Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard
BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki – King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak this morning on the Plant Variety Rights Bill third reading. I wasn’t a member of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee as it went through this process, but there are two people, in Melissa Lee and Todd McClay, who are here this morning, who were part of that committee and did the excellent work.
What I will say to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, in line with some comments he made earlier in the House, is that National is completely opposed to too much red tape, but I am pleased to see that the Minister is wearing a tie from the Mid-South Canterbury Federated Farmers—a very nice tie; wearing it with pride. It’s really interesting that the pride in farming and growing is increasing on the other side of the House. I don’t know, Minister, whether it’s got something to do with 2023 coming, but I do like the tie and I do compliment you on that this morning.
I just want to make another comment about something that the Minister said this morning about the importance of developing—and National is really in favour of free enterprise, and intellectual property (IP) is really important in this. The Minister talked this morning about a grass that is used to deter birds away from airports. I just want to say, in this space, that there is a lot of IP, there is a lot of work going on in New Zealand to develop pastures and grasses which actually will lower the methane emissions from ruminant animals. Unfortunately, at the moment, some of our regulatory systems in place don’t allow our ability to trial some of those important grasses in New Zealand. That’s something that, possibly, if the Government really did want to do something to help farmers, they may want to have a look at those regulatory systems, to think that we’re not giving our advantages away to the rest of the world.
So, look, most of these plant variety rights are sought for fruit crops, arable, and vegetable crops, but there are pasture plants, ornamental plants, and even fungi.
It is important, as the Minister said, for trade and New Zealand’s obligation to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). That’s also something that’s quite interesting that the Government was actually out protesting against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and—
Hon Member: Labour—Labour opposition.
BARBARA KURIGER: —they actually put—the Labour Government, yep—a CP in front of the TPP, and now all of a sudden it’s acceptable. But I am pleased that this Government doe support trade. Intellectual property is very important to those trading rights.
Now, having said, before, that I wasn’t on the committee, I did learn a lot last week throughout the committee of the whole House stage, listening to the debate between the Minister and Andrew Bayly. It was quite a long committee stage and it was largely focused around kūmara. One of the big learnings of last week was that the kūmara was a species that may have been here originally but it caught a terrible disease. Mr and Mrs Gock, a Chinese couple, developed a plant variety that allowed the kūmara to survive, and the kūmara that we know today is here because of Mr and Mrs Gock. If anyone wants to know that story—and Melissa Lee, I think, knows it very well—there are many stories and videos if you go on to Google and you look up about how Mr and Mrs Gock saved the kūmara—and thank goodness they did, because we all love kūmara!
But what it did is it brought the question about how when we’re protecting the kaitiaki relationships of these species, extra intellectual property rights come about by people developing things further. National are supporting this bill but we do have some reservations around—and I understand from the Minister that there’s quite a small list of plant varieties which really do fit into this category, and that the committee that’s being put in place, which is called the Māori advisory committee, to advise on these matters, will only be having a very small number of species referred to them. We hope, over here at National, that that is the case, and that’s something that the Minister went to great length to assure everybody of last week.
So we support moving to a new plant variety rights regime that will give effect to the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 91 and strengthen that protection for plant breeders. We understand that it does need to be in line with the world because we are a trading nation and we will always be a trading nation. Certainly, the things that we’re trading on now—agriculture and horticulture—I know when you go back to the 1980s, agriculture was called a sunset industry, people can call it “agriculture” all they like, but, actually—and that was under a Labour Government as well—it is actually food. That is the important thing about agriculture and horticulture: it’s very important that New Zealand feeds the world.
Interestingly, I did see a little quote this morning that was put in a comment on my Facebook, over in COP27, questioning what’s going on and what the Government is currently trying to do to the best and lowest-emission farmers in the world. So that was a rather interesting comment that I read there.
But we are in the food business, we are in the trade business, and this is extremely important. So as long as the scope and the function of the Māori Plant Varieties Committee is clarified very well, then we are comfortable to see this bill go forward, because, certainly, the extent of what this bill is trying to do is extremely important—so as long as it’s an advisory and it’s only used for the small scope of the plants that it was designed to do.
So, really, at this point, having not been on the committee, and probably extended the full amount of my knowledge that I have on this piece of legislation, I’m going to stop there. Thank you. We commend this bill to the House.
