Hughes Gareth: Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 09 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8812. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. First I would like to start by welcoming MPs back on the first day of Parliament and hope that they and all New Zealanders had a fantastic summer break with their friends and whānau.I rise to support the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I have found that talking about patent law is a sure-fire way to lose people to talk to at parties and a sure-fire way to fall asleep at night but it is something critically important to the future of New Zealand and our prosperity. The Green Party knows that intellectual property and patent law is important as part of building a smarter richer Aotearoa New Zealand.In this contribution I would like to touch on some of the broader issues but first touch on this bill. The bill does three things which you have heard tonight. It amends the grounds on which a person can oppose the granting of a patent under the recently amended Patents Act 2013; it creates a single patent application process and a single patent examination process with Australia; and it creates a joint registration regime for patent attorneys. Back in 2013 that legislation which I know Clare Curran talked about was amending more than 50-year-old legislation. The highlight for me was the campaign successfully convincing the Government to—I have forgotten how many backflips there eventually were but finally we got there—ban all software patents. It was an incredibly good step. That was not a long time ago and here we are—having to fix up this mess in the original legislation.The amendment to the grounds on which a person can oppose a patent application is the correction of the drafting error around the unity of invention clause which we have heard about. It seems pretty much common sense to be passing this if it is in fact a drafting error. One of the questions I will be looking out for in select committee is around hearing from patent attorneys how many cases actually were affected by this so-called drafting error because I have read reports that there is an argument that this change should be applied retrospectively. When the Patents Act 2013 was passed it did include an element of retrospectivity in terms of New Zealand priority claims. So it is an interesting case: we applied retrospectivity in one case but not this one. I am looking forward to having that discussion in the select committee.That cleans up the mess but the big part of the bill deals with a part that is bigger in scope which is a single patent examination and application process. We have heard tonight that 95 percent of those 6000 patent applications filed in New Zealand are also filed in Australia so there is a strong argument around common sense and efficiency in avoiding duplication by having a similar regime.On the other side of the ledger I understand that there would be concerns around New Zealand losing its sovereignty. The tribunal for example only has at least a single New Zealand member so I understand some of those concerns. But I would like to respond to them and point out that in fact it is hard to argue there is a loss of sovereignty because there will be one examiner from each country a New Zealander in the case of New Zealand hearing a New Zealander who is domiciled here. Both the officers would be applying their own unique jurisdictional legislation when it comes to those cases.We heard in the small amount of consultation around this bill that Australian patent attorneys support this registration process but patent attorneys in New Zealand have raised some concerns around the likely increased regulatory and business compliance costs to register and practise in New Zealand. It is going to be interesting to hear from them in terms of their perspective in New Zealand because when you look around at just the single patent examination process the “SEP” the Government’s own departmental disclosure statement does say that there was no consultation and that the cost and benefits of implementing it have not been quantified. In fact it is unclear whether the fees would need to increase or decrease. So there are still substantial questions for a bill that has been in the pipes for a long time.In the remaining time I would actually like to touch on the wider and in fact more important issues. It is great to be seeing the Government of New Zealand discussing patents and intellectual property in our Parliament but what we are doing tonight is simply scratching the surface dealing around the edges the fringes and in fact ignoring the biggest most important question facing us which is how we increase the innovation potential of New Zealand.The Government is happy to deal with intellectual property issues. In fact that is exactly what we see in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. There the Government is explicit—you could say that it is patently clear—that there is going to be a cost to New Zealanders in the order of $55 million from the copyright extensions of term limits. So the Government is happy to talk about intellectual property when it comes to the TPP agreement happy to talk about a joint regime with Australia despite all the questions and perhaps additional costs for New Zealand patent attorneys—all nearly 200 of them—but it is not talking about how we actually increase the number of patents we see filed in New Zealand. Under this legislation it may be easier and it may be more expensive to file a patent in New Zealand and Australia but we are not having those conversations.How do we get more Kiwis coming up with those good ideas commercialising them marketing them and exporting them? New Zealand does have an innovation problem and numerous reports clearly show that. Members no doubt are aware of the New Zealand paradox which is that we face lower growth internationally compared with our competitors ostensibly despite having the right economic mechanisms in place. On a per capita basis I think the answer is pretty clear. I agree with Shaun Hendy on this point: the answer to the New Zealand paradox is that in fact we have an innovation problem. We are in the bottom half of the OECD when it comes to research and development. We file four times fewer patents than the OECD average. If you agree with the recent Productivity Commission report—it notes that there has been an increase in research and development spending currently; however the actual innovation benefits are debatable and when it comes to the patents area we are in fact stagnant.As a country we need to ask ourselves why we are spending more money on research and development but only getting the same number of patents and why that is so. The result is that New Zealanders have got to work harder for every dollar we earn as a nation and we continue to slide down those economic rankings. If you have a less innovation-focused economy you remain reliant on those raw commodities the milk powder and the brown paper bags the raw logs lining up on the port. We see our talented young Kiwis head off overseas. All members should know—although I think that the Government sometimes has its head in the sand over it—that there is a limit to the amount of milk powder we can export. There is a limit and we are seeing it in our waterways at the moment when we cannot swim in them over summer. We are seeing that limit. But there is no limit to the amount of intellectual property services products and software that we could be exporting across the world.Chris Bishop: Human ingenuity is limitless.GARETH HUGHES: Human ingenuity is limitless. I agree with the member when he raises that point. But why is the Government not seeing the number of patents rise? Why is the Government continuing to see New Zealand in the bottom half of the OECD? Why is the Government continuing to prop up coalmines hoping for oil in the deep seas—Chris Bishop: We don’t prop up coalmines.GARETH HUGHES:—and subsidising irrigation? You say that but you do not follow with your actions. I know the member wants to be a Minister one day and maybe when he is a Minister one day he can actually implement the stuff but at the moment what we do see from the Government is a focus on more milk more cows and more coal. It is a recipe for disaster. It is a recipe that sees us slide down those rankings and it is a recipe that sees New Zealanders working some of the longest hours for some of the lowest wages and paying some of the highest costs of living in the OECD.My vision for New Zealand is one that invests in innovation. At the last election we took a policy of investing an extra $1 billion over 3 years in terms of research and development. It was a policy to increase the number of places in tertiary institutions. As a country we could be providing more advice for Kiwis to be developing those good ideas patenting them marketing them and commercialising and exporting. What the Green Party wants to see is New Zealand not just languish at the bottom half of the OECD but get to the top half. We want to see more patents filed more in line with the OECD average. We want to see more collaboration between our great Kiwi thinkers. We want to see an economy that is built on ideas and not just on grass water and coal and turning that into milk powder.In summary if you look at the New Zealand economic story over the last decade despite some of those great exemplars—I am thinking of the Rocket Labs and the Xeros—what we have seen is an economy becoming more simplified more dependent on a few raw commodities and it is that old story of being dependent on milk powder. So tonight as we discuss patents and intellectual property let us not ignore that elephant in the room which is the innovation gap that stares our country in the face. Next year is election year and I look forward to standing on the hustings and arguing for a more innovative economy one that invests in its people and actually sees us innovating and thriving. That is the recipe for a cleaner smarter fairer Aotearoa New Zealand.