Plant Variety Rights Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Plant Variety Rights Bill. When we were last debating this bill, we were debating Part 5, which is the debate on clauses 52 to 68D, and Schedule 1A, “Additional provisions that apply to indigenous plant species and non-indigenous plant species of significance”. The question is that Part 5 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. There are a number of Supplementary Order Papers in this part, Part 5, which I’d like to cover in subsequent contributions, but I suppose the start point is clause 52, which is around the role of the Māori advisory board. This is one that we have some concerns with. It’s the establishment of the Māori Plant Varieties Committee. As set out in clause 52, it’s there to provide additional procedures that will recognise and protect kaitiaki relationships, provide for the Māori Plant Varieties Committee to administer these procedures and to make determinations about those kaitiaki relationships, and to have an advisory function, and to enable the nullification or cancellation of plant variety rights that have adverse effects.

So one of the big things for members of the community, the wider community who are involved in developing new plant varieties, is their concern that this committee has the right to make determinations as opposed to being an advisory committee. I don’t think for a moment anyone doesn’t believe that Māori have a right to be involved in the process; that’s not for debate. It’s just the question of whether this committee has the ability to make determinations which will basically set aside applications—that they have the absolute ability to say no. One of the points I will subsequently talk about is where those appeals can be heard. But many people believe that, yes, Māori should be consulted and should have an instrumental role in this, but there’s a difference between having the opportunity to have a meaningful contribution and to be able to look at these aspects—that is one side of the coin—and moving to an arrangement where this Māori Plant Varieties Committee can actually make decisions.

So just to start off the debate today, because it’s been a while since we last debated this, can the Minister be very clear why the Government thinks it’s appropriate that the Māori Plant Varieties Committee should have an absolute right to make determinations as opposed to being a committee that things should be referred to but in an advisory capacity only.

Obviously, I covered this off in my previous comments on this part of the bill—and we’ve debated it in previous parts—but I’m happy to recap, because the member’s right: it’s a while since we’ve had this debate come up in the House.

Effectively, the committee has a decision-making power in relation to the applications it considers. It’s the right thing to do. Just as the commissioner is empowered to make decisions on matters relating to their expertise, so is the Māori Plant Varieties Committee empowered to make decisions on matters relating to their expertise, namely Te Ao Māori.

I do note that the select committee and the National members on it supported this unanimously. But I did also want to acknowledge and thank them, and we have canvassed this in debate, too, for putting forward the suggestion that there should be an appeal. The committee agreed that there should be the right and the ability to appeal these decisions to a higher court. So I want to acknowledge that change that came through the select committee, again, in the debate. No doubt, that will be further discussed. Thank you, Mr Chair.

I think the rationale, for people like Zespri, for people who propagate plant varieties like onions, through to flowers—all that different horticulture, and there are many, many people who spend vast amounts of money to develop new plant species. Just to be clear, in the Minister’s response there, you are saying it is the right thing to do. Is that the only reason you can give for why this committee should have an absolute decision-making authority as opposed to an advisory capacity?

Obviously, this is becoming a repetitive debate, but, again, for the sake of the committee, these won’t apply to the likes of kiwifruit. This is about indigenous species that were here prior to European settlement, which the Māori Plant Varieties Committee will have oversight over, and a small list of non-indigenous species of significance, which has been read out to the House before and, academics suggest, is very unlikely to be extended.

So, just to be clear, I’m well aware of the list that is currently being provided in terms of species of plants that Māori are regarded as being kaitiaki of. Do I take it from his response that that list cannot be added to? And, the second part, can he confirm that if I am, for instance, creating a new form of kiwifruit, there will be no right for that to have to go—if you’re seeking an application for a plant variety species, there will be no requirement for that to go before the Māori Plant Varieties Committee?

Again, I’ll reiterate that this clause of the bill applies to indigenous species of plants, and also that small list that was brought in before European settlement—it’s in the bill: 1769—and academics have been very clear in their advice that it’s unlikely that list will be extended to any significant degree. It’s a theoretical possibility—it’s not ruled out completely—but I think the committee, when it considered the evidence, also accepted that it was very unlikely that would be extended very far, if at all.

