Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Plant variety rights doesn't sound like the most invigorating subject to be debating on a Wednesday night but actually I want to make a point whether it is for our economy whether it's for our science sector and I also want to give a very strong example for the environment as to why this bill is important. It's really easy for members of Parliament to give speeches about the importance of innovation and all of that but actually it's about getting good laws that provide the right incentives for people to invest in research and help New Zealand secure high future living standards.The two focuses we should have in this bill are firstly making sure that property rights for those that innovate are secure and secondly that we keep the costs and the bureaucracy down because over and over again we see members opposite talk the talk of wanting to innovate but then create barriers and red tape that will harm innovation and our economy.I come from a region of New Zealand that generates billions of dollars of wealth in horticultural products. The part we need to understand about New Zealand horticulture is that we're not able to compete on price. We have to compete on innovation and quality. The cost of getting our apples our kiwifruit our hops our berry fruit to other parts of the world is so much more than for those that are close to the major markets of North America Europe and Asia. Our labour rightly is more expensive than what it is in many countries and so the whole future of our $6 billion a year horticulture industry relies on innovation and how we protect plant variety rights. I don't think New Zealanders appreciate the degree to which those plants variety rights are so important. Take an industry like apples and the development of the Braeburn apple then the Envy and then the Ambrosia: every one of those new varieties gives New Zealand apples an edge for a period of between five and 10 years before other markets catch up. Exactly the same is true of kiwifruit and the work that is being done around gold kiwifruit that is the key to it being competitive.Now the good part of this bill is in terms of the implementation of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and members on this side of the House strongly support it. And I have to say members on this side of the House are not fair-weather friends to trade rules; we are consistent friends. I just look at members opposite who ran up and down the main streets of Christchurch and Nelson raging against the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) changed its title and then said it's the best thing since sliced bread. Well I'm sorry; that is so flaky and really does show the differences. The interesting part is that this Parliament was only able to ratify that significant global trade agreement because the National Party was not prepared to play politics over New Zealand's trade interests and actually gave members opposite—Hon Stuart Nash: Oh what!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well I say to Mr Nash: how did the last Government get the numbers to ratify the TPP—because the Greens wouldn't vote for it. The only reason it made it through this Parliament was because the National Party put the interests of the country ahead of those of the politics. I can recall Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson marching up main street Auckland—Queen Street—and raging against that agreement and here we have a law that is implementing it and doing so and I am pleased that we are part of that agreement. I am pleased that we're in this agreement. Why is it so important? Because plant variety rights in domestic law have no value unless they are internationally recognised. International agreements are required to protect that sort of intellectual property. It is a significant change that in this bill we are increasing the plant variety rights out to the period of 25 years. I've spoken on what is good in this bill. I now want to express some concern about what is wrong with this bill and that is with the new Māori Plant Varieties Committee effectively having a veto a decision-making not advisory role in relation to anybody who wishes to register a plant variety right. The reason that is of concern and goes beyond the recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal in the Wai 262 claim is that it creates significant uncertainty. Let me just give a practical example. Members opposite talk about indigenous species being kaitiaki for Māori. Will members opposite tell me which of New Zealand's 10000 algae have kaitiaki rights? There are 10000 different varieties of algae. Section 6 of this bill says that all those algae are covered by plant varieties" interestingly the way that "plant" is defined. Members might say "Well why does that matter?" Well let me tell you why it matters. Every member of this House would know that one of the most significant challenges we face is climate change. Equally this Parliament knows that one of the biggest challenges of that is that about half of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture and one of the most interesting scientific projects that offers us hope of a solution for our agricultural industries is the work that is going on on Asparagospis armata which is an algae that has the capacity to reduce agricultural emissions by 95 percent. Now there are private investors that are putting millions of dollars into understanding how you might grow how you might attract the proteins how you might be able to safely feed that to animals and solve one of the biggest scientific problems our country has: how do we grow agricultural products without greenhouse gases? But here's my question. How would the investors in that project know whether the Māori Plant Varieties Committee that's being established under this bill will determine that it's a taonga and so they can't get plant variety rights over all of their investment? There is just no understanding from members opposite of the level of uncertainty that is created when you provide that sort of veto. Why would people invest when the extra uncertainty is added? I don't think there's a member of this House that would be able to tell me which of our 10000 algae species might meet the test that is required in this bill.The problem with this Government is that they give lip service to the issues of innovation. They block the development—Hon Stuart Nash: Oh!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well I ask Mr Nash why is it that this Government will not review the biotechnology laws as has been recommended by officials?Hon Stuart Nash: We've invested more into science research and technology than that Government did in nine years.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: He doesn't want to answer the question. It is legislative uncertainty of the sort that is proposed in this bill that is actually going to undermine investment in the sort of innovation that's so critical in an area like plant variety rights. The truth is that National has no difficulty with a Māori advisory committee that is able to provide advice. But the decisions about which plant varieties are registered and the property rights that are respected should treat all New Zealanders equally and those decisions should be made by the Government. Of course Māori should have an opportunity to have a say but there is an enormous difference between having a say and having a veto and when I give an example like the use of native algae for the purposes of an issue like greenhouse gas emissions actually it's in the interests of not just our economy but of our environment and of science that we're able to create greater certainty. This bill is a classic example of this Government not understanding the impacts on business on investment on both the economic and environmental issues that this country challenges. They are so carried away with their rhetoric that we get bills of this sort that need to be repaired and my hope is that at select committee we may be able to reconsider some of the provisions in this bill that are flawed."