Plant Variety Rights Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Plant Variety Rights Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I move, That the Plant Variety Rights Bill be now read a third time.

Before I get too far into my contribution, I do want to acknowledge the kind folks in mid-south Canterbury Federated Farmers, who have allowed me to come prepared with the appropriate attire. The member Jo Luxton brought them in to talk to me about this matter, amongst other things, some time ago. The kind folks there left me with this beautiful tie—

Hon Todd McClay: I think it’s ‘cos they didn’t like the tie you were wearing.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —with the sheaves of wheat on it. I’ve worn this tie through the readings of this bill in the House, at various points, to acknowledge the contribution of farmers—

Dr Duncan Webb: Great seed there too.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —we will have no more jokes seeded of that nature through the debate!—to acknowledge our growers and the importance that they play in the economy. There’s been debates in my office this morning about the appropriateness of wearing it with this particular shirt, but we’ll put that aside. I think it’s a style choice and a strong choice to make the point today.

Anyway, let’s come back to the bill almost immediately. The bill governs an area of intellectual property law referred at PVRs, or plant variety rights. It’s focused on promoting innovation and, with it, economic growth for New Zealand through encouraging the development of new varieties of plants.

Now, many of these new varieties underpin the success of our economy, particularly in horticulture and agriculture. Our beloved kiwifruit is an example that’s often cited. We’ve got the green one, we’ve got the gold one, and now we hear, more—

Hon Kiritapu Allan: The red.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —and more, about the red one—my colleague points out, and absolutely right. There are more and more examples of innovative breeding that is benefiting our society.

Another example is grass that has been developed after decades of trials to deter birds by lowering the amount of insects harboured in the plant. That’s been a huge success near airports, where bird strike, otherwise, is a challenge. We can all imagine the benefit that is created by that.

The PVR regime has to try and strike a balance between rewarding plant breeders for their efforts in developing a new plant variety and providing access to these new varieties for the population, for the growers, and for the consumers so that society as a whole benefits from these new varieties that are bred.

The bill does this by strengthening intellectual property rights to encourage innovation while still freely permitting breeders to build on existing innovation to create new varieties, while freely permitting farmers to save seed to plant for next season’s crop, and freely permitting home gardeners to grow new varieties for themselves. These things are important to get right, in terms of the balance.

On top of that, what makes the bill especially unique is that it protects kaitiaki relationships with taonga species if they would be impacted by a PVR grant.

The bill has, therefore, three overarching purposes. In addition to the intellectual property (IP) purpose—which is about encouraging that innovation, the benefits to the economy that come from it, and making sure our IP developers are rewarded—the other two purposes relate to New Zealand’s international and domestic obligations. The balancing of obligations reflects a uniquely New Zealand approach to PVRs that we can, I think, be very proud of as a small country. We’re not afraid of forging our own path here and acknowledging our own history and developing a policy that fits us, here, in this corner of the world.

So, first off, the bill enables us, here, in Aotearoa New Zealand, to meet our obligations under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which requires us to have a suitable intellectual property regime in place. It requires us, in that, more specifically, to align with what’s known as UPOV-91, the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 1991—everyone calls it UPOV-91—so we’re aligning with that set of intellectual property obligations. Now, giving effect to UPOV-91 will ensure, effectively, through that that we’re in line with international best practice and intellectual property law and better reflect the realities of modern plant breeding.

The second thing we’re doing is to ensure that our PVR regime recognises and is consistent with the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty. Ko Aotearoa Tēnei, the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on the Wai 262 claim, found that kaitiaki relationships with taonga species are entitled to a reasonable degree of protection. The bill establishes a Māori Plant Varieties Committee whose primary role will be to assess the likely impact of the grant of a PVR on kaitiaki relationships with taonga species. Essentially, it’s about ensuring there is no detrimental effect on that kaitiaki relationship. Having said that, if there is an impact, it’s about mitigation and ensuring that that relationship can be mitigated.

The bill does go further in strengthening kaitiakitanga within the PVR system, and that was as recommended by the Waitangi Tribunal. The Government recognises the need to better protect taonga species, taonga works, and mātauranga Māori. The establishment of a Māori committee with genuine decision-making powers protects that kaitiaki relationship and reflects true partnership.

I will say that the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee did an excellent job in scrutinising the bill. The changes made by the committee will strengthen the legislation and ensure it operates to the benefit of all of Aotearoa New Zealand. I particularly want to acknowledge the introduction of an appeal right, through that process, in line with what the courts thought was appropriate—we, too, agree that it is important to have an appeal right—and that goes through to the Māori Appellate Court. So I do want to acknowledge the select committee doing that work and introducing that aspect to the bill; I think it improves the bill.

