Shearer David: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Shearer David: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:21033] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I want to start on the commencement clause because as has been pointed out by a number of the speakers tonight the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill was first brought to the House in 2008. Now in 2011—3 years later—it is certainly our wish that the bill passes as quickly as possible and gets through to its third reading— 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Great! 
DAVID SHEARER 
: —and is able to move into law before Parliament goes into recess. The interjection of Mr Hide makes me reflect on the fact that in this Chamber tonight there are a number of people whom we will not be seeing after that time: Mr Locke Mr Hide Mr Hodgson Mr Power and Mr Henare who is at No. 40. The House will be a sadder place for their not being here. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I’d swap 40 on National to Mt Albert for Labour. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Mr Hide does not have to worry about that wherever he goes. 
Let us get on to the bill. This is the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. As has been said this bill is more of an omnibus bill. It will amend both the Trade Marks Act 2002 and the Copyright Act 1994. These two Acts—again as has been said during the course of the debate—are extremely important for New Zealand. The idea of us protecting our intellectual property is something that perhaps we do not take as seriously as we possibly could. I am thinking about trademarks. Somebody mentioned Adidas but we could easily also mention Canterbury Apparel and the Kathmandu clothing range for example. These are all New Zealand products that could be copied or changed in some way. They are certainly identifiable as New Zealand products. Making the cheaper rip-offs or rip-offs that do not involve the research and the marketing behind the products but just use the symbol or the actual product itself without all of that investment is unfair. It certainly disadvantages those designers and manufacturers who have put that effort in. 
This bill also gives effect to the Government’s decision to accede to the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks. It enables us to accede to the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks which is known as the Nice agreement. As we said before it will give us the ability to sit at the Nice classification which is updated on a 5-yearly cycle. Parties to the Nice agreement consider amendments to it and we will be able to consider amendments that will be advantageous to our manufacturers and our businesses here in New Zealand. Finally it ratifies the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks which as was mentioned earlier in the debate aims to make national trademark registration systems much more user-friendly and reduce business compliance costs for trademark owners. That is obviously not only important for our businesses but also important for those out there who may be tempted to flout the law of both copyright and trademarks and try to produce goods that infringe that law. That treaty enables them to at least understand exactly their position under law. 
It would also as I mentioned before in the debate on Part 2 empower the three agencies that relate to this bill: the Ministry of Economic Development the Customs Service and the police.