Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill

I move, That the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill amends the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act of 2006, which was never brought into force. The amendments are necessary to clarify some provisions in the Act and to ensure that the registration process provided for in the Act runs smoothly and sustainably. Once the bill is enacted, it will be possible to bring it into force, once the regulations setting out the registration procedures have been finalised. New Zealand wine and spirit producers will then be able to register their geographical indications in New Zealand, such as Marlborough, the area that arguably produces the best sauvignon blanc in the world.

At this point, I do want to acknowledge the effect of the recent earthquakes on particularly the Marlborough region and parts of North Canterbury as well, where the wine industry, like every other industry, has been knocked about badly. So our thoughts and prayers are with them. There has been quite a bit of loss of bottled wine, wine in tanks, and tanks, and so the industry will be battling, over the next few months, but we wish them all the very best.

This bill will make it easier for local producers to register their geographical indications in other countries, because most other countries with registration systems for geographical indications will not register foreign indications unless they are registered in their country of origin. The registration of New Zealand’s geographical indications in other countries will be of particular assistance to our wine industry. It will help with maintaining the reputation of New Zealand wines as premium wines in overseas markets, commanding a higher price than wine in other countries, as we do.

It is worth talking a little bit about the industry. Many of us here in this House are eager consumers of the product, and it is worth just reflecting on an industry that was kicked off by the Mission vineyard in 1865, in Hawke’s Bay, by the French Roman Catholics. We had many pioneers of Dalmatian extraction, out in west Auckland, who really got things going, and Montana kicking off the sauvignon blanc in the Marlborough region in the 1970s, followed by very substantial investment, both domestic and international, in the last few decades.

So we have an industry that is dominated by both large and small producers, and it has been phenomenally successful over the last few decades. It was only $18 million of exports that the whole industry produced in 1990. I think it was around 1998 when the industry cracked $100 million in exports. Today, that figure is around $1.6 billion and rising fast. The United States is the largest foreign market, with about $460 million. Britain is second. They have a particular taste for our wine, it seems, with $380 million. The Australians are third, with $360 million. It is a story of hard work and enterprise by many New Zealanders. We celebrate that industry. We want to support it.

💬 Paul Foster-Bell: What about the spirits?

And the spirits. We drink the spirits, from time to time, and all in good cheer.

This bill is essentially about trying to strengthen some of the foundations that we have around the story that lies behind the quality of New Zealand wines. I will just briefly mention some significant amendments made by the bill. It provides for the payment of renewal fees to maintain the registration of geographical indications, provides an ongoing source of income to maintain the register, which is particularly important, given that most applications to register geographical indications will be made in the first few years after the Act enters into force, and the income from renewal fees will assist in keeping initial application fees lower than they would otherwise be. Another significant amendment is to incorporate opposition procedures into the Act, which will allow interested persons to oppose the registration of a geographical indication, and the alteration or removal of such an indication.

Finally, I do want to acknowledge the work of key stakeholders who are present in the gallery this evening. We have Mr Robert Brewer from Spirits New Zealand and also there has been a great deal of work by New Zealand Wine as an industry, led by Nicola Crennan. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House. I want to acknowledge what is an important occasion for the New Zealand wine and spirits industry. Thank you very much.

Before I call the honourable David Shearer, I would like to point out to the people in the gallery that they are being more than a little noisy. If they are going to continue at that volume, they should take it outside.

It is with great pleasure that we support this bill as well. It was a bill that was originally put together, as the Minister said, in 2006. It lay in abeyance for all of that time. The Government did not pass it through. But now, with some amendments that it has made, and prompted particularly by the possibility that we might enter into a free-trade agreement with the EU, it has accelerated the importance and the significance of getting this bill through Parliament by the end of this year. Last weekend, I was very privileged to attend the Air New Zealand Wine Awards in Auckland. I acknowledge Stuart Smith over there, who was also in attendance, and was one of the—what do you call them—grand masters of the New Zealand wine industry?

💬 Stuart Smith: A fellow.

A fellow—thank you, Stuart. I attended along with my colleague Jacinda Ardern, and the member for Wairarapa as well. I will not go through everybody else, because there were quite a few people there.

But let me get back to the point. I think, for me, the most significant thing, the most touching thing, was that the people who were there had a passion for wine. They were not the people whom you would maybe associate with high society, with tippling on wine. They were people who, when you shook their hands, had clearly been out in the vineyards for a while and had callouses on their hands. They were people who had grown wines, tasted them, and manufactured them. They effectively told the story of an industry that is an agricultural industry that feeds off our natural resources, through our expertise, and is now commanding the best prices in the world. It is truly a story about agriculture from the growing right through to the value-adding, the marketing, and the exporting—and it is, obviously, mostly exported. It really was, I have to say, a pretty sobering—ha, ha! Sobering—that is a bad word for it. But there was certainly a—certainly a—

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: This is quite rambling, David.

Yes. Thank you, Dr Coleman. It was something that I felt quite privileged to be at, to meet with these people who had contributed so much. As Minister Goldsmith said, we are now looking at $1.6 billion worth of exports. They are aiming towards $2 billion by 2020. That is in just under 3 years. That is an extraordinary expansion, and people would say that that is possibly impossible. But, in fact, in 1990 it was $100 million and now it is $1.6 billion, so that expansion is pretty extraordinary.