To conclude, the bill brings us in line with our international obligations and our Treaty obligations. Those international obligations are both in terms of the CPTPP, fulfilling our obligations there, and also in terms of making sure that we have an appropriate regime that aligns with UPOV-91 and rewards our intellectual-property developers and the benefits that they bring to our economy. It strikes a sweet spot, I think, in being true to our free-trade agreement and also true to our history, in terms of our Treaty—a nation founded on partnership.

Finally, I want to thank all of those who contributed through their submissions to the select committee, through the committee’s work and the improvements that they have brought, and, overall, I want to acknowledge the importance of the CPTPP and trade to New Zealand. We are a small trading nation, a long way from traditional markets, and having fit for purpose trade agreements—and I want to acknowledge the Hon David Parker and the Hon Damien O’Connor for their work on our trade agreements—mean that we can trade with the world, that we can earn export dollars, and that we can reward those in our country who innovate, to that end.

So, with that, I commend this bill to the House for its third reading.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak this morning on the Plant Variety Rights Bill third reading. I wasn’t a member of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee as it went through this process, but there are two people, in Melissa Lee and Todd McClay, who are here this morning, who were part of that committee and did the excellent work.

What I will say to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, in line with some comments he made earlier in the House, is that National is completely opposed to too much red tape, but I am pleased to see that the Minister is wearing a tie from the mid-south Canterbury Federated Farmers—a very nice tie; wearing it with pride. It’s really interesting that the pride in farming and growing is increasing on the other side of the House. I don’t know, Minister, whether it’s got something to do with 2023 coming, but I do like the tie and I do compliment you on that this morning.

I just want to make another comment about something that the Minister said this morning about the importance of developing—and National is really in favour of free enterprise, and intellectual property (IP) is really important in this. The Minister talked, this morning, about a grass that is used to deter birds away from airports. I just want to say that, in this space, there is a lot of IP, there is a lot of work going on in New Zealand to develop pastures and grasses which actually will lower the methane emissions from ruminant animals. Unfortunately, at the moment, some of our regulatory systems in place don’t allow our ability to trial some of those important grasses in New Zealand. That’s something that, possibly, if the Government really did want to do something to help farmers—they may want to have a look at those regulatory systems, to make sure that we’re not giving our advantages away to the rest of the world.

So, look, most of these plant variety rights are sought for fruit crops and arable and vegetable crops, but there are pasture plants, ornamental plants, and even fungi.

It is important, as the Minister said, for trade and New Zealand’s obligation to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). That’s also something that’s quite interesting—that the Government was actually out protesting against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and—

Hon Member: Labour—Labour Opposition.

BARBARA KURIGER: —they actually put—the Labour Government, yep—a “CP” in front of the TPP, and, now, all of a sudden it’s acceptable. But I am pleased that this Government does support trade. Intellectual property is very important to those trading rights.

Now, having said before that I wasn’t on the committee, I did learn a lot last week throughout the committee of the whole House stage, listening to the debate between the Minister and Andrew Bayly. It was quite a long committee stage and it was largely focused around kūmara. One of the big learnings of last week was that the kūmara was a species that may have been here originally but it caught a terrible disease. Mr and Mrs Gock, a Chinese couple, developed a plant variety that allowed the kūmara to survive, and the kūmara that we know today is here because of Mr and Mrs Gock. If anyone wants to know that story—and Melissa Lee, I think, knows it very well—there are many stories and videos if you go on to Google and you look up about how Mr and Mrs Gock saved the kūmara—and thank goodness they did, because we all love kūmara!

But what it did is it brought the question about how, when we’re protecting the kaitiaki relationships of these species, extra intellectual property rights come about by people developing things further. National are supporting this bill, but we do have some reservations around—and I understand, from the Minister, that there’s quite a small list of plant varieties which really do fit into this category, and that the committee that’s being put in place, which is called the Māori advisory committee, to advise on these matters, will only be having a very small number of species referred to them. We hope, over here at National, that that is the case, and that’s something that the Minister went to great length to assure everybody of, last week.

So we support moving to a new plant variety rights regime that will give effect to the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 91 and strengthen that protection for plant breeders. We understand that it does need to be in line with the world because we are a trading nation and we will always be a trading nation. Certainly, the things that we’re trading on now, agriculture and horticulture—I know that, when you go back to the 1980s, agriculture was called a sunset industry. People can call it “agriculture” all they like, but, actually—and that was under a Labour Government as well—it is food. That is the important thing about agriculture and horticulture: it’s very important that New Zealand feeds the world.

Interestingly, I did see a little quote this morning that was put in a comment on my Facebook—over at COP27, they’re questioning what’s going on and what the Government is currently trying to do to the best and lowest-emission farmers in the world. So that was a rather interesting comment that I read there.

