Clark David; Bayly AndrewHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Mr Speaker—sorry Madam Chair. Madam Chair. Wrong on both counts. Look I think that—it's thrown me—what the member is arguing is essentially that New Zealand should have a regime that is profoundly different to the United Kingdom to the United States and to Australia who all have similar compulsory licence provisions.The point that I think I would make to the committee is that these things are very very rare: we only know of one where it's actually applied in the last 30 years. And when they apply they still require the people who use that intellectual property to pay the person who developed it.So I think the member risks perhaps overdramatising the effect of this provision if he's saying that the United States the United Kingdom and Australia have got this wrong and are all becoming nations that are trying to do some mischief to their intellectual property developers.I don't believe that to be the case; I think those regimes around the world that mirror the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants suggestion of how this should be done are functional. I also have a belief in our exporters and our intellectual property developers that they will be able to take advantage of this regime—as those in the US do as those of the United Kingdom do and as those in Australia do.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): So can the Minister provide now an absolute clear definition of what is in the public—just in the public interest. What does public interest" mean? What is an absolute crystal-clear definition of "public interest"? And can he assure the House that that definition won't change over time? Because if you're putting a piece of legislation you've got to take a 10- to 20-year view on it. How do we know that over time public interest won't change? Because if we go back 20 years ago I'll bet you the view of "public interest"—even back in the 1980s 1990s—will be a different public interest as what we've got today. We had a bill last night talking about the right role of directors running companies. We've got Dr Duncan Webb putting through bills requiring company directors to have regard for a whole lot of other wider factors that directors have to take into account when they manage their business and direct their businesses.So how do you know that the view on public interest won't change? And what is the absolute view around what is public interest in today's terms?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Mist—Madam—far out—Madam Chair. I think the first thing I'd say is that guidance can be provided around this; and the second thing I would say—you know put aside the misrepresentations of Dr Duncan Webb's bill because we're not discussing that today—clause 103(2) sets out the test right? I would hope that the public interest today is different to what it was 100 years ago; I really would. That's the beauty of setting out a test and asking that a judgment be made. Public interest does differ over time and we would expect our legal framework to be flexible to accept that and I rest my case.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): So all right I'm looking at 103(2)(a)(iv). One of the tests you refer to is if the price "at which the material is available is reasonable;". So hang on: now we've got some Government official—and it would have to be a Government official—looking at commercially developed intellectual property plant variety may have incurred billions of dollars or millions of dollars for 20 years of time and seeking to recover their costs. What have we got?Now we've got a Government official being an investment bank and trying to work out what the recovery cost is on the thing? Or does that person in some Government department heaven forbid go "Oh I think we could get that at a cheaper rate." and is that a reason? Because that's set out clearly; that's the criteria you've set out in the bill to say "Oh I recommend to the Minister"—because of course a lot of it is going to be done through regulation so it comes back to Minister—"I think that plant variety they shouldn't be selling for $200 a kilo; it should be a $50 because you know we've seen developments around the world and that's our view." Right? That is an absurd proposition."