McClay Todd; Clark DavidHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Chair thank you. Just further to that Minister who is it that decides that there could be a kaitiaki interest? I.e. there can be many claims but somebody must decide it has merit otherwise it could merely slow the process down. Secondly in the case that he just gave of the intellectual property remaining the property—the ownership—of the developer and there would have to be a discussion and negotiation over compensation or fees or whatever with kaitiaki doesn't that just mean some developers will pick up their product and take it overseas and license and sell it there and New Zealand misses out completely?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you. If I can respond to the first part and I might have to ask the member to repeat if there were other parts that I've missed the commissioner makes the decision about what goes to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee and that—sorry I'm just aware the microphones may not be coming through. You can hear me fine? Yep. Hon Scott Simpson: A hand-held maybe—Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: He's suggesting a karaoke arrangement with a hand-held microphone for the House I think—Hon Scott Simpson: Well no look what we're hearing is coming through the Chair's—Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Oh what you're hearing is coming through the Chair's microphone. OK forbearance please in the Chamber. But hopefully you can hear me better now.Andrew Bayly: Use your big voice.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I've got a quieter voice. Like Mr Bayly I haven't been blessed with a loud voice so I just have to make the most of what I've got. Look—and now I've forgotten the question that the member was asking so I would ask the member to repeat it. Because he was on the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee I think he probably knows the answer but it's useful for the Chamber to hear it. Sorry I do recall the first one so let me let me answer that which is that the commissioner makes the decision about what's referred to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee and that list includes the indigenous species and those ones with a particular relationship that we canvassed recently in the House. They would make a judgment about what needs to appear and then it's the Māori Plant Varieties Committee that would make the judgment about that relationship and its significance.Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Minister thank you. And then the Māori Plant Varieties Committee makes a determination—there's a process that refers it back to the director and the director finally makes that decision firstly. Secondly is the Minister assured—or what assurances has he or will he seek—that the director will do his job judiciously so that we don't just see many claims being made perhaps a bit of uncertainty things are flicked off to this kaitiaki committee which has the effect of slowing a process down which is the opposite intention of the legislation? The second part of my question was the Minister said that where the kaitiaki committee is to consider an issue the ownership of the new variety—the intellectual property—remains with the developer and that subsequently a commercial decision arrangement will be made with the rights-holder and kaitiaki over value compensation or something else. Doesn't that just suggest though that in some cases a product may be developed here and it's easier—or the person that retains the intellectual property will just go overseas register it and sell it there and New Zealand misses out?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you. I can hear my own voice echoing now through the microphones so I'm going to assume that the issue has been addressed. Look the member obviously sat on the committee which unanimously made these recommendations but he's right to draw attention to the fact that the commissioner has the responsibility of deciding what goes to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee and that's based on a list that will be developed and provided of those introduced species of significance that have been read out in the House and also on those that are indigenous. The expectation is that that is all done expeditiously and that is indeed laid out in the legislation. Again I think the select committee worked through that to make sure that the expectations on the Māori Plant Varieties Committee were the same as they are on the other decision makers in the process and that that will be done expeditiously. We want this regime to work and I take members back to the fundamental purpose of this regime which is to provide three things: to make sure that we are complying with our Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership obligations and that's incredibly important to pass this legislation; secondly to make sure that we have International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants - like standards that give our intellectual property creators the confidence and security that they have sought that their intellectual property will be developed and rewarded; and thirdly to make sure we're meeting our Treaty obligations. Now all of those things are tied up together. But for simplicity's sake we know we are achieving those three objectives we want our international trade agreements to be successful and we think we've got the balance right here—also protecting indigenous interests and making sure our intellectual property owners who are very keen to see this go through by the way can have an up-to-date regime that rewards their endeavours because they're incredibly important to our export success.