Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill

I rise to support the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill this afternoon. I do so particularly because I have consulted with the wine industry in parts of my electorate, and also with the industry more generally though its high-level bodies, and it is clear that there is broad-based support for the bulk of this bill. There is just one area where we would part company with the Government on the proposals being promoted by the Minister in respect of this bill, and that is essentially around the mechanism that drives the process. The bill proposes that a Registrar of Registered Geographical Indications is appointed by the Minister and that this person be a public servant—a member of the Ministry of Economic Development. The committee would then have, as proposed by this bill, two additional people. One is the Surveyor-General and one is the Registrar of Registered Geographical Indications. Neither of those two people have the slightest competence to determine the geographic locale of a particular wine, because a wine—if we listen to people in the industry—has something called character. The character of a wine is dependent on soil type, on climate, on the winemaker, on the process used to make the wine—on a whole lot of factors, none of which are about putting lines on maps or determining place names.

Minister Tizard, through her Supplementary Order Paper, is proposing the option of one person from the wine industry being appointed to the committee. But the National Party will propose that the bill be amended, particularly clauses 36, 51, and 52, to allow a registrar to be appointed We have no problem if that person is a bureaucrat, but the industry must nominate the other two members of the committee, so that those members are known to have competence in the issues being discussed by the committee. We are asking that those amendments be made. I have tabled a Supplementary Order Paper.

Basically, the National Party supports this legislation in its general sense, but it does not agree that the process should be run by bureaucrats. We view this bill as a make-work scheme designed by bureaucrats and put forward by a Labour Minister, for no particular purpose. The bill specifically excludes competent people from being employed to make decisions on behalf of the industry. This is very, very poor public policy that we want to change.

I will reserve the right to come back and discuss the detail of these issues in due course, but I am just setting out that, yes, we support the bill, it is important for the industry, but we do not support the mechanism that is being proposed. I hope we will have support from other parties in this House. If we do not get that support, I serve notice now that were the Government to change, the changes proposed in my Supplementary Order Paper would be brought in by a National-led Government.

Like my colleague John Hayes I rise to support the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill, but also to raise the question that my colleague has just introduced. I will talk a little bit about Part 1 and the ultimate purpose of the bill, in the first instance.

I appreciate, in the unlikely event that a large number of New Zealanders are listening to this debate, that the term “geographical indications” must seem almost incomprehensible. But this bill is quite an important part of the policy infrastructure that this country needs in order to advance an objective that is probably held in common by all the parties in this Chamber. That objective is to move away from commoditisation, to move up the value-added chain, to apply the knowledge of New Zealand entrepreneurs, and to secure it through intellectual property rights that are modern, up to date, and in keeping with our long-term strategic interests.

In the more distant past many of us have struggled to come to grips with this issue, but it has suddenly come to the top of the agenda as the years have ticked by. Although many people would have been familiar with intellectual property law, such as copyright, in respect of our creative industries, and would have understood the concept of patents in respect of our industrial intellectual property rights, few people, until a few years ago, would have quite understood the significance of adequate intellectual property law around the fabulous products that come out of New Zealand’s extraordinary resource base, including, in this case, the wine industry. If members want to look at the growing evolution of understanding in New Zealand, they have merely to look at another agricultural industry and the difference in the history of the Hayward variety of kiwifruit compared with the Gold variety. New Zealand scientists and farmers, and the industries that support them, developed this fruit, originally from China, into the Hayward, and did not take adequate intellectual property protection. The rest is history, and members know what happened and how that diminished our resource base as a consequence.

But we learnt a lesson. The industry has found a very novel way of protecting its intellectual property rights in this new variety of Gold kiwifruit. We can see the difference, particularly in the Japanese market, when we ensure that we protect our intellectual property rights and protect the commitment of our New Zealand people who put their hard work into these resource-based industries. This is an area of considerable importance to this country’s future. It is very important as we move up the value-added chain, and it is entirely appropriate that we should be looking to strengthen our intellectual property law in this way.

This initiative originated in the Uruguay round, in the context of negotiations over intellectual property law that lasted 7 years. Those negotiations became a very, very large part of the overall deal. This was not foreseen at the start of the negotiations; it was something that sprang up on negotiators as the years ticked by. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs agreement), which is part of the body of World Trade Organization law, emerged from these negotiations. It is an incorporation of almost ancient intellectual property laws going back over a century, but it also contains some more novel provisions.