Thank you. So I suppose, just to give a practical example: potatoes. And one of the members was just talking about them in relation to the free-trade agreement we’ve just signed with the UK. Potatoes—as opposed to kūmara—for instance, that’s quite a significant export market for New Zealand. Of course, you’ll know plant varieties like the Pukekohe long keeper, which was developed in Pukekohe, obviously. If that is a plant variety—and that is an active crop now—would that, as an example, need to go before the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, because it would be deemed maybe to have been brought into New Zealand and related to the kūmara crop? I’m trying to give a real-life example because if you’re saying that only known species that came into New Zealand, were imported from the Cook Islands or wherever, or were indigenous to New Zealand prior to European settlement, if that is the only grounds to go to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, that will obviously give some comfort to people listening.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I think it might be helpful just to reiterate that list for the committee. On that list currently we expect will be kuru, breadfruit; hue, which is gourd or calabash; aute, which is paper-mulberry; karaka, or kōpī; paratawhiti, or paraa; perei; kūmara; taro; tī pore, which is the Pacific cabbage tree; and whikaho, which is yam.

OK. Obviously, potato is not included in that; so that’s very helpful. How does the list get expanded—if it, indeed, gets expanded? What is the process for that list, because obviously, then, the role of the Māori Plant Varieties Committee has an important place in that? Who decides on whether indigenous species, or whatever, might be added? And what’s the process for that?

Well, a kaitiaki relationship would need to be established.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Sorry?

A kaitiaki relationship. As canvassed previously, a kaitiaki relationship would need to be established.

💬 Melissa Lee: Point of order. I think it would be really helpful if the microphone of the Minister is checked, because I could hardly hear his answer. If you could actually get that sorted. Thank you, Mr Chair. If I could actually take a call.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): So the point of order is now complete, and you are going for the call?

💬 Melissa Lee: Yes, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’ll do my best to fix the point of order.

💬 Melissa Lee: Even the Chair’s microphone is not working, so we’re really struggling to hear. If the Minister could—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Can I just check. Is that better? We’re not sitting close enough?

💬 Hon Todd McClay: It is working now, but it’s not perfect.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): OK.

Mr Chair, if I could now—I thank you, Minister Clark, for clarifying some of the issues. I’d like to go back to the question that my learned colleague Andrew Bayly has actually asked in relation to the kaitiaki relationship of indigenous plant variety. In terms of the application for the plant variety rights (PVR) and kaitiaki for plants that perhaps were actually brought in before Pākehā settlement in New Zealand, for example, I think, in the previous session that we were speaking in, I mentioned the issue of kūmara. I know it might sound to other members that I’m harking on about this, but the thing is that the kūmara stock that we had in this country literally was decimated because of black rot. It was the variety that was developed by Joe and Fay Gock—people who were farming in Pukekohe I think, who distributed their variety. So how does the kaitiaki relationship apply to kūmara? It was a completely new variety that the Gock family developed and freely gave out to everyone, including our Māori community. So it would be really helpful if the Minister could explain that in terms of the kaitiaki relationship and the PVR application process.

Well, I think—just noting that this has been canvassed several times in the House, and I was just looking back at Michael Woodhouse’s first reading speech, which also referenced the Gocks and the work that they did. Obviously, if a species has a kaitiaki relationship, that process plays out through the Māori Plant Varieties Committee and there is an appeal right if people want to dispute the way that plays through. I won’t get ahead of any judgments they would make around that, but I think the kūmara species is something that Māori have had a long relationship and a kaitiaki relationship with and so I would expect that to be something that would appear before that committee.

Very interesting response. So I suppose this is where you get into these difficulties, because I don’t think anyone, again, would dispute that Māori have a kaitiaki relationship with kūmara, particularly because it came in with the first waka. But what might be the process in that situation where, in this case, a Chinese family have helped develop a new species? Under the arrangements set out in the bill, that would automatically go to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee. So the question then becomes: who would own the intellectual property of the new variety? Because it is a new variety—of kūmara, but it’s a new variety. There’ll be multiple varieties of kūmara. Who might in that situation end up owning that plant variety?

Now, it was very nice that the family gave that variety away freely because they wanted to see and make sure New Zealanders were able to eat kūmara. But what is the likely scenario in terms of ownership of that plant variety species, I suppose you’d call it? Would the Māori Plant Varieties Committee immediately assume that, because it’s kaitiaki, it must be owned by Māori? Or does the family have a right to it and is able to commercialise it, even though it may not be just used in New Zealand—it may be used for export crops?

So just understanding the role and the decision-making process, if the Minister could help me. I hope he understands what I’m asking, because how do you actually pick it up—and actually the value, of course, we’re talking about is intellectual property and the intellectual value that comes from that.

