Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill

I move, That the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill be now read a second time. I would like to thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for its detailed consideration of the bill, as well as all of those people and organisations that provided submissions to the committee. The committee’s consideration has resulted in a number of amendments, and I consider those to be useful improvements to the bill.

The bill repeals and replaces the Geographical Indications Act of 1994. That Act was passed following negotiation of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, known as the TRIPs agreement. The TRIPs agreement establishes minimum standards for the protection of intellectual property rights, including geographical indications, which World Trade Organization (WTO) members are required to provide. Member States can choose how they decide to give effect to those obligations.

The 1994 Act on geographical indications established a registration system for the protection of geographical indications and accorded a level of protection consistent with the level provided for wine and spirit geographical indications under the TRIPs agreement. However, that Act has never been brought into force. In part, this was because there was no strong interest by New Zealand producers to register geographical indications at that time. They were content to rely on New Zealand’s general consumer protection laws provided under the Fair Trading Act and the tort of passing off. Through the select committee process, the industry has voiced its strong support for the new legislation—and I appreciate that endorsement of the Government’s actions.

Another reason the 1994 Act was not brought into force was that it was drafted in anticipation of further developments occurring within the context of the WTO and its negotiations around the protection of geographical indications. As it happens, those developments have not eventuated, and, as a result, the 1994 Act is now out of date.

The purpose, then, of the bill is to put in place modern, efficient, and cost-effective processes for the registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits that serve to meet the needs of our wine and spirits industries and ensure that New Zealand continues to meet its obligations under the TRIPs agreement. This is a clearer and more coherent framework for honouring New Zealand’s international obligations. The select committee has recommended that the purpose clause of the bill should explicitly recognise the role of New Zealand’s rights and obligations under the TRIPs agreement in applying the bill. I support this recommendation of the select committee.

At present, New Zealand implements its TRIPs agreement obligations primarily, as I have already said, through the Fair Trading Act 1986 and the tort of passing off. In addition, the Trade Marks Act 2002 enables geographical indications to be protected as certification marks and collective marks. Under the current system interested parties may take legal action to confirm their rights to a specific geographical indication, as has already happened, for example, for Champagne. The bill will complement this existing system by providing a specific avenue for protecting geographical terms for wines and spirits in New Zealand.

However, the registration mechanism provided by the bill is voluntary and the bill does not affect existing mechanisms already in place to protect current or future geographical indications. The select committee has therefore taken on board wine industry concerns and has recommended that a new provision be added to the bill to clarify further that the bill does not affect existing mechanisms in place. I endorse this recommendation of the committee.

The bill limits registration to geographical indications for wines and spirits alone. The TRIPs agreement accords two levels of protection for geographical indications: a minimum level applying to all goods, which requires Governments to provide measures to prevent geographical indications being used to a misleading or confusing manner, and a higher level that applies to wines and spirits only. The higher level requires Governments to provide measures to prevent the use of a geographical indication on a wine or spirit that does not originate from the area indicated. This prohibition applies regardless of whether any use misleads or confuses consumers as to the origin of the wine or spirit. The protection accorded to registered geographical indications by the bill is specifically tailored to meet this higher level of protection for wines and spirits only.

The TRIPs agreement establishes a balance of rights and obligations for the protection of geographical indications. This balance includes certain limitations and exceptions for geographical indication protection. The bill incorporates all of the limitations and exceptions to protection provided for by the TRIPs agreement. For example, protection is not to be afforded to terms that are considered generic in the New Zealand market—for example, vodka or gin.

This bill contains a new definition of geographical indication to ensure that only those geographical indications for wines and spirits that meet the standards of the TRIPs agreement are able to be registered under the Act. This means that a registered geographical indication needs to be able to indicate that a wine or spirit originates from a defined area and that the particular quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the wine or spirit is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. The bill also contains updated and modern definitions of the terms “wine” and “spirit”. [Interruption] I would have thought that the member for East Coast Bays or wherever he is from would be fascinated by any discussion of wines and spirits.

