Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)Registration Bill — Third Reading 
Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)Registration Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6449] 
Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)Registration Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill repeals and replaces the Geographical Indications Act of 1994 which was passed following negotiation of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs agreement). This is a multilateral agreement that sets basic standards of intellectual property protection which include geographical indications. Geographical indications as defined by that agreement identify that a good has originated from a place and has a certain quality reputation or other characteristic that is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. World Trade Organization members were given the flexibility to choose how to give effect to those obligations. A number of international developments since the 1994 Act was drafted however mean that the Act is now out of date. 
Geographical indications are collective rights which means they are not owned by any group or individual. No matter who applies for a geographical indication once it is registered it can be used by any producer large or small who falls within the geographical indication region and who complies with the requirements of this Act. 
A robust and up-to-date intellectual property rights regime is an essential part of an innovative growing economy and well-defined enforceable intellectual property rights help provide incentives for this innovation and creativity. Geographical indications form part of that intellectual property system so for producers of wines and spirits geographical indications can be a marketing and branding tool that alongside trademarks creates recognition for their products. Geographical indications can also support regional efforts to establish and develop a quality geographical label from which all producers in the area can benefit. 
Geographical indications also help consumers to have information about a wine or a spirit communicated to them quickly and efficiently. They can help consumers make informed choices regarding the origin and authenticity of the product. As the reputation of New Zealand wines is growing worldwide consumers here and overseas are increasingly interested in particular New Zealand wine regions and their products. This bill will put in place a robust and efficient process of wine and spirit geographical indication registration a system that is based on voluntary registration for both New Zealand and international wine and spirit geographical indications and that is consistent with our international obligations. 
The bill limits registration to geographical indications for wines and spirits only. The TRIPs agreement accords two levels of protection for geographical indications. The first is a minimum level that applies to all goods and requires Governments to provide measures to prevent geographical indications from being used in a misleading or confusing manner. The second is a higher level that applies to wines and spirits only. The second higher level of protection requires Governments to provide measures to prevent the use of a geographical indication on a wine or a spirit that does not originate from the area indicated regardless of whether any use misleads or confuses consumers. The protection given to registered geographical indications by the bill is specifically tailored to meet New Zealand’s obligations under the second level of protection. 
The registration mechanism provided in the bill is voluntary and complements rather than replaces existing legal mechanisms that apply to geographical indications. Unregistered geographical indications for all products—wines spirits and other products—will continue to be covered by the Fair Trading Act 1986 and the common law tort on passing off. This bill does not seek to reinvent the wheel so it does not seek to create a whole new set of infringement provisions and penalties. Instead a breach of the bill will be treated as a breach of the Fair Trading Act and the penalties available under that legislation will apply. That makes sense given the important role of geographical indications in consumer information. 
The bill contains a new definition of a geographical indication to ensure that only those geographical indications for wines and spirits that meet the standards of the TRIPs agreement are able to be registered under the Act. In order to meet the definition a term must indicate that a wine or spirit originates from a defined area and has a particular quality reputation or other characteristic of a wine or spirit that is essentially attributable to its geographic origin. Getting these decisions right will be important both for the industry and for New Zealand as a whole and the Government has listened closely to concerns expressed by the wine industry about the decision-making mechanisms in the bill. The Registrar of Registered Geographical Indications will be able to seek advice from those with the relevant skills and knowledge in determining whether a term is a geographical indication and in particular will have the power to convene an experts committee. The bill provides for mandatory wine or spirit industry involvement in that committee to ensure that all proper expertise is brought to the table. 
