Curran Clare: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Curran Clare: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:21028] 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 Mr Chair— 
Stuart Nash 
: I thought I was being very relevant. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: I would like to say that the speech from the previous member Stuart Nash was very relevant to the discussion generally about copyright and about the problematic nature of infringement and alleged infringement. I will return to the seriousness of counterfeiting and copyright infringements that happen with large-scale copyright and counterfeiting breaches and breaches of trademarks which my colleague Pete Hodgson referred to. With reference to Part 2 of the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill I will return to what was considered to be the public policy objective of this bill. The public policy objective of this bill was about reducing the trade in New Zealand of counterfeits and about deterring people from becoming involved in that trade through increased prosecution by a Government agency for the criminal offences that are provided under the Trade Marks Act and the Copyright Act. This bill is providing for more provision for enforcement. 
I think the ministry talked about prosecution by Government agencies for those criminal offences as being infrequent and ad hoc which was contributing to the growth of counterfeits being offered for sale in New Zealand. Greater volumes of counterfeits being offered for sale could lead to reduced profits by the trademark owners and the copyright holders. They are otherwise known as the rights-holders. This bill is about being on the side of the rights-holders and trying to ensure that there can be updated and harmonised legislation—which has taken several years to come back before the House to be passed—that can provide more protection and entrenchment in society so that there is not an acceptance of counterfeits and so that people cannot get away with doing that and making a lot of money out of it while ignoring the law. There are also health risks which have been alluded to and the wider impacts on the economy as a whole. 
All those things are very important. I think that across the House we all agree on those fundamental principles but unfortunately we have taken nearly 3 years or whatever it is for the legislation to get back to the House to be passed. There has been virtually no debate on the importance of the scope of the issue yet there has been an enormous amount of discussion and legislation passed in the House on putting a penalty on people who are doing it for their own benefit because generally they cannot get access to the material elsewhere. 
I think one of the most important things about this bill is that it is about the importance of brands. Virtually all my colleagues have alluded to that. In the spirit of the importance of brands I will make reference to some breaking news that is sort of relevant. I hope that the Chair Lindsay Tisch and the Committee would consider it to be relevant. There has been a lot of discussion in New Zealand in the last few weeks about brands particularly about rugby jerseys and controversies about them. The Highlanders have made a decision tonight— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Who? 
CLARE CURRAN 
:—the Highlanders—to keep the original colours of their brand in the home games. If Eric Roy was in the Chair he might be interested in that piece of news and a few other people in the House might be too. The Highlanders may keep that new green strip for the away games but the original colours will be kept in Otago and Southland for the home games. That is a piece of good news. I thank the Chair for his indulgence in allowing me to announce that. I wish I had the aforesaid Highlanders jersey here tonight—which I certainly would not be wearing in the Chamber—as a significant symbol of the importance of a brand and what it means.