Prosser RichardRICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): Does time not fly? It has been 11 months almost to the day since we debated this bill last. I was going back through my notes and I knew that we supported the bill—I had to refresh myself as to precisely why or more to the point find reasons that we should not if we were not going to. Yes it was 11 months ago the day before yesterday that we first debated this. When we did last examine this bill we in New Zealand First indicated that we would support it to the select committee stage but not necessarily beyond depending on what we might find within it. Once we got it on the operating table so to speak and cut it up and dissected it and had a look we would decide again. So we did that and I am happy to report that New Zealand First is sufficiently satisfied with the bill and will continue to support it. That does not mean that we think it is perfect. We do still think that it can be improved and this has actually become a bit of a recurring theme for New Zealand First—we find ourselves in agreement with some of the Government's proposed legislation. In the roughly 50 percent of the cases where we are in agreement with Government legislation we find ourselves thinking that in some ways it just does not go far enough. In one aspect at least that is the case with this bill. I want to focus on that and I want to raise a flag—if in fact the psychic and perhaps prescient Mr Rino Tirikatene has not beaten me to it—that New Zealand First does intend to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper come the Committee stage when we reach the Committee of the whole House to address an area where we feel this bill could be significantly improved to the benefit of New Zealand Inc." as a whole. I say that now because I would very much like the Government members and the Minister—and I thank the Minister for his informed contribution—to take the time to look at what we are calling for and think about how that could be incorporated into the bill and why the outcomes that it could produce may be of benefit to "New Zealand Inc." They will be in the area as other members have alluded to of the length of time that intellectual property (IP) owners have as a protected period for their IP. It centres on the fact that we regard the proposed increase even as it has been extended by the officials after the select committee stage as being insufficient or if not insufficient then at least not as good as it could have been. So what we will be asking Parliament to consider at the Committee stage is an increase beyond the levels that even the industry itself was asking for. I do not know why the consensus of the industry—and it was a consensus amongst many of the submitters—was to request an extension from the existing 5 years to 10 years rather than the 8 years that was proposed. I am wondering whether perhaps they had a think about this and thought that maybe it was as much as they were going to get. I did question a number of submitters and make suggestions. It became apparent that almost all of them were certainly open to the idea and keen on the idea of getting as much protection as they could get. So I do wonder whether it goes back to them perhaps making a value judgment as to how much extended protection Parliament is likely to offer and aiming at that and I wonder whether perhaps we could go beyond that. There has been some discussion as to the relevance—and my colleague from the Greens raised the issue—of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA). There was some concern that whatever we did in terms of the length of the period of protection for IP under this bill the TPPA would overwrite it. The 10-year period which was suggested would be the same as that which was suggested within the TPPA some technicalities aside. I do not actually think that is relevant because for all the contention around the TPPA and the fact that we do not support it as a party it is not going to happen anyway because both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have come out and said that they oppose it. One of those two will become the next President of the US they will veto it and the TPPA as we have been negotiating it will not fire. But that is not to say that something else may not grow out of the negotiations that have led up to it. In a few years' time other countries may get together and may create something else that started life as the TPPA and became something else. But what we are faced with now is an industry that requires some changes. We have this proposal which is the TPPA which is kind of a side issue. We have got some extensions that have been proposed to it and irrespective of any other legislative changes or treaty changes that may come to affect this what we have got at the moment with this bill is a set of alterations to current legislation that we are looking at as a Parliament regardless of what may or may not happen in the future. On the face of it—and other members have made mention of it—the bill does ostensibly extend the protected period from 5 years as it currently is beyond the 8 years which was originally proposed to 10 years as the officials have recommended following the submissions process in the select committee and that supposedly will bring us into line with Australia. But when you actually look at the fine print it is not quite that straightforward because what happens in Australia is that IP owners get a 10-year blanket protection on any first use. What is being proposed for us under this 10-year extension is that we have the period extended to 8 years and then there is a further 3 years that can be tacked on to that for additional uses. They will get the total of 10 years but only if more innovative uses are added on to it so it is not really quite the same degree of protection that other jurisdictions provide. So what that means is that if you are an owner of IP you can get the maximum protection only if you continue to evolve the uses the applications that the particular compound that your IP refers to can be utilised for. As I think the select committee chair mentioned some jurisdictions do have a greater degree of protection—running out to 12 and 15 years in Europe the US and Japan—and again that is a variety of blanket protections and then additional protections depending on changes in use types. So what New Zealand First will be doing by way of a Supplementary Order Paper is proposing that the complex 10-year period that has been proposed by officials and accepted by the select committee be extended to a blanket period of 12 years with an extension possible to 15 years when the additional new uses and so forth are added on to it. The reason we are doing that is that this will encourage agrichemical companies and veterinary medicines companies to look seriously at it. It will give them another reason to look at relocating their current research and development activities and their manufacturing activities from where they are currently based to New Zealand because this is the sort of foreign investment that New Zealand First welcomes.Todd Barclay: What!RICHARD PROSSER: You did hear that right—New Zealand First does welcome the right kind of foreign investment. There are companies that do not currently operate here and are not going to because of the environment. When you can give them a reason to come here and to bring in new money that would not have come here otherwise and to invest in new businesses that would not have existed otherwise and to create new jobs that would not have existed otherwise and to generate new foreign exchange that the country would not have had the advantage of otherwise that is good foreign investment. Foreign companies coming here and simply buying up houses buying farms and buying existing businesses and not injecting any new capital into the country and directing their money offshore is not good investment. We believe that a bill that gives companies of this type an incentive—a further incentive—to bring their business to New Zealand and to do their high-tech research and development here is a good thing for New Zealand and that is the primary reason why New Zealand First is proposing this further alteration to the bill. Irrespective of that we are continuing to support the bill. We do think as I say that it can be further improved. I reiterate that I would like the Government members and the Minister in particular to seriously look at the proposal when we bring it up to have a look at how they think it may be able to be incorporated in how the bill functions in their approach to the industry as it relates to the bill. Perhaps they could consult with some of their industry contacts. OK; we are making this bill better than it was when originally proposed—I think we can make it better again. That is what our suggestions and proposals will be based upon. Irrespective of that we do support the aims and intentions of the bill. We do think that it will be a good thing for New Zealand for the companies that operate here for the farmers and horticulturalists and for everybody else in the sector who takes advantage of those advances in chemical science that make agriculture easier better cleaner and safer. For those reasons we will continue to support the bill anyway but we would like the Government and other parties to give serious consideration to making it even better than it is going to be. Thank you."