Hayes John: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
Hayes John: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6244] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I would particularly like to thank Keith Locke for his constructive suggestion and his amendment. The problem with it is that if it were adopted it would still leave control with bureaucrats. Sure there would be slightly better defined industry representation but I have talked to industry representatives about this issue and asked them who are the sorts of people they would put up. They have named people such as professors at Auckland University and people who are outside the day-to-day administration of the industry—and I hope Doug Woolerton is listening to that comment because it is not about the industry necessarily appointing people from within the industry; it is about the industry appointing recognised experts in the field. 
I say to Mr Locke that I particularly feel that his suggestion while constructive does not go far enough. If we are going to amend the bill and the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper we have to begin further back down the track. What we need to do is create a geographic indications committee that will sit on all applications except for geographic indicators registered under an international agreement. We suggest that the committee comprise three members but it could take advice if needed. Where the application involved a wine geographic indicator two members of the committee must be nominated by the New Zealand wine industry; that is if my recommendations are accepted. The committee is the authoritative decision-making body—not the registrar. The registrar does what he is told by the committee and its decisions are registered by the registrar who does not participate in the decision-making process because he is incompetent. He has no competence whatever to get involved in the decision. 
What I am suggesting is absolutely in line with the process being used in other jurisdictions such as Australia but it still respects the fact that the process is being operated through the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand. 
The proposed amendments set out on my Supplementary Order Paper suggest omitting clause 36. The power to seek advice needs to be transferred to the committee if it is already making a decision. We have to omit from clause 51(1) the words “may if the Registrar thinks fit” and substitute the word “must”. This makes it compulsory for the committee to consider all geographical indication amendments or approvals. 
The third suggestion is to omit from clause 51(2) the words “to advise the Registrar on issues relating to the boundaries and the use of a place name as a geographical indication” and substitute the words “to decide on the matters relating to the registration of a geographical indication or the alteration or removal of a registered geographical indication”. This changes the function of the committee from an advisory body to a decision-making body. 
Then I think we have to add a new clause 51(3) “Notwithstanding (1) and (2) it is not necessary for the Registrar to establish a geographical indications committee for the registration of geographical indications in accordance with regulations made under section 55(k) or for the alteration or removal of geographical indications registered in accordance with regulations made under section 55(k).” This means the full committee is not required where foreign geographical indications are being registered pursuant to an international agreement and that will save the committee a heck of a lot of unnecessary work. 
We will omit clause 52(1) which is unnecessary given that the number and composition of the committee is now fixed. The registrar already has the power to establish the committee under clause 51(1). Then I think we omit clause 52(2) and substitute: “Each committee must consist of 3 persons appointed by the Registrar having knowledge or experience of the issues relevant to the application.” This clause picks up Mr Locke’s suggestion and also the Minister’s tentative move in this direction. It removes the mandate for the Surveyor-General and the New Zealand Geographic Board to sit on the committee and it creates a fixed committee that takes into account all the relevant issues. 
Then I think one has to omit clauses 52(3) and 52(3A) on Supplementary Order Paper 66 and substitute them with new clause 52(3) that states: “When the decision in section 52(1) relates to a geographical indication for wine two of the members appointed to the committee must be nominated by the national industry organisation for the New Zealand wine industry.” The spirits industry while relevant is not actually relevant at the moment because we do not produce spirits in New Zealand; those that did produce here have now been sold to an offshore buyer. This will allow the wine industry to nominate appropriate committee members as the wine industry is the best place to judge who the appropriate members would be. No equivalent mechanism is suggested for the spirits industry because as I have said there are no New Zealand geographical indications currently in use. 
Then I think one omits clause 54(4)—a casting vote is not needed if the committee has only three members. Then we add a new subclause (6) to clause 54: “If the committee thinks it necessary the committee may obtain advice on and may consult about any matter relating to—” and the handwritten amendment lists the suggestions. 
These are very constructive suggestions. I have consulted widely with the industry and the suggestions are made to put the responsibility for administering this legislation on to the same basis as applies with our near neighbour Australia and it allows the industry to drive this and not the bureaucrats who have no qualifications or experience in deciding what the character of a wine is and what a boundary for a wine area should be. This is a matter of considerable importance to my Wairarapa electorate because we have areas such as Bideford Gladstone Martinborough and further north into Hawke’s Bay growing wine in often small areas. This bill is very very important to these people but the one thing that strikes me having moved from the bureaucracy in Wellington to the Wairarapa is that our bureaucrats in Wellington do not understand the needs of our communities beyond the boundaries of Wellington. 
This is a very big problem and this is why I also urge colleagues in all parties to support the proposals I am putting up. It is very important that we allow the industry to drive this issue and not bureaucrats in Wellington who are highly priced and highly paid but are out to make work to keep themselves in gainful employment. The Surveyor-General has no expertise in this area neither does the man who puts names on maps. We must put this process into the hands of our industry and I serve notice again to this Committee that if it does not support this move the next National-led Government will institute these changes forthwith week 1 when the Government changes. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of John Hayes to clause 36 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.