Curran Clare: Trade Marks Amendment Bill Copyright Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Curran Clare: Trade Marks Amendment Bill Copyright Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:675;Page:21157] 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I would like to speak in the third reading debate of the Trade Marks Amendment Bill and the Copyright Amendment Bill (No 2). This is more quality Labour-initiated legislation that this Government eventually adopted as its own although it has taken a rather long time to get to this point which has been well canvassed. It is not bad legislation and it deservedly has the support of the House. Although the subject matter might appear to some to be dry we should not underestimate the importance of this legislation. A number of my colleagues have addressed that. Ensuring that our intellectual property law and enforcement measures are appropriate and effective is fundamentally important to protecting and promoting a healthy business environment in this country. 
I note that my colleague the Hon Maryan Street has pointed out that the landscape in these 2½ or nearly 3 years has changed markedly around this whole issue of intellectual property. It is really important to note that and I will make some more remarks on that later on. It is important legislation because it harmonises our laws with international standards; it furthers New Zealand’s commitment to building international trade rules which are vital to ensure that trade is free and fair; and it puts measures in place to deal with the enormous and growing problem worldwide of counterfeit goods. Importantly it enables innovative New Zealand companies to more easily protect their trademarks in multiple jurisdictions which is a really important fundamental thing that this legislation will hopefully do. 
As most members present are no doubt aware this legislation has two major functions: to bring the New Zealand trademark law into line with the requirements of the Madrid Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks the Nice agreement and the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks. And it seeks to enhance the abilities of the appropriate enforcement agencies under the Trade Marks Act and the Copyright Act so that they have the necessary powers to crack down on criminal activity in this area. These international commitments that are being made through harmonising with the treaties are an excellent step forward for New Zealand businesses and rights-holders but such commitments are effective only if they are supported by good law at home. It is essential that the Government officials have the ability to do their job especially with the changing landscape of intellectual property infringement. In the last decade the Customs Service has detected a considerable increase in the traffic of counterfeited material into this country and I think somewhere it is mentioned how much that is. I think the New Zealand Customs Service reported that the volumes of counterfeited goods had risen by over 400 percent since July 2000 with 260000 items detained by them each year. A number of my colleagues during the debate have talked about that and it is expected to rise over a wider range of products. 
The Ministry of Economic Development has already signalled that the current laws around intellectual property are inadequate for effectively policing this assault. This legislation addresses that concern by giving enforcement officers from the Customs Service and the Ministry of Economic Development greater powers including the ability to enter and examine premises without a search warrant where there is a suspected breach of the law and to thoroughly search the premises if a search warrant has been obtained. Those powers are also extended to the police to allow them to carry out their duties with regards to issues like piracy. 
The empowerment of Government officials with regard to criminal—criminal—activity is not a decision that should be made lightly. I think it is an issue that the Green MP David Clendon raised during the second reading and his colleague Keith Locke did so during the select committee process. However we know—and I think we can be satisfied—that the powers given to the Customs Service and the Ministry of Economic Development are appropriate considering the work they are required to do. Some in the media painted a picture of a Ministry of Economic Development hit squad making raids on the warehouses of innocent importers delaying the sale of their products and hurting their profits. Although it is impossible to guarantee that this would never happen in isolated cases the benefits of a more robust enforcement regime far outweigh those speculative costs. 
The protection of intellectual property rights is central to a well-performing economy and this law will improve the economic environment by ensuring that rights-holders know their intellectual property remains theirs and consumers can have confidence in the quality of the goods and services that they are purchasing. That is really important and I do want to stress that because we are talking about criminal activity here for the purpose of counterfeiting goods pushing them across borders and then selling them on. That is an issue we need to spend time addressing and this legislation does that. 
This legislation effectively updates present law and brings it into line with the need to address that increased criminal behaviour and the techniques used to breach trademarks and copyright and the enormous issues with regard to the movement of counterfeit goods across borders. It is commendable that the Government is pushing this but it does raise an important issue with regard to other legislation that has been before this House recently—in particular the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. It highlights the importance of members of Parliament members of select committees and in particular Ministers being on top of their briefs on top of their areas and being able to grasp the nature of change—in particular technological change—and the impact it is having on the behaviours of consumers—that is citizens and business models. I am referring to the importance of updating legislation to ensure that the law and the regulatory and operational response to breaches of the law are appropriate effective and up with the times. 
This Government and this Parliament saw the passage of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill which did not address criminal behaviour. It addressed civil infringement and an enormous amount of time was spent in the last couple of years trying to work out how to address it. But that bill which was passed under urgency focused solely on measures to push vast numbers of New Zealanders who access illegally downloaded share material that they either cannot get any other way or would have to wait for a very long time to access. The distribution channels for that material whether it is music movies TV programmes or whatever are locked in the mind-set of the previous century and prefer to turn our kids and ordinary citizens into criminals rather than change the way their businesses operate to deliver what the market so obviously wants. It is important to have that law because people should be deterred from illegal behaviour. But it was ridiculous to contemplate disconnecting them from the internet and it was also ridiculous to introduce it under urgency without taking a wider look at the whole copyright regime. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
CLARE CURRAN 
: That is why it relates to this legislation and what the Government should be doing to encourage new business models emerging in our country or being allowed into our country to distribute content that is affordable in real time. 
My point is that with this legislation before us as with any other legislation that is being updated changed and harmonised in relation to other legislation and treaties around the world we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to bring ourselves up to speed with technology changes and their enormous impact on the way we are conducting many parts of our lives. We have a responsibility to assess all legislation to see what impact the changing technology has on it and this legislation is no exception. Labour supports it. It was originally our legislation and we are evolved enough as a party to acknowledge that we must change with the times. Perhaps it is time that the members on the other side of the House acknowledged that too.