Yep. So the member raises a good question. The intellectual property would be owned by the people that develop the new crop, and the commercial arrangements would be a conversation with the kaitiaki, and that’s the way it, effectively, would run in the conversation.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Can you—sorry, just—

Is that still not coming through? So then let me repeat that for the sake of the committee. The intellectual property would be owned by the developer of the intellectual property, but the commercial arrangements may involve a conversation with the kaitiaki who have the traditional oversight of that particular variety.

Mr Chair, thank you. Just further to that, Minister, who is it that decides that there could be a kaitiaki interest? I.e., there can be many claims, but somebody must decide it has merit otherwise it could merely slow the process down. Secondly, in the case that he just gave of the intellectual property remaining the property—the ownership—of the developer and there would have to be a discussion and negotiation over compensation or fees or whatever with kaitiaki, doesn’t that just mean some developers will pick up their product and take it overseas and license and sell it there, and New Zealand misses out completely?

Thank you. If I can respond to the first part, and I might have to ask the member to repeat if there were other parts that I’ve missed, the commissioner makes the decision about what goes to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, and that—sorry, I’m just aware the microphones may not be coming through. You can hear me fine? Yep.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: A hand-held maybe—

He’s suggesting a karaoke arrangement with a hand-held microphone for the House, I think—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Well, no, look, what we’re hearing is coming through the Chair’s—

Oh, what you’re hearing is coming through the Chair’s microphone. OK, forbearance, please, in the Chamber. But hopefully you can hear me better now.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Use your big voice.

I’ve got a quieter voice. Like Mr Bayly, I haven’t been blessed with a loud voice, so I just have to make the most of what I’ve got. Look—and now I’ve forgotten the question that the member was asking, so I would ask the member to repeat it. Because he was on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee I think he probably knows the answer, but it’s useful for the Chamber to hear it.

Sorry, I do recall the first one so let me let me answer that, which is that the commissioner makes the decision about what’s referred to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, and that list includes the indigenous species and those ones with a particular relationship that we canvassed recently in the House. They would make a judgment about what needs to appear, and then it’s the Māori Plant Varieties Committee that would make the judgment about that relationship and its significance.

Minister, thank you. And then the Māori Plant Varieties Committee makes a determination—there’s a process that refers it back to the director and the director finally makes that decision, firstly. Secondly, is the Minister assured—or what assurances has he or will he seek—that the director will do his job judiciously so that we don’t just see many claims being made, perhaps a bit of uncertainty, things are flicked off to this kaitiaki committee, which has the effect of slowing a process down which is the opposite intention of the legislation?

The second part of my question was the Minister said that where the kaitiaki committee is to consider an issue, the ownership of the new variety—the intellectual property—remains with the developer, and that, subsequently, a commercial decision arrangement will be made with the rights-holder and kaitiaki over value compensation or something else. Doesn’t that just suggest, though, that in some cases a product may be developed here and it’s easier—or the person that retains the intellectual property will just go overseas, register it and sell it there, and New Zealand misses out?

Thank you. I can hear my own voice echoing now through the microphones, so I’m going to assume that the issue has been addressed. Look, the member obviously sat on the committee which unanimously made these recommendations, but he’s right to draw attention to the fact that the commissioner has the responsibility of deciding what goes to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, and that’s based on a list that will be developed and provided of those introduced species of significance that have been read out in the House, and also on those that are indigenous. The expectation is that that is all done expeditiously and that is, indeed, laid out in the legislation. Again, I think the select committee worked through that to make sure that the expectations on the Māori Plant Varieties Committee were the same as they are on the other decision makers in the process, and that that will be done expeditiously. We want this regime to work, and I take members back to the fundamental purpose of this regime, which is to provide three things: to make sure that we are complying with our Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership obligations, and that’s incredibly important to pass this legislation; secondly, to make sure that we have International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants - like standards that give our intellectual property creators the confidence and security that they have sought, that their intellectual property will be developed and rewarded; and thirdly, to make sure we’re meeting our Treaty obligations. Now, all of those things are tied up together. But for simplicity’s sake, we know we are achieving those three objectives, we want our international trade agreements to be successful, and we think we’ve got the balance right here—also, protecting indigenous interests and making sure our intellectual property owners, who are very keen to see this go through, by the way, can have an up-to-date regime that rewards their endeavours because they’re incredibly important to our export success.

