McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): I'm going to try my very best not to be diverted by that last speech with the exception of mentioning white fragility. The member Dr Emily Henderson said white fragility". I'm not sure at all what that has to do with this legislation other than a view on the part of the Labour Party that anybody who is Pākehā in New Zealand that doesn't agree with them completely is fragile and I'm sorry that's not the case in this legislation or anywhere else. Anybody in this debate that has raised concerns about the legislation is not doing so because they don't want good legislation; it's because the Government often rushes things through with mistakes and then has to come back to fix it. We've heard a lot from members of the Government about the kūmara and in fact in the committee stage there was very long discussion about that. Well there's an old Māori proverb that says the kūmara never speaks about how sweet it actually is and it's a shame that members opposite have brought the intellect of a kūmara to this debate and are talking about how good it is as opposed to focusing on what's important here.National supports the legislation because it was a commitment that was made in the original Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement that some of the members opposite looking blankly at me right now protested in the streets against. It's the same commitment that's in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) an agreement that largely is the same as the Trans-Pacific Partnership without America and with the words "Comprehensive and Progressive" in front of it. But nothing in this legislation—the commitment that was made to look at property rights for plant variety rights in respect of a Treaty of Waitangi obligation is not a single word different from the TPP which they protested against to the CPTPP. That's important to note because as members opposite talk about white fragility and the great important job they're doing and their commitment in this area they are passing this legislation because of something that was not negotiated by them; it was inherited by them. It's important to set the record straight.In as far as intellectual property rights are concerned they are important in any part of our economy and when it comes to plant varieties even more so. The last speaker was partially right in as far as us needing to protect intellectual property in New Zealand so that others offshore don't take advantage of it but it's more than that: it's so that the rights of the people who invest their time and their capital in scientific research for better productivity production or find solutions to environmental challenges can get a return on that and someone else just doesn't get to merely benefit from it. This legislation does that.In fact we heard from many submitters in the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee when I was on the committee and we went through this that the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants agreement actually would achieve everything that is needed in as far as the CPTPP is concerned or the original TPP and we would find a way to protect indigenous rights as other countries have where they need to be protected.The Government's decided to go much further than that and in essence we have a different regime than many other countries of the world. It will be important that we monitor how this is rolled out and the impact or effect it has because wherever a system is different without there being a clear reason for it to be different than other countries particularly when it comes to intellectual property then there can be delays or costs to the business concern or the protection that the Government says is delivered to intellectual property holders here will not be afforded in other countries. Indeed I think the route the Government has chosen to go down—there's only one other jurisdiction in the world that has followed this. Sorry two: one that has followed this; the second is Australia. Australia built in a legislative review to their legislation and my understanding is we received advice or evidence to the committee that Australia will make a change when they get to their legislative review of their legislation because they don't believe it is providing the protection it should and it's holding back business.A lot of members have talked about the Māori Plant Varieties Committee. National doesn't stand opposed to that but what we would stand opposed to is the ability for one committee that set up on the side of this whole process around intellectual property to slow down decision making around the granting of rights where there is no need to and there is no kaitiaki interest. We were given assurances in the committee but from the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs in committee stage that it would be the chief executive of the overall organisation that would make decisions both of what is referred to this committee and then the final decision as to whether or not there is an indigenous right.It's very important that that is the case that we hold the Minister to his word. It's not to say that where there is an indigenous right it shouldn't afford protection—that's what the legislation is providing—but I wouldn't like to see a process slowed down purely because something could or it might because ultimately what will happen is if it's not working well in New Zealand if there is uncertainty if the process is slow if people who want to invest and perhaps bring a product to the New Zealand market to develop it here and will look for a protection of their intellectual rights—if there is uncertainty they just won't come and invest here; they will go to another country and that would defeat the purpose of the intellectual property part of indigenous rights in this legislation. The reason for that is actually these rights that are being afforded in New Zealand are only for the New Zealand jurisdiction. Somebody could pick up the so-called kūmara or anything else and take it to another country and develop it and because the rights that are afforded in this bill are not recognised elsewhere they won't be there.So actually I think what everybody wants in New Zealand is for a stronger economy for science to find solutions for us to be more productive on the farms and in our forests and on the orchards but ultimately in as far as rights holders or people who want to develop rights in New Zealand for instance or somebody from overseas wanting to bring a variety to New Zealand—if there is uncertainty if it takes too long if it is too costly they just won't come here. We're 5 million people—we're not 50 million people we're not 500 million people. They will go somewhere else. So with the very best intention in this legislation it will be important to monitor it to make sure there aren't delays there aren't barriers and that the commitments the Minister has given the committee and this House are delivered upon.This legislation is about intellectual property. In as far as previous rights are concerned it is very very hard to prove. The Minister has said in as far as kaitiaki rights are concerned it will be very narrow; there would be very few. In fact the legislation does go to some degree of saying what is not included and excluding some things but regulatory creep or the creep of jurisdiction when it comes to decision making within our ministries and departments is of extreme concern. I would hope that the House or the committee who say they've worked so hard and understand this fully would at some time in the future revisit this to see if it's working well because it isn't working well. It's not just Māori or the so-called white people that the Labour Party and the last member was speaking of who are fragile or others in New Zealand that will be disadvantaged and not benefit; it will be every New Zealander and every part of our economy.Intellectual property actually can enhance economies. It can offer great opportunity it can grow it delivers advancements but where legislation gets it wrong and things are stifled it has the opposite effect. And wouldn't it be a shame if this legislation was in all those years ago when New Zealanders decided to take a small gooseberry and turn it into a kiwifruit that delivers with a worldwide reputation so much for our economy that so many growers in New Zealand can be proud of. In the processes the Government had set up—there was a claim put in and it took many many years to work through. It was finally found that that claim wasn't justified. Well would we have that kiwifruit as we do today? Now that's not likely to have happened back there but the point of that is if there was a delay of some years as committees consider and get advice and talk to lawyers and go to so-called experts and so on then actually the business community gets on. It may not be called a kiwifruit; it could be called an Australian fruit or a Chinese fruit or an Italian fruit because actually today investors can go anywhere in the world with their scientists to develop new varieties that people will want to purchase and if we are slow in New Zealand as this Labour Government is often far too slow we would miss out.We are supporting it but we will be keeping an eye on it to make sure the commitments and promises that the Minister made to us are honoured. And I want to say to that last member: there is no such thing in New Zealand as white fragility—you're out of your mind."