This bill actually implements the obligations and principles behind negotiations that were completed 12 years ago. One might ask why the negotiations took so long. The answer is that a negotiation was foreshadowed in the context of article 24 of the TRIPs agreement; it foreshadowed further negotiation on the establishment of a registrar for geographical indications for wines and spirits. Wines and spirits were picked out by the European Union, partly for political reasons, as requiring what was called a higher order of protection. The negotiation of that registrar, which I spent hundreds of hours in Geneva on, in another capacity, has gone absolutely nowhere. It is locked in a very obscure and complex procedural wrangle.

Frankly, it is right for this Parliament, given the ambiguity over the future of that negotiation, to get on and do the right thing. So, yes, this legislation to put in place our obligations and the principles of an agreement made in 1994 has been a long time in coming, but we might as well do it.

New Zealand First supports the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill. We see items of this nature as necessary evils; we see them as barriers to our trade that are put up by the European community and others. Having said that, and accepting that we have to play by their rules when it comes to exporting into their countries, I say that we need to take advantage of the barriers if we are to have them in place, and we need to make sure they work for us. I am pleased to see that in some ways this bill goes towards doing that.

We will not be supporting the amendments put up by the National Party, for two reasons. Firstly, we are satisfied that the registrar can tap into relevant expertise as he or she sees fit. We have sought clarification on that point from the Government, and we have been satisfied as to the extent that they can do that. Secondly, and this is somewhat personal, I have always wondered why industry groups would join in with the Government in a registering situation or in a judicial situation. It is a healthy tension, and a rightful one, for industry groups to have their say, then stand aside from the judicial body or the registrar or whatever it may be, so they can more fairly, more transparently, and more vehemently put their case. If they lock themselves into a situation like this, then I believe that actually weakens their case and they will have a hard job if they find that things are not working in their favour. That is a personal view formed through bitter experience in a practical farming sense over many, many years. I have never been a trade negotiator, nor do I aspire to be one, but I have always believed that people who advocate on behalf of their members—growers, in most cases—should reserve the right to challenge any decision made by the Government. I suggest to them that if they were to have a decent talk to their lawyers, their lawyers would probably advise them that that is the better way to go. It reminds me of the old story: stay outside the tent and preserve one’s integrity, and fire shots at those within.

It is a pleasure to stand and speak to the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill, and speaking as the member for Kaikoura, which encompasses that beautiful area of Marlborough that grows 60 percent of New Zealand’s grapes, I see this bill as highly important. I also pay tribute to the maturity that has developed over a number of years within the industry, and I pay tribute to how that maturity has taken a great step forward on the world stage. At a time when Australia is pulling out grape vines, we are still maintaining very high prices for our product on export in those countries of the world that can afford to pay it.

It is significant to note that we are moving in Marlborough to an area of some 20,000 hectares, which will be achieved in the near future. There are, say, 70 outstanding brands in that region. However, what we are finding is increased pressure from multinationals as we go forward. They do a good job, but they too want to see that we maintain the unique natures of those geographical indications that are reflected in the soil types. I am told that our soil types in New Zealand are young, as opposed to those European wines such as those grown in Bordeaux, Champagne and suchlike, or Chianti. It is so very important that we maintain their integrity, and do not allow that to be affected by the fact that we are being bought out by some very large operators, one of which is Pernod Ricard, which owns 30 brands of wine and which draws on 5,900 hectares of grapes within the Marlborough region. When I spoke about 15 months ago to the general manager of Montana, which is one of the company’s brands in this country, the manager said the company was still importing more sauvignon blanc than it was purchasing in Marlborough. Therein lies the risk: we have to have in place good solid international regulations around what can be called a Marlborough sauvignon blanc. So I would put back to the member from New Zealand First that we are not dealing in cooperative models like Fonterra or PPCS and meat companies. We are actually dealing with a product that could easily and subtly be watered down with product from outside.

It is quite significant that when one looks throughout New Zealand, one sees that we have some outstanding regions. We have the Martinborough area in the Wairarapa where John Hayes represents the National Party—he is a very good member indeed. We have Waipara in North Canterbury and we have Marlborough. We have Central Otago, the Hawke’s Bay, and Nelson. These regions are all uniquely different. They specialise in different grapes; what grows remarkably well in the Hawke’s Bay does not do quite so well in Marlborough, and on that basis we have to protect the entrepreneurship and investment of those viticulturists.

