Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill

I point out to members that the Green Party has moved an amendment to Part 2. It is an amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 66 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard. The essence of our amendment is to give the industry representation on committees that may be set up to discuss boundaries and indicators. The present amendment contained in Supplementary Order Paper 66, in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard, is an amendment to clause 52(2) and adds the following paragraph: “(c) 1 or more persons who, in the Registrar’s opinion, have appropriate knowledge of the wine or spirits industry, as the case may be.” It became quite clear at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee that the industry has a huge knowledge of indicators and boundaries. It is a pretty well-organised industry with two organisations, New Zealand Winegrowers and, on the spirits side, the Distilled Spirits Association of New Zealand. Those organisations were concerned at the way the bill was constructed; they said it did not allow the experience of the industry to have full play in the decisions of a committee set up to consider the registration of a geographical indication, the alteration of a registered geographical indication, or the removal of a registered geographical indication from the register.

Under clause 52, the Registrar can appoint a committee and its members. At the present time the committee must include the Surveyor-General or a representative of the Surveyor-General and a member of the New Zealand Geographic Board who is not the Surveyor-General. The Registrar can then appoint another person as appropriate, including a representative of the wine or spirits industry in New Zealand. But there is no requirement to have on any such committee anyone from the wine or spirits industry in New Zealand. So in response to the very good presentations from New Zealand Winegrowers and the Distilled Spirits Association of New Zealand, the Green Party thought it worthwhile to come forward with an amendment, because the Supplementary Order Paper as it stands refers just to someone who has appropriate knowledge of the wine and spirits industry. The person may not even be from the industry or be a member of an industry organisation; he or she just needs to have appropriate knowledge. I think that is a bit vague.

To make it more specific, our proposed amendment, which is on the Table, is to omit paragraph (c) from the Supplementary Order Paper amendment and substitute a new paragraph (c): “1 or more persons from New Zealand Winegrowers or the Distilled Spirits Association of New Zealand or another organisation representing wine and spirits producers.” I think that covers the field and guarantees that there will be on each committee someone from the wine and spirits industry, not just some individual who happens to have a vineyard. There will be someone from an industry organisation. The two organisations specified in the bill are the main organisations, but another organisation may form that deserves some representation on the committee. So it is just a simple amendment to cover that point about industry representation, and the Green Party hopes that it will meet with the support of others in the Committee.

I will take just a brief call on this issue, following on from my colleague Mr Hayes. Under the principle that it sometimes takes a thief to catch a thief, I have to say that Mr Hayes and I, who have worked as officials for probably rather more time than we would care to admit, are extremely conscious of the times and occasions when we really need the expertise of an official, and the times and occasions when there are severe limitations in relying just on officials. So on the basis of that old principle we have been surprised, right through the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee process, that there has actually been a fundamental resistance on the part of the Government to the industry’s perspective on this.

Let me explain to the Committee the reality that I see coming through this, instead of using abstract terms. What will happen is that the Ministry of Economic Development will appoint as the registrar, if the legislation goes through in its current form, an extremely bright young intellectual property lawyer, whom it will have recruited at some recent point. That person will, because he or she will be extremely well informed about the policy frameworks, know his or her way right around the World Intellectual Property Organization legislation, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, and all the other relevant conventions, and have a very clear view, from his or her academic training, as to what is required.

When it comes to the rather subjective nature of what is terroir, which is a word I think we use in English now to indicate the characteristics of wine, he or she will have only as much experience as he or she will have acquired at the University of Otago—it may be rather more than at other universities—through the consumption of wine up till that point. To make decisions here is not just a matter of applying the cadastral boundaries drawn up by the Surveyor-General; it requires deep knowledge of the industry and of the very subjective characteristics that make up the raw ingredients in a decision on what constitutes a geographical indication.

So this young person will be beavering away, working very hard and very earnestly on this, and trying to comprehend the very subjective information coming from industry, from the people who have been years in the business. That person will then be promoted within the department—this is the reality. I have heard this complaint about the official process 100 times from the industry—not necessarily in this context or in the context of the Ministry of Economic Development, but right across the board of Government—when a person with high levels of expertise and deep background is needed. That person will then move up in his or her career path within the ministry, or A J Park will recruit him or her at twice the salary, because intellectual property lawyers are very handsomely remunerated in the private sector. Then the industry has to start again, essentially by educating some other bright young thing.

