Faafoi KrisKRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Before I begin because we all know how important our wine industry is here in New Zealand I would just like to send my sympathies out to those within that industry who have been affected by the earthquakes over the last 36 hours. I am hearing on the radio that there have been some winemakers whose production has been affected by the earthquakes and I think—along with all people who have been affected—our sympathies go out to them. We hope that they can return to production as soon as possible especially around the Marlborough area which I understand has been affected quite a lot. I think that would go for the whole Committee.I do want to take a short call to praise some of the work done by the Primary Production Committee around the issue of having a new section put into this piece of legislation around the appointment of an advisory committee. It is very similar to what is in the Trade Marks Act and that is to set up an advisory committee for when there is some dispute or some offence caused to someone when an application is made for a wine or a spirit and it is likely to be offensive to Māori. I do understand that New Zealand First has two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) 245 and 246 opposing this move. I would just like to think that this Parliament and this country has come a long way from the point of saying that in this particular instance it is a special case for Māori. This piece of legislation is all about Brand New Zealand and one of many unique identifiers that we have for New Zealand is our tangata whenua our people of Māori origin and a lot of the place names that go around that may be seen as a unique identifier—a brand—for a particular type of wine. I can foresee some instances where there may be some dispute and offence may be taken whether a place name has been used inappropriately or whether there is some dispute over a place name and this has to be looked at.Richard Prosser: Name a couple.KRIS FAAFOI: I am sure there will be; that is why an advisory board has been set up. New Zealand First supported this piece of legislation at its first reading. It then went off to the select committee and I believe the select committee made a good improvement. It inserted this advisory committee which is already established under the Trade Marks Act. It is just ensuring that there is a body to make sure that any dispute can be looked at. My issue with this is that if New Zealand First members did not see it as an issue at the first reading they should not have supported it at the first reading. My understanding is that they did and I think they saw it late and are now trying to make a point of it. I actually think it is a very good thing to make sure that there is a check within this piece of legislation so that if there is a dispute or opposition to a unique Māori identifier there is a body that can look over that that can make sure all the relevant issues are looked at. I think that the SOPs both 245 and 246 will not get support and I think that is the right thing to do because I think 245 is what New Zealand First did because it realised that this was in here and wanted to scrap it. Then 246 is trying to put I think if I have got my sequencing right—I think I have them around the wrong way. SOP 246 was what New Zealand First wanted to do to scrap the clause altogether and 245 is: Oh hold on we can't do this. It's a bad look because we haven't done it in the right sequence so how about the Geographic Board do the work instead?".I believe it is a good sign of race relations in this country that we can actually do this rather than say it is a backwards step. So my message to the Primary Production Committee is: good on you for seeing that there was an issue. It was originally in the legislation but there was not a mechanism to be able to look at and cover these disputes and now there is. I gather from the debate that has been had at this Committee stage that the SOPs in the name of New Zealand First will not get through and I for one think that is a good thing."