In relation to what constitutes a spirit, the select committee has recommended that the definition be amended to remove the word “tequila”—I am sure the member will be deeply concerned about that—which is considered to be a geographical indication by Mexico because it describes a village in Mexico. The select committee considered that the use of the term in the definition in the bill may imply that tequila is considered to be generic in New Zealand and, therefore, is not registrable as a geographical indication. It is not intended that this question should be prejudiced by the bill’s definition of the term “spirit”. Consideration of whether a term like “tequila” is registrable as a geographical indictor should be an issue for the registration process to determine and not necessarily for the legislation.

Similarly, the bill clarifies the relationships between trademarks and geographical indications. Consistent with New Zealand’s position internationally on this issue, the bill implements a “first in time, first in right” principle for determining which right has priority. A later filed geographical indication will, in most instances, be prevented from registration by an earlier filed trademark, and vice versa. In very limited circumstances, the bill allows for the potential of a later filed geographical indication to be registered, despite a pre-existing trademark having priority.

Provision is made in the bill for geographical indications that are identical in name or sound but relate to different geographical areas. Provided that both geographical indications are legitimate, the bill allows for the possibility of both to be registered. Conditions may be imposed on the registration to ensure that the use of both terms does not lead to confusion in the market place. For example, it may be necessary to state not just the geographical indication but also the country the product is from. As registration is not compulsory, the bill introduces an exception, ensuring that unregistered identical geographical indications remain unaffected by the legislation.

The select committee process has resulted in a number of amendments to the bill as introduced. Those clarify and strengthen the range of technical and operational issues. Changes to the bill as reported back include clarifying a number of clauses to ensure that the provisions are more closely aligned with the wording used in the TRIPs agreement. We have added a new clause to provide that on registration of a geographical indication, the date of registration be deemed to be the date of application for registration, consistent with the trademark regime.

We have clarified that the grounds for refusal of a geographical indication include where an application to register a trademark has been made in good faith but has not yet been granted, and we have clarified that a geographical indication’s scope of protection in the country of origin may include conditions as to its use. We have also clarified the definition of “bottled” to capture different types of containers used for packaging wines and spirits, and have included a provision to allow the registrar to establish a committee to advise on issues regarding the removal of a geographical indication from the register. I am very happy to support those amendments and other minor and technical recommendations made by the select committee.

I thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for its work on this bill. This bill is legislation that demonstrates, yet again, this Government’s willingness to work with industries, with business, and with communities to make sure that international obligations work for New Zealanders and that New Zealanders are able to trade from the strongest position internationally. I thank the committee for the work it has done, because I think it has strengthened the bill.

This bill will assist our growing wine industry and our emerging spirits industry to ensure modern, efficient, and cost-effective registration processes are in place for wines and spirits in New Zealand. A registration system will provide legal certainty for producers without, I hope, stifling innovation. The bill does not make registration compulsory. Existing legal mechanisms within legislation and the market will continue to apply, and the bill will also help consumers to make informed choices about the origins of the wines and spirits they buy.

I apologise that this speech has been somewhat technical and obviously a little too much for the Opposition, but, given that it is necessary to be very precise in this area, I hope that those members will take it as seriously as I know the wine industry, consumers, and the spirits industry in New Zealand do. I commend the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill to the House.

I could tell from the faces of members around the Chamber that they shared my view that that was easily the most exciting, and indeed moving, speech ever made in the House by Judith Tizard! [Interruption] The look of excitement on Mr Woolerton’s face was a picture to behold! I was moved to reflect that we on the Opposition side of the House worked out some time ago how to tell which members of the Labour Party are in trouble with the Labour Party leadership—they are the ones who are sent down here to the Chamber to suffer during a Judith Tizard speech. She knows she has a unique capacity to make a 10-minute speech sound as though it is an hour and a half long. Mr Jones is clearly in the dogbox yet again, because he has been sent down to the Chamber by the Labour whips to endure the speech from the Minister. I tender my sympathy to Mr Jones and to the other members who have fallen foul of their whips and been required to suffer that experience.

