Woods Megan: Patents Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoods Megan: Patents Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:12959. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I am very happy to take this call on the Patents Bill and to hear further from the member Steffan Browning because I think we are discussing some very important issues around his Supplementary Order Paper 124 this afternoon in the Chamber. There are some very complicated issues around the level of debate informing a number of people. I want to join with my colleague David Parker in thanking the member for the consultation he has done with us around the Supplementary Order Paper that he has put up. It was a discussion that was engendered amongst the caucus too which we have been able to have.I think that what we are discussing this afternoon cuts to the heart of what a 21st century economy might look like and what a high-tech 21st century economy in New Zealand may look like. The 20th century in many ways in New Zealand was transformed in the 1980s by New Zealand researchers and New Zealand commercial entities in 1987 being able to protect their plant variety rights as New Zealand moved more into the intellectual property sphere in terms of what we did around protecting our intellectual property rights. The fact that we hadprotectable rights around plant varieties saw Zespri invest $20 million in developing Hort16A which is the kiwi gold kiwifruit that has gone on to earn that company billions of dollars. It saw the New Zealand Apple and Pear Board under its various incarnations invest similar amounts of money in apple varieties and it gave us the Jazz apple. What we know is that if we are going to have high-value high-tech sustainable industries in the 21st century we do need them to be commercially viable and we do need people to invest in that research and development.Mr Browning raised some very interesting questions in his first contribution—one of what I am sure will be many on this issue—about public-good science and the role thatpublic-good science should play in our society. Public-good science is hugely important but I think it is very important to remember when we are talking about whether or not we can protect biotechnology intellectual property that it is not a dichotomy—it is not either/or. I started talking about the transformation that the New Zealand economy could undertake in the 20th century through the protection of plant variety rights. I truly believe that the ability to haveprotectable intellectual property around organisms and particularly micro-organisms in the 21st century is going to be a similar transformational boon for the economy. It is something that New Zealand cannot be left out of and something that we have to make sure we have progressive and world-leading legislation around to make sure it is fully capable of dealing with these situations.In terms of whether or not as Mr Browning has suggested we might put commercial protections around knowledge and whether that will actually stifle the ability of researchers and the way in which researchers conduct themselves and the ability for knowledge to flourish in this country—the way in which we need knowledge in this area to flourish if we are going to have the kind of economy that we on this side of the Chamber know is our future. I do not think that protecting will do that. We have seen an analogous situation in what has happened in the fields of our traditional crop sciences around the ability to protect the horticultural and arable crops. We have not seen a stifling of interactions. We have not seen a stifling of the ability of researchers to get together. Something that we always have to remember is that this research happens on a continuum. The fundamental basic research is still going to be published in the scientific journals. It is still going to be subject to peer review. It is as we get down the chain and we look more at the applications of this knowledge that the protections come into place.Let us think about what it is that a patent process does and what would happen if we do not have a patent process. If we do not have a patent process what will happen is that industry and commercial entities will be less likely to let their scientists and their researchers share their knowledge and work with other collaborators. What they will rely on is know-how—trade secrets and know-how. But if they go through the patent system then there is a clear chain of documentation. There is a clear chain that lays out the research path that it has been put on and a clear chain of who the researchers working on it are. Part of the patenting process after all is about making that knowledge public. We need to see whether there is prior art. We have to consider what research has happened in the past in this field so these are things that I am confident will allow our biotechnology sector to flourish in New Zealand. I think that this new economy the biotech economy is an important part of our future going into the 21st century.I want to consider some of the ways in which micro-organisms might play a role in a 21st century New Zealand economy. One of the things that we have to absolutely grapple with in this century is the idea of greenhouse gas emission and how in an agricultural economy and an agricultural society and country we are going to manage that. Bacteria and micro-organisms can play a crucial role in this. The photosynthesis that happens via bacteria is so much more rapid than photosynthesis that occurs through only plant material. Using bacteria in our soils is actually a way for us to reduce our reliance on nitrate-rich fertilisers in our soils. There are huge environmental gains for us to be made by having the ability to use these micro-organisms in our agricultural practice but the only way that we will get industry to invest to commercialise these products and for us to be able to use them is if they can see a viable business model that operates around them. Being able to protect their intellectual property for the millions of dollars of investment that they are going to make is absolutely vital to this.We have seen that the popular science literature is full of ways in which bacteria and micro-organisms are going to be a huge part of our finding a sustainable path for the 21st century. Toxins that can usually last in soils and sands for up to 10 years can be broken down in a matter of days through the use of bacteria. Imagine what we could do in terms of cleaning up around spills if we have these high-tech high-value products that can be used to do that. But we need to encourage industry to invest in this. Yes our public-good science and our universities absolutely have a part to play and that is something that I believe in passionately. I believe that we need our universities to be “critic and conscience” and free to publish but we also need to have the part of the chain where we can commercialise this knowledge well-though-out and part of a sophisticated economy that is capable of taking us forward. It is about the ability to protect the knowledge around these organisms and particularly even the organisms themselves because that will be our competitive advantage in the 21st century. It is our raw natural product of our talent and our ability to work in this field put together with what we have always done well that will take us into the 21st century.What we know is—and my colleague David Parker talked about it and Mr Browning addressed it—the fact that biofuels is something that we know are going to be part of the 21st century. Bacteria and micro-organisms are an absolutely crucial part of this technology. Without the ability to build a business model around it to see how it stacks up and to know how it is that a company can make a commercial gain out of this it will not be the way.Of course there need to be limits on this. We need to be able to protect the ability for us to have surgical procedures and the things that there is a morality around. They need to have limits. But the legislation as it currently stands offers those protections. We do not need this amendment. All this amendment will do is stifle the ability to innovate when actually there are some very elegant solutions that have been well-thought-through that have been worked hard on by this Committee and are indeed in this current piece of legislation. Labour will not be voting for this Supplementary Order Paper. It has been an interesting discussion and I thank the Committee for this discussion.