But we are in the food business, we are in the trade business, and this is extremely important. So as long as the scope and the function of the Māori Plant Varieties Committee is clarified very well, then we are comfortable to see this bill go forward, because, certainly, the extent of what this bill is trying to do is extremely important—so as long as it’s an advisory body and it’s only used for the small scope of the plants that it was designed to do.

So, really, at this point, having not been on the committee and having probably extended the full amount of my knowledge that I have on this piece of legislation, I’m going to stop there. Thank you. We commend this bill to the House.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this third reading of the Plant Variety Rights Bill. It’s been a very positive process. I’d like to acknowledge all of those who have worked in terms of the select committee—the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—on this process. I’d like to acknowledge all of those who’ve made submissions on it. We’re now at the third reading, and this bill is about to, I believe, pass into law, which is good.

The bill represents a new and uniquely New Zealand approach to plant variety rights that will ensure our responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi are upheld, also aligning the highest international standards of plant variety protection. It links into the work that we’ve been doing in terms of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV-91) and the place that we play with the other countries around the world. We’ve taken a unique approach to the part that we play in this in terms of our Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations, and we’ve taken an approach where we’ve brought in a lot of our indigenous plants into this in order to protect the intellectual property that comes with those.

Our select committee suggested a number of amendments, which, you know, have strengthened the bill. Yeah, look, it’s an important piece of legislation in terms of our UPOV-91 requirements and our connection with the rest of the world on pieces of legislation like this. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise on the third reading of the Plant Variety Rights Bill in its final reading before it actually becomes law. As the previous speaker has said, the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee has done a lot of work, and I’d like to thank all my colleagues in the select committee. We work as a team in the committee, I think, and, regardless of different parties, I think we tend to agree on what is actually good for the nation. And I’d also like to thank all of the submitters on the bill, and also the Minister, Dr David Clark, for participating very actively during our committee stages. Although there were some frustrations in certain areas, I think he endeavoured to answer them fulsomely, and I appreciate his efforts and all of the officials and the clerk of the committee who have put in extreme hard work to get this bill to this point.

On this side of the House, as my learned colleague Barbara Kuriger actually said, we support moving to a new plant variety rights regime that gives effect to the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV-91). Because it’s an international treaty, we have to actually do this. But, I think, as Ms Kuriger said, there were certain things that we did actually talk through during the committee stages, particularly in terms of the kaitiaki rights. I think, you know, for a person who comes from a different country with specific cultures that we have very big pride in—for example, our dress, our food—

Stuart Smith: And golfers.

MELISSA LEE: And golfers. But sometimes the cultural appropriation by other people gets us really riled up. So we understand the issue in terms of cultural appropriation and the kaitiaki relationship that we need to have for traditional plant varieties and the culture that exists in this country. The cultural appropriation almost happened, in my case, where as a young person coming from Korea and having grown up singing a particular song called “Yeon-ga” in Korean—I sang it thinking it was a Korean song, and it goes like this:

비바람이치던바다

It starts like that. But it sounds very much like a te reo Māori song, and it’s actually “Pokarekare Ana”, but Koreans sing a slightly faster and funkier version of it.

Tāmati Coffey: Show us!

MELISSA LEE: Not going to be singing—not doing that today. But I thought, as a child growing up, it was a Korean song, without knowing that it actually came from Aotearoa, and moving to New Zealand and learning that it actually came from here, I was absolutely shocked, because all Koreans thought it was a Korean love song. To think that it was actually the New Zealand soldiers and Navy personnel who went to the Korean War in 1950 that passed on the song, and the Korean verses and the lyrics are exactly the same, or have very similar wordings to te reo Māori words, actually gives it a bigger meaning for me. So the kaitiaki relationship, and not the cultural appropriation by Korean people of “Pokarekare Ana”, I think we actually get to understand—that we understand.

So we were talking about the kūmara, that it is actually a traditional plant variety of the Māori people that came on the first waka to Aotearoa, but the thing is that in the 1950s, the black rot literally decimated the kūmara stock that existed in New Zealand. What we wanted to get to was: where does the kaitiaki relationship actually sit when the original plant stock was decimated, and it was, in fact, Joe and Fay Gock who developed a new plant variety that resisted the black rot, and they literally distributed this particular plant variety, free of charge, to the rest of New Zealand? It was their gift to New Zealand, and where does the kaitiaki relationship actually sit for that particular variety? That was a question that, I believe, never really got answered, but I think we sort of got to a point where the Minister said that the intellectual property (IP) does belong to the Gock family, and I think that protection is actually acceptable.

