Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): 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]"