Street Maryan: Trade Marks Amendment Bill Copyright Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Street Maryan: Trade Marks Amendment Bill Copyright Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:675;Page:21147] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the third readings of the Trade Marks Amendment Bill and the Copyright Amendment Bill (No 2) which arise from the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. I wish to make a couple of comments because in the time between the introduction of this legislation and its passage now there has been a great deal more discussion about the importance of trademarks and intellectual property particularly in the context of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement negotiations. 
I will touch on that for a moment because it is pertinent to the purposes and the functioning of this legislation. This legislation was introduced on 8 September 2008 under a Labour Government. Labour is supporting this legislation; it was originally ours. Its first reading occurred on 7 April 2009. After that it was referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for consideration and we on that committee reported back on 15 September 2009. So within about 5 months of the introduction of the legislation we had received submissions we had deliberated we had taken extensive official advice because there were some tricky pieces in this legislation and we had reported back to the House. The report back to the House from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee said under the heading “Commencement clause” that there was discussion on a number of clauses that required implementation by Order in Council—in other words regulatory items that would not come before Parliament. They were largely procedural matters. But we went on to say that having considered whether these things should be implemented by Order in Council or go before the full Parliament we accepted that there were valid reasons for commencement by Order in Council and we said: “[we] urge the Ministry of Economic Development to implement all aspects of the legislation expeditiously.”—expeditiously. That was 15 September 2009. 
This legislation had been sitting for 2 years almost to the day before it started to get its second reading. Its second reading was on 16 August of this year 2011 under urgency. Why did the Government suddenly wake up and think that this legislation—which had been languishing on the Government’s Order Paper for 2 years with the Government having been urged by the select committee to implement it expeditiously—would need 2 years later to be resurrected under urgency and put through? We have heard no explanation at any time from any of the members opposite or from the Minister in charge of the legislation the Minister of Commerce as to why a 2-year delay has occurred in the course of the procedure of this legislation. 
The other point I make is that this trademarks legislation has three particular purposes. One purpose is for New Zealand to sign up in a timely way—but here we go 2 years late—to three international trademark treaties. Its purpose is also to enhance the existing enforcement provisions in the Trade Marks Act and the Copyright Act in order to address the issues of the counterfeiting of registered trademarks and the piracy of copyright-protected works. There are a number of technical issues as well that are addressed in this legislation. 
There is a different colour a different complexion now being cast on the issues of intellectual property because of wide-ranging debates on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement particularly chapters in the negotiations relating to intellectual property. We need to be very careful that everything we do relating to intellectual property protects the creative industries and those who wish not to have their creativity pirated but at the same time we need to allow for opportunities for trade. 
I ask this Government in the short time it has left before the election to ensure that this legislation meets the changed climate around intellectual property. We must not be in the position having passed what I think is basically good legislation of trading away our right to copyright protection and trademark protection under the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. We know that intellectual property questions are being raised routinely and vociferously by non-governmental organisations which have a right to be involved and a right to be heard in the process of negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. There are real concerns in this area and New Zealand needs to be cognisant of them. We need to be sure that we are not trading away either consciously or unconsciously anything that undermines our sovereign rights as a country. 
This legislation brings us into line with international treaties and that is a good thing. The protocol relating to the Madrid Agreement and the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks are important and we need to be consistent with them but let us not ignore the fact that the narrative is changing around these issues. This is not an area of debate that is cast in stone. It is not an area of debate of the kind where once the treaty is signed that is the end of it that is the full stop. 
This is a dynamic discussion. Issues to do with intellectual property are being revisited daily by countries apart from New Zealand—not just New Zealand and not just our non-governmental sector. Those issues are being questioned by academics around the world and we need to be sure that nothing we do in the passing of this legislation or in the signing of any free-trade agreements in the future undermines New Zealand’s sovereignty or undermines our right to protect trademarks creative products and industries that can trade in the knowledge sector not just in the commodity sector. 
The legislation is OK as far as it goes. The legislation does what it needs to do in technical terms. I just alert this House to the fact that these discussions are not over. Thank you.