The other important issue around this was the fact that New Zealand wines do obtain the highest value. It is approximately $9 a litre for New Zealand wines, around $7 a litre for Australian wines, and a miserable $5 a litre for French wines, which you would have expected, possibly, to have been higher. But New Zealand wines are in that high level. They are sought after—they are high quality and they are sought after around the world.

The European Union (EU) trade deal that is coming up is significant for us. There are 500 million high-value consumers, easily the highest value trading bloc that we will have the possibility of going into in terms of a market, and a bloc that appreciates wine as well. The possibilities of being able to export wine into the EU without tariffs much more freely is a tantalising one, and one that I think will push those exports of wine even further.

This is an industry that, therefore, needs to be protected. The Marlborough sauvignon blanc, as the Minister just said, needs to be protected. It will be Marlborough, and it will be sauvignon blanc. Likewise, with Otago pinot noir—exactly the same issue. It is like champagne in that it can be called champagne only if it is grown within the district of Champagne in France. Even feta cheese can be grown only in a particular place within Greece.

These are trademarks that need to be protected. They are important for exports and for keeping that value-added value up, and for New Zealand, having that designation of Marlborough sauvignon blanc or Otago pinot noir maintains the quality and ensures that no other wine growing area across the world—France, for example, grows much less-quality wine than we do—can somehow call their wine Marlborough sauvignon blanc if they ever wanted to do that.

This is a bill that, I think, has got widespread support right across the House. I do not think there is anybody who would disagree that this is good for New Zealand, it is good for exports, and it is good for our wine industry. As I say, I was particularly impressed by the way in which our wine industry has not just grown in numbers but also in terms of quality, and the way that that quality is appreciated right across the world.

The Air New Zealand wine awards—and I have got to say Air New Zealand does a terrific job in terms of promoting New Zealand wines, both on their flights and also in getting behind this event—saw that the pinot noir that finally got the supreme award came from a 3.6 hectare vineyard in Otago. Although, I have say, there is a pinot noir from Marlborough that was highly recommended as well. Certainly, Marlborough did extraordinarily well in terms of the awards that were handed out last weekend—the premium awards of the year in terms of wine.

Like the previous speaker, Paul Goldsmith, we acknowledge what has happened in Marlborough: the challenges they have faced because of the earthquakes, the challenges that they face now, and the damage that they have sustained in the past couple of days. We wish them very well in terms of being able to get back on their feet and begin their terrific work that they have up to now been able to undertake.

So, with that, I just want to note that this bill is a rather technical bill. It just brings into play the 2006 bill, which has been, as I say, on the books and languishing there for a long time until the Government woke up to the fact that it probably needs to get it through. It will mean that there is a registration fee paid in order to be able to designate those wines. It will mean that opposition to that designation can be heard, can be noted, and, dutifully, be able to be considered. A third issue that is in part of this bill is that any terms or terminology that are offensive to Māori can be acknowledged and considered as well. I think that is very important too as we go forward.

So, with that, I will finish early and say, once again, that Labour supports this bill wholeheartedly. It is a bill that Labour brought in in 2006 that the Government has sat on for the last 8 years. We want to see our wine industry growing as it has done over the past two decades and going from success to success. Once again, I congratulate them on their fine work. Thank you.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on the third reading of the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill as it passes through the House. I guess it is a little bit of a misnomer calling this bill a 2016 bill, as it was first passed in 2006 and, as the previous speaker, David Shearer, said, never brought into force.

💬 Todd Barclay: Good things take time.

Exactly. Good things do take a lot of time. It is nice to speak on a piece of positive legislation. It adds value to an industry on the move—$1.6 billion to the New Zealand economy and growing at a rate of around 10 percent a year. It is going to be very interesting to follow that growth over the next few years.

I think another really interesting point about the wine industry is that if you look back at Marlborough, perhaps, 30 years ago—I think I have said it before in this House—it looked very much like the walls of this House. Marlborough now is a very different place, and it just shows how regions change as the fortunes of the food and beverage industry change in New Zealand. It makes a massive difference to what goes on in those regions.

Having listened to the last couple of speakers in the House, I feel a little out of it because I was not invited to the wine awards. I do taste the odd wine, but I clearly am not quite up to the wine-growing skills of the next speaker on my side of the House, or the blackcurrant-growing skills of who I would imagine might be the next speaker on the other side of the House. I guess you could make some sort of fermented beverage out of those blackcurrants.

It would be remiss of me—and I know that the next speaker on our side of the House will talk about this at length—to not mention the massive earthquake that has affected much of the northern South Island’s wine-growing area, particularly, the Waipara and Awatere Valley regions—both names that may at some future date become registered as geographical indicators. We can only wish them well and assure them that all in this House will do everything possible to expedite their recovery.

The bill originally arose, as the previous speaker, David Shearer, said, out of an obligation under the World Trade Organization agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, obliging New Zealand to provide protection for geographical indicators. A geographical indicator indicates that a wine comes from a particular region, or a Scotch whisky, for example, comes from Scotland—and I assume it must be made using products from Scotland—and, likewise, champagne comes from the Champagne region of France. These are hugely well-known names that have been around for generations and generations.

💬 Paul Foster-Bell: What about bourbon?

I do not know anything about that stuff, Foz. Although we have a couple of wine growers in the Rangitīkei region, I find it unlikely that we will see a geographical indicator registered in the name of Rangitīkei. However, in due course we will see, I think, other sorts of food registered—not under this bill but under a bill that I am sure will come to this House at some stage in the future.