This bill is important. It has a deep significance at this particular time in the history of the wine industry, as the Minister told the House when she read her carefully prepared notes—which she had obviously not looked at prior to coming into the Chamber. This bill brings New Zealand into line with certain trade obligations. As a relative newcomer to the ways of the trade sector, I have discovered people in the sector have acronyms for everything. [Interruption] I know I should not mention trade deals while members of New Zealand First are in the House, because they get excited, but I say this bill brings the New Zealand wine industry into compliance with obligations the country has under the World Trade Organization and, particularly, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which the Minister referred to.

I normally have the services of my very well-qualified colleague Mr Groser to interpret these matters for me, and it is a matter of some disquiet to me that I do not have his expertise available to me and to the House on this occasion. I say to Mr Woolerton that unfortunately his own expertise on this topic does not quite rival that of my learned colleague Mr Groser. But the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which is part of the World Trade Organization set-up, makes some requirements of New Zealand that are recognised in this bill. As the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Judith Tizard, told the House, we had, in fact, passed previous legislation in 1994. That legislation was not brought into operation, but the fact that this bill is now required is an indication of the growing reputation and maturity of the industry.

This bill—to provide a more colloquial account of its utility than the Minister did—will enable winegrowers in New Zealand who manage to achieve a particular quality or character in their wine, as a consequence of their skill, to have the geographical location recognised in references to their wine. I refer, in particular, to a quotation from the Wine Institute of New Zealand, which represents the winegrowers of New Zealand: “A geographical indication is an indication that identifies a wine or spirit as originating in the territory of a country or a regional locality in that territory, where a given quality or reputation, or other characteristic of the wine or spirit, is essentially attributable to its geographical origins.” It is a tribute to the growing maturing of the industry in New Zealand that there is interest in having this legislation, so that some of our more successful winemakers and winegrowers on the international stage are able to take advantage of the facility provided by this bill.

I do not intend to rehearse the detail of the bill; the Minister did that perhaps to an excessive extent for the purposes of those members who were intent on staying awake. One aspect of the bill gives me some disquiet, and I hope some members will give consideration to it when we get to the Committee stage. I refer, in particular, to clause 51 and to the way that the registrar is empowered by this legislation to appoint committees. The registrar is the person charged under this legislation with receiving and dealing with applications from the industry. Under clause 51, the registrar has the power, where the registrar thinks fit, to “establish a geographical indications committee”. Where such a committee is to be put together, the registrar may appoint some members from the industry, but the Surveyor-General or the Surveyor-General’s representative and a member of the New Zealand Geographic Board are required to be members of that committee. I should explain to members that the registrar is, as a requirement of this bill, a bureaucrat. The legislation requires that the registrar be an official within the Government department that is to administer the legislation. Only when that bureaucrat sees fit to do so will there be an attempt to establish a committee for the purpose of consulting on the applications lodged with the registrar.

That proposal was the subject of some questioning in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I regret to report to the House that, due to some obligations I had on the Privileges Committee, I was unable to be there for some of the hearings in relation to this bill. But I did, subsequently, take the opportunity to talk to representatives of the industry. Indeed, today I have updated those discussions with my colleague Mr Hayes. It appears to me that we have a potential imbalance in this legislation as a result of clause 51 and some of the other clauses that relate to it. I urge the Minister, if she is to take an ongoing interest in this measure, to give some thought over the next few days to clause 51 and the related provisions, in terms of the way that the industry will be able to interface with the registrar.

I see no absolute requirement for the Surveyor-General or a member of the New Zealand Geographic Board to be mandated as members of any committee established under clause 51 and clause 52 of the bill. If those people have some specialist expertise, they can simply be invited to come along to tell committee members what they think about the attribution of certain place names to a type of wine, or whatever the proposal is. As the bill stands, those people are required to be members of any committee that is established by the registrar. More worrying to me, though, is the fact that the registrar can simply decide that the registrar—an official, a bureaucrat—needs no help.

