in the recent quakes. As a Canterbury MP and a number of people on both sides of this House hail from that province—and clearly your good self Mr Speaker—we can say with some authority that we know exactly what these folks are going through. Could I also commend those people in the various agencies who are responding as diligently and professionally as they can.On to a lighter note in respect of this bill I have to say that I congratulate Minister Paul Goldsmith on the best attempt at an alibi. He is a very loyal guy this Minister in terms of protecting his officials and sticking by them like araldite and that speech was one of the best alibis I have heard for a botch-up.I have said in past speeches that Labour will support this piece of legislation. We support any protection of intellectual property and other protections in respect of the innovative communities to protect those ideas and products and services that are developed by our innovative community. But can I say—and I am also on record quite rarely saying this—that I do feel sorry for this Minister given the level of advice that was tendered to him and to the Commerce Committee by officials. I have also said that I do not often criticise public servants but as one who sat through weeks of this bill I have to say—and the Minister alluded to many of the changes that have occurred internationally—that many excuses were put forward to reverse the Government's original proposal which was to have an amalgamated process if you will to implement a single patent application process in respect of New Zealand and Australia.Labour originally saw that proposal put forward by the Government and we liked it. We thought it would work we thought it was in line with other industries—the legal profession and banking—where there has been amalgamation. Our view was that presumably the Government had put this forward in order to provide benefits to the innovative communities; not simply the patent attorneys. I note the Minister referenced the patent attorneys many many times in his speech but tended not to reference those who I actually think are more important than the patent attorneys who take a fee for their service. They are those whom patent attorneys serve—that is innovative clients and innovators and those who are coming up with these ideas and new products and services.So we looked at this originally and we thought: Well this is a pretty good piece of legislation. The Government's obviously thought this out. We support the original proposition." I have to say though we were quite astounded as a committee—and I will not speak for the chair Melissa Lee who I think as I have said in past speeches did an admirable job in allowing the committee as a whole to tease out the detail around this piece of legislation. We were quite astounded when it was reported to us by officials that they had recommended a complete reversal. However in good faith we looked at this and we asked about things like pre-consultation: who had officials consulted with and had they consulted with the innovators? There was a lot of as I say talk about the patent attorneys—great souls that they are—and very little if any consultation had actually occurred with the innovative community apart from one or two submitters. One was Fisher & Paykel and there was another large company but very little if any consultation around either the first proposition or its reversal and replacement had occurred with the innovative communities as a whole.At this point members of our committee actually went out and did some of that consultation. We simply asked those officials to justify the change. In the report you will see—and the Minister has alluded to it—that they talked about the lack of benefits to either business or patent attorneys. They talked about the increased administrative cost to businesses. They talk about other significant costs. But none of that was ever quantified and none of that information was provided to the committee. In fact I have got to say it was one of the worst presentations by officials I have witnessed in my 17 years in this Parliament. When officials come before you and you ask them to quantify the cost benefit and they give a figure and you ask how they got to it and they talk about "their best guess" or "on the back of an envelope"—I remember remarking to one of the officials: "Well I do feel sorry for the Minister if that is the sort of gobbledegook that was served up to him."—is it any wonder that the Government as well as the committee had some difficulty in working out what was actually the best way to go?We have a pretty good Public Service. I think we have a world-class Public Service but we were told by certain officials basically "Trust us we're the experts and trust the patent attorneys" and that was it. Our concern of course was to test whether the replacement proposition would actually work for the constituency for whom it is put forward in this House to serve. I have got to say after weeks and weeks of actually being given contradictory information from time to time by officials it was a welcome fact that the Minister's own adviser came to a private hearing of the committee—which we on our side welcomed—to see first-hand the lack of evidence and analysis that was being served up to us to report back to the person's Minister so that we could get this right.There is no politics in this piece of legislation—none. If there was I would be attacking the Minister for incompetence not the officials. I am actually very disappointed with the advice that the officials got. I hope the Minister has taken the chief executive of that particular department to task around this because to bring a piece of legislation to a committee without basic analysis being done—presumably officials thought: "Er—this committee is uninterested. Just rubber-stamp it and bang it through." Well actually we were concerned because we wanted—I think genuinely on both sides of the House—to get it right.The lack of consultation or the consultation that was limited to simply one group—that is the patent attorneys and they are very important in the scheme of things. They make this work. But the lack of actually going out and talking to the innovative communities en masse rather than just one or two who came up and say "We don't like it therefore we should reverse it." I think was pretty appalling and the committee was not well served by the advice it had. In fact I have to say that all members of the committee took quite a bit of time to work through the bill—not on a political basis. I think we basically buried the hatchet put it aside and said "Hey we've got to get this right." to ensure that we could convince ourselves that this was the most appropriate course of action.The Labour Party has put in a minority view and I am quite happy to make the point—well I am not happy to make the point but I do note that even those members on my side of the fence are rather reticent about whether we made the correct decision in respect of this bill. We hope we did and we will support the bill but I say this. It was extremely difficult I think for committee members—and I suspect the Minister loyal soul that he is to his officials—to say with any great gusto or confidence that this bill will do exactly what the Government's intent is and that we support the intent of it.So we will support it. We seek simply to ensure that the provisions within it will serve as best they can the innovative communities entrepreneurs and inventors who seek to protect their products and services from nefarious others but I would make a plea to the Minister. I think if he has not already he needs to go and have a rather stern chat with his department so that this sort of stuff does not happen again. If there had been decent pre-consultation some of these proposals would not have seen the light of day. They would not have got to a Minister's desk they would not have got past the Minister's adviser or his private secretary's secondment—they would not have got anywhere near a ministerial desk. Instead that department would have served up quality provisions that the Minister would have confidence in and that a select committee would have processed I think very efficiently upon good advice from officials.So I think there is a learning that can take place from this. But I say for the record—as I have said before—I think we have a world-class Public Service but we were not well served on a very very important piece of legislation like this. I am sure there are people who are listening at home—you know it will not turn the lights on at home but this sort of legislation is vitally important if we are trying to promote innovation within our commercial sector in our country. It is very expensive and very difficult for smaller entrepreneurs and innovators to get patent protection for their services. Our position as it always has been is that if we can provide support legislation that makes it cheaper and more efficient for those innovators that is something we should all support across the House.I have to say that a very simple proposition with unanimity was made extremely difficult because of lack of foresight and because of lack of basic analysis and work done that should have been done—particularly pre-consultation and post-consultation when the legislative provisions were changed by that Government department. That being said we support the bill."