Dalziel Lianne: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2477] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I congratulate the Minister in charge of the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill Simon Power on changing some of the words in the first reading speech that had been prepared for him and congratulate him on getting around to having the bill’s first reading. I am actually very pleased that the bill is having its first reading and that it will be referred to the select committee for consideration. But I missed the beginning of the speech so I am not a hundred percent sure which committee— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Foreign Affairs— 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That is actually a perfectly sensible committee for the bill to go to given that we are very busy at the Commerce Committee and it also makes sense given that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee has assessed the national interest analyses on each of the international treaties mentioned by the Minister in relation to the legislation that is being amended by the bill in accordance with those treaties. 
 We have had a lot of debates over recent months in respect of copyright and perhaps what has occurred there demands that we all pay careful attention to detail when we are discussing those important issues. The copyright amendment bill to which I refer was deliberately couched in non-prescriptive terms so that industry would produce guidelines that protect copyright in this modern Internet age where everything that is viewed is technically reproduced albeit for a moment in time. This bill obviously is not as complex as that one was but it does raise for the House’s consideration just how complex some of those issues are. The existence of legislation that was designed in an earlier age before we had the modern technologies that we have today really means that we have to keep thinking in the present and the future rather than perhaps reflecting entirely on the past. This bill as we have heard from the Minister gives effect to the Government’s decisions to accede to the Madrid protocol relating to the Madrid agreement— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What about the Indian one? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —to accede to the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks and to ratify the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks. My colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove interjected from the front bench to ask whether there is any Indian component to this and I can understand why he would ask that question. Of course there are certain source countries in respect of counterfeit material that we have to be very aware of and tragically India is one of them. India is one of the countries that has been rather— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Visited often? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes it has been visited recently. Unfortunately it is one of those places that thrive on counterfeit products and unfortunately other countries in the world do as well. That is why I am pleased that this bill also empowers the Ministry of Economic Development and the Customs Service to enforce the criminal offence provisions under the Trade Marks Act and the Copyright Act. 
The Minister in his comments traversed the implications of the various instruments and of course the treaties themselves. Their accompanying national interest analyses have been examined as I said before by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which is why it makes sense to send the bill there for its consideration. If I were looking for themes to ascribe to the instruments themselves though I would use words like “user-friendly” “compliance cost reduction” “flexibility” simplification” and “international harmonisation”. I guess that is a win-win win. I think it is good when the House can look at legislation that is able to produce such significant benefit. 
During the time that I was Minister of Commerce I came to appreciate how important it was for New Zealand not only to sign up to international standards but also to play a part in both developing and indeed leading in many of those areas of standards development as well. There are so many areas where New Zealand punches above its weight and standardisation is one of them. The fact that the previous chief executive officer of Standards New Zealand now heads the International Organization for Standardization is something that is worthy of mention in this context. 
Harmonising our laws with international standards simply makes good sense. The benefits are obvious when one considers in respect of the Madrid protocol that a single application for registration will obviously reduce the cost of protecting a trademark across multiple jurisdictions in a single hit. There will be a fee set according to the number of countries that are expected to be covered by the application for registration. Then of course there are the enhanced enforcement provisions and it is worthy of making the point that there really is no protection of trademarks or of copyright unless that protection is claimed and enforced. 
There is an enormous problem worldwide with counterfeit goods and as I mentioned before there are the “Rolex” watches the “Dolce and Gabbana” handbags and the “Armani” suits that one buys in the markets. Of course none of the members on the other side would have ever heard of any of those labels! Any designer label one would care to mention has been subject to counterfeit. There is a considerable amount of money to be made from counterfeiting designer labels although I do think— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Big problem in India. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I mentioned before that it is a large problem in India. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Did Richard bring it back for his colleagues? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I do not know how much a certain member brought back to New Zealand that is probably counterfeit. I would say that he probably has more on his mind at the moment because I am sure that the “bollocking” did not cover any of his designer label purchases that he might have made en route. I think acting as a Minister on a private trip might have caused him a little bit more concern than counterfeit designer labels. 
I think it is an important issue and the Minister made a very good point and perhaps one that I had not appreciated myself. That is that when an organisation is trying to find illicit ways of gathering sufficient funds to undertake its various terrorist and criminal activities counterfeit trade is obviously one that fits in very well with the general criminal intent of the organisation but one that perhaps slips in under the radar. Everyone is obviously concerned about the illicit trade in drugs the illicit trade in arms the illicit trade in human beings— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Aircraft? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —the illicit trade in aircraft— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Aviation? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Oh yes that is right! I thought there was a link there somewhere. 
The point I am making is that there are obvious forms of illicit activities that the world is very much aware of—and aware of the consequences of—but this illicit counterfeit trade is one form that can produce a significant amount of money and as I say basically operate under the radar. So New Zealand by signing up to those stricter controls and higher penalties becomes part of this worldwide commitment to protect what are in essence property rights. 
I am sure there will be submissions though about the enforcement provisions and I again mention the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association formerly the Canterbury Manufacturers Association which has expressed views in this area quite firmly. I note that copyright and trademark owners need to be able to request assistance from the Customs Service to identify shipments of infringing goods coming into or transiting through New Zealand. But the Manufacturers and Exporters Association continues to raise an issue about the responsibility for policing at the border. There are countries where essentially the responsibility for that policing activity is undertaken by the border control authorities and essentially the importer is obliged to prove that the goods are not breaching copyright trademark or any of the other provisions or undermining any of the standards that apply in those countries. [ 
Interruption 
] I know that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove is going to take a call on the bill very shortly because he just cannot stop interjecting. But there we go! 
I just want to make the point that the phase-out of the $5000 bond may assist in that regard but I know there will be businesses that would expect a much more proactive stance at the border. As a former Minister of Commerce I delegated responsibility for all intellectual property matters to my colleague the Hon Judith Tizard in whose name this bill was originally introduced. I am pleased to be able to acknowledge her work in this vital area and indeed to commend this bill to the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I call John Hayes. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: This will be good!