The TRIPs agreement establishes a balance of rights and obligations for the protection of geographical indications. This balance includes certain limitations of and exceptions from geographical indication protection and the bill incorporates all the limitations and exceptions provided by that agreement. For example terms that are common descriptions or that are considered generic in the New Zealand market will not be protected—a spirit name such as vodka for example. Similarly the bill also clarifies the relationship between trademarks and geographical indications. New Zealand has obligations under the TRIPS agreement in respect of trademarks as well as geographical indications and it is important that pre-existing rights within New Zealand are not unfairly restricted. Consistent with New Zealand’s position internationally on this issue the bill implements a “first in time first in right” principle for determining which has priority. That means that in most cases where a trademark already exists it will prevent the registration of a later-filed geographical indication and vice versa. In very limited circumstances the bill allows for the potential for a later-filed geographical indication to be registered despite a pre-existing trademark having priority or for the two to coexist. There is also provision in the bill that geographical indications identical in name or sound but relating to different geographical areas can be allowed. As registration is not compulsory the bill introduces an exception ensuring that unregistered identical geographical indications remain unaffected by the bill. 
As I have already noted the bill enables the registrar to establish an experts committee to provide advice to the registrar. The bill also stipulates that each committee must include the Surveyor-General and a member of the New Zealand Geographic Board if their expertise is required. The registrar may then appoint as members of the committee any other people whom he or she considers appropriate. In response to concerns raised by New Zealand WineGrowers about the composition of the committee the Government moved to accommodate that organisation’s views. The changes made by the Supplementary Order Paper included an amendment to the composition of the geographical indications committee that required that someone with knowledge of the wine or spirits industries always be part of the committee. This shows that the consultation with the industries was wide and they have expressed their general support for the bill. The Government has continued to engage with industry representatives and we have done our best in this bill to accommodate their concerns. 
The bill provides for a modern efficient voluntary registration process for wine and spirit geographical indications which will provide legal certainty for producers without stifling innovation. The bill will also help consumers make informed choices about the wines and spirits they buy and where they originate from. It does so in a manner that ensures that New Zealand continues to meet its obligations under the TRIPs agreement but without we hope adding unnecessary red tape for anyone particularly producers. This bill forms part of this Government’s commitment to our burgeoning wine industry and our emerging spirits industry. It is also part of the Government’s wide-ranging reform of intellectual property law in general. 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 National supports the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill. The process in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee was very extensive as the Minister Judith Tizard has outlined and on most matters it has been a very collegial process with very few differences between us. There is one point of remaining difference. Whether it is a small point or a large point will simply depend on the way in which practice evolves and I will come to that presently. But I do not want that to obscure the underlying large measure of agreement here. The whole field of intellectual property law is really crucial to an objective that is shared right across the House which is to transform our economy by getting higher value out of the great resource base of this country. Protecting the intellectual property of that resource base is an absolutely essential prerequisite to that process. 
Nevertheless there is not a high level of public understanding of this issue. I was giving a speech earlier this afternoon to a group of folk who are involved in the export and agriculture industries. When they asked me whether I could stay for a little longer and I explained that I was required here to speak on geographical indications I do not think a single member of them immediately understood what I was talking about. That was fair enough because the term itself is a pretty forbidding one. 
But although we have been slow as a country—and I do not exclude myself from that in any respect—to understand the power of this issue and the importance of it I think we are amending that process in a constructive way. We have done this as we have moved forward particularly in agriculture in an increasingly sophisticated way. I would like to pay tribute to the increasing sophistication of not just the wine industry which is the central industry involved in this particular case but agriculture industries right across the board in the course of the last 20 years. For example 90 percent of our lamb exported in 1970 was in carcass form; the figure is less than 5 percent today. So we are getting the message. We are heading in the right direction and having the right legal frameworks around intellectual property law is certainly a part of it. 
Like the Minister I commend the New Zealand wine industry for having built itself up. I would say frankly that the stick played as much part as the carrot in this process. I remember very well that during the CER negotiations the New Zealand wine industry was absolutely convinced it could not export and saw CER as a great threat. But to its great credit it made adjustments and we are now looking at exports worth a fraction under $500 million a year. That is a success story that I think will serve future generations of New Zealanders extremely well. 
I will just pick out one or two of the key provisions of the legislation. The first one is the central point about clause 6 using the existing definition in article 22.1 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs agreement). It is very important that domestic legislation that enables international treaties simply mirrors the exact provisions of those agreements if at all possible. I remember once being on a dispute settlement panel between India and the United States where a very small difference in wording became a crucial issue for the arbitrators such as me to make a judgment on. International lawyers are capable of making a great deal out of very little in these situations. I think it is appropriate that the amended clause 6 brings the wording into a unified form that is completely consistent with the wording of the TRIPs agreement. 