During the Committee stage, I intend to move that we reconfigure those clauses so that the registrar sits on a board alongside some industry representatives from New Zealand winegrowers, and that those individuals jointly have the responsibility to undertake the tasks of the registrar. It seems to me that this measure will be successful only if it is implemented in a way that reflects the expertise of the wine industry. To have before the House a provision, in important legislation like this, that the expertise of the wine industry will be accessed only if a bureaucrat, who may know nothing about the topic whatsoever, decides to call in that expertise seems to me to be rather inadequate. So I give notice to the Government that National will move accordingly during the Committee stage. I have consulted with the industry, and I am satisfied that such a move is in compliance with the wishes it has previously expressed.

I simply say to the Minister in charge of the bill, to other members on the Government side of the House, and to members of New Zealand First and the Green Party in particular, who are listening intently to this very interesting address, that I hope they will give some thought to this matter. If they take the trouble to consult with the industry, they will find there is strong support for those sorts of changes in the legislation. I hope they will give those proposals some consideration over the next few days. I welcome the fact that the bill is before the House. I thank the select committee for the time it has given to it, but I commend to the House the utility of some further thought being given to the matters I have briefly outlined today.

New Zealand First supports the passing of the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill. In my colloquial way, I regard this as EU stuff inflicted upon New Zealand growers, because this is something we need to do for our trade. As I said, New Zealand First supports the passing of the bill, but let us make no mistake: as the Associate Minister of Commerce said in her long and detailed address, it is something that our growers have not initiated. It is something that, in fact, New Zealand’s grape industry, and others, have not sought. It is something we have had imposed upon us, and I have to say that I give all credit to our trade negotiators in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, for going through this bill.

At times like this—and I should not say it, as my leader will kill me—I wish for the return of my former colleague Gerry Eckhoff, who, when he was on the Primary Production Committee, having come from a family that was deeply entrenched in the wine industry and the selling thereof, would wax lyrical about all of what I would call the pretentious stuff surrounding wine. He would go into immense detail about geographical regions and the tastes that pertain to those areas. Then, when challenged to talk about this in any scientific manner, he would resort to what we all resort to: “Well, I think it tastes good, anyway.” So we had many a good debate on this subject when I was on the Primary Production Committee.

But having had these things imposed upon us, it is imperative that we do debate this in a proper manner. The bill has gone through the select committee, and it is imperative that it is carried forward in a way we can live with in New Zealand. New Zealand First has been in favour of food labelling and those sorts of things when they have been proposed by other parties in the House. We would have to say it is interesting that, although we have had this imposed upon us, we are going along with a bill about labels that covers regions not only in New Zealand but, again as the Minister said, in countries throughout the world. I wonder whether it is a forerunner of a proposal by the National Party, or, indeed, by Labour, to label food from overseas countries, because I have a bit of a problem with the fact that we are now eating garlic from China—where the last lot in my house came from, God bless my soul—or from India. I would like to see, quite obviously, that we are eating garlic that comes from New Zealand. We are also at Christmas time, in the main, eating pork that comes from Canada, and I understand some of that comes from China, as well. We would like to see the things that can be home-grown actually be home-grown.

I digress slightly to say it is interesting to me that we have just debated the Meat Board Amendment Bill, in which members talked about industry standards and hygiene, and the wine industry, in the main, is careful about that. I have talked about pork from Canada, but I cannot talk about any export industry without talking about the problems we have had with our poultry in New Zealand. I agree with the Green spokesperson in this area, Sue Kedgley, and I suggest to members most strongly that if we had an export business in poultry, we would not have had the problems we have with poultry. It is not widely known in this country—and it should be—that we have two standards, in many cases. One is the export standard, which is the higher, and one is the local standard, which is the lower. Those in the meat business are doing their very best, and have actually achieved one standard across the board. In apples, the industry still has not, with due respect, and in poultry we certainly have not, because we do not export. So exports are important, not only for our economy but because we are going into markets where the standards demanded of us are extremely high. We as a country benefit from those, as I have indicated.

So although we support the bill, we recognise that it has been imposed upon us, to a great degree. We applaud the work of our trade negotiators in doing the best for our people, but I point out, if there is a barb in my speech, that we wish other areas and producers in our economy would lift their game before we in this House are forced to legislate for them to have to do that—which they will not be too happy with.