How much better it would be if we could just understand the reality that this requires deep knowledge of the industry. It is not something that can be purely and simply acquired from studying intellectual property law at any of New Zealand’s excellent law faculties. It is something whereby one requires a deep involvement and some sympathy.

This proposal put forward by my colleague Mr Hayes to try to centre the process on the people with the expertise is simply common sense. It has been utterly mystifying to me why, in the course of putting this bill forward—and the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has worked in very good spirit—there has been such resistance. One always had the feeling that the resistance was not from the elected representatives of the Government, but from their fronting up for the officials who had a particularly sharp view about wanting to control the process. So I urge the Committee to consider quite carefully the human and other issues involved in this, and to support my colleague.

I did not intend to take a call, but I have been persuaded to do so by my colleague’s argument. There are some very good things about this bill and some things that have missed the mark, so first I will just say what is good. It is good that New Zealand now has a wine industry that has come of age, so we want to protect our identity. Members will recall that in the 1960s New Zealand wine was a joke around the world. We used to see it featured on various television programmes made in the UK as some kind of mistake, or as something that certainly did not have the prestige that it has today. So it is good that the wine industry has come of age. The wine that comes out of New Zealand is synonymous with quality and with quite a few specialty areas. A number of New Zealand wines, such as sauvignon blanc and pinot noir, can stand up anywhere in the world, and the good thing about New Zealand is that it has a diverse climate that allows it to produce a great variety of boutique wines. That is good.

But I am concerned about the process of registering geographical indications. I think that the comment from my colleague Mr Groser as to how this process will function hits upon the issue. It seems to me that we are setting up a bureaucracy in the wine industry that is not mirrored in other areas where there is an appellation strategy—that is, a naming, branding strategy—where we hand it to the industry and say that it is the industry’s responsibility. Maybe—and I do not know much about this area—an international geographical indication, which is what Part 2 provides for, needs the kind of protection provided by an Act of Parliament. I do not know that, but I accept it may be the case. However, I do not accept that we have to create a registrar, a registry, and a whole lot of laws around that. I believe it is the industry’s responsibility to determine how it wants to do that and how it wants to progress.

At various times we have had illustrations of how this Labour Government has created myriads of increased bureaucratic offices around the capital. I forget how many more tennis court - sized office spaces there are, but the number is significant. And here it seems that we are setting up another bureaucracy. That rings a few alarm bells for me. As I read through Part 2 and saw precisely what it does, I became more and more convinced that this is something we should do in the same way that we have done with regard to the dairy industry and its branding, or to the branding of any other sector, and say it is the industry’s responsibility to set the system up.

In one of my other roles in Parliament, I sit on the Regulations Review Committee. When I reached the end of Part 2, I saw in clause 55 a whole raft of regulation-making powers, and that just made me quiver with concern. Clause 55 states: “The Governor-General may from time to time, by Order in Council, make regulations …”. Set out are 11 different subclauses, prescribing the areas that the regulations can be set up for. I can see that there are not really a great deal of checks and balances in that. We are setting up a registrar and giving that official the power to co-opt and appoint people on to his or her own committee, and then they will draft regulations as they deem fit, without having any responsibility back to the industry, as far as I can determine, in terms of Part 2. I invite the Minister or anybody else who is promoting this bill to show me how that process works. I ask to be shown the responsibility the registrar has to the industry—the consultation process, and the authority that the registrar has to operate on the industry’s behalf. It is Parliament that is giving authority to the registrar, not the industry. Not only are we doing that but the registrar is going to keep the registry surrounding geographical indications—

I would particularly like to thank Keith Locke for his constructive suggestion and his amendment. The problem with it is that if it were adopted it would still leave control with bureaucrats. Sure, there would be slightly better defined industry representation, but I have talked to industry representatives about this issue and asked them who are the sorts of people they would put up. They have named people such as professors at Auckland University, and people who are outside the day-to-day administration of the industry—and I hope Doug Woolerton is listening to that comment, because it is not about the industry necessarily appointing people from within the industry; it is about the industry appointing recognised experts in the field.

