Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak to the Plant Variety Rights Bill. I just want to note the previous remarks from my Green colleague where he noted that the Treaty obligations should be in front of trade. I find that a striking indictment given that we are a primary-producing country at the bottom of the world with about $50 billion - odd worth of product that goes north of here so how you balance that view I'm not quite sure to be quite honest. But none the less the plant varieties bill speaks to acceding to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV-91). I think we're all cognisant of the importance of staying in line with our trading partners and I'll name a few. Just for the sake of the House I wasn't in the select committee that sat through the first submission process so I'm not intimately versed but I will go back and name a few of the countries. I believe it was South Korea Australia Russia Canada USA and others that have acceded to UPOV-91 and we are arguably outdated. It came to my attention through talking to some interest groups that did speak to the concern of what the plant varieties legislation meant for them that there had actually been no cost-benefit analysis done by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment in regards to what ultimately this piece of legislation would bring to industry in terms of additional cost. Just quickly for the sake of the House ACT does support this bill in the second reading. But there are reservations in it—and let's just go back. The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) is an inter-governmental organisation based in Geneva and the mission of UPOV which currently has 77 member States is to provide and promote an effective system. So I think we all agree on how deeply important it is to protect intellectual property (IP) to create an environment in New Zealand that those that come to New Zealand to invest in IP have the protective mechanisms and frameworks to support that investment. Seventy percent of the plant varieties sanctioned for investment here in New Zealand come from offshore and there are—as you can imagine—for many many international partners that would choose to invest in that technology in New Zealand a degree of reservation.As you can imagine the ACT Party—and I think this was canvassed by our National colleagues earlier—highlighted concerns about the commitment to adhere to the Treaty elements in the legislation. Now this is not that we have umbrage with New Zealand's adhering to our Treaty obligations. Where the issue comes in is that there is a designation for a plant varieties committee that speaks to taonga and kaitiaki and the likes. When we are making determination of what is taonga species—and I just want to mention the previous member Rachel Brooking who brought up kūmaras. I live in Northland. I've been there for 33 years and I see kūmaras going in the ground every spring and coming out in early summer. I can also tell this House the amount of investment in technology—IP in this instance—that has gone into that industry has by virtue had significant investment. A lot of it has actually come from overseas. I know a lot of growers in Northland travel overseas routinely seeking to get better hybrids and better hybrid technology and by virtue of that are investing significant money doing so. When we talk to what the plant varieties committee will do and what it will mean for those that seek to invest in plant varieties and IP and the technology there in New Zealand I think it's important we actually engage in the discussion of what their role is and I'll just quote verbatim a couple of parts. In Part 5 I believe it is clause 56: The functions of the Māori Plant Varieties Committee are to—(a) issue engagement guidelines and provide advice to applicants for a PVR and kaitiaki:". Well that's fine and we take no umbrage with that until you're an investor and we are deeply concerned that the kind of language that this committee is emboldened to engage in will stifle and mitigate those that have a desire to invest in IP here in New Zealand. I mean how do you determine that? The fact is that there are five people on that committee the same number of people as was aforementioned in the industry and it references that taonga species must be clearly defined. Well that's interesting when we have 70 percent of the technology coming from offshore.A couple of the things that submitters raised with me after the fact—and I reiterate I wasn't on the select committee. Adherence to the UPOV-91 wording is critical. The wording used in the international UPOV-91 convention is replicated in the new Act. The draft of the new bill departs from this and has a number of important clauses which will not only create confusion in the international breeding community but may isolate New Zealand due to its bespoke wording. Again I reiterate the point that ACT does support this bill but it seems that it needs to go through further consideration—go back to select committee have the kinks ironed out. There is every reason to support those that invest in this kind of technology in the world of climate change and others—in the horticultural industry especially. It's deeply important we get the framework right that not only adheres to our Treaty obligations but equally does not disincentivise those that would seek to come to New Zealand and invest potentially hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars in their IP here for development. ACT will support the bill with reservations and alongside our National Party colleagues we'll be tabling Supplementary Order Papers to square away our concerns. Thank you very much Madam Speaker."