I draw attention to clause 16 and the strange term “homonymous geographical indication”—and these are not closet homonymous geographical indications; they are right out there in the open. This is a very complicated process. I am pleased we have got a balanced approach here whereby we will recognise them. These are geographical indications that have the same spelling as or sound the same as geographical indications for a wine with a different geographical origin. 
There have been some very bitter cases over the history of this issue. I particularly remember a small village in Switzerland that actually had the same name Champagne as the region of Champagne in France. A bitter bilateral dispute between the European Union representing France and Switzerland ensued and that small village which had been producing sparkling wine since the 15th century was forced to retract its use. That caused a lot of pain and emotion and upset on the part of that small community. But under clause 17 we have a procedure that I think is fair and reasonable. Subclause (2) requires the Registrar of Registered Geographical Indications to take into account the need for “equitable treatment of the producers … and (b) the need to ensure that consumers are not misled.” So I think we have a sensible middle path through that. 
I am also pleased that the bill deals with the quite important issue of geographical indications that have fallen into disuse. “Into disuse” has several different meanings in the context of geographical indications. In particular there is the issue about the point at which a geographical indication becomes so widely used that it is generic. That is an issue that is actually very important to New Zealand. Although this particular legislation relates only to wines and spirits because the Uruguay negotiations gave this higher level of protection only to wines and spirits we have had to approach this issue from the perspective that this may become a template for geographical indications in other agricultural industries. 
This is a key negotiating objective of the European Union. It is called in the jargon of negotiations extension and to put it in common-sense terms it simply would mean that if the European Union succeeded in its negotiating objective the same provisions that we are considering here that will give effect to a higher level of protection would apply to other agricultural products—and potentially other products as well. For our most important goods export—tourism is our largest foreign exchange earner but dairying is our largest export earner in the more conventional sense of an export—this is absolutely crucial because many of the products that our dairy industry produces use terms that in our view have become generic. 
But this is a highly contestable area. On the one hand there are generic words like “cheddar” which originally was a particular type of hard cheese developed in the English village of Cheddar but which is now used right around the world and can no longer be considered to be a geographical indication in terms of the origin of the product. As a product of the colonial process and as in many other countries in Latin America and the New World more generally many industries in New Zealand have adopted the terms that were used when the same product was originally being produced in Europe. So this is potentially a very significant issue. I think we have a way through that makes sense. 
In the time available I want to touch on the one remaining difference of opinion which is the procedures in in particular clauses 51 and 52. Clause 31 sets out that the registrar shall be an employee of the ministry. A definition at the beginning of the bill makes it clear that that ministry could change but at the moment we consider it to be the Ministry of Economic Development and we have no problem with that. Obviously the registrar must be an official. But the difference between the National Party position and the Government position on this relates to the non-mandatory nature of the geographical indications committee. In the language of clause 51 the registrar is the person to make the decision as to whether he or she will use the expertise of the industry to make decisions about a geographical indication. Clause 51 states: “The Registrar may if the Registrar thinks fit establish a … committee”. 
We think this is a mistake. The industry had quite strong views on that. The point here is that the drawing up of a geographical indication is not a matter of pure science. It is not a matter of simply putting in place cadastral boundaries and including everything that comes from there—that comes from the Wairarapa for example. It is not as straightforward as that. It is much more complex and at the end of the day the decision involves a high level of subjectivity. We do not believe that the official no matter how well intentioned she or he may be will have the requisite level of knowledge in every case to make an informed decision. So we put on notice our concern and we may have to come back to it at a future date. Thank you. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill. In speaking to the bill I want first of all to give credit to people in the sorts of occupations that Mr Groser and Mr Hayes held in their former careers—our trade negotiators all around the world. There are not a lot of them. [ 
Interruption 
] Well there are quite a few and they do a marvellous job on our behalf. They are essential because we have just had a recent occurrence when our English friends on the release of the Stern report talked about food miles and all sorts of things that people in our exporting markets bring up as essentially non-tariff barriers. I am sure that in the diplomatic world formerly inhabited by Mr Groser the phrase “non-tariff barriers” and crudities like that would not be countenanced in any shape or form but I am not there I am here and to me that is exactly what they are. 