I don’t think the Gock family wants New Zealand to pay for the gift that they’ve given the nation, but I think the recognition that they have the kaitiaki rights and the management of their particular plant variety—and it’s not just the Gocks; it’s people who innovate in horticulture or agriculture. Their IP and the kaitiaki relationship: does it only sit with the Māori community, or is it for everyone who wants to protect the variety that is developed in New Zealand and Aotearoa, so that we protect our IP against the rest of world who may actually culturally appropriate—or horticulturally appropriate—what is rightfully a New Zealand variety?

This has been a long journey to this point, and I shouldn’t take too much more time because I think we need to make sure that this gets passed and we, basically, put the UPOV-91 regime in place and make sure that people have time to clearly know where they sit in terms of the new plant variety rights. So I commend this bill to the House.

I do agree with my colleague across the House Melissa Lee that this has been a really long process. In fact, I almost couldn’t believe my eyes when this bill came up on the Order Paper once again after such a long time; I thought we had passed it a while back. However, I have thoroughly enjoyed the select committee processes. As my colleague across the House is on our Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—one of the best in the House. Also, I recognise the chair, who has just contributed to this debate as well. During the select committee process, it was one of those weird and wonderful bills where you expanded your knowledge in a subject matter area very, very extensively in a very short amount of time. This whole entire International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants process, whether we follow the Australians, whether they’re going to amend their own process of their protection of intellectual property (IP) of their plant varieties, or we’re going to go down the European way—all of those things, I really want to thank all of the officials especially for guiding us, especially when this is not a very common and popular kind of area we all bring something to.

However, like my colleague has just mentioned, intellectual property in plant varieties is actually quite emotive as well for some people—emotional. We often connect food with emotions, and I just want to pay a special shout-out to one of my friends, an artist in our community called Cindy Huang, who put in an installation, an interactive art instalment called Twin Cultivation, where she particularly explored the different connections that food brings different cultures, for instance the Pacific community and the Chinese community and our kūmaras, and making sure that there are different types of kūmaras that actually get recognised. It was the first time I actually knew that the indigenous kūmara, the Māori kūmara, is only that small, because we imagine kūmaras being quite big and substantive. But she managed to create them out of ceramic.

So those things I think—protecting our IP in our food and in our plants—actually tell a story about our nation, about our cultures and the people that live on this land, and so that’s why I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and it’s a privilege to speak on the Plant Variety Rights Bill, at the third reading, on behalf of the Greens. I know some of the speakers have talked at length about the kūmara and the importance of the kūmara, and I just wanted to make a brief reflection that for many of us from the Latin American region, and for many indigenous peoples from the region, the kūmara also plays a really important role, and it’s one that actually connects the Pacific side of the Latin American region with Aotearoa. I think it’s interesting to hear those different stories about the role that kūmara plays.

This bill, I acknowledge, does try to modernise New Zealand’s plant variety regime, which is fixed-term intellectual property rights granted to plant breeders over the variety they develop. The idea of modernising our variety regime is really important, and it is needed. I do also hear that throughout the debate it’s been mentioned that the intent of the bill was also to better protect indigenous people’s ability to not forego those rights over endemic species, and to meet our Treaty obligations. I think what we’ve unpacked in the first and second reading of this bill in our debates is that this desire to meet our Treaty obligations within this bill is at odds with the fact that this bill is also here to basically fulfil our Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) obligations. When we think about the fact that we’re tying our approach to this bill to a trade deal which the Waitangi Tribunal found to be insufficient to protect Māori rights and our obligations pursuant to Te Tiriti, and that the Government didn’t fix this—I think the broader intent of this bill is at odds with the larger picture.

Throughout the submission process—and I touched on this in the second reading so I’m not going to go to great lengths in here—we did end up getting quite a few contributions, whether it was from the Māori Law Society, Professor Jane Kelsey, or Te Kāhui Oranga, who talked about some concerns about the insufficient aspects of this bill around genuinely protecting indigenous rights. So, once, again, the Green Party does have a long history of ensuring that we take a holistic view of legislation. We have had historical concerns over the CPTPP and what this will mean for indigenous rights, and so we do think that this bill as part of that broader approach could end up being part of a project that does not sufficiently protect indigenous rights, and, for that reason, we cannot support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the third and final reading of the Plant Variety Rights Bill.

I don’t sit on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, though I have sat through the debate process in its rigour and enjoyed it thoroughly. It’s been well articulated that the bill is to create a correct and needed legal framework for plant varieties to accede to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV-91). And I think we all agree that’s tantamount to a good outcome given that the convention of UPOV-78 that we have adhered to as a country—to do with all things to do with intellectual property rights in the horticultural arable sector and other sectors—is now no longer fit for purpose, and that leaves New Zealand outside of the scope of a lot of our international trading partners.