If you look around New Zealand now, in fact, you can—I think, on the menu in this House you can actually buy a thing called Rangītkei chicken from time to time. You can also buy Taupō beef. Taupō beef, of course, came about as a result of the changes to the environmental regulations around Lake Taupō: Taupō beef originated out of that. It was an attempt to prove that they could grow beef economically under the new environmental regime that ruled the verge or the catchment of Lake Taupō. It proved very successful. I think that we will see in the future, and there has been some discussion in the course of this bill—as there often is in the Primary Production Committee—around the opportunity for us to introduce a bill in the future that will provide for the opportunity to register geographical indicators around all sorts of other food. I think that is a pretty important point for us to remember.

But that is getting away from the object of this particular bill—and I am sure I will get there before you remind me of that. But this bill—as has been noted by the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and certainly by the speaker David Shearer, afterwards—is an extremely important piece of legislation from a New Zealand perspective. It will make a big difference going forward to our ability to attract markets and protect the regions of New Zealand, and perhaps even those individual towns or place names throughout New Zealand—particularly in the wine industry but also in other forms of spirit production. I guess that applies to blackcurrants.

So during the course of the select committee process we did make a couple or three basic changes to it. We talked about opposition procedures. Opposition procedures are really someone’s ability to appeal something, and so that was one of the significant things we dealt with. We also talked at length about the cultural issues and how we might look to protect cultural values as we move through the potential to register those geographical indicators. Also, there was some discussion about the renewal periods—in other words, the first renewal after 5 years, and subsequent to that those renewals will take place over 10 years.

I want to thank the select committee for robust discussion around most things that were not related to this legislation, but none the less we had robust discussion on a lot of issues. I also want to thank the industry because during the course of the submissions on this bill we had some very competent submissions and all of an ilk to support it. Thank you. I look forward to this becoming legislation.

I acknowledge the good work of the chair of the Primary Production Committee over there, a man who should be a Minister, in my view, but the Government obviously does not understand true potential.

Can I firstly acknowledge, as other speakers have, the wine industry and all those connected to it, and all those people living in Marlborough because—and Stuart Smith is over there—it is a tough time there, and I would just like to acknowledge their efforts to get the region back up on its feet. We wish you all the very best.

The winegrowers will probably be hoping that, like a good wine, good things take time. In view of the fact that this piece of legislation has taken 10 years to come into force, they will be hoping that it is a good piece of legislation. I have to say that the select committee put its mind to that objective, and I think it generally did a good job, but we did have a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) brought to the Chamber at the latter stages to tidy up a few things that we had missed—that officials had not alerted us to. SOP 244 was about the interested persons who may oppose a proposed removal of a geographical indicator, or someone from that.

This is, effectively, a technical bill. It is trying to protect New Zealand winegrowers in their regions, where they grow the wine and produce it, and it is trying to protect their right to retain and build on their region’s reputation through the fine products they sell, whether it be Marlborough sauvignon blanc, Central Otago pinot noir, or, indeed, Nelson pinot gris. We are getting an evolution and a development in the wine industry and it is something I think we should be very proud of. This bill will, hopefully, help them to move along that path.

But we did have to look at some of the minor technical issues, and one in the Supplementary Order Paper that I referred to, which Labour supported, is a tidy up. It is around protection for individuals in any part of the system. Most of the time we have to protect the rights of smaller players. I refer to a very innovative wine company in Central Otago that ended up putting resveratrol back in its wine and marketing it as a positive aspect of the wine. Resveratrol is a by-product of the ultrafiltration process in the wine industry, just as permeate is a by-product of the ultrafiltration process for milk. The dairy industry has been adding permeate back for years and years. No one blinks an eye.

But when this innovative company in Central Otago added resveratrol back in and put a sticker on the bottle, it, effectively, had the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) telling it to take that wine off the shelves. There was a slight glitch, I have to say, by an overenthusiastic marketer who said that there might be additional health benefits from the additional resveratrol. The long and short of that is that we had a real battle to get MPI to pull its head in and acknowledge that resveratrol, like permeate, is a by-product of the normal process of making wine—the point being that we hope, as a select committee, we have got the right protections in this legislation for all the big and little players to ensure that their efforts and their passion in building a wine that is unique to their region can be protected over time, and, hopefully, to ensure that all their efforts in marketing will amount to them getting greater value for their efforts.

I think this has done a lot of other good things as well. We have changed the percentage of grapes that must come from a region if you are to put on a geographical indicator, say that the wine is from that region, and be protected by this legislation. We have changed that percentage from 85 percent to 100 percent, and I think that is great. The industry has developed and evolved to a point where it should be able to get sufficient grapes to do that.

I guess they might be mind-numbingly technical issues for many, but I have to say the vast majority of New Zealanders enjoy wine and the wine industry, and I think they want to, as the officials reported in their report to the select committee, be sure that they are getting what they are told they are getting. We want to provide consumers of wines or spirits with greater certainty that a wine or spirit labelled with a geographical indicator actually originated from the region identified by the geographical indicator—a very fair assumption by consumers.

So why would the Government not do that with food? Why will it not do it with food if we are so determined to do it with wine? In fact, there is a very good argument that says that wine is far less risky as a consumable product than is food and that if we know where the food is coming from and have some assurance about the possible or the likely or the most probable way that it is being produced, then consumers can make the judgment when they purchase that. But this Government continues to block country-of-origin labelling, which Australia and New Zealand should have but we have an exemption to. That is somewhat strange.

