O'Rourke Denis: Patents Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Patents Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:12965. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Thank you Mr Chairman—a very good choice. The Minister of Commerce’s amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 120 as they apply to Part 2 will be supported by New Zealand First and New Zealand First will also support Steffan Browning’s Supplementary Order Paper 124. We will also support his Supplementary Order Paper 336 amendments on Part 3 which are only inconsequential amendments.As he points out the Patents Bill allows many life forms to be subject to patentability and this should not be the case. We agree with the reasons he gives for that—in particular because it may encourage piracy of some of New Zealand’s indigenous flora and fauna turning life forms into commodities to be used for profit. There is also the problem of the barriers to scientific research that it may create. We think that is a very significant issue because it is not in the interests of any country at all that scientific research should be inhibited in any way whatsoever. That is possibly an unintended effect of the bill but it is one that we take very seriously.Life forms however they come into being must not become the exclusive property of anybody or any corporation and free access to them by everybody—especially the science community—should be clearly preserved in our view. As a matter of principle nobody invents life forms. No matter how they may be discovered manipulated or used they are not actually invented. Even if a life form can be altered to display characteristics different from similar forms found in nature this is still not an act of invention by humans. It is just a manipulation of the life form already subsisting in the natural world. So in the end for people who own the traits created by such manipulation such as the seeds it is just in fact a method of securing a monopoly which we do not necessarily see as positive. This must not be allowed or encouraged. It is sufficient that those who create such traits will have a head start in exploiting them.I know that where I live in Canterbury there are companies overseas that send seeds to Canterbury to be grown first because of course New Zealand is a season ahead of the rest of the world. Having been grown and reproduced the seeds can be used very quickly in other parts of the world. That is the advantage those companies would have from the seeds so there is no need for them to be patented. In fact it is better that they should become as widely available as possible in due course for the potential benefit to all humankind.As Mr Browning points out the bill prohibits only some life forms from patentability. It says for example that human tissue cannot be patented whether for treatment or therapy purposes or other such purposes. Plant varieties are also not patentable but they are protected under the Plant Variety Rights Act. The definition of that term in that Act means that there are still many life forms not covered. Therefore we think a more comprehensive provision is needed in order to prevent patents for living life forms. Therefore the Browning amendment would not compromise the development of exclusivity relating to products such as Zespri that have the protection of the Plant Variety Rights Act and of international agreements.Concerning the development of new—that is changed—micro-organisms for commercial use such as in the development of biofuels although not covered by the Plant Variety Rights Act and although such developments may become commercially valuable that does not itself justify patentability and does not in the end undermine New Zealand’s commercial interests in using such organisms because the value of them would be in New Zealand’s economic advantage such as climate advantage in producing and marketing them. So I do not accept that Mr Browning’s amendments would damage New Zealand’s commercial interests at all as claimed by Labour. I think that Labour has got it somewhat wrong and should have another look at the situation. New Zealand First will therefore vote for Mr Browning’s amendment but whether it passes or not we will also vote for Part 2.