Lees-Galloway IainHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you very much Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I start my contribution by acknowledging the sponsor of this bill Parmjeet Parmar and the good intentions with which she brings this bill before the House. I think all members of this House want to see greater investment in research and development in New Zealand. We do lag behind other OECD nations in our private and public investment in research and development and we want to see more businesses engaged in research engaged in high-technology activities because we know that is what can help drive productivity that is what can help drive wages up and that is what can improve living standards. As a Government that is absolutely focused on transitioning our economy to one that is productive sustainable and inclusive we certainly commend the member for bringing this bill to the House with those intentions which makes me wonder why the previous Government didn't include a second-tier patent system when they introduced the new Patents Act in 2013.By 2013 plenty of other countries as the member sponsoring the bill said already had a two-tier system. It was not a new idea and if it was a good idea if it was one that was working well and that would be fit for purpose here in New Zealand I'm quite sure that the previous Government would have introduced it as part of its Government legislation. That was legislation that the Labour Party in Opposition supported. It was a good piece of legislation and the idea that is at the heart of this bill that the member is bringing is one that could easily have been included in that bill. But I think there are good reasons why the previous Government did not have a two-tier patent system as part of the Patents Act 2013.The first is that there are question marks about whether two-tier systems really work. In fact many of the nations that have two-tier systems either have decided to do away with it or are actively considering whether they should do away with having a two-tier system. So for instance the Netherlands introduced a two-tier system in April 1995 but in June 2008 they did away with the two-tier system. 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.Chris Bishop: Send it to a committee to have the debate.Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Belgium followed the Netherlands in January 2009—and the member raised Australia. Australia is another jurisdiction where they are seriously considering actively considering doing away with two-tier systems. So the members opposite are saying Well send it to a select committee." Well actually people have had their say in New Zealand first of all by not clamouring for this. We in the Government actually tried to find where the public outcry is where the outcry is from within the tech sector and where the small to medium sized enterprises are—those who want to engage in more research and development and want to be more high-technology and be able to get more patents more easily. Where is the cry from them for this change?There isn't one. It's not there. It simply doesn't exist. In fact Computerworld New Zealand described this bill as something of a horror film for our industry. Now I think that's a bit rough on the member to be honest but it does demonstrate the feelings of people out there who are actually operating in this space and would be coming out and supporting this if they thought it was a good idea. I know I haven't got much time left this evening but I just want to touch on a comment that was made at the 10th annual conference of the European Policy for Intellectual Property Association "As a conclusion the empirical evidence on the economic benefits of two-tiered patent systems in advanced economies remains non-existent." Why would we at this time introduce a bill that takes us down a path that so many other countries are rejecting at this stage? I do appreciate what the member is trying to do. I understand the sentiment behind this bill but it is clear that this is not the direction that other nations that we compare ourselves with are going in. In fact they're going in the opposite direction.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m."