I commend the people in the industry who have brought this bill together for turning something that is an essential requirement of the economic union in Europe to our advantage. They are saying that if we are required to do something over there then in turn if it is fair enough to be done there it should be done here and we can use some of these things to our advantage. One hopes that in the future some products in New Zealand in the wine industry in particular are just as famous as Champagne and other areas in Europe. I know that people have worked diligently long and hard and at great expense to make our wines superb and make them the equal of anywhere in the world. It would be nice if they took the added step—which I know would take years to accomplish—to establish over a period of time regions in New Zealand just as famous as those in the old countries. 
I know that in the Committee stage Mr John Hayes attempted to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper which Mr Groser has alluded to that makes it compulsory for industry personnel to be on the committee that the registrar is required to call if he needs its expertise. But we in New Zealand First as I have said before are satisfied by the assurances of the Minister and the Government that this person will call together a committee and we do not think it is essential that that be put into legislation. In fact I do not think it should be included because those sorts of clauses in a bill quickly go out of date and it is not uncommon to have to come into this House to correct provisions like that from time to time. We try to do things specifically but in more general terms nowadays if I can put it that way. 
I can well understand that in the world that Mr Groser and Mr Hayes were previously in lawyers make a lot of very fine points—and get well paid for it I say to Mr Chauvel—about words and sentences and they argue for ages as to what they will mean. My humble experience has been that no matter how tight and prescriptive we try to make legislation lawyers will still do that. I would sooner leave the industry and the registrar with due respect a bit of room to move. I for one would worry if the industry is defined just as those people who sell and trade in wine. I suggest that the farmers and the vintners who make the wine will have more to say and perhaps because I come from farming stock I would put just as much or more trust in the farmers and the people who make the wine than I would in the industry or in perhaps we could say the purveyors of the wine who in a cruder term clip the ticket on the way through. 
I cannot speak on any bill related to the wine industry without bringing to mind a colleague who is no longer here Gerry Eckhoff who was from the ACT party. He was with me on the Primary Production Committee. His family did rather well out of the wine business. When Mr Hayes and Mr Groser talked about the characteristics of a region and the characteristics that that brought out in a wine I could not help but recall the raptures that Gerry used to go into when it came to a wine. I do not blame him because they made millions out of it. As far as he was concerned there were magical things in the make-up of wine. Being of a more pragmatic nature although I can understand how that can be I think that if the registrar is able to call on the pragmatism of farmers the commercial expertise of the people who sell the wine the people involved in the registration and the Government I think it is a pretty good mix and we do not need to go into the magical properties of a particular wine or a particular region. I think they will be understood by the people that the registrar can call together on what is called an experts committee. 
I do not think I need to take any more of the time of the House. The bill is rounded out pretty well and I congratulate the people who took part in the deliberations. I thank them for that particularly as I said at the beginning of my little speech the people who have turned a requirement into something that is an advantage for New Zealand. That I applaud. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports this bill. In fact we think this bill should be a model for other legislation that requires the labelling of other food products in New Zealand across the board. It is disappointing that although the Government is at the head of the world in this particular area of labelling—geographical indicators for wines—it is near the back of the pack when it comes to other food labelling and is behind Australia by disassociating itself from the food-labelling regime that was implemented across the Tasman. Unfortunately the parties in this House including the Labour Party did not go down the track of supporting the food-labelling bill put up by my colleague Sue Kedgley much to their shame and in stark contradiction to the good approach that Labour is taking in this bill. As Tim Groser mentioned earlier on even though the World Trade Organization and the international trading bodies gave particular prominence to international agreements on geographical indicators for wines and spirits this is just the first step down that road for food production in general and he is right when he says that matters will go further down that road. We should lead the way and not be at the back of the pack in relation to other food products including dairy products which he mentioned in his speech. 
