Katene Rahui: Trade Marks Amendment Bill Copyright Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Katene Rahui: Trade Marks Amendment Bill Copyright Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:675;Page:21154] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. The Maori Party is happy to support this legislation. The consultation that we have been able to have with those who have expertise and experience in the field of intellectual and cultural property suggests that there is low risk from this legislation and that it is in fact worthy of our support. 
The legislation establishes a mechanism to reduce the likelihood of New Zealand being used as a go-between to avoid other States’ privacy laws. There are also provisions to ensure that personal data originating overseas and sent to New Zealand is subject to our privacy protection. We believe that the commitment to the protection of personal data not only domestically but internationally would highlight to other Governments that we take the protection of privacy seriously. 
It has also been very positive that the suggestions that came up through the select committee process have been taken into account. It reminds us and reinforces the view that good law is law that is shaped by and responsive to the views of the public. In this legislation for example the public law committee of the New Zealand Law Society recommended adding a reference in the legislation to international agreements guidelines or principles that are relevant to trans-border data flows. This would include incorporating the OECD guidelines directly into the legislation. The recommendation was agreed to by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and the necessary amendments were proposed. This is exactly how the legislative process should work and it reminds us of the importance of our Parliament—with a Government that insists that other countries be democratic—being seen to be a democracy also. 
The key issue for our discussion in reference to this legislation is around the importance of international relationships. The aim of the legislation to accede to the Madrid Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks means that basically we are establishing a context for considering a global trademark. The opportunity to also accede to the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks as well as to ratify the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks is one that we fully support. We do so because we see a global language a relationship with other nations as an essential opportunity to build respect and understanding across the globe. I have to say that it is particularly timely on International Literacy Day that we are acting in a way that is consistent with our global counterparts. It is extremely positive that this Parliament will be giving effect to commitments that are consistent with international practice. 
It is from such a basis that we hope to establish trade relationships with other first-nation peoples. The bill may provide benefits to Maori business owners wanting to apply for trademarks particularly if they want to trade internationally. We also see support for this bill as being totally consistent with acceptance of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which we see as one of the hallmark successes of the Maori Party relationship with the Government in this term of Parliament. 
Again the timing is interesting. It is almost 4 years to the day since 13 September 2007 when the Labour Government created such outrage amongst tangata whenua in its opposition to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That one act along with the infamous raids undertaken under the auspices of Operation Eight—the raids in Ruatoki—was certainly part of the context that lead to Maori deserting the rank and file membership of the Labour Party. It is a history that was brought home to us vividly yesterday with the not surprising revelations that charges would be dropped due to evidence being inadmissible. We must not allow these events to be forgotten. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is the third reading of the bill and generally that is a fairly tight debate. I think the member has strayed some distance from the bill itself and I request that you pull her back to order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well it is not so tight in terms of the fact that the third reading is often a summing up of what goes on in the Committee stage. I am listening to the member and I am starting to have concerns so I ask the member to address the trademarks legislation. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE 
: I must say that we are disappointed that the legislation does not include the Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples and that it was overlooked in the evolution of this legislation. We need to see Maori-specific indigenous knowledge and intellectual property protection legislation that gives due regard to the unique value of the indigenous brand. We are now calling for a proactive approach to supporting Maori intellectual property protections. We want to support indigenous declarations on cultural and intellectual property including the Mataatua declaration and their expression in domestic and international law. 
Finally I have to place on record that this House must acknowledge the inevitable refinement of policy that will occur following the Government’s response to  
Ko Aotearoa Tenei 
 a report of the Waitangi Tribunal into the claims concerning law and policy affecting Maori culture and identity—that is Wai 262. This report has been uppermost in all of our minds this week with the sad passing of the kuia who was one of the original claimants Saana Murray. 
The Wai 262 report described two categories of taonga related to cultural and intellectual property which trademarks reflect. A taonga work is a creation of a pre-existing and distinctive body of knowledge values and insights knows as matauranga Maori. A taonga-derived work is something that is inspired by matauranga Maori but is not a taonga in itself. It does not reflect traditional narratives and has no spiritual significance. It may look like it contains elements of Maori design but it has no connection to the ancestors. An example of a taonga-derived work could be the koru on the tails of the Air New Zealand planes similar commercial logos and motifs and purpose-written waiata for schools and workplaces.  
The Wai 262 report called for new standards governing the use of taonga works and matauranga Maori with a mechanism that allows kaitiaki to object to offensive or derogatory use or commercial exploitation without consent. Also recommended is the establishment of an expert commission with specialists in intellectual property law commerce science and stewardship consisting of both Maori and Crown members.  
I touch on some of these issues canvassed in the Wai 262 report 
 Ko Aotearoa Tenei 
 as I believe that they will be highly relevant to the future implementation of this bill. At the very least there should be a qualifier that will give legislators and policy makers a reminder to keep alert to the consequential changes that will be required to address the Wai 262 findings. With these few comments in mind we will support this bill.