Patents Amendment Bill Second Reading Debate resumed. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (20:01): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I think it’s really important for me to point out that the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee is a split committee. It’s one of those committees where there’s equal voice. I think that’s really important to mention while we remind everyone that there were no amendments tabled at the time. With that, I commend the bill to the House. GLEN BENNETT (Labour) (20:01): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I think it was Monday of Tuesday night last week, and I was ironing my shirt, as I do, and I had Checkpoint replaying in my earphones—you’re all gripped by the story already. But it was really fascinating, because there was a 17-year-old student from, I think, Lynfield College in Auckland—Aucklanders might be able to correct me on that—talking about something that she and, I think, three other students had designed. It was a Safe and Sound crocheted animal key chain. This was a little wee invention that they’d made as part of the Young Enterprise Scheme programme, or one of those sort of innovation business groups. These young students didn’t want to have to crea…
Read full Hansard debate
Patents Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Debate resumed.
KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (20:01): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I think it’s really important for me to point out that the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee is a split committee. It’s one of those committees where there’s equal voice. I think that’s really important to mention while we remind everyone that there were no amendments tabled at the time. With that, I commend the bill to the House.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour) (20:01): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I think it was Monday of Tuesday night last week, and I was ironing my shirt, as I do, and I had Checkpoint replaying in my earphones—you’re all gripped by the story already. But it was really fascinating, because there was a 17-year-old student from, I think, Lynfield College in Auckland—Aucklanders might be able to correct me on that—talking about something that she and, I think, three other students had designed. It was a Safe and Sound crocheted animal key chain. This was a little wee invention that they’d made as part of the Young Enterprise Scheme programme, or one of those sort of innovation business groups.
These young students didn’t want to have to create this, and the success of the product they have designed and will patent is something they want to go out of style, because it is actually a panic alarm. The fact that these 17-year-old school students in Auckland—the innovation they found because of the concerns they’ve had and some incidents they’ve experience was to create these little crocheted little keychains that look harmless and look like just cutesy-cutes, but, actually, when you hit the button, it sends off a huge alarm and it squeals, and everybody around knows. As they talked to the Checkpoint reporter, it was very much around the fact that there’s been several sad incidents where they did panic, but there was no support that came, in terms of just local people there at the time, because they didn’t realise what was going on. They have created and want to patent these little wee Safe and Sound crocheted animal key chains that they can sell, and, hopefully, one day, they’ll go out of style and out of fashion.
I guess that is part of the reason why we’re here this evening, having this discussion and talking about this legislation, because it is around how we make sure—as several colleagues have already said, to be able to patent something is about being able to be innovative. Having intellectual property (IP) is around the protection for a creator of what they have, and it’s allowing them to earn the recognition but also, potentially, the money and the opportunities that come with that.
As we look at this bill—and we do support it—I think of the many innovative companies throughout New Zealand that innovate every day. I think—I was at Fieldays last year, and I’ll be there again next month—of Zespri, and the innovation and the IP that they have in terms of what they’re doing to ensure the “New Zealand Inc.” story is sold to the world. I look at Fisher & Paykel Healthcare and the work that they’re doing, and the innovation and the patents that are necessary for them not only to be able to take a product to the world but, obviously, to be able to create an income for their company and for their staff. You’ve got the Gallagher Group, you’ve got Fonterra research and development—and, of course, then there was Halter, which I think is now on the global stock exchange. It’s one of those companies that, again, we need to make sure that we are getting our patents right and ensure that, basically, the legislation is fit for purpose.
We’re happy to support this bill. There’s a whole lot more I can say around the 1953 Act, but I think I’ll save that for some of the committee of the whole House stage, and maybe a bit more in the third reading.
Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (20:05): Thanks, and it’s a great honour to rise and speak in support of the Patents Amendment Bill in the second reading. This bill quite simply closes the loophole that allowed the continued use of outdated, low-quality patent standards. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (20:05): Kia orana, Mr Speaker, meitaki maata. Well, yesterday, it was the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill with a focus on Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) valuation of land, rather than the real issues that FENZ are facing right now, and today of course it’s the Patents Amendment Bill. Here we are, at 8.05 p.m. on a Saturday night, debating what the Government considers to be of such significance for Budget urgency.
Katie Nimon: The whole agenda.
TANGI UTIKERE: Oh, look, they chirp up over there, Katie Nimon—that’s right. I’d be worried if I was you, Katie Nimon, because while you’ve been here, Dr Alex Hedley has been working hard in Napier.
Carl Bates: Who? Who?
TANGI UTIKERE: Oh—oh, there’s Carl Bates. Yes, Angela Roberts, she’s been working hard in Whanganui, and Mr Costley, Sophie Handford, well, she spent half the day at the Paraparaumu market while you’ve been stuck here today.
I actually get it. It suddenly dawned on me as to why the Government has loaded this Budget urgency with bills that actually could be dealt with some other time. It’s because the Budget was so bad, they don’t actually want to go back into their electorates, because people in their electorates will tell them that the Budget has nothing to deal with the cost of living crisis—it has nothing to deal with jobs, health, homes, or the cost of living. They’re going to try and drag this out for as long as they can because they can’t face the reality that people are doing it tough and that their Budget has delivered no relief for them this year.
Here we are, on to the bill—the Patents Amendment Bill. This is interesting. The other thing someone said from the Government benches is, “Oh, well, there were a whole pile of amendments tabled”, and they were surprised by that. I’ll tell you what I was surprised about: the Government introduced a gas bill that hadn’t even had its first reading, and they had to put a whole pile of Amendment Papers—
Glen Bennett: Whoopsie!
