Locke Keith: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)Registration Bill — Third Reading 
Locke Keith: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)Registration Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6455] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports this bill. In fact we think this bill should be a model for other legislation that requires the labelling of other food products in New Zealand across the board. It is disappointing that although the Government is at the head of the world in this particular area of labelling—geographical indicators for wines—it is near the back of the pack when it comes to other food labelling and is behind Australia by disassociating itself from the food-labelling regime that was implemented across the Tasman. Unfortunately the parties in this House including the Labour Party did not go down the track of supporting the food-labelling bill put up by my colleague Sue Kedgley much to their shame and in stark contradiction to the good approach that Labour is taking in this bill. As Tim Groser mentioned earlier on even though the World Trade Organization and the international trading bodies gave particular prominence to international agreements on geographical indicators for wines and spirits this is just the first step down that road for food production in general and he is right when he says that matters will go further down that road. We should lead the way and not be at the back of the pack in relation to other food products including dairy products which he mentioned in his speech. 
 I think the same concept applies to wines as applies to other food products because the whole point about geographical indicators on wines and spirits is that consumers get an idea of the producing nation and a feeling for the product. I was in Ireland a month ago and went around the wine shops there. They have the bottles labelled by country and on looking closely one often sees a little description of the area where a wine comes from. New Zealand wines stand out on some of the shelves. They are gathered together and within those groups there are Marlborough wines and Hawke’s Bay wines with their geographical indicators on their labels. Sometimes the person who runs the shop provides a description of the area in written form. 
I think that concept is very positive. If we think back a few years to a time when more of our wine came from overseas than it does now we remember that part of the attraction was that it came from particular areas of southern France and Italy where we had a feel for the climate spirit and culture of the people—like how they trod on the grapes. The feel for the region was part of the attractiveness of the wine. Now that applies to New Zealand wines. We try to get across to consumers in France Britain and other countries a bit of a feel for our regions too—regions like Marlborough and the Hawke’s Bay—by getting people interviewed and articles put in magazines so that we are seen as quality producers from a region that produces quality wines. 
That situation applies to other products as well as wine which is why I think the Government is a bit silly to hold back on labelling other food products. Perhaps if we export kumara from Dargaville we may want consumers to get a feel not only for New Zealand kumara but also for Dargaville and for what goes on there—a feeling for the culture behind the production of that food product. Instead unfortunately the Government has turned it round the other way and says that if we have labelled products for export to America and the Americans prefer to support a local product then somehow we will be discriminated against. That is very negative thinking. We should think in a positive way about getting brand identification as a country and as regions within that country for particular food products whether they be Dargaville kumara Nelson apples or whatever they may be. I think that is the way things will go and is the way to counter the problem referred to by the previous speaker of the “food miles” argument being used against New Zealand products. 
When the “food miles” argument came out a month or so ago both the trade Minister Phil Goff and the co-leader of the Green Party Russell Norman explained that when one is talking about the contribution to climate change and the depletion of resources in the world one has to look at the total resource and energy input into a product. New Zealand does have an advantage in a lot of pastoral agriculture by virtue of having grass-fed animals not grain-fed animals etc. So the net resource use may be in our favour. But having said that I say people have a perfect right to buy locally and to encourage the local economy. That will be a natural reaction as time goes by. It is a natural reaction in New Zealand which we do promote with the Buy New Zealand Made campaign etc. In order to overcome that if we want to get our products traded into other markets we have to promote their quality and promote a feeling for the people in the regions that produce those products. 
We should not accept at all the sorts of arguments that were raised by Labour and others against Sue Kedgley’s bill about food labelling. They said the safety of all food products can be guaranteed by the official bodies. But that is not necessarily the case because the safety of particular ingredients pesticides or whatever else is often a question of debate and we would not necessarily totally trust the relevant agency on that. But quality and preference are more subjective areas and we want to train the consumer to prefer New Zealand products based on an understanding of the regions of origin of those products. That is the reasoning essentially behind this bill in relation to wines and spirits. 
On the question of the committee that will be set up to look at the registration of geographical indicators the alteration of such a registration or the removal of one from the register I take Tim Groser’s point about the bill. He is worried about the qualification that the registrar may if the registrar thinks fit establish a committee. I think it should be a more general procedure but the Green Party did not put forward an amendment in the Committee stage on that. However I did put forward an amendment to try to get clearer representation from the wine and spirits industry and it was very supportive of my amendment. I tried to get a representative of New Zealand Winegrowers of the Distilled Spirits Association of New Zealand or of some other industry body on that committee. That would have covered the point raised by the previous speaker that the industry does change. My amendment covered that point but unfortunately it was not passed. 
As things have gone on the changes to the bill made in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and the Supplementary Order Paper introduced in the Committee stage have both pluses and minus to them. In the bill as reported back clause 52(4) provided: “The Registrar may appoint as members of the committee any other persons who the Registrar considers appropriate including a representative of the wine or spirits industry in New Zealand.” That was actually a plus. Even though now it is a “must” in terms of the registrar looking at representation in that respect clause 52(2)(c) now states that each committee must include “1 or more persons who in the Registrar’s opinion have appropriate knowledge of the wine or spirits industry as the case may be.” I think “appropriate knowledge” could mean somebody from outside the industry who has done a bit of reading on it. That term is too vague and I think that is why when the Minister spoke she could say only that her change had general support from the industry or support in general. The industry wanted the provision to go further than that and my amendment would have fitted that.