I know the members over there cannot get the connection between geographical indicators that are designed to assure consumers about wine and geographical indicators that are designed to assure consumers about food. The Government does not want to assure consumers about the food they have got. Government members are consistently inconsistent—I will certainly say that to them. I think it would be great to see them bring to this House—in fact, I think they need only change the regulations in order to be able to actually implement compulsory country-of-origin labelling in New Zealand. Labour will do that when we get into Government next year—[Interruption]—so you can take some credit for it and do it now or you can wait and we will do it at the end of next year.

As my colleague David Shearer said, the new movement on this legislation—it has sat around like a bottle of old wine for 10 years—has been because of a possible EU trade agreement. I think every one of us—well, we were all enthusiastic until Brexit—was looking forward to an EU trade agreement that would have broken down the barriers that are currently in the EU for a lot of our products. I am not sure where that is going to go, but one of the things that Europe does do is enforce and promote and highlight and enhance geographical indicators for its food, and we do not.

We do not even have country-of-origin labelling. We do not even say it comes from New Zealand, let alone that some of the food we consume may come from the Manawatū. I understand there is some very good lamb that comes from the Manawatū. In fact, I know the chairman of the Primary Production Committee, Ian McKelvie, has brought it on a regular basis to the select committee, and I think it should be marketed as Manawatū lamb. There is Canterbury lamb, which we have had for many years, and we have beef from Rangitīkei, or whatever. But until we develop stories that connect to the wonderful geographical regions in this country that can produce such good food, I think we are missing huge potential value for the producers and for the country.

Geographical indicators, as they are implemented in Europe, must be implemented here in New Zealand, and we must respect one another’s geographical indicators before we have a trade agreement with the EU. The Government knows that. It knows that until we take the next step around food there is no deal with the EU, because those countries have a culture and a history that acknowledges the value of the cheeses and the food and the meats that come from different parts of Europe. We should never try to undermine that. We should be trying to enhance it. We should be trying to develop it here in New Zealand, rather than just sending frozen lamb to the EU countries and expecting them to pay a whole lot more for it. If we can develop a story and get lamb from a particular part of New Zealand, and tell a story and show them how we grow it with such pride and passion, I am sure they will pay a little bit more for it.

I have to put on the table, as I did earlier in this legislation, that I would like to develop a geographical indicator for Golden Bay—and for the West Coast. Golden Bay is a geographical area in the north of my electorate—like Marlborough is in Mr Stuart Smith’s—and it has an amazing group of innovative people. It has an amazing dairy industry, it has aquaculture, and it has a fishing industry, and we could develop a geographical indicator that gives us a premium for Golden Bay - produced products. That is where we must go—like Marlborough producers did so successfully with their sauvignon blanc. I congratulate them on what they did. What we have to do is learn from that success and apply geographical indicators across the country for all our primary produce. Thank you.

It is almost a bitter-sweet day for the wine industry to have what is a fantastic and much-looked-forward-to bill passing through the House only a few hours, really, after an earthquake that has done some damage to the wine industry. My thoughts go out to the wineries concerned. I know some of them have lost stock and have had some damage done. You know, we cannot do anything about that now but get into the recovery stage. We are all, across the House, I am sure, united in sparing a thought for those people.

It was a great opportunity on Saturday night to share a great night of celebration with David Shearer, Jacinda Arden, David Seymour, and Alastair Scott at the Air New Zealand Wine Awards. It was a fantastic night—

💬 Kris Faafoi: What about Ian?

—to celebrate. Oh no, Ian McKelvie was not there. There was not any Rangitīkei lamb there, so Ian could not turn up. But it was a fantastic night and it was about celebrating what is unique about the wine industry, and that is provenance. That is what is at the heart of this bill. It is about provenance, so the consumer identifies with the wine, where it comes from, who produces it, and the variety it is, and they are prepared to pay for it. If you do not have that you have a commodity, and the wine industry recognises that.

The reason the bill has taken to this point to be enacted has been well canvassed by others, but I know I have travelled the road, really, with this legislation, from the first bill and now the amendment bill, through the stages. I think it is vital for the industry that we have a good legislative framework to operate under. Trade deals and international trade are not simple matters, and it is quite important to do things right. I am confident that we have done it in the right order; we are in the right space. But I know the industry is very much looking forward to it, and I know there are representatives here tonight, waiting anxiously to see this bill pass through this stage. I cannot see why any thinking person would not agree that this is a wonderful piece of legislation.

I really would like to just finish by going back to the wine awards on Saturday night, and I must agree with David Shearer’s words that the people who were at that event on Saturday night really epitomised what it is that makes a product so special. They were the people who were involved in planting the vines, growing the grapes, making the wine, and then, as one person put it to me very early on—Peter Hubscher, who used to be the chief executive of Montana Wines—

💬 Stuart Nash: Great Hawke’s Bay man.

Yes, he is a great Hawke’s Bay man. That is quite right. He said that “Growing the grapes and making the wine is really only half the job. Selling it is the hard bit.”, and that is what this bill is all about. It is about getting that assured legislative framework, so that the consumer knows that when they pick up a bottle of Marlborough sauvignon blanc or Hawke’s Bay cabernet sauvignon or a Central Otago pinot noir, those wines are what they say they are and they come from New Zealand. So it is with great pleasure that I commend this very good bill to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to talk about the wine industry, and, like others, I acknowledge the loss that the wine industry has suffered, both human and material, in the earthquake. Our sympathies go out to those people in dealing with the earthquake and its aftershocks.

