Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly on the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill the main purpose of which is to implement a single trans-Tasman registration regime for Australian and New Zealand patent attorneys. It is great that today we are able to have the third reading and support the passage of the bill through this House for the final time. In that regard I would like to thank the member who just took his seat Clayton Cosgrove for the constructive way that he and the Opposition members have worked within the Commerce Committee to produce good work I think through some difficult conversations that we have had to have at times.It is important to remember that patent attorneys are a small but important specialist profession with about 1000 practitioners who advise businesses on the protection and exploitation of intellectual property rights and who as a result need effective legislation to cater for their industry's needs. Through our discussions in the Commerce Committee and in this House we agreed that there was a need to replace the 60-year-old outdated regulatory regime currently in place for patent attorneys and to help increase competition and innovation between Australian and New Zealand businesses. It is also important to remember that 95 percent of the patent applications filed in New Zealand will have a corresponding application across the Tasman. This is unnecessary bureaucracy that can be avoided through this law change.The bill helps the market be more competitive with reduced costs to help business inventors and innovators having more time and recourse towards their products and services as well as trimming the red tape that can stifle progress. The bill does this with two main amendments to the Patents Act of 2013. It introduces a joint registration regime with Australia for patent attorneys to help spread opportunities to engage in their practice between our two nations and to enhance the conduct and services across the industry. Considering the fact that Australia has a much bigger economy than New Zealand I can see only benefits for New Zealand patent attorneys. The second amendment is to explicitly remove opposition on the grounds of lack of unity of invention as a means to contest a patent during the pre-grant process. As previously discussed in this House this possible option was unintentionally introduced in the 2013 legislation and needs to be removed to clarify the law for the patent attorneys across the Tasman and for consumers at large.Also under the provisions as we have debated them a new licensing regime will comprise a register for all patent attorneys and a qualifications regime across Australian intellectual property law and practices as well as a code of conduct and disciplinary regime to ensure that all those relying on the trans-Tasman system can hold misconduct to account.I would like to also thank all of those people who have participated during the process in which this bill has gone through the select committee and the debates in the House as well—the organisations the businesses and the individuals who have actually submitted their views on the bill. To hear people's views and thoughts is always appreciated. Those views do in fact matter and actually often direct and guide the select committees as well. I think they were very helpful. Those submissions and the excellent work of the Commerce Committee secretariat and other parties have contributed to the bill which will work well for our innovative patents and inventions industry. As I said earlier I would like to thank all of the members of the Commerce Committee who have worked very hard to get this bill to the third reading and complete the process. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House.