 I think the same concept applies to wines as applies to other food products because the whole point about geographical indicators on wines and spirits is that consumers get an idea of the producing nation and a feeling for the product. I was in Ireland a month ago and went around the wine shops there. They have the bottles labelled by country and on looking closely one often sees a little description of the area where a wine comes from. New Zealand wines stand out on some of the shelves. They are gathered together and within those groups there are Marlborough wines and Hawke’s Bay wines with their geographical indicators on their labels. Sometimes the person who runs the shop provides a description of the area in written form. 
I think that concept is very positive. If we think back a few years to a time when more of our wine came from overseas than it does now we remember that part of the attraction was that it came from particular areas of southern France and Italy where we had a feel for the climate spirit and culture of the people—like how they trod on the grapes. The feel for the region was part of the attractiveness of the wine. Now that applies to New Zealand wines. We try to get across to consumers in France Britain and other countries a bit of a feel for our regions too—regions like Marlborough and the Hawke’s Bay—by getting people interviewed and articles put in magazines so that we are seen as quality producers from a region that produces quality wines. 
That situation applies to other products as well as wine which is why I think the Government is a bit silly to hold back on labelling other food products. Perhaps if we export kumara from Dargaville we may want consumers to get a feel not only for New Zealand kumara but also for Dargaville and for what goes on there—a feeling for the culture behind the production of that food product. Instead unfortunately the Government has turned it round the other way and says that if we have labelled products for export to America and the Americans prefer to support a local product then somehow we will be discriminated against. That is very negative thinking. We should think in a positive way about getting brand identification as a country and as regions within that country for particular food products whether they be Dargaville kumara Nelson apples or whatever they may be. I think that is the way things will go and is the way to counter the problem referred to by the previous speaker of the “food miles” argument being used against New Zealand products. 
When the “food miles” argument came out a month or so ago both the trade Minister Phil Goff and the co-leader of the Green Party Russell Norman explained that when one is talking about the contribution to climate change and the depletion of resources in the world one has to look at the total resource and energy input into a product. New Zealand does have an advantage in a lot of pastoral agriculture by virtue of having grass-fed animals not grain-fed animals etc. So the net resource use may be in our favour. But having said that I say people have a perfect right to buy locally and to encourage the local economy. That will be a natural reaction as time goes by. It is a natural reaction in New Zealand which we do promote with the Buy New Zealand Made campaign etc. In order to overcome that if we want to get our products traded into other markets we have to promote their quality and promote a feeling for the people in the regions that produce those products. 
We should not accept at all the sorts of arguments that were raised by Labour and others against Sue Kedgley’s bill about food labelling. They said the safety of all food products can be guaranteed by the official bodies. But that is not necessarily the case because the safety of particular ingredients pesticides or whatever else is often a question of debate and we would not necessarily totally trust the relevant agency on that. But quality and preference are more subjective areas and we want to train the consumer to prefer New Zealand products based on an understanding of the regions of origin of those products. That is the reasoning essentially behind this bill in relation to wines and spirits. 
On the question of the committee that will be set up to look at the registration of geographical indicators the alteration of such a registration or the removal of one from the register I take Tim Groser’s point about the bill. He is worried about the qualification that the registrar may if the registrar thinks fit establish a committee. I think it should be a more general procedure but the Green Party did not put forward an amendment in the Committee stage on that. However I did put forward an amendment to try to get clearer representation from the wine and spirits industry and it was very supportive of my amendment. I tried to get a representative of New Zealand Winegrowers of the Distilled Spirits Association of New Zealand or of some other industry body on that committee. That would have covered the point raised by the previous speaker that the industry does change. My amendment covered that point but unfortunately it was not passed. 
