Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Yes well first of all I'd just remind the Minister the Hon Dr David Clark because he keeps wanting to remind the rest of the Chamber because just because he may have spoken about this issue some time ago—and I'm not sure when it was actually in the Chamber last time but some time ago. That's not necessarily an excuse to just try and fob off people asking legitimate questions.So my first question is has the Minister actually spoken to the gaming industry about the intellectual property changes that he's proposed given his technology portfolio holding that he has? Because I'd love the Minister to stand up and tell me what the gaming industry does say given the comments I read out in that letter.The other issue with this is—I take his point that we don't want people misusing intellectual property. That is the balance of any bill that needs to pass through this Chamber so we do end up with an outcome that provides sufficient protections but at the same time doesn't stifle economic activity. Where we've ended up—and by the way that the Minister characterised it before which is Because everyone else has done it." This is effectively an Armageddon-type clause. This has got rid of the safe harbour clauses and that is quite a significant issue.So the lack of nuance the lack of ability to be able to work through different options to make sure that we do protect intellectual property that is derived and created in New Zealand can be used and can be disseminated and shared but at the same time still protects the creator of that intellectual property. I suggest to the Minister that where we've ended up with is an Armageddon clause which means that we're going to remove it. That's why I support the Hon Todd McClay's Supplementary Order Paper.So the first question: has he discussed it with the gaming industry? I'd love to hear whether he has and what the response was. The second thing—part of this discussion was the transitional period for existing intellectual property agreements. There in the bill it proposes that all this takes place within a year. We also oppose this because it is—at the moment it's a three-year period and we suggested that moving it to one year was too short. I've got to say that I've had companies that have created intellectual property and applied for patents—very expensive. Incredibly expensive not only in New Zealand but to seek them around the world to make sure they are binding and every five years to actually make the application or pay the application fee to renew those patent fees—very very significant costs. Companies that have created and gone down that expense do want to make sure that if they're going to do that they would have entered into commercial arrangements.I think what I'd say to the Minister—and it's almost commercially naive that it is assumed that companies can change these agreements easily within a year rather than the existing three-year period that was proposed. We think it's again a more practical prudent step to help companies who are going to be caught by these provisions to migrate and change their arrangements over time.The final thing: the Minister talked about how the Commerce Commission intends to release guidance regarding the repeal of the intellectual property safe harbour. I've got to say I scoffed at that when I heard that because here is the same Minister that issued these Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA) regulations who took the 2017 CCCFA changes which basically means impose all these regulations on the finance industry—the 2017 regulations were 63 pages long from memory. Now talking to 105 and guess where we are. We're right in the problem and he's having to fix up these regulations because we've got a dysfunctional market.I would suggest to you that the reliance on the Commerce Commission to issue this guidance—and he says the industry is comforted by that. Who has said that to him? Please name them because I would be loving to hear who is supporting that."