Plant Variety Rights Bill

Members, we come now to the Plant Variety Rights Bill. Members, when we were last debating this bill, we were debating Part 4, which is the debate on clauses 28 to 51, “Grant of plant variety rights”. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to talk to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 192, which deals with clauses 28, 52, and 56, and a number of other clauses relating to this. This is just by way of background, because we’ve sort of jumped in the middle of a debate and everyone homing in on TV will be trying to work it out. There have been certain discussions on the bill, but the SOP that I’ve put up really relates to the issue of who has the jurisdiction to approve plant variety rights.

As the Chair will no doubt know, there is a tribunal that has overall responsibility, but the bill introduces a new committee called the Māori Plant Varieties Committee. It’s noted in the commentary that the committee will consider applications for plant variety rights—PVRs—in relation to indigenous and certain non-indigenous plant species. It would further assess the effect that granting such PVRs could have on kaitiaki relationships and make decisions about whether or not the PVR application should proceed.

So my SOP that has been put forward deals with the issue of this approval process. I’m sort of turning my mind specifically to clause 28, the granting of a PVR. Under the existing way that the bill is constructed, the freedom may apply to the commissioner for a plant variety to be considered—to have the rights—but the commissioner must consider the application in accordance with subclauses (3) and (4) of clause 28. Those bits are that “After considering the application, the Commissioner must—(a) grant the PVR to the applicant”—so must grant it—“(i) if satisfied that the criteria for granting a PVR in section 30 are met; and (ii) in a case where Part 5 applies, if the Māori Plant Varieties Committee has informed the Commissioner under section 65 that the application should proceed;”, and over the page, it talks about the Māori Plant Varieties Committee having the ability to decide.

My SOP suggests and proposes—and it’s important that we have a Māori plant varieties committee to deal with indigenous plants, but it shouldn’t be a decisive body. It shouldn’t be a body that decides; it should be one that advises the commissioner. So it doesn’t take away from the Māori Plant Varieties Committee the ability to have regard and consider plant matter that’s certainly indigenous. Some of the definition around “non-indigenous” probably needs to be discussed further, and I will further it in a further contribution, but what it says is that it should advise the commissioner, because the commissioner is the one that has the ultimate decision-making power. But under the way that the bill is constructed, this means that if the application doesn’t get past the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, it will not proceed to the commissioner.

So I’d like to propose that SOP. It has a ripple effect across a number of the clauses of the bill, but certainly I’d like to hear from the Minister as to his view on whether or not and why this shouldn’t be the case. I look forward to that contribution.

I call Andrew Bayly.

Thank you. Well, we’ll carry right along. So we’re waiting for the Minister to get some advice, which would be great.

So my second point, which I just alluded to—I hadn’t intended to be continuing on, but let’s move right along—is the issue around the jurisdiction of the Māori Plant Varieties Committee. As I said before, the committee would consider applications for a PVR—a plant variety right—in relation to indigenous and certain non-indigenous plant species. So the one thing I am very keen to hear from the Minister is what “certain non-indigenous plant species” are. Of course, when you sit and think about it for more than two minutes, it is an issue as to—you know, plants develop over time. You have hybrid species and sometimes it’s intentional, and sometimes it’s a matter of nature at its best in terms of bringing hybrid vigour to the different plant varieties. So having an understanding of what “certain non-indigenous plant species” means in relation to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee having jurisdiction over that, again, I would just—thank you, Mr Parker, for being in the chair, and I welcome Minister Dr David Clark. So I’m just letting him have a moment here while he gets up to speed.

So, Minister, I have asked two questions. Certainly, one is around my Supplementary Order Paper 192 about making the Māori Plant Varieties Committee have an advisory capacity, because, ultimately, it should be the commission that decides on applications in relation to indigenous and certain non-indigenous plant species. The second aspect is: what does a “non-indigenous plant species” mean in relation to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee jurisdiction? So, hopefully, you’ve had time to consider those two matters.

Madam Chair, thank you. So, first off, the member asks why the Māori Plant Varieties Committee is not an advisory committee like, for example, the Trademarks Advisory Committee, which would be a parallel example. Other than the decision-making power of the committee, the committee is set up in just the same way as Māori advisory committees in that other regime—so that’s the first point to make. The member is correct in drawing that kind of parallel. Though those other committees are only advisory, it is I think worth the committee noting that the commissioner has never gone against the advice of that committee in those other circumstances—that’s what I’m advised. Some trademark and patent applications have not proceeded as a result of the advice.