But there’s an old saying in politics: it’s more important to kill a bad bill than pass a good one. And I just want to convey why. We’re not being divergent in the ACT Party, in our views, for the sake of being divergent or belligerent; this has got quite a lot of problems—this piece of legislation—especially when it speaks to parts, including in Part 5. It’s littered with potential problems and outcomes that have yet to be canvassed and well-articulated.

We all accept that the bill by its design is to try to attract international and domestic investment and intellectual property (IP). That’s the point of this; we understand that. But when we’re actually looking at plant varieties and those grants and the grant process, 70 percent of it comes from offshore; 30 percent is domestic, of which 5 percent is Māori.

Now we have heard of the kūmara being articulated in the House today. I’m a Northlander, I’ve been up there for 35 years. I live in kūmara country, and we have seen massive investment from all manner of international and domestic players coming into New Zealand—or here in New Zealand—into that reality. That is a massive local economy and it’s had multiple parts—not just Māori—and that’s where we take real umbrage with this bill.

I want to speak to, if I can, Part 5, clause 52(b), providing for a plant varieties administrator who proceeds to make determinations about kaitiaki relationships. How does that work in that instance of kūmara? Totally appreciate it. We understand its tie to New Zealand—everything Kiwi—but we’ve all seen massive foreign and domestic investment.

And I go on: clause 53, the part applies to plant variety right (PVR) application “relates to plant variety that is derived wholly or partly from”. Well, you’re trying to reconcile that and this is the point of this debate. “Partly from”: what does that mean if it’s indigenous or partly indigenous? Who makes that determination?

The bill departs from several areas of its origins that have raised significant concerns by those in the industry. It’s hard to see that investment both domestically and to New Zealand—whether being foreign or here—has surety. Whilst we accept and agree with the Treaty provisions—we understand this concept; we understand the issues in and around Wai 262—but the percentage of PVR applications in taonga species is 5 percent. This is about property rights for all investors, whether they’re domestic or international.

Interpretation of the kaitiaki relationship to be determined by an independent plant varieties committee: well, I’ve canvassed my debate point earlier on. This is fraught with a lot of problems, and you can see international players coming into New Zealand being deeply concerned about the convoluted language that may come out of that process. It should give consideration to the appeal process; natural justice seems to be potentially eroded if you are in a legal battle over what is construed as indigenous to New Zealand or not—and by virtue, you can see how that really affects investment into New Zealand.

The whole point of this legislation is to give certainty by acceding to UPOV-91. We totally agree with our international obligations and our free trade, but by virtue of this Māori Plant Varieties Committee that has granting obligations that can potentially run roughshod over a big cohort of international investors, this stifles that opportunity.

ACT fundamentally cannot stand and support this bill. This is about property rights of all investors, and by virtue this has quite a convoluted process and we don’t support this bill.

E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Otirā, e ngā mema o te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa.

On Saturday, we saw the nation unite around—what has been shared in this House—the success of the Black Ferns, with the singing of an anthem by Dame Hinewehi Mohi that, at the time, was lambasted as a departure from our great anthem. But we saw her comeback—26 years—and it was a celebration. We saw the conclusion of a great match, where the crowd sang “Tūtira Mai”.

I want to stand up in response to that member, around the vision. Earlier this year we also had the gifting of Matariki, which has continued to unite and put New Zealand on an international stage, celebrating indigenous knowledge to add to the body of this great nation.

I’m standing in support of the Plant Variety Rights Bill, and wanted this House to rest assured that this component that we are celebrating is not a divisive measure. It’s an acknowledgment of the indigenous knowledge that has sat quite comfortably, and I’ve given you two recent examples where the gifting of a great body of knowledge to the greater good of the nation has unified the nation—it has unified the nation.

I know there’s been talk in this House about kūmara, so I just want to add my little kōrero about kūmara and our tipuna. I come from the mighty East Coast, of a tribe called Rongowhakaata, and our story is that our ancestor Hine Hākirirangi brought the kūmara to this nation on the great Horouta waka. Hine Hākirirangi was the sister of the captain of the Horouta waka and his name was Paoa. That tuber that she brought, tucked under her breast as a way of keeping it moist on that great journey across the mighty Pacific was actually planted in a maunga called Manawarū, and it is really at the base of where I live right now, in a village called Manutuke, just south of Gisborne.

And so, in terms of acknowledging the passage of this bill and the connections of our indigenous people, I’m sharing but one story of how our tipuna Hine Hākirirangi brought the kūmara to this nation. But not only how she brought the kūmara to this nation—acknowledging it was many years ago and things have moved on and things have changed. It’s that innate responsibility of manaakitanga, of kaitiakitanga of our indigenous knowledge, that we gift to the nation. In the passing of this bill we had the opportunity to meet with other indigenous growers—the significance of not only acknowledging that indigenous knowledge but allowing it to be gifted to the nation, just like we saw on Saturday night, and just like we saw at Matariki.

