Brooking RachelRACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Lovely to be standing here speaking on the second reading of the Plant Variety Rights Bill which of course we've heard has gone to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. They have heard the submissions and reported back to us. So thank you to that committee their staff and everyone that submitted. That is a small select committee small but busy. They seem to have a lot of bills in front of them at the moment. I have not had the privilege of being on that particular select committee but I am on the Regulations Review Committee—like I see some other members in the House today—and we did give them some feedback and that was listened to and reported on in the select committee report. I'm also on the Environment Committee and I think it's with that hat that I am speaking on this bill today. Madam Assistant Speaker Dean I've chosen today to wear my camellia brooch one that was presented to me from you because of course we are talking about the intellectual property of plants. I'm sure that there are—or I know that there are—people in New Zealand who breed things like camellias and rhododendrons. Now this is an interesting bill for a number of reasons and I'm going to focus particularly on the provisions that have come from the Wai 262 inquiry and reports. But it's interesting because of course it is about intellectual property and that's always interesting. We are updating this plant variety right (PVR) which we've heard about from the other speakers. We've heard about the economic importance of having good regulations in New Zealand in this area and regulations that fit with international agreements. It's also interesting because it has some definitions in it and one of them at clause 31 is a whole section in itself on the meaning of novel". It's not a meaning of "a novel"; just the meaning of "novel" and there are a number of these very clear definitions in the bill which I commend to the House because it's very good to have clarity on definitions. It also recognises the recommendations from the very long-running Wai 262 inquiry. There are explicit provisions on the Treaty relationship and as we've heard from the previous speaker the Hon Judith Collins there's a lot—and we heard it from the Minister as well—here about Māori involvement and saying what a kaitiaki relationship is with a taonga plant species and if this relationship should be protected. I will go to that in a minute—to those definitions of what a taonga species is and how that kaitiaki relationship works. We've heard from the Minister in the first place that this bill sets up a regime for these PVRs. So you can apply and there's a process where your application will be considered with various different criteria and one of those criteria is whether or not Part 5 applies. Part 5 is the part about these kaitiaki relationships and taonga species. If Part 5 applies whether or not the Māori Plant Varieties Committee has said it can proceed or not will determine how the application goes and of course they can also say that there should be conditions. So that's how those two issues link together.I wanted to first of all look at the purpose of the bill because the purpose includes "to protect kaitiaki relationships with taonga species and mātauranga Māori in the plant variety rights system:". That's at clause 3(b) and then there's a specific Treaty clause which says "This Act recognises and respects the Crown's obligations under the principles of under the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi in relation to the law on plant variety rights through the provisions of Part 5"—which I've just mentioned—"and related provisions that support the purpose of Part 5." Then "kaitiaki relationship" is defined in the definition section and it's "in relation to a plant species means the relationship that any particular iwi hapū individual of Māori descent or Māori entity has or Māori in general have as guardian trustee or caretaker of—(a) an indigenous plant species; or (b) a non-indigenous plant species of significance". That second point is a very interesting one because not only does this bill apply to indigenous species that we can think of—perhaps we could think of the cabbage tree which might have some importance. Obviously lots of the harakeke—the flax—also have importance but it may be that these non-indigenous plants can also have significance and be taonga species. So the obvious one that comes to mind is the kūmara. That works when we look to Part 5 of the bill—so that is from clause 52. Then at clause 53 there is more on this "non-indigenous plant species of significance;" and the interpretation in clause 54 is " 'non-indigenous plant species of significance' means a plant species—(a) believed to have been brought to New Zealand before 1769 on waka migrating from other parts of the Pacific region; and (b) listed in the regulations as a non-indigenous plant species of significance". So it's important that that "and" there does require these non-indigenous plant species that are taonga species to be defined in those regulations and there are later provisions about how the regulations are made.I just note that in relation to some of the other speeches we heard concern from the member Andrew Bayly about who applicants would ask about whether or not there was a kaitiaki relationship with a particular species where an application for a PVR is made. One of the functions of the Māori Plant Varieties Committee is to give such guidance so hopefully that will appease that concern.In summary this is a really important piece of legislation. It's updating these intellectual property rights that needed to be updated for international law reasons but it's given very much a New Zealand feel and tries to really respond to our Treaty relationship and respond to that Wai 262 report by introducing this idea of the Māori committee being able to make recommendations or make decisions and suggest conditions as well if that's appropriate for where the kaitiaki relationship with a taonga species might have some adverse effects. So for those reasons I commend this bill to the House."