In respect of the Wai 262 recommendations, it was important to listen to the views of Māori and engage in good faith on the Treaty provisions in the bill. The Wai 262 recommendations are not binding on the Crown, nor do they set any kind of ceiling on how the Crown may respond. The Crown, basically, has the flexibility and, arguably, the responsibility to determine how best to respond to those recommendations. So this is the response we have made, and I’m just trying to think whether it’s worth—yeah, I suppose—making the other point. In the Wai 262 inquiry, the tribunal found that the approach taken in the bill is consistent with Ko Aotearoa Tēnei’s findings on the balancing required to give effect to the applicable Te Tiriti—Treaty—principles of partnership in active processes.

In respect of the member’s other question around certain non-indigenous plant species, the member Melissa Lee raised this, actually, in an earlier stage of the debate, but let’s cover it here. There’s no list in the bill or regulations of indigenous plant species, but there is a list of non-indigenous species of significance that will be prescribed in the regulations. The list of non-indigenous species of significance was approved by Cabinet when it agreed on the policy decisions on the Plant Variety Rights Regulations, and I’d note for the record that that relevant Cabinet paper and minute had been proactively released. But for the benefit of the House, that list includes: kuru, or breadfruit; hue, or gourd or calabash; aute, or paper-mulberry; karaka/kōpī; paratawhiti/paraa; perei; kūmara; taro; tī pore, which is Pacific cabbage tree, I’m told; and whikaho, or yam. So that is the list of things that are included, and they will be included in those regulations.

Thank you, and I appreciate the Minister’s response. Just dealing with each of those in turn, the first one is the list that Cabinet has approved, and thank you for specifying those. So the question there obviously arises: if that is the list that’s been approved by Cabinet, why wouldn’t that be hardwired into the legislation?

I suppose another way of asking the same question is that if Cabinet has agreed a list and it gets put into regulations, that means that, subsequently, certain non-indigenous species can be added to or subtracted relatively easily, so is the intent of Cabinet that there should be further additions to that list that Cabinet has already agreed, and is that why it’s going into regulations? I think that lack of clarity would be an important issue for the plant growers of New Zealand to know whether, in fact, they’re likely going to be captured too, or possibly going to be captured, under what is deemed certain non-indigenous species. So that’s the first question.

With regard to the more substantive issue—which was the first issue I raised, around the role of the Māori Plant Varieties Committee—what I detected from the Minister’s statement was a very nuanced but significant change, because if I understand what the Minister was saying, up to now there have been many examples of similar advisory committees having an advisory capacity. They do not have the right under previous legislation to be able to make determinations and, if I’m correct, what the Minister has just said is that there is a subtle change that this Plant Variety Rights Bill introduces which means that the Māori advisory committee, in this case, moves from being an advisory committee to a decision-making committee. I take the point that a commissioner hasn’t gone against advice of these types of tribunals or committees, but it is an important fundamental legal change if it means that this is the first committee of this type—the Māori Plant Varieties Committee—where we’ve made that subtle change from an advisory to a decision-making committee.

I think it’s significant, and I’m looking at my good colleague the former lawyer the Hon Judith Collins. I think the issue is really important—this subtle change, if that is the case—and I’d love the Minister to be clear whether, in fact, it is, because if there is that subtle change, that changes the rights and sets a precedent that is really, really important. I think it’s really important at this stage to be absolutely clear and transparent about that change.

Thank you, Madam Chair. While we’re awaiting the Minister’s reply to my colleague Andrew Bayly’s very important questions, perhaps he could also turn his mind to this. As I’ve read Part 4, it is very clear that there is this Māori Plant Varieties Committee, which has a veto power over the plant variety rights applications.

Now, looking at that too, what is indigenous, and what is covered in this is indigenous—well, no doubt there is a set number of indigenous plants that we can all agree were here without human intervention, or have turned up like that, and then there are the ones that are covered because they came on waka before 1776, and that’s very clear from the bill. So we should have an exact number of those, with their names, and the Minister has read out a list which I understand are the ones he says are going to be in the regulations which will fall under this. So if there’s a set number, then why aren’t they in the Act?