The Green Party is really keen on the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill. We favour the model it embodies, which is that food should be properly labelled as to where it comes from. Under this bill, that can be the country, the region, and the subregion within that.

There are very good reasons for having quite detailed labelling, because the product is different depending on the country, region, and subregion it comes from. It was explained at some length to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee how the soils and the weather in the region are important for the growth of the grape, and for the particular grape that excels there. There is an extremely good reason for having detailed labelling, from a production and consumer point of view. In this case, the consumer is going to rule. The consumer is going to know exactly where the wine came from—not only the producer but right down to the vineyard, region, subregion, and country, as I said.

Of course, both consumers and producers are pushing for that detailed labelling. The previous speaker, Doug Woolerton, mentioned the European Union, but around the world the best-practice wine producers and consumers are also asking for labelling, because it protects quality. New Zealand is trying to export wine at the higher end of the market, at the quality end of the market—that is what we were told repeatedly—and having detailed labelling is essential for that. As the previous speaker indicated, the same thing applies to other products. Labelling is something that encourages New Zealand firms to produce quality food products.

It is ironic that just about a month ago the National and Labour parties, which are supporting this bill, were so opposed to my colleague Sue Kedgley’s bill on the labelling of food products. All the arguments that have been used here today in favour of this bill were strangely forgotten or opposed when those members opposed the member’s bill from Sue Kedgley.

💬 Shane Jones: What’s the National Party got to say about that?

What did they say? They said: “Oh, we’ll just rely on the State. We’ll make sure that scientifically it’s safe.” Well, for a start, we cannot necessarily rely on the State just to prove that everything is safe. There are often a lot of unknowns in science. The safety question, as this bill shows, is only the beginning of wisdom. There are a whole lot of other things to consider in terms of quality—what the consumer wants in terms of quality—and of the ability of consumers to make their own choices. We are not saying—as seemed to be implied by the rejection of Sue Kedgley’s bill—that if it is safe it is OK. That is like saying under this bill that people should drink chardonnay but they will not be told where it comes from.

We should be able to have a choice about what chardonnay we want to drink or what red wine we want to drink, and to know where it comes from. This bill provides for that ability. It is great that the European Union has provided an impetus for it, and it is good that the wine producers and consumers of New Zealand, and the political parties here today, have gone along with it.

What were the arguments used against Sue Kedgley’s bill? Underneath them all was the trade argument that when New Zealand exports products to, say, America, we do not necessarily want the Americans to know that the products have come from New Zealand. The Americans might prefer the American product or the European product, and they might have good consumer reasons for that, but if we can sneak in products unlabelled, and have a deal with the Americans whereby they send their stuff here unlabelled, then we increase trade—even if the consumer dips out. We have seen dip-outs most recently, in terms of stuff coming into New Zealand unlabelled, with 27,000 tonnes of meat coming into New Zealand unlabelled, and 40 percent of the pork being unlabelled. We know what happened when 6 tonnes of raw pork came in illegally from Korea recently, and not long ago we had the poor people at Eden Park falling sick after eating raw oysters from Korea.

R Doug Woolerton: Oh, they want to ban them, Keith.

Yes. That is the problem that can ensue if we do not know where things come from, and if we just have a totally open season without any labelling whatsoever.

I think we are taking after the European Union in this case, but, in the case of Sue Kedgley’s bill, even though we knew that Australia was setting an example and doing food labelling, we did not follow that example. Murray McCully challenged us on the question of producer representation on committees that might be set up to look at labelling, and the Greens, in principle, support having producers on those committees. We do not know whether we really need to specify particular producers in legislation. In this case, National suggests the Wine Institute of New Zealand and the New Zealand Grape Growers Council. I think we can formulate something that makes more provision for producer representation. There is producer representation in other industry organisations, which is a good thing.

Basically, that is the Green’s position. If we are serious about serving the interests of both producers and consumers in the food area, then we have to use this bill as a model. Next time we come back to the House with a food labelling bill we must say that, yes, in the interest of consumers, in the interest of advancing quality, and in the interest of true trade that enhances quality and safety around the world, we should have labelling. Thank you.