As things have gone on the changes to the bill made in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and the Supplementary Order Paper introduced in the Committee stage have both pluses and minus to them. In the bill as reported back clause 52(4) provided: “The Registrar may appoint as members of the committee any other persons who the Registrar considers appropriate including a representative of the wine or spirits industry in New Zealand.” That was actually a plus. Even though now it is a “must” in terms of the registrar looking at representation in that respect clause 52(2)(c) now states that each committee must include “1 or more persons who in the Registrar’s opinion have appropriate knowledge of the wine or spirits industry as the case may be.” I think “appropriate knowledge” could mean somebody from outside the industry who has done a bit of reading on it. That term is too vague and I think that is why when the Minister spoke she could say only that her change had general support from the industry or support in general. The industry wanted the provision to go further than that and my amendment would have fitted that. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. It has been a privilege this afternoon to listen to some of the debate and one reflects on one’s performance in the House. I just mention at this point as it is close to the dinner break that I have waited this afternoon in respect of the time given— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is this a point of order? 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Yes. I prepared my speech for this afternoon knowing that we have 10 minutes in which to make sure that we nail home our points. I seek leave of the House for my speech to be deferred until after the dinner break. I ask whether that can be considered. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is perfectly entitled to ask. The House is the master of its own destiny. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Maybe I could assist the member. I seek leave for the sitting of the House to be suspended until 7.30 p.m. 
Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou. Firstly I acknowledge and thank the House for allowing me to have my full allocation at this point in time. In doing the research for this bill I note that within the customary rohe of Ngati Te Whatuiapiti and Ngati Te Upoko Iri exist the Ngatarawa blocks. Ngatarawa borders the ancient riverbeds of Nga Rauru on the western edge of the Heretaunga plains and for those people who are listening I say that this is Kahungunu turf Kahungunu territory. The blocks form the subject of claim 596 taken to the Waitangi Tribunal by one Irimana Heemi Totoru Matenga a claim that suggests there are irregularities in the passage of these blocks through the Native Land Court. But the Ngatarawa name is most probably most strongly associated with the stories connected to a good wine—indeed as the Ngatarawa label professes “Life times told in wine”. 
With the inevitable passing of this bill the name Ngatarawa may now indicate that a particular wine from this region will be of high quality because of the fact of its geographical origin. The geographical indication of Ngatarawa will be an advantage in marketing the wine or spirit. That will be a great achievement for one of New Zealand’s winemaking dynasties the Corban family—descending from a family I understand who left Lebanon in 1891 equipped with over 300 years of winemaking traditions. This family of grape-growing businesspeople has crafted over time a respected boutique wine company during the last 105 years of viticulture. 
The Ngatarawa label comes with a distinctive fourth-generation pedigree. The location’s specific naming rights that the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs agreement) classifies as a category of intellectual property would identify most likely Ngatarawa as a label founded on heritage on the taste of a classic wine for a discerning wine-tasting public. 
The concept of pedigree is however also useful to review in the context of other developments that relate to ownership and protection of intellectual property. One wonders when in early September the Waitangi Tribunal appeared at Waipatu Marae in Hastings to hear the Ngati Kahungunu submission on the Wai 262 claim whether the pedigree of Ngatarawa informed the discussions. Wai 262 is a claim to rights in respect of matauranga Maori or Maori knowledge in indigenous flora and fauna. In the hearings at Waipatu the tribunal heard about the call to actively protect the exercise by Ngati Kahungunu of tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga in regard to Ngati Kahungunu cultural knowledge of names and locations such as Ngatarawa or indeed Te Mata Awatere or Kaitangata are very important obviously. My colleague Dr Pita Sharples reminds us in the Maori Party that names are very important in Kahungunu territory with Ngati Kere’s proud reputation for the longest name in the world Te Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauatamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu. 
Hon Member 
: Well done! 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: The member missed it—check the  
Hansard 
! The statement of claim suggests that the Government has breached its obligations and failed to protect Ngati Kahungunu cultural knowledge by adopting international instruments without either consulting or obtaining permission from Ngati Kahungunu. The debate on this bill has made frequent references to the World Trade Organization’s TRIPs agreement. The bill has been justified as necessary to more closely align geographical indications with the rights and obligations under the TRIPs agreement yet the explanatory note of the bill acknowledges “there has been no strong interest on the part of New Zealand producers to register geographical indications.” 