So thank you for that. I’m not quite sure you answered the Hon Todd McClay’s question, and I’m going to repeat it. The original question is: if you put these barriers in place, how are you assured that people who—if they develop species that are related, or have a kaitiaki thing, that they just simply don’t use it overseas and develop the product overseas? New Zealand doesn’t benefit from that advantage. So that was what the original question was.

The second thing—you know, the story of Joe and Fay Gock about the kūmara probably needs retelling, and, in fact, I think they probably need to be remembered and honoured, actually. Because back in the 1950s, kūmara basically couldn’t be used because of the black rot, and they came up with a strain—or a variety—that was resistant to black rot. If they hadn’t come up with that resistant strain, New Zealanders probably wouldn’t be eating kūmara today, unless someone else had devised and developed a new strain. They very generously gifted that strain—that they had developed—to the nation. That’s where we are today; we all benefit from eating kūmara developed by the Gock family.

Now, the question I’m going to ask—and it’s a good example in relation to that kūmara strain that was developed by the Gocks; that would’ve no doubt been referred to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, and I understand why, and I’ve acknowledged that point before. But my question then becomes, “What is the role of the plant varieties?” You said that the intellectual property (IP) would still remain with the Gock family, but the commercial arrangements—and I think you used that term, “commercial arrangements”—would be something that the Māori Plant Varieties Committee would look at.

So one is about the ownership of the IP, and I get that; that has a certain value, but the value of IP actually is being able to use it—to distribute it, grow it, and then export the product. So what is the role of the Māori Plant Varieties Committee in that situation with that kūmara? Would they have said, “Right, Gocks, you obviously own that plant variety.”, but to use it, to be able to distribute it, are we now going to have a commercial conversation or negotiation between the plant varieties committee and the Gock family? Or does the Māori Plant Varieties Committee say, “Well, yeah, they own it, but hey, because kūmara are introduced into New Zealand by Māori, Māori will have 50 percent of the distribution rights.”, or 100 percent, or whatever?

That is what I’m trying to understand, and I think it’s pretty important. I’m saying this in a respectful manner because we do need to acknowledge where Māori have an interest, but what are the likely outcomes—and I’m just giving the Minister a little bit of time while he’s getting some advice there—because I think that is where the rubber hits the road on this issue. Because if you cannot distribute it, or Māori then say, “We’re going to have a share of the distribution, right?”, then that’s a significant issue, and having some clarity around that would be very helpful.

Look, I do want to acknowledge at the outset—the member has not said that he doesn’t expect that kūmara would go to that committee, that everybody in this House acknowledges that Māori have a particular kaitiaki relationship with kūmara. The committee itself will be looking on a case by case basis to see that there has been appropriate engagement with the kaitiaki, but they won’t be judging what the right—you know, their job is not to say that this commercial arrangement is the only one that’s possible, or that one is. It will be, actually, case by case—has the right engagement has taken place with the kaitiaki who oversee that?

I want to get to the point that the member’s raised a couple of times—and it was raised by the Hon Todd McClay—around what’s to stop intellectual property developers heading overseas. I think this is an important question. So I guess the thing to say is the vast majority of plant varieties that are going to be looked at—in terms of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants - like regime—are not going to go through this Māori Plant Varieties Committee. It is going to be a very small portion that actually go through this committee. The vast majority are going to be going through a regime that looks much like many others in the world—in fact, we’re bringing it up to date so that it looks much like many others in the world.

Actually, I’ve been advised by our officials that currently the regime here is considerably cheaper for our intellectual property developers to engage with than overseas regimes. Probably we should look at—with the fullness of time—the cost-sharing arrangements around that. But it actually, currently and historically, it’s been quite a good deal for our for our intellectual property developers. We want to encourage them, right? So we want them to be developing products here for the export market. But I don’t think they’ll be rushing overseas in great numbers or droves or anything, if that’s what the member’s implying. I don’t think he is. I think he’s asking a genuine question, which is, you know, what’s to stop them going overseas? Well, the vast majority will be very straightforward. They’ll be going through a regime very similar to the ones overseas. They’re developing the property here. Here’s a fit for purpose regime; they’ll go through it. Where there are Māori or indigenous concerns, then they will get referred to that committee and be dealt with on a case by case basis by those with the relevant expertise. And of course, as the committee has recommended, there’s an appeal right—through the Appellate Court—should people be unhappy with that decision. That was something recommended by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee and I’ve been very happy to pick that up because I think that’s a matter of natural justice and I think we’ve got a better bill as a result.

I move, That the question be now put.