It’s not as though we are really expecting that there’s going to be another plant variety discovered that no one has worked out was there since 1776, so I think Andrew Bayly has got a very good point: if it’s a finite number and a finite list, then why isn’t it in the primary legislation? We know that the regulations normally are where there are things that there are going to be changes to. Are we seriously anticipating there will be changes to this?

Then the other point that I would ask the Minister to give thought to is: are we going to be stuck with the law of unintended consequences? So if we take kūmara, which he has referred to and which we know came on waka with Māori when they came to New Zealand, they came from somewhere else. So there are kūmara elsewhere. They were brought here and are very important to the culture of Māori and, I think, of many New Zealanders who are non-Māori. Having said that, we know that kūmara, or another name for what we would call kūmara, are elsewhere in the world, and there is, from what I can see from this, nothing to stop people in the plant-breeding business in, say, Australia or Peru producing and looking for new ways of making plant varieties of kūmara, while New Zealanders here in this land that values kūmara so much could be perhaps prevented from moving forward and discovering and creating new varieties.

I wonder if it is one of the unintended consequences that New Zealand could be kept in a time warp around products or very important plant varieties to us—what is the term that’s being used—

Andrew Bayly: Non-indigenous species.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —non-indigenous but significant plant varieties—while other jurisdictions who do not consider those plant varieties as so significant that they can’t be changed or can’t have rights granted in them might charge ahead and come up with varieties that are pest-free, that are pest-resistant, that are able to grow with little water, and all these sorts of things, and New Zealand is left sitting there saying, “In this era of climate change and all the effects of that, do we have to import the stock from Australia?”

There’s that situation, and so I’d like to hear from the Minister on that as well. So I back up Andrew Bayly and I’d ask that other question. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, speaking to Part 5, and forgive my naivety, but I’m just trying to get some clarity here—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): We’re still on Part 4.

MARK CAMERON: Oh, we’re on Part 4—I apologise.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I’d like to thank my colleague the Hon Judith Collins for raising the issue of kūmara. I’d like to enlighten my colleagues across the House about Fay and Joe Gock, who have been growing kūmara for 60 years. I just wanted to bring to the Minister and my colleagues that Fay and her husband Joe are credited with having saved the kūmara when black rot threatened to obliterate the industry in the 1950s—and I’m reading from a news article—“They gifted their disease resistant strain to the nation, refusing to take any money for it.”

What happened was that they developed a disease-free kūmara strain which became known as owairaka red in the late 1950s. When there was this disease that literally threatened all of the kūmara stock in New Zealand, they actually gifted it to the Department of Science and Industrial Research to help re-establish the kūmara stock. So, in effect, how will this reflect in terms of the kaitiaki relationship when, in fact, it was the Gocks who actually saved the kūmara stock from their own black rot - resistant strain that they themselves had in fact developed, while all the other strains would have been decimated as a result of that?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I must admit that I am just stalling, and I don’t intend to stall. I’m really keen for a Minister to respond, because I’ve asked two quite significant questions. I think—

Hon Dr David Clark: Do reiterate—do reiterate, please.

ANDREW BAYLY: OK, I’ll do that at the urging of the Minister. So this issue around non-indigenous plant species is fascinating, and it’s interesting—the view of my colleague the Hon Judith Collins. Plant varieties, as I was saying before, evolve either naturally or through genetic engineering, but whatever the case, what might have been deemed a plant material 600 years ago and where it ends up now, and the use it’s put towards and how it’s applied—because we always assume it’s always for a food crop or whatever. I heard the Minister mention a cabbage tree, and, of course, the uses of that product over time—how do you know it doesn’t turn out to be a wonderful methane inhibitor for cattle? That’s a wild idea.

So that’s why I think it’s really important that we have absolute clarity around what is meant by this non-indigenous plant species, because it’s pretty quick. I think the Minister identified probably about 12 species in his response earlier on, but how do we know it just doesn’t migrate and become not only a wider list but, actually, after a while—you know, all plant species have a lot of value, and it’s been fascinating what’s happened with mānuka. The good old days of mānuka being chopped down because it was a pain on hillsides, but now, with the genetic engineering that’s gone on and the wonderfully high levels of protection that mānuka offers—particularly factoring in the honey—how that has transformed that product. But, of course, mānuka is now used in a wide range of other products such as soaps, which have not only a health benefit but then a perfume benefit—right?