It would seem then that the impetus for this Government bill is merely to be TRIPs agreement compliant not because producers see a need for it and this is despite the Government and Governments overseas being advised repeatedly that the TRIPs agreement is unworkable undesirable and not in the national interest. The key block is tied up in the very intention of intellectual property rights legislation which is to harmonise such laws globally. In doing so the global intervention reduces the capacity of nation States to develop higher standards. 
A view put forward by indigenous peoples around the world is that ultimately local and indigenous communities should be able to rely on domestic law and look to global forms only when it takes standards to a higher level or is strongly in the national interest. This is what the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples does. It takes the standard to a higher level. Article 29 states: “Indigenous peoples are entitled to the recognition of the full ownership control and protection of the cultural and intellectual property.” The TRIPs agreement does not take the debate to a higher level. It is not necessary and it ignores Maori rights and interests. Indeed my research indicates that it is a waste of resources and time. 
The Maori Party has stood in this House and made the point that we will always oppose international agreements that are signed without due consultation with tangata whenua. We will also oppose international agreements that have no capacity or will to protect Maori rights or interests. So when we went back to the people of Ngati Poporo of Ngati Kahungunu they confirmed that either unwittingly or unknowingly tupuna names of Kahungunu were being liberally sprinkled around the vineyards of the Hawke’s Bay. The debate in the Committee stage of the bill heaped praise on our entrepreneurial viticulturists the long-term strategic interests of the nation’s economy which the geographical indications work recognises. 
But where is the value if in implementing the TRIPs agreement we trample over the histories and traditions of tangata whenua to get there? How was tino rangatiratanga of hapu and iwi in relation to their own cultural heritage rights and taonga protected through this bill for the people of Ngati Kahungunu for Ngati Koata the peoples of Turanga-nui-a-kiwa? 
Part of the discussions emerging from Wai 262 has been that protocols should be developed for dealing with persons outside the collective wishing to gain access to knowledge and taonga. They should include sanctions and penalties for infringement. The Maori Party applauds the initiative of the Lebanese cousins Alwyn and Brian Corban who have contributed so significantly to the winemaking enterprise of Aotearoa. We also congratulate the initiative of the Yugoslavian descendants of Ivan Yukich who have established the legacy of Montana Wines Ltd. We see in both the Corban clan and the Montana pioneers the international history of viticulture being successfully transplanted in Aotearoa. 
In doing so we fully support the purpose of this bill being 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.” But the crux of the issue for us the Maori Party will always be about how such enterprises can succeed and also enable the ownership control and protection of their cultural and intellectual property to be in the hands of tangata whenua. 
Another couple of international winemakers American people Brianne and Gary Fisher recently established their vineyard in the heart of the Ngatarawa triangle. They have chosen to name their vineyard Paritua in their words as a tribute to the Paritua Stream that meanders gently through our land. It is a name that also acknowledges their connection to the land and the people of Aotearoa. Not far from there is the Te Mata Estate vineyard the oldest winery in Aotearoa. Te Mata of course is also etched in the tribal landscape as the body of Kahungunu rangatira Te Mata o Rongokako. Tangata whenua takes seriously the obligations as tangata kaitiaki to exercise tino rangatiratanga over their cultural knowledge their mautauranga their indigenous flora and fauna. It is a submission of the Wai 262 claimants that the Government should wait for the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal as to how a solution to the vexed issues of intellectual and cultural property can be arrived at. The Maori Party cannot support this bill while these discussions are still very much alive. 
As the Ngati Kahungunu submissions asked the tribunal we also ask this House to what extent the Crown has an obligation to protect mautauranga Maori cultural knowledge; to what extent the Crown has breached any obligation it may have including adopting international instruments. Until these questions and many more that would arise from consultation with tangata whenua are able to be heard and a full response accorded them tangata whenua will be denied the exercise of the right to develop on our own terms. To this we can never agree. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 45; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 3 
Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a third time.