I will indicate, Mr Bayly, different members asking the same question doesn’t constitute new material, but you have the call.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This will be my last question in this specific stuff. I just hope the members on the other side, if they want to make a contribution, should feel they should be making a contribution rather than sitting there passively, because this is a very important bill. So, hopefully, they’re going to stand up—and I’m looking at the other side—and make a contribution and ask some decent questions.

So, just to the Minister, sorry to labour this point, but this is where the rubber hits the road. So what I understand—the kūmara one—is it’s inevitable the commissioner would refer that to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, and I understand that. What he just said—and I just want him to be clear about it. What he has said is the first thing is: is it kaitiaki? That’s the first issue. And if it is, then, obviously, that’s in the jurisdiction of this committee.

The second thing is, as you—and I’m saying this to the Minister. The Minister said that they need to have gone through a proper consultation process with Māori. So in the case of the kūmara, what has that involved? Because, you know, Māori are not just one group—it’s many iwi. So what might that process be to get the big tick from the Māori Plant Varieties Committee? But if the Minister’s saying you only have to follow a proper engagement process with Māori and that gets you through the next stage, that’s fine. But many people who are in the process of developing new plant varieties will want to know what are the commercial outcomes—are they required to enter into a commercial agreement with Māori? Because, in the process of consultation, if it’s deemed to be kaitiaki, is there any obligation or anticipation from Māori that they would have an ability to be able to be involved in the distribution or use of their intellectual property—that plant variety species. That is the rubber hits the road issue. If he can provide some clarity around that, because I think there will be many people listening to this debate saying, “This is the most crucial point.” And course, the process for that, coming back to the Hon Todd McClay’s point, is that takes a long time and is going to take a huge amount of consultation with different Māori groups and stuff like that. That’s when the market will act and actually move and look to develop products overseas.

The focus of the committee, when it’s looking at Māori plant variety rights, is that there are no adverse effects on the kaitiaki relationship. That’s what their focus will be. That’s to the member’s second point.

To the member’s first point: it’s not the commercial relationship aspect primarily. So to the first point, “What does the kaitiaki engagement look like?”, and the member used example of kūmara. You know, there is a while until this bill comes into effect and by the time it does there will be clear guidance on what that engagement should look like—so guidelines. So that will, I think, give some comfort to the intellectual property owners because they will want to know what good engagement looks like and how they go about it, and so that guidance will be provided. And, you know, you can imagine kūmara will be primarily grown in some parts of the country. It will be, I imagine, geographical guidance. There’ll be just best-practice guidelines for engaging with the relevant folks.

Mr Chair, thank you. More broadly, and it’s, Minister, this is merely to better understand the processes so that it’s clear. In the case of—we could take any product, we seem to be focusing on kūmara alone, but there are many, I suppose.

Take, in Australia, they have a tree that in New Zealand we would identify as mānuka or kānuka. It has the same properties. It is hardly distinct from that in New Zealand. It’s cultivated now, as we do in New Zealand, for honey production. It has great, great value. Or in the case of kūmara in other parts of the world, they do exist. There are links. They’re genetically very, very similar. The origins may well have been the same. They call them “sweet potatoes” and other things in South America.

What happens in the case of somebody develops new intellectual property, a new plant variety, from the equivalent of mānuka or kānuka, say, in Australia, or the equivalent of a kūmara or sweet potato in South America? They have the rights to that, they’ve registered it elsewhere, they bring it to New Zealand, and they seek to register that plant variety in New Zealand. It is identical—or so similar that under the law could be treated identically as something that already exists in New Zealand. How is that dealt with, number one?

Number two, there will be a kaitiaki interest in it, although it’s overseas and they have their own rights and their own abilities. Does that mean that that plant variety, before registered, would have to go through the kaitiaki process, and has the Minister given any thought to what this means—i.e., if there is an advantage in developing the mānuka tree but using its scientific name, not its local name, further to great advantage, would an investor, a developer, or a laboratory not, therefore, do it overseas to avoid rules in New Zealand, and is he concerned about that?

I think one of the things that I wanted to focus on here is the difference between indigenous and endemic. The committee changed some of the language in the bill to say “endemic”. That would have excluded plants like mānuka because it is found overseas, and so the language will be changed back to “indigenous” to recognise the kaitiaki relationships that exist there.

