Coates BarryBARRY COATES (Green): I rise to address the bill and I am very aware that Part 1 of the bill has undertaken substantial change. I think we would not entirely agree with the rather optimistic view expressed by the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. Certainly from our perspective the starting point for this bill was a political announcement between Prime Ministers Key and Rudd in August 2009 and that political announcement we think was not well thought through in terms of the practicalities. It was followed in November 2011 by Cabinet's so-called regulatory framework and we think that provided again an inadequate starting point for the development of the bill. Combined with a poor process and a lack of consultation the bill that was presented to the Commerce Committee needed considerable work and I think it is to the credit of the committee that there has been a new proposal that has now been brought back to the House with a withdrawn single patent application and withdrawn single patent examination process. We do support the fact that those elements have been dropped from the bill. We also note that there is retrospective legislation here. Retrospective legislation should be very much a last resort and should not by any means be a regular occurrence. We are aware that there were failings in the past in not considering the implications of the 2013 legislation carefully enough. With regard to Part 2 and the proposal for the trans-Tasman licensing regime for patent attorneys we do agree with the need to modernise and update the original framework agreed under the Patents Act 1953—it is no longer fit for purpose—but we notice that the proposal in the bill was opposed by all 13 submissions from patent attorneys as well as a submission from Fisher & Paykel Healthcare. We think that joined-up thinking and a more complete examination of this issue would have put key elements in place before this legislation—for example the New Zealand trademark attorney scheme a New Zealand qualification scheme for attorneys and an extended period for New Zealand attorneys to register in Australia.We think that to some extent the legislation has been put in place without those elements there that should in fact be there for the system to work to the advantage of New Zealand patent attorneys. We would urge the Government to put those pieces in place as quickly as possible. That will help defray some of the additional costs that are of obvious concern—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to refer—the member sits down when I stand up—members to Speakers' ruling 52/2 dating back to 1931 which makes it clear that Members must confine their remarks to the bill before the House and cannot make irrelevant matters relevant by suggesting they [should] be included in the bill."So what we are debating now is the bill we have got not other matters. The member has been going for 4 minutes and I think at least half his speech could have been regarded as being irrelevant. So that is a reminder.BARRY COATES: Thank you for your advice Mr Chair. I will take your advice. With regard to the bill we remain concerned about the governance arrangements—for example New Zealand patent attorneys have to travel to Australia for disciplinary proceedings and we consider that the New Zealand subcommittee to the governance committee would ensure that New Zealand issues are not lost in an Australian-dominated governance committee. However despite some of these criticisms and our concern over parts of the bill there are significant improvements that have been made during the committee stage. For that reason we do support the bill as amended and we commend this for agreement. Thank you."