Four days ago the nation willingly contributed to the extinction of the last living representative of the reptilian order. And before everyone starts calling out about Fred and Wilma, Barney and Betty, and Dino, let me tell members what I am talking about. The Māori Party acknowledges the demise of a tipuna, an ancestor, that is the sole survivor from a lineage stretching back over 225 million years. It is a tipuna that up until Monday graced our 5c coins—the tuatara, the unique living fossil that exists today in its ancestral home of Takapourewa, Stephens Island, in Cook Strait.

The survival of the tuatara was threatened by habitat loss, introduced animals, and global warming, and now, it seems, the decommissioning of currency. For Ngāti Koata of the Marlborough Sounds, the protection and rights of the tuatara had nothing to do with the Reserve Bank. Indeed, it was the concern they had over the failure of the Crown to protect and exercise tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga over their indigenous flora and fauna, such as the tuatara, that saw them join with Ngāti Kurī, Ngāti Wai, Te Rarawa, Ngāti Porou, and Ngāti Kahungunu to present the 262nd claim lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal—a claim known as Wai 262.

For Ngāti Koata, their iwi responsibility of kaitiakitanga has seen them care for the tuatara without the need for the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill. When a local wine producer, Waimea Estates, first announced that its latest wine would be launched with the Tuatara label, Ngāti Koata upheld their kaitiaki responsibilities to provide protection for the geographical indication of their ancestral name. Such was the significance of the authenticity of that name, the identity, and the whakapapa of the tuatara that Ngāti Koata were able to impress upon Waimea Estates a recognition of their ownership, control, and protection of their cultural and intellectual property.

And so it came to be that on 5 June 2006 Waimea Estates introduced a new label into the United States, with a flashy launch at The New Zealander, which is a restaurant in Alameda, California. It was the latest addition to the Waimea Estates wine cellar—the Spinyback label. It was a win-win all round. Ngāti Koata retain the naming rights of their customary and intellectual heritage rights associated with the tuatara, and Waimea Estates capitalises on a unique brand. An arrangement was worked out between the wine producer and the iwi, to ensure that Ngāti Koata also benefit from the use of their intellectual property rights. And it is going to be a good deal more than a 5c coin.

This was achieved before the bill ever saw the light of day. The bill sets in place legislative obligation to provide protection for geographical indications, which are location-specific naming rights that the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) classifies as intellectual property. The TRIPs agreement creates the incentive to establish an effective administrative system to establish, process, and maintain registration; to deal to restrictions on the use of geographical indications and exemptions; and to set in place an appeals process to challenge decisions made by the registrar, if necessary. Well, that is a lot of words, and systems, and processes, and administration for what Ngāti Koata and Waimea Estates seem to have done pretty much on their own already.

Members should not get me wrong—the Māori Party believes that geographical indicators have the most potential of all provisions in the TRIPs agreement to benefit the indigenous people. In their essence, the indicators could offer protection and rights over the regionally based products and produce of hapū and iwi. But this bill is not about the protection of indigenous crops. It is not about the legal, customary rights to biological and genetic resources of indigenous and taonga species. It does not cover pōhutukawa; koromiko; kūmara; puawānanga, which is clematis; indigenous forests; kererū, which is the pigeon; pūpū-harakeke; which is the flax snail; or the tuatara. It is about wine, which is not indigenous to Aotearoa.

But that is not why the Māori Party is opposed to this bill. It comes back to the questions asked by the Wai 262 claimants, Dell Wīhongi, Haana Murray, the late John Hippolite, the late Tama Poata, Katarina Rīmene, and the late Te Witi McMath. They asked whether the law or trademarks in Aotearoa recognise kaitiakitanga, the guardianship of tangata whenua. Is the use of the trademark registration system by third parties in relation to taonga works, particularly design and symbols, a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi or its principles? What about the scope of the Mātaatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? How do these international treaties enhance the protection, preservation, control, use, development, and regulation of Māori knowledge—mātauranga Māori?

