Flavell Te Ururoa: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)Registration Bill — Third Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)Registration Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6457] 
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.