Cosgrove ClaytonParts 1 and 2 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): As I outlined in the last part of the process a couple of weeks ago Labour will support the bill. We will not labour the process tonight; there will be a number of calls from colleagues. This is a piece of legislation that we should get through but I want to pose a number of questions to the Minister—and I am sure he can anticipate some of those questions. This is a bill that in large part proposed originally an amalgamation of the single patent application process and single patent examination process systems in large part I suppose as we on the select committee saw it to benefit the acquisition and processing of patents in a global sense trans-Tasman. The Government in its infinite wisdom chose to reverse that process for a number of reasons.I have to say of the original Government proposal Opposition members supported it—in line with amalgamations around banking accountancy and other industries that have had their processes amalgamated in the past. We felt that this was a good idea from the Government. Our focus was about ensuring that those who are involved in innovation who are involved in intellectual property and who seek patents which are (1) expensive and (2) difficult to obtain especially for the smaller end of town—if this could ease that transition and provide a cheaper process provide lower compliance costs etc. then we felt it was a good idea. We were surprised I have got to say when the position was reversed.The position that was advanced by officials was that after some analysis—if I can put it that way such that it was—this proposal was of no greater benefit to the industry. It is interesting to define what they meant by industry" because our view was that they were talking about the patent attorneys as opposed to the innovators. We had a couple of submissions from the likes of Fisher & Paykel—huge contributors to intellectual property not only in New Zealand but around the world—but we as members I think across the divide were interested in the benefits or lack thereof for the smaller innovator. So officials told us basically that the scales had fallen from their eyes and this was no longer a viable proposal because it had not a lot of net benefit to the industry.On probing those officials over many days we asked for instance: "I wonder whether the Minister might be able to respond—what costings cost savings or cost-benefit analyses have been done around these proposals?". I remember writing that down and my colleagues I am sure on both sides of the aisle will recall this—the officials saying "Well back of the envelope" and "Our best guess is". Those are direct quotes—and then they would rattle off some figures. I recall saying to officials: "Well I actually have—and I do put on record—some sympathy for the Minister because if that was the depth of the analysis that was served up to him is it any wonder that there was some delay and some conjecture about which way we should go on this?". At one point in the select committee—and I am very thankful for it as it was rather unusual—in a private session the Minister's senior adviser was good enough to come down and sit in on the meeting so that we had a direct pipeline to the Minister. So that the Minister would understand the angst that not only Opposition members were feeling but also I would wager Government members about—to be blunt—the lack of quality advice that we were receiving before the committee.This is not a political bill. We agree and we will support the bill and we would have supported the original premise that was put to us. But it is a little ironic when a Government simply takes the major provision out and reverses it; there has to be a substantive reason why. So Minister  what I would ask of you through you Mr Chair is whether you could give us some reassurance that this reversal is for the benefit of the innovators; that it is the case as officials told us that the net benefit to innovators of the trans-Tasman amalgamation was so minuscule that it was not worth doing. That begs the question as to why this proposal was ever served up to a Minister and a Cabinet. Could you give us some assurances around that because I am loath to criticise officials—I do it very rarely. I think we have world-class public servants but I have to say—and I do not know whether Government members will admit this publicly—that there was a loss of cross-party unanimity in trying to get this bill back to the House so that it would work.There is actually no politics in patents for goodness' sake. We actually want the bill to work. But what we were met with was at best substandard advice—where officials had not gone away and done a proper cost-benefit analysis and where a select committee was confronted with an analysis that was "back of the envelope" or "best guess". Then we diligently undertook—and the chair of the committee I have to say was extremely good in letting us—a free-flow interrogation if you will of these ideas so that we could tease out the policy propositions. But when you are left with that sort of advice—and the other advice was basically "just trust us because we are the experts".The thing that we found difficult also Minister was that the "industry" had actually not been consulted with—because my colleague Clare Curran and others went and subsequently with the agreement of the committee consulted with the innovators. Clare Curran will identify some of those in her contribution. When they actually consulted with them they had never been interacted with before. Our objective was simply to get a piece of legislation that would facilitate the protection of intellectual property for the innovative community especially those at the smaller end of town to protect those fabulous and good ideas that our entrepreneurs have in this country. It is extremely expensive and extremely difficult to get patent protection. I have got to put on record that the committee was less interested in the notion of patent attorneys changing—it was sort of put to us that life as we know it would end: the patent attorneys would go out of business they would leave town and they were incapable almost of adjusting to a market that may change through legislation and regulation and this somehow was a doomsday scenario. Well I have got to say that I was less interested in that and more interested in what the benefits or otherwise could be for those entrepreneurs and those innovators—not for those patent attorneys whose incomes are derived by charging fees.I would simply put through you Mr Chair to the Minister: could he give us some background and some assurance that this proposal is the valid one given that it is a Government reversal and that there is some net benefit for that smaller end of town innovator? Because at the moment even though the Labour Party is supporting legislation we do so with a degree of reticence given the poor quality advice that we received during the select committee process. As I say I feel some depth of sympathy for the Minister. If what was served up to us was served up to him then I suspect he had some difficulty in coming to a decision as to which was the best course of action to take in respect of this bill. We want to expedite this tonight but I would appreciate it through you if the Minister could give us some assurance on those points."