Of course, we’ve seen it with strawberries, we’ve seen it with apples, and the classic is kiwifruit. It was green, now it’s yellow, and now, of course, it’s red. Those are quite deliberate—

Melissa Lee: Chinese gooseberry.

ANDREW BAYLY: Yeah, Chinese gooseberry, as Melissa Lee is quite rightly highlighting. Originally, it was named that.

So there are the uses of plant material as it moves not only in terms of a food source but for other types of purposes, and that’s why it’s very important that for the people who are involved in this propagation of plants and the intellectual property protection around it, it’s an absolute requirement that there be clarity around what are the protected indigenous species. I find the term “non-indigenous” plant species the worrying one, and why that’s being put into regulations and not hard-wired into the bill—because that’s where it should be if it’s a definitive list.

But also, a lot of this can this be challenged, because, going back to the kiwifruit, if that was the original Chinese gooseberry, Zespri would’ve commercialised multiple variants of that plant variety, and so what does that mean? Who owns that? Who controls that?

Under the bill as it’s currently written, that is now at their discretion, and it’s a decision-making discretion rather than an advisory role—as to whether in fact the Māori Plant Varieties Committee will say yes or no. I presume that if they say no, the commissioner must respect that, and it doesn’t even go to the commissioner. Is the commissioner empowered under this bill to say “Well, I’ve heard what the Māori Plant Varieties Committee has said and made a decision on.”, because that’s the way it’s framed? Can the commissioner overturn that and say, “Well, I’m not going to accept that.”? I think the Minister is shaking his head, so this is interesting.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So the certain non-indigenous plants species that I read out that will be prescribed in regulations comes to a list of 10. The member Andrew Bayly said it was about 12, and he’s about right: it’s 10 in that list, currently. For that list to be expanded, a kaitiaki relationship would have to be established, and the Māori Plant Varieties Committee would be the adjudicator on that.

Andrew Bayly: The Māori Plant Varieties Committee?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes, because they would have to establish a kaitiaki relationship, which is not an easy test, but it’s a test. I think this is one of the reasons why the recommendations brought by the committee to have an appeal right are important also for the confidence and certainty of breeders, and that’s why I have welcomed that recommendation from the committee to have an appeal right, which will be surfaced through the Māori Appellate Court, for anybody that wants to take action in that respect.

So I agree with the committee’s finding that an appeal right was important. We wrote to the judiciary and got back their recommendation that the Māori Appellate Court would be the appropriate body to consider appeals with the necessary expertise and seniority. That is a change from the original bill and, I think, an improvement, because I’m accepting an aspect of the member’s argument there that there has to be a natural justice process if that kaitiaki relationship or other things were to be challenged on the way through.

Thank you, Minister, and it’s good that we’re having this interactive. The one question I think the Minister was going to answer was whether, in fact, the commissioner could overturn the decision of the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, and, if I understood what he was indicating before, that’s not the case.

Thank you, Madam Chair. No, they have a separate jurisdiction to the commissioner. They are there to hear things where there is a kaitiaki relationship established or able to be established.

So that’s a no? Thank you. So this is really, really significant, and this is not to say that there’s not a role for the Māori Plant Varieties Committee—no one is suggesting that for a moment—and we all understand kaitiaki. But does the Minister not consider that if you establish a Māori plant varieties committee to assess whether something is of kaitiaki nature and they become the sole defining body to determine that, isn’t that a bit of a conflict? I would have thought that it just seems like we’re enshrining in this bill a sort of a whole separate process depending on whether it’s indigenous or “certain non-indigenous plant species”, setting that on a course through the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, and then, if you aren’t happy with the outcome, you go to the Māori Appellate Court. I’ll yield to the Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this is useful clarification, and I perhaps haven’t been as clear as I could be about the process of getting to that committee. There is a process that’s laid out—and we have debated some of that—as to whether a decision goes to that Māori Plant Varieties Committee or not, and the commissioner oversees that process and refers on it, as appropriate, to that committee.

