McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): This is an important piece of legislation and I'll come to it in a moment. But beforehand I just lost a bet with my colleague Simon Bridges. I bet him that the Minister couldn't do a full 10 minutes on this and he did. Mr Bridges bet me that the Minister wouldn't say that voting for this would put you on the right side of history twice and actually that's what the Minister said. Minister this piece of legislation is nowhere near as important as you say and if somebody in this House finds a reason that is credible not to support it it has nothing to do with history.You are right that the Hon David Parker did a lot of good work here when he took the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and turned it into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). In fact I remember him coming to this House and all that he spoke about was Wai 262 and the International Convention on the Protection of New Varieties of Plants and actually how he had with his new Government carved out protections so that New Zealand would be able to make sure that not only did it meet the requirements under the agreement so that plants were protected in New Zealand as elsewhere but also that New Zealand could meet its obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi. Except he didn't because that was negotiated by the National Government over a nine-year period and it is one of the provisions that wasn't touched—it didn't change at all.This is an important piece of legislation because actually New Zealand in many cases has been able to take plant varieties that are indigenous to New Zealand or from overseas and add significant value to them and have led the world in creating medicines and being able to feed people more and actually creating great value—great value—in things that others didn't see value in. The reason this has happened is we had good protection we've had a very open and transparent process there has been certainty for business to come and invest in New Zealand New Zealanders to invest in others with the understanding that actually a Government supported them and they could quickly get to the point where if they found innovation they could turn that into a return for their company for New Zealanders and for others. So this very piece of legislation continues that work. It does have the opportunity or can provide an opportunity for investment from outside of New Zealand in the country science and innovation and more so for New Zealand companies. That's why the National Government was very happy for this to be part of the original TPP but at the same time recognised that there was a piece of work under way that we had to decide for New Zealand to provide for us to meet our obligations under the Treaty.The challenge that we have is that it comes to the interpretation of how the Government decides they want to meet that obligation. If we look at the Wai 262 report it was very clear and much of it is set out in the bill. But what Wai 262 said was that Māori in as far as indigenous plant varieties are concerned should be consulted on shouldn't have a decision-making process. Interpretation of this bill from others suggests that the Government has gone further than Wai 262 asked for.Now if that is the case the Government needs to tell us why they have done that and what the implications could be. If we look for much of what has happened in New Zealand around research and innovation of indigenous plant species and species from overseas that have been brought here to be developed it has been because actually the process is open transparent and happens very very quickly.If we look elsewhere where previous Governments including the National Government have decided that Māori have a role to meet so that we meet the Treaty obligations—the Patents Bill is an example or the Copyright Bill both of which there are committees set up where Māori have a view but it is a consultative view where they offer advice for the commissioner to make a decision. In the case of this legislation that the Minister's brought forward he didn't mention this—that is not what has happened here. It is the case that the commissioner must refer everything that has indigenous part-indigenous or the special list that he mentioned to a committee and that committee actually will make the decision—not delegated from the commissioner but will make the decision themselves. The concern that we have around that is that actually it could work very very well but elsewhere we've seen that it probably won't and it may not and that it will be delayed. So the reason the Minister didn't mention this in his speech that went for a full 10 minutes was because he too would be uncertain about what would happen here because what he said to the commissioner is You appoint some people and then get them to decide what the rules will be and how they will engage and what that will mean."In as far as innovation is concerned in New Zealand leaving those questions unanswered is not good for certainty for business and for those that want to invest. It is not good for the next company that wants to take an indigenous plant in New Zealand and spend tens if not twenties hundreds of millions of dollars to create the next medicine that is good for New Zealand and the world because there is too much uncertainty.So the National Party will be supporting this bill to the select committee and we will be seeking assurances and answers on the issues that we've raised because they are important. It is our belief and position that actually the legislation needs to be aligned with the Patents Act and the Copyright Act. The reason for this is that it would be consultative and give advice to the commissioner for the commissioner to make decisions not for this committee that will be set up to decide for themselves because that wouldn't be fair to all New Zealanders and equally it wouldn't be fair to those who need to invest here. Thank you Madam Speaker."