I say to Mr Locke that I particularly feel that his suggestion, while constructive, does not go far enough. If we are going to amend the bill, and the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper, we have to begin further back down the track. What we need to do is create a geographic indications committee that will sit on all applications except for geographic indicators registered under an international agreement. We suggest that the committee comprise three members, but it could take advice if needed. Where the application involved a wine geographic indicator, two members of the committee must be nominated by the New Zealand wine industry; that is, if my recommendations are accepted. The committee is the authoritative decision-making body—not the registrar. The registrar does what he is told by the committee, and its decisions are registered by the registrar, who does not participate in the decision-making process, because he is incompetent. He has no competence whatever to get involved in the decision.

What I am suggesting is absolutely in line with the process being used in other jurisdictions, such as Australia, but it still respects the fact that the process is being operated through the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand.

The proposed amendments set out on my Supplementary Order Paper suggest omitting clause 36. The power to seek advice needs to be transferred to the committee if it is already making a decision. We have to omit from clause 51(1) the words “may, if the Registrar thinks fit”, and substitute the word “must”. This makes it compulsory for the committee to consider all geographical indication amendments or approvals.

The third suggestion is to omit from clause 51(2) the words “to advise the Registrar on issues relating to the boundaries and the use of a place name as a geographical indication”, and substitute the words “to decide on the matters relating to the registration of a geographical indication or the alteration or removal of a registered geographical indication”. This changes the function of the committee, from an advisory body to a decision-making body.

Then I think we have to add a new clause 51(3), “Notwithstanding (1) and (2), it is not necessary for the Registrar to establish a geographical indications committee for the registration of geographical indications in accordance with regulations made under section 55(k), or for the alteration or removal of geographical indications registered in accordance with regulations made under section 55(k).” This means the full committee is not required where foreign geographical indications are being registered, pursuant to an international agreement, and that will save the committee a heck of a lot of unnecessary work.

We will omit clause 52(1), which is unnecessary given that the number and composition of the committee is now fixed. The registrar already has the power to establish the committee, under clause 51(1). Then I think we omit clause 52(2), and substitute: “Each committee must consist of 3 persons appointed by the Registrar having knowledge or experience of the issues relevant to the application.” This clause picks up Mr Locke’s suggestion and also the Minister’s tentative move in this direction. It removes the mandate for the Surveyor-General and the New Zealand Geographic Board to sit on the committee, and it creates a fixed committee that takes into account all the relevant issues.

Then, I think, one has to omit clauses 52(3) and 52(3A) on Supplementary Order Paper 66 and substitute them with new clause 52(3) that states: “When the decision in section 52(1) relates to a geographical indication for wine, two of the members appointed to the committee must be nominated by the national industry organisation for the New Zealand wine industry.” The spirits industry, while relevant, is not actually relevant at the moment, because we do not produce spirits in New Zealand; those that did produce here have now been sold to an offshore buyer. This will allow the wine industry to nominate appropriate committee members, as the wine industry is the best place to judge who the appropriate members would be. No equivalent mechanism is suggested for the spirits industry, because, as I have said, there are no New Zealand geographical indications currently in use.

Then, I think, one omits clause 54(4)—a casting vote is not needed if the committee has only three members. Then we add a new subclause (6) to clause 54: “If the committee thinks it necessary, the committee may obtain advice on, and may consult about, any matter relating to—”, and the handwritten amendment lists the suggestions.

These are very constructive suggestions. I have consulted widely with the industry, and the suggestions are made to put the responsibility for administering this legislation on to the same basis as applies with our near neighbour, Australia, and it allows the industry to drive this, and not the bureaucrats who have no qualifications or experience in deciding what the character of a wine is and what a boundary for a wine area should be. This is a matter of considerable importance to my Wairarapa electorate, because we have areas such as Bideford, Gladstone, Martinborough, and further north into Hawke’s Bay growing wine in often small areas. This bill is very, very important to these people, but the one thing that strikes me, having moved from the bureaucracy in Wellington to the Wairarapa, is that our bureaucrats in Wellington do not understand the needs of our communities beyond the boundaries of Wellington.

This is a very big problem, and this is why I also urge colleagues in all parties to support the proposals I am putting up. It is very important that we allow the industry to drive this issue, and not bureaucrats in Wellington who are highly priced and highly paid, but are out to make work to keep themselves in gainful employment. The Surveyor-General has no expertise in this area, neither does the man who puts names on maps. We must put this process into the hands of our industry, and I serve notice again to this Committee that if it does not support this move, the next National-led Government will institute these changes forthwith, week 1, when the Government changes.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of John Hayes to clause 36 be agreed to:

to omit this clause.