I also just want to point out to especially the member Andrew Bayly that this has actually morphed into Part 5, the Māori plant variety. So if you have any questions on Part 4 or comments to make on Part 4, now is the time, otherwise we can move on to Part 5.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair, although my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 192 actually specifically deals with clause 28, which is what we’re right in the heart of debating at the moment. So what I understand is that if it’s of a kaitiaki nature, the commissioner will refer that to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee. That committee has the ability to solely determine whether, in fact, it is of a kaitiaki nature, and if there’s any dispute about that, a plant grower, or whoever it might be—a horticulturalist—can go to the Māori Appellate Court for a jurisdiction on overturning it. But the commission has no power to deal with that. Again, the nature of my SOP was to make it clear that the recommendation was that it should be an advisory issue, not a decision making—so I just want to make sure. This is the last time I’ll talk about that. But if that’s the situation and I’ve outlined it correctly, I’d love the Minister to be clear about that.

All right, can I move on to the next SOP? I know there are plenty of SOPs here, so I don’t want to hog this show, Madam Chair. [Interruption] Good—well, I’m getting encouraged here.

I want to pick up on Judith Collins’ great SOP, and I know that she’ll want to contribute to this. Her SOP 201 deals with new clause 39A. What it does is it talks about provisional protection, and it states that “An applicant has the right to take proceedings under this Act from the application date as if on that date a PVR had been granted to the applicant in respect of the variety concerned.” What this SOP is about—and I know that the Hon Judith Collins has worked very closely with the likes of Zespri to understand some of the ramifications, but that’s just one example of a horticultural entity. But what it does is that it retains the current provision for provisional protection set out under section 9 of the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987. So what this is doing is saying, “Don’t get rid of the old stuff; let’s protect it.”

The key thing about this is that if you do not put in this SOP with new clause 39A—without this amendment, the bill allows for a plant variety right holder to bring an action against infringement only after the grant of the right. Now, this raises the whole issue about time—time between making an application, between receiving the plant variety right and the ability to have rights over that plant variety—and to wait that period of time is a substantial amount of time.

I suppose one analogy which may or may not be appropriate is where we’ve lost rights, or we’ve seen some of our red kiwifruit being planted in offshore jurisdictions. I don’t know whether there was a delay there, but if there was a such a case where the application hadn’t been processed—certainly the application was made, but not processed and, therefore, it hadn’t enshrined the rights of Zespri in that case—then that would mean that Zespri would have to wait several years, and in that time the other jurisdiction could set about marketing and using that, and that’s a much harder situation to retrieve if you’ve spent years and lots of money trying to develop a new plant species.

So the big question for the Minister to start with is why on earth wouldn’t you protect the intellectual property of New Zealand companies—and, by the way, it might be Māori companies—in terms of making sure that between the time of the making the application and the granting of the licence, or the protection of the right, New Zealand companies, New Zealand entities, and New Zealand individuals have the ability to pursue proceedings against those who may have wilfully or—maybe even worse than that—deliberately stolen or misused plant varieties, or gained that plant variety through other means which are totally illegal? So I think that is an absolutely important provision that should be in adopted in this bill.

Again, we’ll just give the Minister—I will continue—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to hear from the Minister why he didn’t take the advice from the actual experts in this area, because, quite clearly, the people who have the most experience in the plant varieties rights area are our horticultural giants like Zespri and like Turners & Growers. They are people who have been working in this area for a very long time and who have though their ingenuity, their commitment, the research that they’ve done, and the way in which they have conducted themselves been able to build an industry which is of benefit to all New Zealanders—all New Zealanders—because we’re an exporting nation.

It seems odd to me that the Minister has not taken their advice, and I realise that there could be some who thought that perhaps kiwifruit farmers and others are making great profits and that that means they’re paying great taxes. I understand that there might be a bit of a snitch on the other side of the House to think that people who have bought land or leased land and who have taken risks should make a profit, but that’s how we get paid, basically. It’s called taxes, which they pay.

So I’d like to ask why that is, and why it is that we haven’t heard from the Minister yet on the issues that I’ve already raised with him today, as well as this particular issue that Andrew Bayly has referred to and which is contained in my Supplementary Order Paper, which is that it’s really important that we need to make sure that we are not just in competition with Australia or our near neighbours. We are in competition with the world, and with regard to our produce such as, say, kiwifruit, people like Zespri and Turners & Growers need to be able export the plant stock as well to other parts of the world so that they don’t lose the currency—basically, lose shelf space—in supermarkets all over the world. So they need to be able to do this, and they can’t do this effectively if they are not going to have the level of protection that they need for the incredible investment that goes on in producing and keeping up to date with trends that the buying public want to have.