The Green Party supports this bill. We recognise the importance of geographical indicators to support the wonderful work of our wine sector in securing and maintaining a significant price premium in international markets, and, like other speakers, I would like to echo the fact that growing great grapes and making great wine is only half the story. You have to sell it, and full recognition to the industry—and, in particular, the leaders in the industry—for doing that very successfully around the world.

The identification of varietals like sauvignon blanc and pinot noir with New Zealand will be further supported by the ability to recognise geographical areas, including Marlborough, Central Otago, Hawke’s Bay, Gisborne, Martinborough, Te Kauwhata, Wairarapa, and Waiheke Island. Our wine sector exports a total of $1.6 billion a year. It is our sixth-largest export, with significant opportunities for further growth. I note that there has been huge support for this bill from 133 submitters and far beyond. It protects our producers from misuse of the New Zealand brand and geographical brands in overseas markets, and it is important.

However, we have two additional points to make: firstly, to address the question of what took so long. This is an amendment to the wine and spirits registration Act of 2006, which never came into force. Obviously, the changed plans with regard to a trade agreement with the European Union were part of that, but we think that this approach to value addition for our primary products is crucial for adding and defending value, and together with the good work of the wine sector in certifying sustainability across the whole sector, it is a really important ingredient of maintaining our strong international position. So we think the lack of progress in getting this bill passed and the Government’s lack of enthusiasm on issues like sustainability may be contributors to the lack of progress in meeting the Government’s targets of increasing our exports to 40 percent of gross domestic product.

In fact, as many people know, the proportion of exports as a percentage of GDP actually declined from 31 percent in 2008 to 29 percent last year—going in the wrong direction. The related message is: if the geographical indications are so good for a wine, why stop there? I echo the previous speaker, Damien O’Connor, in saying that our food system has to be built on the combination of high-quality products with unique characteristics, built on diverse environments and production styles. We want consumers to know where our products come from and who makes them. These are the characteristics of high-value local economies.

Just by explanation, the European Union not only has geographical indicators, it has two other designations as well: protected designation of origin, which talks about the know-how embodied in processing, and traditional speciality guaranteed, which highlights the traditional character of the unique products from each area. These designations protect meat and meat products, cheeses, beer, fruit, and flowers.

In New Zealand, it has been long recognised that we need to get beyond commodity production. Here is an opportunity, through building on geographical indicators, for our food as well as our wines. So, bring it on—Bluff oysters, Morrinsville cheese, Pukekohe potatoes, Ōhākune carrots, Waiheke olives, Taupō beef, and maybe even Pongakawa kiwifruit.

We support this bill, but we call for real action to support the development of our food sector as well, to emulate the success of the viticultural sector, so we can develop more sustainability and a higher value, rather than a commodity-based food system. We want a community-based food system based on a consumer’s right to know, and country-of-origin labelling.

We support this bill, and we commend the great work of the leaders amongst our wine-growing industry, as well as the leaders and the further potential in our food industry. Thank you.

I am pleased to rise and take a third and final call on the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will not be voting for this bill, despite the fact that we acknowledge the need for it, and despite the fact that we agree with almost everything in it.

It is a good bill in almost all regards. [Interruption] It is certainly a necessary bill—in almost all regards. It is certainly a necessary bill, in terms of what it does, and, indeed, what it needs to do, for the wine industry, and for New Zealand’s trade in general. Other speakers have made mention of the value of registered geographical identifiers for other products—cheese, honey, red meat, and so forth, as Damien O’Connor and other speakers on the other side have said. There are other primary exports that could benefit from being linked certainly with New Zealand by taking advantage of Brand New Zealand—but also going beyond that by being associated with particular regional flavours. I agree with the chair of the Primary Production Committee that that is something that the House will almost certainly come to consider, hopefully, not too many years from now, but that is a discussion for a different day.

This bill concerns the wine industry, and, being a winemaker and viticulturist by trade, it is something that I have a particular attachment to. I have to say, as members will acknowledge, I think, that New Zealand wines are amongst the best in the world, if not the best in the world. Certainly, in terms of two of our flagship varieties, those being Marlborough sauvignon blanc and Central Otago pinot noir, they are arguably the best in their classes in the world, and acknowledged as being such by recognised experts.

There are reasons for this, obviously, and they go to the heart of what this bill is about. Marlborough has comparable soils and climate to the Loire Valley in France, which is the home of sauvignon blanc, and that is coupled with, perhaps, a better climate and something else: there is a French word, “terroir”, for which there is no direct English translation, but it kind of means “the spirit of the land”. It is the combination of the soils, the climate, and something intangible that imparts itself to the wine that people come to recognise with some sense beyond the physical senses. That really is the essence of what this regional identifier gets to. There is only one place in the world that can create a wine that has a certain “terroir”, and that is what this is about.

I seem to recall, a number of years ago, a wine company—I think it was an Argentinian wine company—attempting to market what they called a “Marlborough-style” sauvignon blanc. It is this very situation that this bill is attempting to overcome, and, in fact, it may well have been the genesis of the original bill back in 2006. Likewise, the very best pinot noir in the world is grown in Central Otago, and, more particularly, in the Alexandra basin and on the Bendigo Loop Road, although it is fair to say that Waipara is catching up, as some of its vines have now got some proper age under their belts and are starting to mature a little.

These names need to be protected, and these geographical identifiers that link unrivalled quality with particular places need to be recognised and protected. That is for the good of the industry and the good of New Zealand Inc. as a whole. We need to provide this protection. We need to be able to say to our trading partners that we will recognise their unique geographic identifiers as well and respect those names, and recognise and respect the intellectual property, the ownership, and the investment that they have in them. Other Governments in other jurisdictions will reciprocate that.