It is not a thing to be afraid of—putting indigenous Māori people in part of our development as a nation is a good thing for this nation. It is not a divisive tool that, unfortunately, some members in this House always refer to. They look at the glass half-empty as opposed to the full glass.

I am pleased to take this short call acknowledging the modernisation of the Plant Variety Rights Bill. I congratulate the Minister, also the hard-working select committee that scrutinised this, and, of course, all the submitters. It is a great time to celebrate not just a modern plant variety Act in this country, but, by association, the significance of the indigenous knowledge that is built into this bill. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will bring, perhaps, a slightly different perspective. So I speak in support of the Plant Variety Rights Bill in this, its third reading, which of course replaces the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987, which really hasn’t kept up with the changes in plant breeding, in technology, and in science. Now, being so heavily dependent on our wonderful, successful, world-leading primary sector, New Zealand has, of course, been at the forefront of, particularly, developing plant species. So this bill is an important one, because it supports the industry that really is the heartbeat of this nation.

I was pleased to see the Minister, the Hon Dr David Clark, wearing his Federated Farmers tie, although many might—perhaps unkindly—say that that’s the only support that this Government has given to any of our New Zealand farmers. However, the plant variety rights are an important form of intellectual property rights for our plant breeders, providing exclusive rights relating to reproductive materials, and, of course, mainly sought for fruit crops, arable and vegetable crops, pasture plants, ornamental plants, and fungi.

I think when we’re on this important subject, it really behoves me to mention and acknowledge those wonderful organisations that we have in New Zealand that help so much with our plant development, and that is Lincoln University and Plant and Food Research. While this bill concentrates on the protection of New Zealand intellectual plant property rights, I do want to acknowledge what an enormous part both Lincoln University and Plant and Food Research play not only for development in New Zealand but also on the world stage. If I can refer to some recent collaborative research that Lincoln University and Plant and Food Research have been doing with a Netherlands university and a research company and also a Japanese breeding company to identify ways to produce plant seeds that are genetically identical to the parent plant—this is incredibly important work on a world stage, and the impact that it will have for subsistence farmers needs to be acknowledged.

I really think it’s important for us to talk about these things in the House, because in the House last night, I heard a Green Party member knocking our primary sector loud and clear, so it is really important that the people in this House and the people of New Zealand understand just how much the New Zealand primary sector and our research institutes and universities working in that primary sector space contribute not only to the developments that occur in New Zealand but also to the leading science and technology that assists agriculture worldwide, and see the impact that this joint research that they are doing will have on subsistence farmers and their ability to produce more food in, particularly, areas where there is food scarcity. We should be very, very mindful of how good our primary sector is. So, in the context of this plant variety bill, I do want to acknowledge those incredibly important research entities that we have contributing to the development work that we do here in New Zealand and worldwide, and I hope that the Green Party will get out of their fairy land and understand how scientific and technologically advanced our agricultural developments are in New Zealand and stop bagging our important primary sector.

I know that I’ve moved a little broader than this Plant Variety Rights Bill in the third reading, but it’s an incredibly important thing for us to realise how well we apply science and research to our agricultural sector to be world leading. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Terisa Ngobi—five minutes.

Ata mārie, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a short call today on the Plant Variety Rights Bill. To be honest, I didn’t know that we, Aotearoa New Zealand, were world leading in terms of our plant variety industry and really leading the way in terms of our research and planning, for example, the mahi New Zealand Plant Breeding and Research Association is doing, including its forage industry strategy.

This bill will replace the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987. The changes will strengthen our already thriving local plant breeding industry while also showcasing to foreign breeders and investors the value in investing here in Aotearoa New Zealand. The bill also implements the Crown’s obligation under Te Tiriti o Waitangi in relation to the plant variety rights regime.

We heard earlier, with Minister Whaitiri, the Waitangi Tribunal considered the Crown’s obligations in relation to the plant variety rights regime in the Wai 262 report, Ko Aotearoa Tēnei, and the recommendations included a Māori advisory committee to advise the Commissioner of Plant Variety Rights on this matter. The bill strengthens these recommendations by establishing a Māori plant varieties committee with a decision making rather than an advisory power.

Again, just tautoko-ing what Minister Whatiri said, this is to enhance Aotearoa’s standing—sorry, I should have said earlier. This is nothing to be scared of; this is something to celebrate. This bill represents a uniquely New Zealand approach to the plant variety rights. It ensures our responsibility under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and it aligns us to the highest international standards of plant variety protection while meeting our obligations under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. So again, it’s a real pleasure to rise and support this bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise in support of this bill. When I first learnt that I was speaking on this bill, I said to my friend and colleague Ms Brooking, “Excellent. I love plants, I’m an avid gardener.” She said to me, “Emily, this is not about plants, this is about the intellectual property of plants”, and she is absolutely right.

