Bayly Andrew; Clark DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): OK. But just then with this issue of the three-year rule what you'll have is international people—we shouldn't assume they're just going to be domestic competitors. You will have Monsanto you will have those big behemoth companies—I'm not saying they operate inappropriately but you will have large-scale companies international-based companies that will sit and mine the data. Because with a three-year rule they will look at any commercial opportunity to exploit intellectual property (IP) or intellectual assets being developed and most likely by New Zealand growers. They will sit and on the day three years and one day later I imagine that they will want to make an application under these rules. Because it says if you haven't done it within three years if you haven't got it to the market in three years that's the first grounds for making an appeal to use that data that IP right? So I suppose the question—three years seems an inordinately short period of time to commercialise something particularly—it's not like a product where you can just go down to a manufacturer and say Oh can you make this through your workshop?" You've actually got to go and grow this on a commercial scale and all that sort of stuff. So why in dickens did we use three years as a start point? I can imagine if you haven't utilised the IP for 10 years maybe I can get that but why a three-year time frame specifically?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): This time frame is very similar—it was essentially the same as other countries who have a similar regime under the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV)—Andrew Bayly: For plant varieties?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It's my understanding. It's that advice I've received. It's similar across UPOV countries. The other thing just to stress and I did put this in my opening comments is that these IP rights exist for the benefit of New Zealand as a whole. They're there to encourage the innovation. They're there to encourage innovators. They're given a statutory time-limited right to exclusive exploration of this—the opportunity to make a return on investment. And so we carved that out in the law. We say other people can't use this and that is to incentivise that development right? That's what's done globally. The quid pro quo is that there's also a benefit for wider New Zealanders. It's not just a right for the sake of having a right. It's a right so that people can make a commercial return on their investment so that the innovators can be rewarded. But it's not a right without looking to the benefit of wider New Zealand. At a certain point that innovation needs to be made available for the wider public benefit. So that's why there is a time limit on it.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair. See I find that answer staggering because my—it should be called "The Nationalisation of Commercially Generated IP". Because your response—and I'm looking at the Minister not to the Chair. The Minister's response is saying "Look we don't mind if you go away and spend 20 years and incur millions of dollars developing new plant species. Go ahead. We love it." Right? But as soon as you come and want to register in New Zealand and operate under the IP laws of New Zealand hey we then as the Government should say "Right that has benefit to New Zealand and therefore if you haven't commercialised it within three years potentially we're going to allow other people to use it." Right? That is Government think. That's nationalisation of commercially driven IP. I've just come back from Singapore. They are encouraging intellectual property because they see it as a way to grow the economy right? It's a valuable part of their growth strategy. For a moment do they think if we allow aerospace to come and do a whole lot of development in Singapore that it would be a really good strong proposition to aerospace so if we said to aerospace—this is the Singapore Government—"Oh if you haven't commercialised something and spent billions on it we're now going to allow competitors: Boeing and all the other aircraft manufacturers—to use it." How compelling as a proposition is that? That is not a compelling proposition and the worst thing about it is the Minister thinks that the Government has a right to take people's commercially developed IP and say "We're going to nationalise and use it." I find that an extraordinary comment from the Minister and what a perception. Personally I don't agree with it and I'd love him to stand up and justify why he thinks the Government should have a role in nationalising and allowing other people to use commercially driven IP in a relatively short period of time of three years."