So this is an important bill, and the issues it addresses are important. That is why it is very frustrating that we have had to pull our support because of the refusal on the part of the Government to remove from it the one clause that makes it untenable—the one completely unnecessary clause that gives special status and favourable treatment to Māori. New Zealand First has argued in the latter stages of this bill against the inclusion of special recognition, special concern for whether or not Māori are going to take offence, and a special advisory body that needs to be consulted, and that will not be free—you can bet the vineyard on that. That will come at a cost to wine and spirits makers, and it will introduce another delay. Both of these things are completely unnecessary and completely unjustifiable.

We just simply cannot let that go unchallenged. New Zealand First cannot sit by and say nothing while this rampantly PC National Government enacts yet another piece of racially-biased legislation. There is no requirement for any kind of special procedure to determine whether or not a proposed geographical indicator for a wine or spirit is, or could be, offensive to anyone other than Māori. The bill in new section 13A, inserted by clause 10, says: “… a significant section of community, including Māori.” Well, of course, a significant section of the community would include Māori, and it would include women, and it would include superannuitants—and the disabled, and cat lovers, and left-handed people, and any other significant sections of society that you care to name.

Of course, Māori would be sizeably represented in any of those particular designations because they are a significant part of—guess what—the whole of New Zealand society. But the bill does not make any special reference to any of these other groups. It does not provide special recognition for people of Scottish ancestry or Dutch or Samoan or anything else. But it does take another step towards the creation of two separate societies here in New Zealand. It does reinforce the National Party’s desire to appease a few Māori separatists: people who seek to divide this nation, to create division where there should be none.

I have no doubt that the clauses in the bill are solely to placate the racially-based Māori Party on whose votes this Government depends. They appear quite happy to sell out any principle at all in return for the guarantee of staying in power, and that is a sad thing for the wine industry and for this bill. The clause is neither necessary nor useful. In fact, it is the antithesis of those things. And incorporating it in this bill, actually, the Government has hijacked what in other ways is a very useful and necessary piece of legislation.

We offered a compromise. New Zealand First offered a compromise in the form of the Geographic Board instead of a special Māori advisory committee, which could be consulted to see whether a proposed name for a geographic wine region might be offensive to anyone. The Geographic Board does, after all, deal with place names and, essentially, this bill is about place names—names of places. But the Minister said that would not be appropriate and, frankly, I struggle to think of a situation where it would be more appropriate to have the Geographic Board involved than in a bill that deals with geographic place names.

But the bill will pass, because the Government has the numbers, and I am glad that the wine industry and New Zealand’s trade will benefit from it. I am sorry that it will cost them time and money for a part of the process that is counter-productive and completely unnecessary. I am deeply saddened that Māori are patronised and insulted by the inclusion of clause 21B, and I am deeply disappointed that the National Government has chosen to use it as an excuse to cynically advance the separation and division of races in this country. We are meant to be one people, one country—New Zealanders all of us, with one law for all. But this bill contains two laws: one law for Māori and one for everybody else. In other ways, this bill is perfectly acceptable; in this one way, it is utterly unacceptable. New Zealand First stands for one law for everybody, and for that reason we cannot support this bill. Thank you.

I always find myself speaking after Mr Prosser on this bill, or on any bill actually. It never ceases to amaze me how the New Zealand First Party can always manage to focus on the minutiae of any particular piece of legislation, and this is just another case in point—talking about separatism on a piece of legislation that is fundamental towards actually advancing the prosperity of our wine and spirits industries on a global stage.

Representing an electorate that is the home of Central Otago pinot noir—well, half-shared with Jacqui Dean from the Waitaki electorate—this is a welcome piece of legislation for many of my constituents, because they see this as an opportunity to protect the significant amount of investment, bloodshed, and tears that they put into making the product the pristine premium brand that it is on the international stage. In that regard I want to acknowledge what the previous speakers have said—the tragedy that has taken place in the Kaikōura region. I would particularly like to acknowledge my colleague the MP for Kaikōura, Stuart Smith, who has done a phenomenal job putting his heart and soul into backing his constituents, many of whom are affected by this bill, actually, although it is probably the last thing on their minds at this point in time.

As he mentioned in his speech, he has progressed with this bill through all of its stages prior to entering into Parliament. I think that the background and the knowledge and the respect that he has within the industry—seeing that shepherd this bill through in its final stages has been a real mark of respect to the work that he has done prior to coming into Parliament as the chair of the winegrowers’ association and as the owner of a winery and a number of wine brands himself, and also being able to translate it into his work on the Primary Production Committee. I want to acknowledge what he is doing for his constituents now.

As I say, this by no means puts them at rest by any extent, because there has been a rather significant impact on the wine industry as a result of the earthquakes. I think what it does show is that it is one less thing that they have to worry about when normality kicks back in—hopefully, in the not too distant future—that is, that their brands and their businesses can be protected at least on the global stage where the brands that they have developed are competing with other brands, envious brands, in countries where the quality of the products are not as good as ours. It is an honour and a privilege to commend this bill. Thank you.

I am pleased to take a short call on the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill. I do not often agree with Mr Barclay but I do endorse the comments he made then about Stuart Smith’s expertise in relation to wine and also the huge impact that the earthquakes have had on the wine industry. Yes, this will certainly be furthest from their minds at the moment, but we hope, of course, that they will be in a position to enjoy the improvement in the ability to market that this bill will bring with the next season’s vintage. We hope that they will be able to save some of this season’s, though I gather there has been quite extensive loss of the vintage.