For those who are just joining us, there are two things this bill does. The first is it aligns us with international obligations under the treaties and it actually strengthens the rights of our remarkably innovative and effective plant-breeders, like my neighbours, in my little garden in Whangārei, Lynwood Nurseries, who are remarkably innovative in their breeding of avocados and their development of grafting technologies. The other thing it does is it brings in a unique and very powerful protection for our indigenous community’s relationships with the indigenous flora of this nation—the kūmara has been mentioned on many occasions this morning.

My friend Mr Cameron across the aisle in the ACT Party mentioned he has lived in Tai Tokerau for 37 years. Well, I trump you at 43 years, Mr Cameron, and he tangata Tiriti ahau, a sixth generation Pākehā Kiwi. What I want to say is this: I do not understand the white fragility that leads to the concern over the protection of indigenous relationships and mana whenua relationships with their plant varieties. I am sixth generation, I stand proudly with my colleagues, Meka Whaitiri, and my other colleagues and mana whenua in this land.

This is a good bill. Too often have we watched overseas when indigenous peoples’ knowledge of plants has been stripped, taken by companies from outside, and used to make profits outside their country of origin. We are not going to let that happen in this Government. I commend this bill to the House.

I’m going to try my very best not to be diverted by that last speech, with the exception of mentioning white fragility. The member Dr Emily Henderson said “white fragility”. I’m not sure at all what that has to do with this legislation, other than a view on the part of the Labour Party that anybody who is Pākehā in New Zealand that doesn’t agree with them completely is fragile, and, I’m sorry, that’s not the case in this legislation or anywhere else. Anybody in this debate that has raised concerns about the legislation is not doing so because they don’t want good legislation; it’s because the Government often rushes things through with mistakes and then has to come back to fix it. We’ve heard a lot from members of the Government about the kūmara, and, in fact, in the committee stage there was very long discussion about that. Well, there’s an old Māori proverb that says the kūmara never speaks about how sweet it actually is, and it’s a shame that members opposite have brought the intellect of a kūmara to this debate and are talking about how good it is as opposed to focusing on what’s important here.

National supports the legislation because it was a commitment that was made in the original Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement that some of the members opposite looking blankly at me right now protested in the streets against. It’s the same commitment that’s in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), an agreement that largely is the same as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, without America and with the words “Comprehensive and Progressive” in front of it. But nothing in this legislation—the commitment that was made to look at property rights for plant variety rights in respect of a Treaty of Waitangi obligation is not a single word different from the TPP, which they protested against, to the CPTPP. That’s important to note, because as members opposite talk about white fragility and the great important job they’re doing and their commitment in this area, they are passing this legislation because of something that was not negotiated by them; it was inherited by them. It’s important to set the record straight.

In as far as intellectual property rights are concerned, they are important in any part of our economy, and when it comes to plant varieties even more so. The last speaker was partially right in as far as us needing to protect intellectual property in New Zealand so that others offshore don’t take advantage of it, but it’s more than that: it’s so that the rights of the people who invest their time and their capital in scientific research for better productivity, production or find solutions to environmental challenges can get a return on that, and someone else just doesn’t get to merely benefit from it. This legislation does that.

In fact, we heard from many submitters in the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, when I was on the committee and we went through this, that the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants agreement actually would achieve everything that is needed in as far as the CPTPP is concerned, or the original TPP, and we would find a way to protect indigenous rights, as other countries have, where they need to be protected.

The Government’s decided to go much further than that, and, in essence, we have a different regime than many other countries of the world. It will be important that we monitor how this is rolled out and the impact or effect it has, because wherever a system is different without there being a clear reason for it to be different than other countries, particularly when it comes to intellectual property, then there can be delays or costs to the business concern, or the protection that the Government says is delivered to intellectual property holders here will not be afforded in other countries. Indeed, I think the route the Government has chosen to go down—there’s only one other jurisdiction in the world that has followed this. Sorry, two: one that has followed this; the second is Australia. Australia built in a legislative review to their legislation, and my understanding is we received advice or evidence to the committee that Australia will make a change when they get to their legislative review of their legislation because they don’t believe it is providing the protection it should and it’s holding back business.

A lot of members have talked about the Māori Plant Varieties Committee. National doesn’t stand opposed to that, but what we would stand opposed to is the ability for one committee that set up on the side of this whole process around intellectual property to slow down decision making around the granting of rights where there is no need to and there is no kaitiaki interest. We were given assurances in the committee, but from the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, in committee stage, that it would be the chief executive of the overall organisation that would make decisions both of what is referred to this committee and then the final decision as to whether or not there is an indigenous right.

