Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the third and final reading of the Plant Variety Rights Bill.I don't sit on the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee though I have sat through the debate process in its rigour and enjoyed it thoroughly. It's been well articulated that the bill is to create a correct and needed legal framework for plant varieties to accede to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV-91). And I think we all agree that's tantamount to a good outcome given that the convention of UPOV-78 that we have adhered to as a country—to do with all things to do with intellectual property rights in the horticultural arable sector and other sectors—is now no longer fit for purpose and that leaves New Zealand outside of the scope of a lot of our international trading partners.But there's an old saying in politics: it's more important to kill a bad bill than pass a good one. And I just want to convey why. We're not being divergent in the ACT Party in our views for the sake of being divergent or belligerent; this has got quite a lot of problems—this piece of legislation—especially when it speaks to parts including in Part 5. It's littered with potential problems and outcomes that have yet to be canvassed and well-articulated.We all accept that the bill by its design is to try to attract international and domestic investment and intellectual property (IP). That's the point of this; we understand that. But when we're actually looking at plant varieties and those grants and the grant process 70 percent of it comes from offshore; 30 percent is domestic of which 5 percent is Māori.Now we have heard of the kūmara being articulated in the House today. I'm a Northlander I've been up there for 35 years. I live in kūmara country and we have seen massive investment from all manner of international and domestic players coming into New Zealand—or here in New Zealand—into that reality. That is a massive local economy and it's had multiple parts—not just Māori—and that's where we take real umbrage with this bill.I want to speak to if I can Part 5 clause 52(b) providing for a plant varieties administrator who proceeds to make determinations about kaitiaki relationships. How does that work in that instance of kūmara? Totally appreciate it. We understand its tie to New Zealand—everything Kiwi—but we've all seen massive foreign and domestic investment.And I go on: clause 53 the part applies to plant variety right (PVR) application relates to plant variety that is derived wholly or partly from". Well you're trying to reconcile that and this is the point of this debate. "Partly from": what does that mean if it's indigenous or partly indigenous? Who makes that determination?The bill departs from several areas of its origins that have raised significant concerns by those in the industry. It's hard to see that investment both domestically and to New Zealand—whether being foreign or here—has surety. Whilst we accept and agree with the Treaty provisions—we understand this concept; we understand the issues in and around Wai 262—but the percentage of PVR applications in taonga species is 5 percent. This is about property rights for all investors whether they're domestic or international.Interpretation of the kaitiaki relationship to be determined by an independent plant varieties committee: well I've canvassed my debate point earlier on. This is fraught with a lot of problems and you can see international players coming into New Zealand being deeply concerned about the convoluted language that may come out of that process. It should give consideration to the appeal process; natural justice seems to be potentially eroded if you are in a legal battle over what is construed as indigenous to New Zealand or not—and by virtue you can see how that really affects investment into New Zealand.The whole point of this legislation is to give certainty by acceding to UPOV-91. We totally agree with our international obligations and our free trade but by virtue of this Māori Plant Varieties Committee that has granting obligations that can potentially run roughshod over a big cohort of international investors this stifles that opportunity.ACT fundamentally cannot stand and support this bill. This is about property rights of all investors and by virtue this has quite a convoluted process and we don't support this bill."