Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. To say that I am disappointed to see the Government's stance on my member's bill would be an understatement because I'm disappointed on so many levels. It's not only because they are not supporting my member's bill; it's also because they don't even understand what my member's bill is about.As soon as I saw that it was Minister Iain Lees-Galloway who took the first call on my bill I knew that no one wanted to front up and say that they don't support this bill because this bill is about supporting small and medium enterprises having this tool of intellectual property rights and he's the Minister who has publicly said that he doesn't care about the survival of small and medium enterprises if they fail because of his policies. So why would they support this bill that is to support small and medium enterprises to support incremental advancements?I wrote to so many Ministers. Yes in the Labour Party I wrote to so many Ministers. I wrote to some members in the New Zealand First Party. I also wrote to members in the Green Party. And did they give me even two minutes to talk about this bill? No. That is how they treat their colleagues. I want to acknowledge one Green Party member Gareth Hughes who I had not originally approached but because of his interest I got to talk to him. So yes at least he was interested and he was interested in engaging and having this discussion.So even if members had listened to my contribution at the start of the first reading they would have understood what this bill is about. There is no international consistency when it comes to a second-tier patent system. Then they would not have sounded so shallow and would not have embarrassed themselves and embarrassed the whole House.I want to give this example from the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway's contribution. Iain Lees-Galloway used the example of the Netherlands and he like the member before Duncan Webb used the example of Australia as well. So in that contribution the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway said that As is common in most second-tier patent systems there was no examination for novelty and an inventive step at the patent office. The unexamined six-year patents created legal uncertainty to competitors." Exactly—so there was no examination required in their legislation and no examination required in the legislation that Australia is going through different phases on but my bill is different. There's a big difference because my bill requires examination—examination is compulsory. I don't know if Government members even understand what that means because they kept giving examples of countries that didn't require examination. So this is a big difference and that's why I say to Government members that they should have read my bill.One Government member mentioned a company that is lobbying them not to support my bill and yes I visited that company and that was before the first reading of this bill started. They told me they are not going to support my bill and they're going to lobby Government members. And yes I want to commend that company for their great work because their job is to protect their interest and they have done well. But what is the job of a Government? A Government's job is to look after all small medium and large businesses—look after the whole country. So what they have allowed here is for one company to dictate a public policy—they've allowed one company to dictate a public policy. That is dangerous—that is dangerous. Who is looking after the rest of New Zealand? Not this Government—not this Government. That's the level of shallowness we have from Government members.Yes this is an important tool that is required for small and medium enterprises so that they have intellectual property rights so that other people don't go out and copy their ideas but Government members don't understand that because for each and every policy area they have working groups to advise them. This is too complicated for them. So they didn't even bother reading my bill and understanding and kept giving examples which are not even relevant.So at the end I want to acknowledge my National Party colleagues for their understanding of my passion in this area. I want to especially acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson for all the discussions I had with him after my bill was drawn and I also want to acknowledge all patent attorneys in New Zealand and Australia for their engagement on this bill since this bill was drawn. I want to give special acknowledgment to Grant Shoebridge from Shelston IP for his contribution. And yes I am disappointed. Thank you."