Others have commented on the value of wine exports—$1.5 billion annually and forecast to reach $2 billion by 2020. The Green Party of course is supporting the bill in recognition of the importance of the industry but also because of the basic principle of provenance, of terroir, of consumers wanting to know where their food comes from and the fact that where it is grown can significantly influence the taste and the quality of what is produced. So, as others have said, this bill should not be applying just to wine and spirits; the Government should have a much larger vision, given the importance to our economy of food in our exports, for applying this concept of provenance to food products as well as to wine.

We have seen strong support from the industry in submissions on the bill. I was not on the Primary Production Committee, but the Villa Maria Estate, for example, said that years of investment in branding could be undermined if non - New Zealand producers sought to copy our wine, or to blend wine produced offshore with New Zealand wine and then market it as New Zealand wine. Of course, that will lead to a loss of reputation as poorer-quality wine is marketed as New Zealand wine. So this bill is about preventing that from happening by enabling the registration of geographic areas, such as Marlborough for sauvignon blanc, and by requiring that 100 percent of the grapes must be grown in New Zealand if the wine is to be called New Zealand wine, and that if the wine is to be associated with a particular region, then the grapes must be grown there.

The industry has wanted this formalisation of the ability to protect wine regions’ names and boundaries for some time. As my colleague Barry Coates noted, this is common in Europe, and it is an unparalleled opportunity to be able to tell our stories about where wine is grown and how it is produced. It is really unfortunate that the Government has not looked at doing this with food, both in relation to country-of-origin labelling—which it has resolutely opposed, despite Australia introducing legislation to establish it this year, and that legislation coming into force in 2 years’ time, and despite the ease with which the industry could pick up a lot of the standards because of the commonality of produce across the two countries and markets. We need to extend it to food so that we can get a premium in international markets for the food that we produce.

You only have to look at the Coastal Spring Lamb story, where the Rangitīkei lamb won the Supreme Award at Massey University’s New Zealand Food Awards recently. That business has gone from just a single farming operation to a multimillion-dollar company in 6 years, with 12 farmer suppliers producing for the domestic market and another eight for export. It has done that because it has told the story of the Coastal Spring Lamb—of the pastures that get sea spray, so that affects the taste of the lamb; the young age of the lamb when it is killed. It is a whole story around that about provenance, which consumers want to hear. They want to know that the meat they are eating is free-range. They want to know the farming systems that have produced it. They want the association with farmer-owners and the stories that those people can tell about growing food on their land.

So this is a lost opportunity—that we are not applying this bill to food products and establishing a similar registration for horticultural produce and for meat products to that that we are establishing for wine and spirits. We hope that we get into Government next year, and as Damien O’Connor noted, the Labour-Green Government would be introducing legislation to extend the system of provenance and registration to food.

Can I just comment on New Zealand First: it is outrageous that—

Order! The member’s time has expired somewhat.

Speaking on the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill, in my view this legislates what is already happening currently. I mean, we all know about Marlborough sauvignon blanc, Otago pinot noir, and, of course, Hawke’s Bay syrah and chardonnay. Most of us can tell you about the regional variations, but very few of us can tell you the brands associated with those variations. So I just think that what this is doing is sort of codifying what happens already.

The one thing I would say is that I firmly believe that winemakers are inherently honest anyway. I do not think you are going to get a winemaker who is going to say their brand is from Hawke’s Bay—even though everyone wants to be from Hawke’s Bay—when it is not. They understand the damage they can do to their brand by being dishonest—in fact, not only to their own personal brand but probably the country’s brand. So what this does, in a way, is certainly to codify what is happening at this point in time.

There are three points that I would want to make: (1) the value of a brand; (2) a couple of advantages of this; and (3) a couple of concerns that I have. I have got only 4 minutes, so let me start. The first question I would like to ask is: how much is a brand actually worth? I mean, what are we actually protecting here? In 2005 the Ministry of Economic Development tried to quantify the value of “Brand New Zealand”. It came up with a figure of $20 billion a year. That is how much, in an overseas market, the “clean, green” and “100% Pure” brand is worth. PricewaterhouseCoopers did a study and it showed that 80 percent of those who are exporting leverage off our brand, so our national brand is worth a considerable amount of money in global markets. But I think, certainly in the wine industry, we have matured to the point where brands have evolved to a point where we can actually use sub-brands in overseas markets to differentiate quality and distinctive character.

The other thing, also—it is not just the producers that this legislation is protecting; it is also the consumers. When you buy a good Hawke’s Bay wine, you have an expectation that it is going to be ultra-premium. This is also sending a message that we understand the value to the market but we also understand the integrity of the producers themselves.

I must admit that this legislation does seem at odds with Nick Smith’s moves within the Resource Management Act to take away the ability of regions to, for example, declare themselves GE-free. In Hawke’s Bay we would like to declare ourselves GE-free, but Nick Smith says that cannot happen, which is at odds with this legislation, because I think that regional brands can be very, very powerful if done well, like is happening in Hawke’s Bay.

I do have a couple of concerns. First and foremost, the registration of geographic indication in this bill is effective for only 5 years. In the initial bill it was for 10 years, but for some reason the Primary Production Committee has pared it back to 5 years. Anyone who knows anything about marketing or brand development will tell you that an investment in a brand is often about time, it is about building up the attributes that sit behind that brand, and it is not done overnight. I suppose the one concern I have is that there is a possibility that wine producers within a region invest heavily in the brand for that region but find that in 5 years’ time they are not allowed to re-register. I am just unsure why the select committee saw fit to reduce the time of registration from 10 years down to 5 years.