It’s very important that that is the case, that we hold the Minister to his word. It’s not to say that where there is an indigenous right it shouldn’t afford protection—that’s what the legislation is providing—but I wouldn’t like to see a process slowed down purely because something could or it might, because, ultimately, what will happen is if it’s not working well in New Zealand, if there is uncertainty, if the process is slow, if people who want to invest and perhaps bring a product to the New Zealand market to develop it here and will look for a protection of their intellectual rights—if there is uncertainty they just won’t come and invest here; they will go to another country, and that would defeat the purpose of the intellectual property part of indigenous rights in this legislation. The reason for that is, actually, these rights that are being afforded in New Zealand are only for the New Zealand jurisdiction. Somebody could pick up the so-called kūmara or anything else and take it to another country and develop it, and because the rights that are afforded in this bill are not recognised elsewhere, they won’t be there.

So, actually, I think what everybody wants in New Zealand is for a stronger economy, for science to find solutions for us to be more productive on the farms and in our forests and on the orchards, but, ultimately, in as far as rights holders or people who want to develop rights in New Zealand, for instance, or somebody from overseas wanting to bring a variety to New Zealand—if there is uncertainty, if it takes too long, if it is too costly, they just won’t come here. We’re 5 million people—we’re not 50 million people, we’re not 500 million people. They will go somewhere else. So with the very best intention in this legislation, it will be important to monitor it to make sure there aren’t delays, there aren’t barriers, and that the commitments the Minister has given the committee and this House are delivered upon.

This legislation is about intellectual property. In as far as previous rights are concerned, it is very, very hard to prove. The Minister has said, in as far as kaitiaki rights are concerned, it will be very narrow; there would be very few. In fact, the legislation does go to some degree of saying what is not included and excluding some things, but regulatory creep or the creep of jurisdiction when it comes to decision making within our ministries and departments is of extreme concern. I would hope that the House or the committee, who say they’ve worked so hard and understand this fully, would at some time in the future revisit this to see if it’s working well, because it isn’t working well. It’s not just Māori or the so-called white people that the Labour Party and the last member was speaking of who are fragile, or others in New Zealand that will be disadvantaged and not benefit; it will be every New Zealander and every part of our economy.

Intellectual property actually can enhance economies. It can offer great opportunity, it can grow, it delivers advancements, but where legislation gets it wrong and things are stifled, it has the opposite effect. And wouldn’t it be a shame if this legislation was in all those years ago when New Zealanders decided to take a small gooseberry and turn it into a kiwifruit that delivers, with a worldwide reputation, so much for our economy that so many growers in New Zealand can be proud of. In the processes the Government had set up—there was a claim put in and it took many, many years to work through. It was finally found that that claim wasn’t justified. Well, would we have that kiwifruit as we do today? Now, that’s not likely to have happened back there, but the point of that is, if there was a delay of some years as committees consider and get advice and talk to lawyers and go to so-called experts and so on, then, actually, the business community gets on. It may not be called a kiwifruit; it could be called an Australian fruit or a Chinese fruit or an Italian fruit, because, actually, today investors can go anywhere in the world with their scientists to develop new varieties that people will want to purchase, and if we are slow in New Zealand, as this Labour Government is often far too slow, we would miss out.

We are supporting it, but we will be keeping an eye on it to make sure the commitments and promises that the Minister made to us are honoured. And I want to say to that last member: there is no such thing in New Zealand as white fragility—you’re out of your mind.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a brief call in relation to the Plant Variety Rights Bill. I am not a member of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, who considered this bill. However, I am a member of the esteemed Regulations Review Committee, and one of the privileges of being on that committee is that we cover a broad range of topics. Our substantive focus goes from lobsters to optometrists to e-scooters, and—yes—to plant varieties, and we did engage with this bill because it creates regulation-making powers, as we do for bills across a number of areas.

We are interested in everything, and it was with that interest and great excitement that I read the select committee’s report, and there were three things which stood out for me in terms of my role within the Regulations Review Committee. The first was the committee’s diligent consideration of a letter written to it by the Regulations Review Committee in June that considered the use of powers in clause 150. So it was really good to see the committee engaging actively with that piece of advice.

The second was the committee’s decision to make a recommended change around clause 116, which gives the Commissioner of Plant Variety Rights the ability to delegate their functions and powers to others. The committee noted that that was actually framed quite broadly, so they drew down those powers, which as we all recognise within the regulations space are extremely important in terms of ensuring clarity, and then a number of other speakers have referred to the significant insertion of the right to appeal contained in clauses 68A to 68D.

So a really thorough job was done by the select committee, and I would like to commend them for that. I commend the Minister for his diligent work in bringing this bill to the House, and I commend the bill to the House.