The Mātaatua declaration signed at Whakatāne in 1993 recognises the importance of self-determination for enabling indigenous peoples to protect our culture, customs, and intellectual property rights. You see, there are already protective mechanisms in place. There is already a flora and fauna and cultural intellectual property claim before the tribunal. Such was the significance of the authenticity of that name, the identity, and the whakapapa of the tuatara that Ngāti Koata went that way.

The United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which to this Government’s shame it has shied away from, states: “Indigenous peoples are entitled to the recognition of the full ownership, control and protection of their cultural and intellectual property.” That means, in plain English, Māori words and names. Yet in this bill a proposal is put to safeguard and preserve the name “Marlborough” as one of the foremost sauvignon blanc wine regions of the world. The bill will preserve the uniqueness of the location called Marlborough. But what about Marlborough, west of Boston? What about Marlborough of Wiltshire, England? And while we are talking about original names, what about Kenepuru, Te Tai Tapu, Te Wairau, and Awatere—the names of the original peoples, the mana whenua, of this area, Marlborough?

If we are looking at trade names, let us look at the registration of Awatere Terrace Vineyards in this area. This bill introduces the “first in time, first in right” principle for determining which right has the priority. So, theoretically, Awatere Terrace Vineyards, which was first in, can use the word “Awatere”, and Tohu Wines, the first local indigenous wine company producing wine for domestic and export markets, is deprived of the use of their own name. The name “Awatere” comes from their whakapapa. Yet this bill we are discussing today might prevent Tohu Wines from using their own name, their name, which was passed down through whakapapa lines.

The bill does state that in some very limited circumstances there is the potential for a later-filed geographical indication to be registered despite a pre-existing trademark having priority. In determining whether a later-filed geographical indication is to be registered, the registrar considers such things as the legitimate interests of the owner of the trademark and of third parties, and other factors, which may include international considerations. Yet, given the appalling recent record overseas of this Government, in the increasingly hostile position towards indigenous peoples and our right to self-determination, one wonders whether cultural appropriation would cause any concern. Indeed, one wonders whether the Government is opening the gate for cultural appropriation and the denigration of indigenous people to be acceptable. Let us recap: deleting the Treaty from legislation; deleting the Treaty from education; removing Māori arts from the curriculum; the foreshore and seabed—shall we go on?

The Māori Party recognises the tino rangatiratanga of hapū and iwi in relation to their own cultural heritage rights and taonga. Because of that recognition, we will not support this bill.

I thank my colleague from the Māori Party, Pita Sharples, for some thought-provoking comments. I valued his comments more than any other speaker’s today, apart from my own colleague Mr McCully’s. Before I discuss elements of the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill, I would like to spare a thought for how we came to be discussing the bill. We are dealing with a plant that was imported—the grape plant—and with technology, which was also imported, to turn the product of that plant into wine. The arrival here of the plant and the technology was certainly much more recent than the arrival of our indigenous people. Naturally enough, I want to look at this issue from a Wairarapa perspective.

We are here today debating this bill because of people with vision—people who dug holes in stony pasture land in the Marlborough area, in the Awatere Valley, or in the Wairarapa to see whether the soil was suited to grapes. We are here because of people who had entrepreneurship—people like the late Tom Draper and, for example, our own colleague John Falloon, to name just two. Then we needed people who invested in grapes and the marketing thereof. I think of the Riddiford family, and also the Parkinsons, in Martinborough in the Wairarapa. Then we had to bring in people who actually knew how to make the wine, who had the technical skill to do it—people like Larry McKenna and Roger Parkinson. Those people, and many others, built the industry in this country from bare paddocks in Matahiwi, Bideford, Gladstone, and Martinborough, and, yes, in the Awatere Valley, too.

I have to report to the House that during consideration of the bill by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee it astonished me to see the influence of bureaucrats on this process. Despite four or five submissions made by people in the industry, the bureaucrats wanted to retain control. The Government has produced a bill that does that in clauses 51 and 52. But before I comment on those, I will refer to the comments made by my colleague from New Zealand First Doug Woolerton. Clearly, he knows nothing about this legislation, and he has not talked to anybody at all in the industry. If he had, he would know that the industry is desperate to get this bill into place. I can tell members that all of the winegrowers in the Wairarapa electorate are desperate for this legislation, and have been pestering me for a long time to get this thing into place.