TANGI UTIKERE: —on the Table. Whoopsie all right—whoopsie! There we go. In terms of the Patents Amendment Bill, this is quite a legal approach, and there are a number of aspects to it—1953 through to 2013, and we agreed to it in 2020, and now here we are in 2026 trying to make things work.
This is, again, something we’ve heard from the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. They reported this back to the House in November of last year. It’s a brief report; there were a number of submitters—14, I think, that submitted. It’s really interesting reading through the select committee’s report that touches on a few things. There are two sides of the coin: some submitters say that, actually, it might hinder things because they’re going to keep applying in terms of applications continuously being pending, so that’s obviously an administrative hurdle; you’ve got others on the other side of the coin who are saying, actually, no, the fact that the pending applications under the 1953 Act is unlimited, perhaps that might place a little bit of a limitation in that space.
Then of course, you have comment from the select committee that says there’s a role here for the Patents Commissioner, which, I must say, that’s news to me. The comment that they make in their report is that they understand the commissioner is experienced in examining patents under both the 1953 Act and the 2013 Act standards. That might be so in terms of the person who currently fulfils that role and responsibility, but there does need to be a legislatively clear provision in there, so that regardless of the level of experience someone might have around that, they’re able to go ahead and do that.
As I understand it, this is a bill that will relate to intellectual property—or IP—and obviously what we’re talking about there are creations of the mind, inventions, whether artistic, literary—all of those sorts of things. I’m sure we’ll hear a little bit more about that as we quiz the Minister. I’m sure he’s looking forward to that at the committee of the whole House stage. We do support this bill, but, yet again, it’s a shame that the Government has had to utilise urgency—
Hon Kieran McAnulty: They didn’t have to.
TANGI UTIKERE: —in order to—and they didn’t have to do this. They didn’t have to do this. But we know, we’ll keep on going because, as I say, they won’t want to get back to their electorates because the Budget was crap.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (20:10): It’s a pleasure to take my first call on this Budget motion. It was a great Budget, focused on fixing the basics—
Katie Nimon: Really—first call?
TIM COSTLEY: —yeah, that’s right, Katie Nimon—and building the future. There are lots of things to be proud of in there. We’ve heard a lot of commentary about the Budget, like the three-day post-natal stays and the patents, because this is going to help that $2.5 billion commitment for defence—and like Scion. I commend this bill to the House.
CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) (20:10): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. I am more than happy to be spending the evening here in Pōneke tonight because it keeps me so close to the southern end of my beautiful electorate Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, where tomorrow night the Hon Ginny Andersen and I will be attending the 80th jubilee of the Wainuiōmata Rugby Football Club, and we cannot wait. Because I know that you are all interested, I am proud to report that Ngāti Porou East Coast are, in fact, taking the Anaru “Skip” Paenga Memorial Trophy back up the coast—big mihi to the Poverty Bay Weka, as well.
Speaking of invention and innovation, that’s one of the proudest things in being from Aotearoa. When I was young, one of the worst jobs we had—because most people lived rurally or on farms—was opening the gates. One of the most common phrases that would come out of my and my siblings’ mouths was “Bags not open the gate.”, but my great-grandfather Papa had one those counterweight gates, and I thought that it was the best invention in the world. Did he invent it? No, but it just speaks to the innovation of New Zealanders, and that was the one gate I loved in my life. That’s why you need to protect patents—because my Papa is going around making all these gates.
Heoi anō rā, as my esteemed colleagues have mentioned, across this side of the House we do support this bill. This is something that we’ve been supporting since 2020 and mai rā anō. Why? Because we want to support and encourage innovation. We want to make sure our reputation—the number eight wire Kiwi reputation—for ingenuity and innovation is encouraged but also protected.
On the “original” 28 May, Ikaroa-Rāwhiti was acknowledged for having some of the best produce in the country and probably in the world, and, as we know, some of our growers in the Hawke’s Bay, in particular, are facing tough times. They are not struggling to grow the best produce in the world, but at a time when they’re struggling, we need to protect the growers as well as the workers so that any new innovations are, in fact, new and we’re not putting another layer of costs on people who are already struggling in Aotearoa by selling them some sort of new doodackie that actually isn’t, in fact, new. “Doodackie”—my Papa probably invented that, too!
The other whakaaro, speaking with my Māori economy hat on, is thinking, while we support this, about how we protect not just Māori entrepreneurs and innovators but also truly protect mātauranga Māori. It’s all the rage right now, and we know that we’ve got some amazing gamers, game—what do you call them—who—
Hon Ginny Andersen: They show games.
CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: No, but—
Hon Ginny Andersen: They develop the model.
CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: The game developers. Because the world is on to the value of our stories as Māori and our culture, they love the warrior nature of our culture, and so that’s very appealing when you’re developing a game. It’s one thing to have the nous to understand the technology and develop a game—we want to protect that—but also we want to protect those who truly understand the intellectual property that is mātauranga Māori.
While we support this bill, and we have been criticised for putting amendments to it—that’s the point. Labour is a considered party. While we on this side of the House support things, we want to make sure that every angle of this bill is considered so that we don’t end up here, listening to pitiful, 10-second defences of legislation. When we’re in Government, we are only going to consider bills that value the people who put us here. We’re not out. Given those whakaaro i tēnei pō, I commend the bill to the House.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (20:15): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Unlike the Opposition, we understand that details matter, and so this bill is going to reduce regulatory risks for businesses by improving patent quality and discouraging weak or vague patents. It’s part of fixing the basics and building the future. I commend it to the House.
SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (20:15): I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The Patents Amendment Bill is now set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Patents Amendment Bill.