Hughes Gareth: Patents Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Patents Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:12927. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Chair.Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is a privilege to rise in the Chamber and speak in the Committee stage on Part 1 of the Patents Bill. I thought I was the only one in Parliament who thought patents was an interesting fun and cool area to study.Clare Curran: Sexy.GARETH HUGHES: Sexy as well Clare Curran says. We often feel a bit lonely when we talk about patents at parties or social gatherings but it is good to see some other people in this Parliament who also find them interesting like Dr David Clark and Clare Curran. Obviously I would like to acknowledge the work Clare Curran has put in over the years as part of the coalition putting in a Supplementary Order Paper and trying to fix up some of the software patent issues. So I would like to congratulate her. I would also like to congratulate the Minister of Commerce because when other Ministers would rush straight ahead maybe blind to opposition or calls for common sense from industry or the public or experts Minister Foss did listen. He did move and I would like to acknowledge the Minister’s role in shepherding this bill through and for taking a common-sense approach to patents.This bill is incredibly important to our economy to our prosperity and to how we go forward. We are a country that wants to trade on our innovation on our ideas and on our niches. Intellectual property issues particularly patents are a critical part of that. It is high time we reviewed our antiquated Westminster-derived 1953 Patents Act. In previous readings I talked about how it was literally being laughed at by patent experts and interested parties because it was just so out of date. It was high time we revisited it. This bill represents a step forward. It is obviously not an ideal solution but it is a step forward and that is why the Green Party will be supporting it. Overall it is an improvement on existing law not a step backwards.When you look at Part 1 of the Patents Bill it contains the purposes clause—the purposes around an efficient and effective patent system around the criteria for granting patents and providing greater certainty for patent owners and I believe critically in a Treaty relationship addressingMāori concerns which the Green Party takes incredibly seriously. This is very much a live debatable issue. I think it goes some way although again it is not an ideal solution or one truly reflecting a Treaty relationship that we should have in New Zealand but it is a step in the right direction.I am interested because this patents issue is incredibly interesting internationally and it is stimulating a lot of discussion. I would like to quote very briefly from Nobel Prize - winning economist JosephStiglitz who has written recently on the link between patents intellectual property and inequality.Stiglitz writes that “corporate interests prevail in intellectual property rights” and that the policies of the American Government are increasing inequality abroad. He writes: “it’s our intellectual property regime that contributes needlessly to the gravest form of inequality. The right to life should not be contingent on the ability to pay.” He was talking about a very specific example where a company had basically patented genes and some breast cancer and other cancer identification genomic research and it substantially increased the cost driving the cost out of the reach of many people. It went through the legal system in the United States and now as a result of losing that court case the cost of that genomic research has dropped substantially. People are getting the medical attention they need. It is positive and is just another example of how patents can impact inequality.When it comes to the exclusions to patents this is where I think we really are genuinely seeing a step forward in terms of this bill. The bill is going to allow exemptions to patent human beings medical techniques plants and inventions contrary to public order or morality. That is very much a step in the right direction. The bill does not however prevent all biological patents of course provided that the absolute novelty and inventive step is there. This is something that my colleague Steffan Browning is addressing with his Supplementary Order Papers 124 and 336 which try to tighten up those exemptions and expand them. Obviously the patenting of genesindigenous knowledge and native flora and fauna in very different countries is a very live issue internationally.When it comes to the Treaty andMāori relationships aspect which is looked at in clause 3 of Part 1 I believe that this is going a step in the right direction. But when you read the submissions—and unfortunately I did not have the pleasure of sitting on the Commerce Committee; I think we have had about twice as many MPs work on this bill as the Government has had Ministers work on it—what you see from a lot ofMāori submitters and iwi organisations and theMāori Law Society is that they wanted to wait for Wai 262 the Waitangi Tribunal case to report back. That did report back and it recommended aMāori advisory committee but with binding powers. Of course the fear of many of those submitters is that this advisory council to the Commissioner of Patents could perhaps be perceived as tokenism and that perhaps their voice will not be heard. Hopefully that will not be the case but of course we would have preferred that this was a binding advice provision on the Commissioner of Patents reflecting the Wai 262 recommendation but also that Treaty relationship that I touched on.Of course the interesting thing and the big victory in this bill is the software patent exemption. As Clare Curran notes this has quite a bit of history. It came out of the select committee with the unanimous recommendation to take this bold innovative supporting step. It was congratulated broadly around the world and in New Zealand it was a positive announcement. I think everyone got incredibly disillusioned when the bill sat on the Order Paper for so many years when people were not given the sense that it was going to be progressed. Then when the Minister came out with Supplementary Order Paper 120 which went backwards on the issue of software patents many people were upset and disillusioned but they also got angry and they got organised.I would like to congratulate those involved in that campaign who did change the Minister’s mind—the likes of Orion Health Catalyst ITInternetNZ and Jade Software. It was a huge campaign and I would like to acknowledge all the members behind it. My only regret though with the Government listening to the experts and to the industry and putting the software patent exemption back in is that I cannot give the speech that I wanted to give to the Minister about what a fantastic Minister he was as such and how he was supporting New Zealand industry as such because it was those two little words—“as such”—that made the whole issue clear as mud. That would have seen our information technology sector focused on litigation not on innovation and not on coding. So I will not be able to take themickey out of the Minister in that speech but I would much rather be giving a speech in congratulation and acknowledging the role played there.This bill is about jobs and innovation. It is about supporting our thriving information and communications technology sector which grew by $3 billion in the last 2 years. Our high-tech sector is a critical part of our economy and a critical way that the Greens see jobs and prosperity going forward. Obviously patents issues and debates do not end here. This bill is by no means ideal. It is a step in the right direction but what we need to do is have a fundamental conversation about what intellectual property looks like in the 21st century. What does intellectual property patents copyright look like in the internet age? It is deeply disappointing that we will not be seeing a copyright review. Copyright is a significant driver of not only economic development but also freedom of speech and public discussion and it is deeply disappointing that we are not going to see that review.In the midst of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations which are not public and which could curtail some of our current exemptions or fair dealing or which could take a much more punitive approach to intellectual property issues these are live issues. The people behind the softwarepatents win cannot give up. There is a whole bunch more that we need to address when it comes to intellectual property issues to keep our country going forward.In summary the Greens are supporting this bill in Part 1. We recognise that it is a step forward. It is not ideal. We do have concerns around patenting of life. We do not think theMāori advisory committee is as strong as it should be. But still the bill is a step forward a step in the right direction and we will be supporting it. Kia ora.