Just to give an example of how important this is, we all remember the Psa disaster that came through and wiped out so much of the gold kiwifruit. It should in most people’s minds have been a situation where that industry was just completely gone for years, but it wasn’t gone for years because there had already been so much work done on the SunGold that there was grafting going on, and, in fact, a new variety was able to be brought to market that didn’t have the Psa issue.

So this is the sort of work that goes on. Even if we don’t see it with our own eyes, it’s still going on, and these New Zealand businesses that are so important to our country and our economy and our prosperity and our ability to pay for nurses’ wages and our ability to pay for police officers’ wages and our ability to get children to school—why is it that the Minister has not taken their advice?

I’ll just speak to the member Judith Collins’ Supplementary Order Paper 201 there. What is being proposed would be completely out of whack with all of the jurisdictions we like to compare ourselves to, and it would put us in a position where if a plant variety right were never granted but we enforced, essentially, a provisional status, that simply wouldn’t be fair on people who were being sued—for example, the growers. It would introduce an injustice that none of our comparable jurisdictions have considered worth introducing.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the Minister for his response. I find that quite horrific, that response, because I think it shows a degree of naivety that I find crippling, and I imagine anyone who is growing new plants in New Zealand and developing new plant varieties in New Zealand will be appalled at that statement.

But I just want to remind the Minister—and this is why it was so important I had this call, and I’m very grateful to Madam Chair for granting it to me. In the commentary to the bill, which is the bit at the beginning, it states that “The bill would also give effect to New Zealand’s international treaty obligations. New Zealand is party to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). The 1978 revision of that agreement is reflected in the 1987 PVR Act. However, under the CPTPP which New Zealand signed in 2018, the Government agreed to implement law to either ‘accede’ … or ‘give effect’ to, the 1991 revision of UPOV (UPOV-91).” All glorious stuff.

So that is why I find the Minister’s response actually factually wrong, because the provisions, that the Hon Judith Collins is seeking to introduce on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 201 were already enshrined in the original Act that this bill was going to amend. It was already there, and the further reason that it’s been put forward and why people like Zespri, which is not an insignificant New Zealand player, believe that it is important, and fundamentally important, probably, to make sure that we include this SOP provision is—and I quote—“Further, retaining the provision in the current Plant Varieties Rights Act 1987 allows New Zealand to give effect to Article 13 of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (1991),”—UPOV-91, which I’ve just referred to, at the very start of this bill—“as it is required under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Article 13, provides: ‘Each Contracting Party shall provide measures designed to safeguard the interests of the breeder during the period between the filing or the publication of the application for the grant of a breeder’s right and the grant of that right.’ ”—that’s what we’re talking about; we’re talking about that time delay—“ ‘Such measures shall have the effect that the holder of the breeder’s right shall at least be … equitable remuneration from any person who, during the said period, has carried out acts which, once the right is granted, requires the breeder’s authorization, as provided in Article 14’ ”.

Minister, I’ve got to say to you that I think your advice is poor. You are factually incorrect. You talked about New Zealand growers, and it is absolutely essential that New Zealand growers, who spend a fortune not only in money but in time—because it takes years, often, to develop these plant varieties—have a remedy if someone goes and nicks their stuff or misappropriates it, as we have seen from time to time, unfortunately.

It is wrong. This provision needs to be included in the bill. I’m looking at the Minister, and I’m hoping he’s going to give us a proper answer.

I feel we have traversed some of this, but the definition that the member’s reading out is not a requirement in the way that he specifies that it is. Secondly, when a plant variety right is granted, then anyone who has used it is required to pay the grant holder appropriately. So, in the interim, if someone is lodging grant applications all over the place willy-nilly and without merit, it doesn’t hold other people’s rights out, and I think the member knows that.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The question is that Mark Cameron’s amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 186 be agreed to.

The question is that Andrew Bayly’s amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 be agreed to.

The question is that Andrew Bayly’s amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 192 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Judith Collins’ amendment inserting new clause 39A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 201 be agreed to.

The question is that Part 4 as amended be agreed to.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Part 5 Additional provisions that apply to indigenous plant species and non-indigenous plant species of significance