Turei Metiria: Patents Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Patents Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:12961. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I hope you are similarly relieved by the content of my speech. I have Supplementary Order Paper 348 on the Table which amends various clauses within this Patents Bill including at least one clause in Part 2 and a substantive one in Part 6. I would like to take the opportunity to talk with members about Supplementary Order Paper 348. It does two main things. First it removes the advisory aspect—or the dominance of the advisory aspect—from theMāori committee and makes the recommendations of theMāori committee concerning patents obligatory on the Commissioner of Patents and the decisions that the commissioner makes. Second it removes the commissioner from the appointment of members to theMāori committee and instead replaces that person with the Minister of Commerce.I want to briefly outline the issues around why Supplementary Order Paper 348 was put together. We have committed to making further changes to intellectual property law to give effect to the Wai 262 claim and the Waitangi Tribunal reportKo AotearoaTēnei.We want first to just acknowledge the original claimants of Wai 262 which was lodged 20 years ago—more than that possibly—by members ofNgātiKurī Te RarawaNgātiKōataNgatiPorouNgāti Wai andNgāti Kahungunu and acknowledge that none of those original claimants is still alive. All have passed on. We acknowledge the support of those claimants particularlySaana Murray and DellWīhongi who were so instrumental in fighting the incursion of genetic engineering into our environment because they believed with all their hearts that we must protect the mauri of Te AoMāori not for themselves or for ourselves but for their tamariki and for our mokopuna to come.The issues here concerning patents have a very long history—a very long Te Tiriti - based history. Unfortunately in the way that the bill has been prepared and the select committee process for this bill that history has been largely ignored. Although we cannot fix that failure during this Committee process we can make a small step to try to remedy at least part of that failure. So we have Supplementary Order Paper 348 on the Table which meets some of theMāori submitters’ concerns about the nature of theMāori advisory committee and gives that committee more authority and more decision-making power in the decisions around patents.We will be clear. We support this bill because it makes some significant improvements to patent law in New Zealand ruling out patents on humans on methods of treatment and diagnosis on plant varieties and on computer programs. I acknowledge the work of my colleague Gareth Hughes which was instrumental in campaigning to make sure that those protections or exclusions were put in place. These changes are important and they are way overdue.But the bill does not deal with the issues that were raised in Wai 262. It does not deal with the issues that were raised by the tribunal inKo AotearoaTēnei. That means there are serious gaps and flaws in it. We acknowledge that. In supporting this legislation we acknowledge those gaps. Our support comes with the knowledge that there is no real progress onmātaurangaMāori here in this legislation.The reason we have put forward the changes in Supplementary Order Paper 348 is to at least give theMāori world view—mātaurangaMāori Te AoMāori—the opportunity to have a genuine say at the table. I would just refer members to the Waitangi Tribunal report. The tribunal was very careful and very measured—it has had some criticism for being far too measured I have to say—in stating its view on howMāori should be part of the decision-making process around patents. It said: “The Treaty of Waitangi gave the Crown the right to govern and enact laws but that right was qualified by guarantee of tino rangatiratanga … for iwi andhapū over their ‘taonga katoa’ … The courts have characterised this exchange of rights and obligations as a partnership. In this context tino rangatiratanga means that iwi andhapū are entitled to exercise authority over theirmātauranga and to exercise authority over their relationships with taonga such as cultural works and parts of the environment that are significant to their culture and identity so that they can fulfil their obligations as kaitiaki.”So that sets the framework for how these issues need to be considered by the Crown. The tribunal then went on to say that its recommendations include in relation to changes to patent law in particular “the establishment of aMāori advisory committee to advise the Commissioner of Patents and Plant Variety Rights about whether inventions are derived fromMāori traditional knowledge or use taonga species;”—that is there in a very watered-down form in this bill—“establishment of a register of kaitiaki interests in taonga species; granting the Commissioner of Patents the power to refuse patents that unduly interfere with the relationship between kaitiaki and taonga; and introducing a legal requirement for patent applicants to disclose anyMāori traditional knowledge usedin research and the source and the country of origin of any genetic or biological material contributing to the invention.”This is essentially about making sure that there isMāori decision making about whether patents should proceed based onmātaurangaMāori and theMāori connection—their obligation to be kaitiaki of those natural taonga—and that there is an obligation on those seeking patents to provide information about those patents from aMāori point of view. That is good. That means that when those organisations those companies those researchers and those inventors are in this country this Te Tiriti - based country they need to take as their first principle considerations of whereMāori interests lie in the work they are doing whose taonga they are using for the invention how they have communicated with those people who are kaitiaki and how they then work with those kaitiaki to make sure that themātaurangaMāori is respected restored and protected. That obligation should be on those who are making the applications. It should be on the researchers and on the inventors.We must make sure thatMāori interests are maintained and upheld from the very start. The current law simply does not deal with any of that at this point. It does nothing about that. We cannot fix that in this bill at this point. It does mean that at some point the Government is going to have to—well we would very much like the Government to—take the tribunal report the findings and these recommendations very seriously and find a way to implement them in this new patents law.We understand that it was not widely understood or acknowledged at the time that the bill was drafted and at the time that the Commerce Committee heard the submissions. Now that we do know now that we have the report and now that we have more information and understanding about how the law could better reflect and incorporatemātaurangaMāori and Te AoMāori into its decision-making processes we have an obligation as a Parliament to make it happen. This is what the Treaty relationship requires.The Green Party will be supporting this bill. We urge members to support our Supplementary Order Paper 348 around theMāori advisory committee to at least give some opportunity forMāori to be decision makers over those issues that are most important to them. It is a small but significant step that could be made today to take the issue just a little bit further and then for us to find a way to work together in the future—and in the very near future I would hope—to really bring these issues fromKo AotearoaTēnei to the fore and further amendments to patent law and intellectual property law. Thank you.