Faafoi KrisKRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Can I just begin by agreeing with some of what the last speaker Barry Coates said in terms of the ability for this piece of legislation to be able to be spread further beyond wine and spirits as it stands now. I do believe there is a lot more potential in being able to brand and market and give as the title of this bill suggests geographical indicators to a lot more of our primary products—and as my colleague Damien O'Connor says to be able to create a better narrative and a better story and a better marketing ability for our country and for our primary products. That was certainly the case when I visited a farm about 2½ months ago in the Wairarapa—a red meat farm in Wainuiōrū I think it was. The farmer there William Beetham took us around and was very proud of his farm obviously despite the challenges that the farm was going through there at the time. He spoke of the ability for his industry to be able to tell a better story around their product.I am not a wine drinker; I am a whisky drinker. I think of the story behind whisky out of areas of Scotland—the history and the storytelling and the ability for them to market their whisky. I think we have got the ability to do that not only with our wine and our spirits but also with other primary products. So although the legislation has got a relatively tame title to it I think it really is an important piece of legislation in being able to get more value out of our products that we produce here in New Zealand.I cannot go on for the next 3 minutes without trying to respond to some of the comments made by Mr Prosser. I actually think that the piece of legislation that we have in front of us has been made better by the Primary Production Committee acknowledging that the body that will have to decide whether or not a geographical indicator may or may not be offensive to Māori might need some advice during that process and by its looking at setting up a body to go to for that advice.I find it strange that if the New Zealand First Party is fundamentally opposed to Māori being given any special consideration at all in this piece of legislation it has waited until this point to make that known. I know that it was brought up at the select committee but there was a first reading of this legislation and if New Zealand First is fundamentally opposed to that then it should have raised the issue at the first reading because that was a rather significant part of this bill.Richard Prosser: It wasn't there then.KRIS FAAFOI: Yes it was. It was there then. The change in the bill that has come to this House after the select committee stage is the fact that the body may need some advice. That is the change. I talked specifically about the original clause in the bill in the first reading to say that I thought it was good that if in some cases the brand or the geographical indicator might be offensive to Māori that should be taken into consideration.Let me give you a potential hypothetical argument as to why I think that is good. If per se a vineyard were to be set up in my electorate and someone with absolutely no connection to the local iwi decided to call their wine Ngāti Toa or Toa or Whitireia I am pretty sure that the local iwi would be a little bit concerned about that. I think the iwi would have the right to go to the body and say: Look these guys have no connection with us. They've come into our iwi area set up a vineyard and tried to take our brand in our name. We don't like that."Richard Prosser: But this is a place name and do they live there?KRIS FAAFOI: Well it might not be. I think Ngāti Toa or Toa or an iwi name is a geographical indicator and that is the issue. If iwi have no ability to be able to stop that if they find it offensive—and it was in the original first reading it was; go and have a look at the original draft of the legislation—then I think they should have the right to do that.I also think that the body that we give powers to to be able to determine whether that is offensive or not—it may decide that it is not—should have the ability to go and ask someone for advice whether it be cultural advice intellectual property advice local advice or historical advice about whether or not it is a valid claim that it is offensive or not. To come to the House now and say that this is something that New Zealand First is fundamentally opposed to to me smacks of the party potentially not having read the legislation at the first reading discovering this aspect post that and now wanting to make a political point of it which I think is wrong."