I come back to Murray McCully’s comments. He talked about what a geographical indication is. It is an indication that identifies a wine or spirit as originating in the territory of a country or region. The Minister, Judith Tizard, read a very detailed brief, but from her comments since then I think she has misunderstood how one decides what a geographical indication is. What one does is to look at things that give wine a particular quality, reputation, or characteristic when it is grown in a certain region. That includes climate, aspect, soil, history, geography, and producer and consumer understandings. The boundaries in the names of the geographical indication follow the wine; the wine does not follow the name. It is really important to focus on that, because that then leads to the issue of who is qualified to make the decision. I would argue that the people who are qualified to make the decision are people with knowledge of the relationship between the quality, reputation, and characteristics of wine and the region of origin. They would be persons with knowledge of international law on practices regarding geographical indications, and the registrar of geographical indications, who will have expertise in administrative aspects of the New Zealand legislation.

But this bill is faulty, because it leaves full control of decisions on geographical indications in the hands of a bureaucrat employed by the Ministry of Economic Development. That ministry is singularly inappropriate to do this work. Clause 52 proposes that the registrar must include on his committee the Surveyor-General. That is brilliant! Who is the Surveyor-General? What does he know about wine? Zip! The Surveyor-General knows how to put lines on a map, but he does not know how to take a decision about what the geographical indication of a wine should be; he has no specific qualification whatsoever for that. The second person who must be on the committee, according to our bureaucrats and the Labour Government, is a member of the New Zealand Geographic Board who is not the Surveyor-General. That is someone who knows about names. What does that person know about wine? Nothing!

I am astonished at the work of our bureaucracy and the advice that bureaucrats gave to the Labour Government—which has overridden submissions from the industry—that those people are competent. I can tell members they are not competent, and in the Committee stage of the bill National will be opposing most strenuously their appointment. We need a committee of three, by all means. It should be chaired by someone nominated by the industry, it needs to be supported by another person nominated by the industry who knows something about wine, and it should have a registrar-general there to deal with the administrative detail at the industry’s direction. This is not about control and it should not be about bureaucracy; it should be about doing something to help the industry, which will help our exports and support the activities of many wine companies throughout New Zealand.

I come to another area that really impacts on this industry, and that is the issue of the plethora of red tape and regulation that our industry has to face and that the entrepreneurs in this industry have had to overcome to get a good product into the market. This Labour Government is taking about $130 million in excise tax imposed on growers. This money has to be paid before any of the wine is sold. I think this is an outrage, and certainly it is impacting negatively on the winegrowers in my region.

If we say “$130 million” fast enough, it does not sound very much; it does not register or mean anything each time we buy a bottle of wine. But for the benefit of the chardonnay socialist Minister who comes from Auckland, I say that she needs to realise that for a bottle of chardonnay costing $20, the Government retains $2.50 as GST, then there is a retail margin of $3.78 and a distributor margin of $3.45. About $10.55 ends up with the wine producer, exclusive of GST. This is on a $20 bottle of wine. Then, from that $10.55, the chardonnay socialist Minister from Auckland takes a further $1.69, or about 16 percent of the money the vintner receives. This leaves the vintner, who pays $2.60, or about 25 percent of the winery price, for grape costs, and another $2.49, or 23 percent, for winemaking and packaging costs, with about $3.77, or 36 percent of the vineyard price of the wine, to cover overheads, grape marketing, and a return on capital.

But a $20 bottle of wine is a super-premium wine. Most wine is cheaper, so the impact is greater. This excise tax is a huge money-spinner for the Government. It is causing huge damage to small businesses in my electorate, particularly in Martinborough, and National intends to try to do something about that. Those growers, however, do support this bill, subject to the modifications to clauses 51 and 52, which we will address in the Committee stage.