Plant Variety Rights Bill

Members, we come now to Part 4. This 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. Part 4 of the bill sets out all the details around granting a plant variety right (PVR), including the criteria that must be met, the information required with an application, and how that application will be considered. If a candidate variety meets the five criteria set out in International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 91, and replicated in the bill, then a PVR will, indeed, be granted.

The exception to this is when the candidate variety may be from a species that is taonga to Māori. In this instance, the application will first go to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, who will consider possible impacts on kaitiaki relationships and then determine whether the application can proceed or not. We’ll come to the provisions governing that process in Part 5, so that’s a slightly separate debate.

There was nothing particularly controversial raised about provisions in Part 4 during the select committee process, though the committee has made some useful amendments. Submitters raised concerns that some acts, though not commercial in nature, may destroy the novelty requirement, rendering the variety ineligible for a PVR. The select committee addressed that issue by carrying over provisions from the current Act to prevent that happening.

Some Māori submitters raised concerns about information shared by kaitiaki during the application process. The default setting is that all information relating to an application is made publicly available. Submitters were concerned that this may not be appropriate for some information shared by kaitiaki—for example, in relation to their mātauranga. The select committee added a requirement that before making any such information publicly available, the commissioner must first consult with the Māori Plant Varieties Committee and must follow any recommendations they make.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now we come to clause 28. Look, I’ve got a Supplementary Order Paper from our colleague Andrew Bayly, Supplementary Order Paper 192, and he’s suggesting that there be some amendments to clauses 28 and 52.

So the Minister spoke as though there needs to be consultation with the Māori Plant Varieties Committee. I’m not sure it actually is consultation. It says in the bill that—it really sounds more like it’s a veto power. So I would normally ask the Minister, but since he seems to just sit down after I’ve asked my question and sat down, I really don’t want to waste my time waiting for him to find the answer and answer the question. So I think this is something that does need to be looked at. Is this really going to be where we go, where we decide that there is now going to be a veto power? If that’s what it is, then the Government should say what it is. If it is in fact a consultation, that’s not the same because I don’t see how “the Māori Plant Varieties Committee decides” can actually be “and I’m consulting with the Māori Plant Varieties Committee”. I think that’s really more like a veto, and people need to know that.

In fact, Andrew Bayly has suggested that that be changed to “Māori Plant Varieties Committee advises”, because that sounds more like consultation. Saying that that is a consultation is a bit like the Auckland Council sending me the rates bill and saying they’re consulting with me; it’s already been decided. So I’m not really sure how that can be consultation, or if that’s the new thing, under the Ardern Government—of “consulting”. So we are suggesting, from this side of the Chamber, that there be less of a false consultation and more of reality. So it’s going to be “The Māori Plant Varieties Committee advises, under section 65(1)(c), that an agreed or proposed condition must be a condition of grant of a PVR, the Commissioner might impose that condition when granting the plant variety right.”

This is not a consultation. What is in this bill is actually a veto power, because it says very clearly that if the committee decides that something needs to be a condition in the plant variety right, or condition of it, then that’s the way it has to be. Now, if it is, the Government should be upfront about it. We should know what it is we’re being asked to vote for, and we believe it shouldn’t be that veto power, but it should be advising and giving advice on. That is, in our opinion, on this side of the House, more like consultation rather than a decision.

So I wonder if the Minister could actually rise to his feet and maybe just, you know, cut the actual insults and get down to that. Is it a decision or is it consultation?

Members, the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported

House resumed.