Wellington
Guest blog by Doug Calhoun
The new Ministry of Business, Innovationand Employment, which will combine Economic Development, Science and Innovation, Labour, andBuilding and Housing, attracted the usual headlines about job losses and efficiency dividends: (see
But beyond the headlines there has been some reasoned analysis of what current structures andaccountability procedures have and haven’t achieved. The
“The technically-minded reader will note this report uses the term “results”rather than the PFA term “outcomes”. We have gone with the more open term as results canencompass outcomes, intermediate outcomes and outputs where necessary.”
The report notes, on several occasions, a common problem from the current set up:
Page 20 – “The most challenging social and economic issues facing New Zealandneed action across agency boundaries, and currently this action takes too long. Having many agenciesand a culture of high levels of consensus-seeking consultation between agencies slows progressdown.”
Page 23 – “Alongside containing and reducing costs, the greatest challenge facingthe state services is to gain more traction on achieving results: the complex and long term issuesthat cross agency boundaries. This is hard territory as it requires cooperative action fromMinisters, boards and agency leaders and staff, action that sometimes competes with thoseMinisters’ and agencies’ narrower objectives.”
Page 26 – “The Advisory Group's assessment, supported by discussions with chiefexecutives and Ministers, is that one of the main obstacles to the state services responding moreeffectively to cross-agency results is the inflexibility in current organisational arrangements. Ittends to be too hard to divert staff from existing work plans. Multi-agency work is on occasioncharacterised by individual agencies protecting their own patch rather than focusing on solving thecommon problem.”
Page 27 – “Overall, and on balance, the Advisory Group considers that New Zealandis not well served by the high number of departments in the state services, particularly where thereis a lot of overlap and duplication between separate agencies’ briefs.”
Page 28 – “One of the reasons the system has struggled to make traction oninter-agency results is the quality and alignment of policy advice.”
[And a footnote references the December 2010
Which can all be summed up by saying that all too often the left hand of government does not know(or care) what the right hand is doing.
The solution announced on Super Thursday is to put both hands under the control of one managementwith the objective that they work together to achieve an overall result consistent with thegovernment’s objectives. And Stephen Joyce has been given the task of doing this.
The Patents Bill v Innovation Policy
As I endeavoured to point out inmy
At the same time the innovation policy endorsed by the government during the last electioncampaign advocated ramping up HVMSS technology transfer from universities and CRIs through enhancedintellectual property deal flow.
The patent policy came from MED; the innovation policy came from MSI.
Now - have a look back at each of the quotes from the Better Public Services Report. “This ishard territory as it requires cooperative action from Ministers, boards and agency leaders andstaff, action that sometimes competes with those Ministers’ and agencies’ narrower objectives”- is my favourite.
The result that both Mr key and Mr Shearer said they wanted to achieve in their “SuperThursday” speeches was a more prosperous New Zealand. The result that the Patents Bill aims toachieve is a chill on New Zealand patents. The result that MSI is seeking is to convert goodscience ideas into innovation – and one of the tools they recommend for doing so is technologytransfer. And patents are the currency of technology transfer.
The Patents Act 1953 was virtually a carbon copy of the 1949 British Patent Act. The British Actwas replaced in 1977 by a substantially different one based on the European Patent Convention. Inthe early 1980s the government appointed a committee (IPAC) that looked at some aspects of patentlaw on an ad hoc basis. In 1989 the Law Commission had a brief look at patent law, but gave it overwhen the Ministry of Commerce took on the task. In 1992 MOC produced a set of “proposedrecommendations” that almost led to a rewrite of the patent law. But in 1994, in anticipation ofthe formation of the WTO with its minimum IP standards, the Patents Act was tweaked. The 1994changes resulted in the Wai 262 claimants protesting that all IP law reform should halt until theirtreaty claim was settled. It did. The Wai 262 report was finally released in mid-2011.
If you are still with me, in 2000 a new round of patent law reform began, and it set off in avery different policy direction from the 1992 recommendations. The resulting Patents Bill has beenthrough a select committee and returned to Parliament where it has sat in limbo for two years sofar. (My take is that the delay is partly because the government is awaiting the outcome of the TPPnegotiations – and American demands – and partly until the government responds to the Wai 262Report recommendations.)
So my plea to Mr Joyce is this. Review of our patent law has been going on for 30 years. Soanother delay will not be of much consequence. Your government has to define the results that itwants to achieve. Does it want a Patents Act that puts a chill on anyone getting patents (to stopleaks of benefits to foreigners); or does it want a Patents Act that achieves a result of qualitypatents serving as a reliable currency for technology transfer? Don’t pass the Patents Bill untilyou define the result you want. And then make sure the bill achieves that result.
~ Doug Calhoun
IP Mentor
Serial Stirrer