Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and take what I think is the final call on the Plant Variety Rights Bill. Can I just acknowledge our colleague Mr Penk who has filled his 10 minutes covering Latin acronyms and then some. So can I congratulate the member on doing that. Can I also just acknowledge the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs the Hon Dr David Clark for his leadership in this space in bringing this bill to the House. It is a piece of legislation that is seeking to reform a number of issues and matters of a plant nature that is 30 years in the making. Can I also just acknowledge the chair and hard-working members of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. I think colleagues this afternoon have indicated that that is a small select committee but no doubt it is a hard-working one Mr Strange. While I don't sit on that select committee I have had the joy and benefit of being in a joint hearing with the committee so it's keen to see how collegially that committee works. I see from the committee's report that it received 38 submissions and heard 20 oral submissions whether they be from individuals organisations or other entities. So it had in front of it as a select committee quite a bit of information to digest and has returned a report to the House that has identified a number of changes. As Mr Penk recently touched on one of the matters for alignment in this legislation is that of an obligation and responsibility under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and he certainly did a good job at explaining that so I won't canvass that information or that area again. But in a sense I guess it's about ensuring that there is a sense of consistency that internationally there are standards and there are protections and that New Zealand as a country is able to have a regulatory regime when it comes to plant varieties and the rights thereof that captures and encapsulates that. That's the first thing. The second in relation to the purpose is that this bill seeks to deliver on the Crown's responsibility under Te Tiriti specifically around the relationship when it comes to kaitiaki and that relationship with a species and in particular with species that could be identified or defined as a taonga species. This bill seems to me to deliver in that area of flora and fauna—of course flora because that is effectively plant species. But I reflect on my involvement with the Environment Committee and certainly there is much flora and fauna in that space and much biodiversity. I know and I share the excitement that our colleague Angie Warren-Clark expressed to the House this afternoon in that this is something that effectively got the blood going and the juices flowing as well and I reflect on the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's report on weeds because that in essence was also something that was quite similar actually—and I look to my colleague Rachel Brooking who plays a leadership role in that select committee. While we didn't have potatoes as a form of tubers being smacked on the select committee table by the parliamentary commissioner the fact that the committee had in front of it seeds was I guess going to the heart of what was in front of the committee both on paper and literally as well. I have to say I've learnt quite a bit from the select committee and from the contribution of parliamentary colleagues today on the potato. I don't intend to go through or touch on any of those puns but as a tuber extending the coverage from 20 years to 25 years identifies the complexities and some of the issues that that particular item has as part of this regulatory regime. I heard earlier this afternoon the Hon Judith Collins talk about the significance of research and development and in particular the importance of innovation and research and development in that space. When I look at this bill it goes some way to delivering on that and that's really important that we do have strong skilled researchers in Aotearoa New Zealand. I have to share with the House that most of them actually come from Palmerston North because we have a very strong sense of research innovation and development with our Crown research institutes Crop and Food Research FoodHQ and many others on the doorstep of Massey University. So this is really important to my electorate and the people in the electorate because it goes quite some way actually to underpinning that strong sense of research development and innovation and that's an important part of this bill. The bill itself does strengthen recommendations that flow from Wai 262 and that inquiry by establishing a Māori Plant Varieties Committee. The important thing I think there is that it's not just a committee that has an advisory power but it's one that has a full suite of decision-making powers as part of its responsibility and that its approach to making decisions is by way of consensus. The individuals within that particular entity that particular decision-making organ would go about their business by consensus and when we actually look at what drives the appointment process for those individuals—it is contained in clause 55 of the bill—the select committee has recommended some slight change in terms of inserting a new subclause (2A). That is where the commissioner—and in this sense it is the Commissioner of Plant Variety Rights—is seeking to appoint individuals to that Māori Plant Varieties Committee firstly the commissioner must consult with the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri but also in appointing individuals to that committee the commissioner him- or herself must be satisfied that the individuals are qualified. There are four riders that are identified in the bill that lead to the qualifications that must be present with the appointee. The first is that the person's knowledge of mātauranga Māori—which is Māori traditional knowledge—is there or that there is an aspect of knowledge in relation to protocol and culture or tikanga Māori; that knowledge of Te Ao Māori or the Māori world view is in existence; or specifically around knowledge of taonga species. But also in making the appointment the commissioner would also consider whether the individual has standing in the community and has the mana skills knowledge or experience to be able to deliver on that appointment. What's really I think quite important is that the bill itself in terms of clause 55(7) identifies that the commissioner may not delegate the appointment or the establishment of responsibilities to any other person. So in that sense that responsibility for how that particular organ would be constituted—not in terms of legislation but the appointments under legislation—is something that the commissioner must make and take themselves. I want to just also identify that the select committee obviously turned its mind to a matter of process and that is that where there is a decision that has been made by the Māori Plant Varieties Committee there currently as the bill was introduced was no right of appeal. So what the committee has recommended is that there should be the insertion of new clauses 68A through 68D which will allow for appeals to be lodged and that the appropriate appellate court is the Māori Appellate Court. I understand that that might be something that perhaps some heads of benches may have indicated is an appropriate way forward. Mr Penk and others have briefly touched on the issue of compulsory licences and that's contained under Part 7 of the bill which would allow the commissioner to grant compulsory licences in relation to plant varieties. They are quite a distinct and separate licence in their own right but they do have some overriding and overarching considerations that the select committee obviously turned its mind to. What the report from the committee identifies is the suggestion of some changes: that when it comes to the propagating materials and also the material that would be harvested it actually shouldn't be the either/or; they should be both included in there. Also there would be a number of issues such as the quantity and quality of the materials that would be up for consideration as well. So that I think is a good example of the select committee responding to the submissions that had been placed before it and as a result presenting a report that identifies some good change for the House's attention. Just in conclusion—because I see that my 10 minutes is almost up—there are a number of other recommendations that the select committee did identify and I just want to circle back on one that I think is important. It's around ensuring that a specific purpose listed within the bill is that of protection for relationships but in particular the special relationship that kaitiaki have with the taonga species and also that mātauranga Māori falls within that as well. So I thank the select committee for the work that they've done and I commend this bill to the House.