Bayly Andrew; Clark DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): 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.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): 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."