Now, would there be an incentive for folks to do their research offshore? They would still have to go through a regime there around intellectual property if they did that. As I indicated to members a short while ago, generally, actually, our process is quicker and cheaper than many other countries, so I think currently the incentives will fall for them to land here. There’s an expectation the Māori Plant Varieties Committee will expeditiously process those claims, and it’s a focus on whether there is any damage to the kaitiaki relationship, rather than anything else. So I would expect there wouldn’t be a big incentive for anybody to go elsewhere if they had the work under way here, and this was where they had the relationships and the crops that they were looking at propagating or growing and the right growing conditions; that would not be something I would expect.

We haven’t seen a great influx, as best I’m aware, of overseas developers coming here because our process is currently cheaper to access. It’s about doing the stuff in the right place, making it easy for people to do, and rewarding, appropriately, our intellectual property developers with a regime that’s as predictable as it can be, that protects their rights in a modern way, and meets the obligations under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. So I think that answers the member’s question.

Thank you. I’ve almost finished this part, and then I have no further.

Minister, thank you, but that’s not the point that I was making. It’s not whether we have advantage and people will come here or not, because all over the world people are developing plant varieties and they’re investing in these in many ways.

I guess, in the case of, we have a plant that is native to New Zealand, you would say, can also be native elsewhere. If that plant is as native elsewhere, that is equivalent scientifically in New Zealand—let’s just pick a kūmara as an example—and a variety is developed and they wish to bring that variety to New Zealand to sell it commercially, it must gain a plant variety licence here unless we recognise the variety right from a third-party jurisdiction. If it does arrive in New Zealand and it has to go through a process here to be licensed, will it have to go through the kaitiaki process if it is identical to something that is in New Zealand?

I was just hoping the Minister might respond to that, and I hope he will, but I just want to talk about one other last point. Clause 68D, “Jurisdiction of Māori Appellate Court”: as I’ve said before, there is no issue with certain plant varieties that need and should have the involvement of Māori, so I’m asking this question respectfully. How do you deal with the issue of the perception that if you do want to go to appeal—and I heard the Minister say that there is an appeal process; that appellant process is involving the Māori Appellate Court. What clarity and certainty can you give to people who do develop plant varieties that when it goes to that Māori Appellate Court there will be a genuine different and wider perspective on that claim, because the option could have been that it could have gone to the High Court? Or, in fact, my Supplementary Order Paper said it should have gone to a specialist group with the requisite skills, and it could be a number of people; it could involve High Court judges and even from across the courts spectrum, but it could also involve some very specialist technical people to help in that decision-making and appeal process. What certainty or clarity or support would you give people who do invest lots of money that if they do go down an appeals process, there will be genuine grounds for appeal? Because there is a perception issue, and I say that most respectfully.

Well, there are several questions I just want to cover off for completeness. To Mr McClay’s earlier point, just to reiterate, this applies to material obtained in New Zealand, and so let’s make sure we’ve got that clear on the record. If it’s not obtained in New Zealand, it won’t go to the Māori committee; it’ll be examined through the regular process. Just to be clear with everybody in here, we expect about six to seven applications a year to go through the Māori Plant Varieties Committee, so it’s a very small proportion overall; about 7 to 8 percent of the overall cases will go through that. We think that it’s appropriate that those with the relevant expertise around Māori kaitiaki relationships will make that judgment. Then we accept the recommendation that’s come from the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. I think it was a good one—that there should be a natural justice process to appeal to a High Court.

The courts were consulted on this, and so the Chief Justice, in consultation with the Māori Appellate Court and with the High Court, recommended that the Māori Appellate Court was the appropriate legal body with the relevant specialist expertise. So it’s kind of a sweet spot, to the member’s point about making sure you do have the people with the right expertise, but that an independent judiciary sits outside the regular decision-making system. So I think we’ve got the balance right there, and I also do accept the member’s asking the question quite respectfully. We’ve got to get the balance right there. I think we’ve got the balance right there. We’ve got an independent body who’s going to assess if there are appeals and make that final judgment. So that will give plant breeders some confidence in the overall system.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Mark Cameron’s amendment deleting Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 186 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. Andrew Bayly’s amendment deleting the subheading above clause 68A and clauses 68A to 68D set out on Supplementary Order Paper 192 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Andrew Bayly’s remaining amendments to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 192 be agreed to.

Andrew Bayly’s amendment deleting clause 68D set out on Supplementary Order Paper 193 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Andrew Bayly’s remaining amendments to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 193 be agreed to

The question is that Part 5 as amended stand part.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Part 6 Plant variety rights: other matters