Prosser Richard: Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 13 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7176. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in this first reading of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill certainly to the select committee and probably beyond and I say “probably” because our position is likely to change only if on closer examination we discover that there are any fish-hooks in it.I would like to make reference to my erstwhile colleague Mr Bayly there who in his previous speech in that wonderful gravelly baritone that he is blessed with said that he was surprised that New Zealand First was supporting a Government bill. Well Mr Bayly when some more time has passed you will be aware that New Zealand First actually does support probably about half-and-half of Government bills—about half we support and about half we oppose. It is probably the only real objective measure that the Government has for assessing whether or not its own bills are good bills or not because if New Zealand First supports them they are good bills. So take that as a rule of thumb Mr Bayly.I am looking forward to examining this bill in the select committee and I am sure that in the committee under the most able and it has to be said affable chairmanship of Mr McKelvie we will discover any such faults or pitfalls as might be lurking within it. The bill itself is largely technical in nature which is perhaps unsurprising given that it is an amendment bill that changes some technical aspects of the principal Act and does not appear to do a great deal else other than perhaps bringing it up to date.At face value it seems that extending the period of protection of confidential information given in support of applications to register innovative trade name products—from 5 years to 8 years—is eminently sensible. In this day and age where communication is instantaneous where manufacturing is global where competition is cutthroat and where the vultures are circling if you like with regard to firms looking to profit from the advances made possible by the efforts and the research of others it makes sense to extend the protections that are currently afforded to the owners and developers of intellectual property—for them to be allowed to benefit the most from the products and ingredients that they have developed and invented. Extending protection is also important in terms of further applications and uses that might not have been thought of that might not have been technologically possible for other reasons at the time a particular product was developed or in fact because the person or the firm that developed the unique or innovative compound might not have been in a financial position to further develop its uses. It makes sense for people in those cases to be allowed some further protection in terms of the confidentiality of the intellectual property that they bring in support of their applications.It may be that submitters to the select committee might suggest that in fact a 3-year extension is insufficient. In fact submitters might suggest all manner of things and that alone would be reason enough for any party to support this bill to the select committee through its first reading. I do note however from the regulatory impact statement that the Ministry for Primary Industries does not appear to necessarily share that particular sentiment. In fact it states: “There is no compelling reason to increase the basic length of the data protection term for innovative compounds principally due to the interface with the patent system.” It does go on to say: “However the ability to extend the length of the data protection period for the original product if extra uses are added may provide an incentive to add ‘minor’ uses to labels which is a particular issue for New Zealand.”It might be but I might venture to suggest that perhaps the inability to find a compelling reason for extending the protection of someone’s hard-earned intellectual property is perhaps the hallmark of a department that has never created such intellectual property. I wonder whether perhaps we have the Minister to thank for the fact that this provision has made it this far at all. It would certainly do the Minister credit if that were the case. If that is indeed the case then I do hold great hope for the success of the select committee process because it would appear to indicate that the Government certainly desires to be on the side of the angels with regard to this particular matter. If it is then New Zealand First will be only too pleased to be there alongside it.This is the first reading of a bill that does not appear to show signs of being particularly controversial notwithstanding the comments from my erstwhile colleague from the Greens. As I have indicated New Zealand First will support the bill to the select committee and in all probability beyond. I will sit on the committee—that fine august body of men and women—as we examine the bill. For those reasons I do not intend to take too much of the House’s time at this stage.If we have any questions at this stage it is probably these. They come from the departmental disclosure statement. The first is in Part 3 “Testing of Legislative Content”. At subsection 3.2 the department asks itself “What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by this Bill is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?” to which the department answered with the following “MPI has assessed the proposals against the principles of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi and consulted Te Puni Kōkiri. MPI’s assessment is that the policy does not appear to be inconsistent with the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.” which is all well and good and very probably is as it should be. But I do have to ask—and maybe this is not the best forum to ask it in but opportunities for doing so are few and far between and the department obviously considers it pertinent to the bill—so I have to ask: if the department has come to the conclusion that this bill does not appear to be inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty then one could be forgiven I believe for presuming that the department has some understanding as to what those principles actually are and if it does perhaps you could share those with the House because nobody else seems to know.The second is in Part 4 under the heading “Significant Legislative Features”. At subsection 4.4(a) the question as to whether the bill creates or amends a strict liability offence is answered with a resounding “No”. I have to ask “Why not?”. Surely if we are enacting a piece of legislation that is intended to protect someone’s rights or property then we must I would have thought also be intending that a breach of those rights would constitute an offence of some sort. Maybe the Minister would care to comment on that.The only other question I have at this stage is a query that was raised by a colleague earlier in the process and it relates to whether or not the provisions in this bill are to extend to products or substances coming into New Zealand as well as those that are developed here. The reason behind the question is a concern as to whether this bill might in fact mean that innovative products developed by overseas companies or persons may remain unnecessarily expensive to New Zealand companies or consumers relative to their cost in other jurisdictions. Perhaps the Minister might like to make some comment on that.But in closing I say again that New Zealand First will support this bill at least to the select committee and very probably beyond. The stated intention appears to be eminently sensible and well-intentioned and I look forward to examining the bill in further detail through the select committee process. Thank you.