The other concern I have is that, looking through this bill, it actually does not allude to any penalties at all or to any sort of penalty regime for actually breaking the rules. I could be wrong; I have had a look through it a couple of times. The thing we are trying to say here, first and foremost, is that brands are vitally important and wineries understand the value of brands, but the other thing that I think we need to make very clear is that if you break those rules, or if a winery or a wine agent or a distributor breaks those rules, then we need to send a very clear message that that will not be tolerated. I think we should come down quite hard on that.

The third point I have a concern about is that it talks about continuity of use in this bill. Continuity of use is defined as 32 years or, if a producer has been using a brand in good faith, 22 years. Yet they are only allowing registration for 5 years. That seems a little bit incongruous, and I am not too sure why they have done that.

Having said that, I am fully supportive of this legislation, especially coming from the top wine-growing region in New Zealand—that is the Hawke’s Bay. I know this will only add value. I do not see there being any downside. I just think it could have been slightly wider in order to protect the value of a brand as it is developed by certain wineries within a region. Thank you very much.

It is a pleasure to take a short call on the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill. Although it is around wines in this particular situation, I also, as others have done, want to make mention of the terrible circumstances that have hit Kaikōura and that region in the last few days, because if there is a place in New Zealand that is very proud, that whole area is proud of its wine. We have talked a lot about the New Zealand story and food stories tonight in the House, and we have actually seen the pāua, we have seen the crayfish, we have seen the cows on the top of the hill, we have seen some of the wineries, we have seen the damage, and it is a very sad story for food in New Zealand at this particular time for that electorate.

I would also like to acknowledge my colleague Stuart Smith. There is nothing better than watching things go well in your electorate, and it must be extremely tough for Stuart at the moment just watching everything go completely wrong. It will be really important that we all get behind him in every way we possibly can.

We have talked today a lot about the story of food. That is why I am particularly disappointed with the New Zealand First stance on this. Mr Prosser knows that; we have had conversations around this. We have talked a lot about our story and then to be picky on clauses—I mean, our culture and heritage are around our Māori heritage and around culture. I just think it is really disappointing to make those comparisons with a whole lot of different minority groups in terms of supporting his opposing of this bill, because this is all part of our culture, this is part of our story, and I am really disappointed that we cannot pass this bill unanimously in the House.

We are extremely proud of our wines: 97 percent of wine production is exported, mostly at the moment to Australia, to Europe, and to North America. China and Asia are really starting to come on board with the wines from this country. It is already a $1.6 billion industry, and it is hoping to head, by 2020, to a $2 billion industry. I am hoping that the setbacks of the last couple of days, particularly in that part of the country, are not having too large an impact on that. It is a real pleasure to take a call and support this piece of legislation in the House. Thank you.

Can I join with the member who has just spoken in sending my sympathies to some of the winemakers in and around the Kaikōura electorate and also in North Canterbury who obviously have had some of their production affected by the events of the last 48 hours. I hope that they can continue with business as usual as soon as possible, because, as has been mentioned a number of times by a number of speakers already in this debate, some of those industries, both large and small, are very important to those areas that have been affected quite markedly by the quakes over the last 48 hours. Also, I should acknowledge Stuart Smith, the MP for Kaikōura, and our colleague on this side of the House, Rino Tirikatene, who is the MP for the whole of the South Island, who is down there doing some good work as well. Our thoughts obviously go out to the people of Kaikōura.

This piece of legislation has come about because our wine is good, and because we want to protect the integrity of that and do not want to see anyone else making money off it by scurrilous means, we want to protect the geographical indicators of our wine. I guess in plain English that means where it has come from. In the past anything that has had 85 percent of the grapes within it from New Zealand has been able to be passed as New Zealand wine; 15 percent of it could have been from anywhere else and it could have still been passed as New Zealand wine. This piece of legislation will mean that 100 percent of the grapes that go into making wine, whether it be for domestic consumption or for export consumption, have to be 100 percent New Zealand grapes to be passed as a local wine.

I am the one who has to see this out to the end of night, but it is an important piece of legislation. Someone has already tested it, about 3 years ago, when the Woolworths supermarkets in Australia were taken to court here in New Zealand for trying to trademark the South Island and an image of a mountain that bore a very close resemblance to Mount Cook. Woolworths was taken to court by New Zealand Winegrowers and it lost the ability to trademark the South Island as a brand and to have that logo. Interestingly enough, though, in Australia it has won the ability to have the South Island trademark as a brand. But there is an exception to that rule. Woolworths cannot protest if another brand of wine comes on the market that bears the South Island trademark, which obviously New Zealand winegrowers will be very happy with.

With the couple of minutes that I have got left, I think I do have to, again, as a previous speaker said, mark my protest at the New Zealand First point of opposition to this piece of legislation around the opposition process around Māori trademarks. I think it is a good thing. The select committee has put in a process, an advisory council, to make sure that has been done, so I think that is a good thing and that New Zealand First should rethink its opposition to this piece of legislation.

Also, around the 5-year trademark, I understand from my colleague Stuart Nash that that is around making sure it is financially sustainable—to make sure it can pay for itself—so that of course is also a good thing for the select committee to have done. I think that is all I should say at this stage.