It is appropriate, then, that we see that the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights is entered into. On that basis we should adhere to it not only for the integrity wrapped around the 85 percent factor but from the point of view that those people who continue to invest in viticulture in New Zealand, which will continue to grow, can have the certainty that where they buy they can guarantee that if that name is held up with integrity around those international agreements, their investments will be future-proofed.

I wish the bill all the very best, as we are prepared to support it, but I strongly recommend that members look at giving the responsibility to the industry of being able to set up those particular geographical indications boundaries. Industry members are the ones who know the very intricacies of the wine industry and as such we should welcome their expertise onside, so that they know from the inside just what is going on. If we do not allow them that, then there will be every chance of diluting those brands and allowing them to drift off into insignificance, and those who have changed from one land use—like pastoral farming—into the viticulture industry will lose those returns.

I want to address some comments made by my parliamentary colleague from the New Zealand First Party Doug Woolerton. One of the problems we face in this country is that the bureaucrats have taken over the business of governance from this House. They can do that because a number of political colleagues in the House do not do their homework. I believe that the Minister who introduced the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill, Judith Tizard, did not understand a word she was saying, and Doug Woolerton from New Zealand First clearly did not understand what he was talking about. He has not read the bill. We heard that he is a farmer and has done various other things, and that he has an understanding of Federated Farmers, but that is totally irrelevant to this bill.

We are debating Part 1, which contains the purpose clause—clause 3. Paragraph (a) of clause 3 states that the purposes of the Act are to “contribute to the development and continual growth of, and innovation in, the wine and spirits industries in New Zealand by providing a suitable legal framework for the registration of geographical indications;”. I ask Doug Woolerton how that requires decisions by the Government. The man completely misunderstands the bill. I do not believe he has read it. Under paragraph (b) the purposes are to provide “a sound trading and marketing environment that facilitates, rather than creates barriers to, the trade in wine and spirits;”. I ask Mr Roberts—

💬 Colin King: Woolerton.

—Doug Woolerton, I am sorry. I got the name wrong. That is what happens when one is dealing with insignificance. I ask him how paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 3 are relevant to the Surveyor-General putting lines on the map. How are they relevant to the man who runs the national naming process in this country giving names to places? Neither has any relevance to determining the character of a wine. As I said before, the character of a wine comes from the soils, the climate, the winemaker, and a whole lot of things. We need to allow the industry to find competent people to make decisions about geographic indications. This bill specifically precludes that from happening.

This bill will allow bureaucrats to run this process on behalf of our industry. I believe that far too many bureaucrats are running this country and that they are well out of political control, because people, like Mr Woolerton, do not do their homework and understand the dimensions of legislation that is being put forward. The bureaucrats are running this process, not the House. The House should be doing it. I ask all members to understand very carefully what is going on here and to make sensible decisions. If they do not, they are damaging our industry, and if they are damaging our industry, they are damaging our economy, and if they are damaging our economy, they are damaging every individual in this country, because we will not be earning the money we need to compete globally. Doug Woolerton was absolutely wrong in his comments. He did not understand anything of what he was saying. He has not read the bill.

I draw members’ attention to Part 1, “Preliminary provisions”, and, in particular, to clause 4, which states: “international agreement means any bilateral or multilateral treaty, convention, or agreement to which New Zealand is a party,”. This is why we are passing this bill—for international reasons. It has nothing to do with the Government decisions that Mr Woolerton is talking about. He has not read this bill. [Interruption] Mr Chair, could you please call that man to order? Thank you, Mr Chair.

I move on to other interpretations in clause 4. I notice quite a big provision on the term “working day” that describes the working week and all sorts of other irrelevancies. This bill has been designed by bureaucrats who have nothing better to do with their day than to invent work for themselves at a cost to the taxpayer. This is very, very disturbing. We need legislation here that will focus and sharpen our economy and that will move this country ahead. We see the same sort of thing happening, for example, in the health industry. An army of bureaucrats has been recruited in the health industry to get rid of waiting lists for hospitals.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Registered geographical indications