Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to speak in the second reading of this bill. I have to respond first up to Mr Prosser's contribution because I found it hard to believe that here we are in 2016—that sort of speech takes race relations in our country back into early last century. I am very disappointed—very disappointed but not surprised—that New Zealand First is making an issue over the fact that there is an advisory committee which has long been established under the Trade Marks Act that is there to simply advise the registrar that a particular application may give rise to concerns to Māori. I am even more shocked that the member sitting next to Mr Prosser Pita Paraone my whanaunga from the North—right from where the Treaty was signed a rangatira from the North—is letting his own party run roughshod over what have been hard-fought battles by Māori in this House to get recognition of the Treaty and to give expression to that through all of the mechanisms of Government and the laws that we enact through this House. I am really disappointed. I am really disappointed in that because yes we are talking about geographic names and we are talking about wine and spirits and we do acknowledge that this will be of benefit to our wine industry which is having stellar growth at the moment. So in one sense yes we are looking at that. But there are instances where there are sacred sites sacred names sacred places to Māori and they may well have concerns about whether a geographical indication (GI) application has been submitted. It may give rise to those issues. I give a classic example—a couple of examples. I gave the example from my Ngāi Tahu side: if a geographical indication registration say hypothetically would be made for Kaiapoi or Kaiapōhia—those very sacred areas where I dare not go into it but a lot of blood was shed back in those days. I believe that there would be real concerns. That would be of great concern to me and also—[Interruption] Well let us use the example of how the member Richard Prosser would—and he can consult with his fellow colleague Pita Paraone. What if a GI application were made for Ruapekapeka? Ruapekapeka is a very sacred site to us in the North particularly to the member's colleague there and to the leader of his party. What if a GI application was made for Te Ruapekapeka. That is just a place—it is a place name. Here is another one: the Aoraki region. The Aoraki region is a region. It is recognised. Sure you could say it is the Mackenzie region as well. But those are examples where there should be at least some recognition and that is what this bill does. It gives only an advisory role. Based on what the member is saying he says: Oh well we can deal with that another way." Well there is a way and we have put that in this bill. So whether he wants to consult with his colleague and come up with some other process—but definitely those are likely to be very offensive if there were applications made for GIs for those names. I am really disappointed that the member would set us right back by going back to the same old—talking about special treatment talking about being paternalistic. That is insulting and derogatory. All we are asking for and all we have provided for is utilising the expertise of an advisory body that has long been established. I think it has been around for well over 12-plus years. All we are saying is that we are going to use the expertise of that body which I know is drawn from academics iwi representatives and the like from all around the country. We are going to use their expertise if the alarm bells go off with the registrar on a particular registration. That is all we are asking for. That is all we are providing for nothing more. So if the member could come back I would be interested to hear how he would deal with a GI application for Ruapekapeka. If this process is not good enough or if he just thinks "Oh no that's just special treatment." well then I guess his colleagues will have to stand up in the North and say how they would be promoting such a view. As I said I am shocked and disappointed—shocked and disappointed. But I do not want to belabour the point. Moving on to this bill we do support it. We do support the amendments that we made at the Primary Production Committee. We have listened to the industry. This is a bill that is about promoting and enhancing the value that we can capture from selling our wines which are in high demand around the world. I am very lucky. The electorate that I represent has some fantastic wine regions—Marlborough Nelson Canterbury the Waipara Valley and Central Otago—so if anyone wants to support this bill it is me. I know that the economic benefits have transformed these particular regions around the country if you do look at Marlborough or through Central Otago. It is good to see that there are Māori participating in viticulture and in the wine sector right back to wines that I remember over in Martinborough from Hau Ariki Wines—which was probably the first Māori wine and which is still over there with the person who was my whanaunga the late Mr Hawkins—to what we see with Tohu Wines and the Wakatū Incorporation and what they have been doing to other grape-growing areas that have significant Māori involvement in the Hawke's Bay and up on the East Coast and in Gisborne. This is a positive piece of legislation that we are wanting to implement. I do want to touch on the matter about country of origin.Ian McKelvie: Oh!RINO TIRIKATENE: Yes Mr McKelvie I had to go there. Mr McKelvie said maybe one day—maybe one day—sometime in the future that might happen. Certainly if it is good enough that we can do this for wine we need a bold Government that will make sure that we can do this—the story of provenance the story of where our beautiful bounty from the land and the sea comes from. That is definitely what we want to enhance New Zealand Inc. because that is what this is about. This is a separate issue but returning to the point about the Māori names I believe that maybe there needs to be some additional advice. We have just implemented Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori a substantial piece of legislation to do with Te Reo Māori and maybe there could be some input through the mechanisms and the bodies that we have set up under there into this process. But for now the advisory committee that we have recognised is more than appropriate to play that part. Therefore I commend this bill at its second reading. Kia ora.Bill read a second time."