Groser Tim: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)Registration Bill — Third Reading 
Groser Tim: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)Registration Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6452] 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 National supports the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill. The process in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee was very extensive as the Minister Judith Tizard has outlined and on most matters it has been a very collegial process with very few differences between us. There is one point of remaining difference. Whether it is a small point or a large point will simply depend on the way in which practice evolves and I will come to that presently. But I do not want that to obscure the underlying large measure of agreement here. The whole field of intellectual property law is really crucial to an objective that is shared right across the House which is to transform our economy by getting higher value out of the great resource base of this country. Protecting the intellectual property of that resource base is an absolutely essential prerequisite to that process. 
Nevertheless there is not a high level of public understanding of this issue. I was giving a speech earlier this afternoon to a group of folk who are involved in the export and agriculture industries. When they asked me whether I could stay for a little longer and I explained that I was required here to speak on geographical indications I do not think a single member of them immediately understood what I was talking about. That was fair enough because the term itself is a pretty forbidding one. 
But although we have been slow as a country—and I do not exclude myself from that in any respect—to understand the power of this issue and the importance of it I think we are amending that process in a constructive way. We have done this as we have moved forward particularly in agriculture in an increasingly sophisticated way. I would like to pay tribute to the increasing sophistication of not just the wine industry which is the central industry involved in this particular case but agriculture industries right across the board in the course of the last 20 years. For example 90 percent of our lamb exported in 1970 was in carcass form; the figure is less than 5 percent today. So we are getting the message. We are heading in the right direction and having the right legal frameworks around intellectual property law is certainly a part of it. 
Like the Minister I commend the New Zealand wine industry for having built itself up. I would say frankly that the stick played as much part as the carrot in this process. I remember very well that during the CER negotiations the New Zealand wine industry was absolutely convinced it could not export and saw CER as a great threat. But to its great credit it made adjustments and we are now looking at exports worth a fraction under $500 million a year. That is a success story that I think will serve future generations of New Zealanders extremely well. 
I will just pick out one or two of the key provisions of the legislation. The first one is the central point about clause 6 using the existing definition in article 22.1 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs agreement). It is very important that domestic legislation that enables international treaties simply mirrors the exact provisions of those agreements if at all possible. I remember once being on a dispute settlement panel between India and the United States where a very small difference in wording became a crucial issue for the arbitrators such as me to make a judgment on. International lawyers are capable of making a great deal out of very little in these situations. I think it is appropriate that the amended clause 6 brings the wording into a unified form that is completely consistent with the wording of the TRIPs agreement. 
I draw attention to clause 16 and the strange term “homonymous geographical indication”—and these are not closet homonymous geographical indications; they are right out there in the open. This is a very complicated process. I am pleased we have got a balanced approach here whereby we will recognise them. These are geographical indications that have the same spelling as or sound the same as geographical indications for a wine with a different geographical origin. 
There have been some very bitter cases over the history of this issue. I particularly remember a small village in Switzerland that actually had the same name Champagne as the region of Champagne in France. A bitter bilateral dispute between the European Union representing France and Switzerland ensued and that small village which had been producing sparkling wine since the 15th century was forced to retract its use. That caused a lot of pain and emotion and upset on the part of that small community. But under clause 17 we have a procedure that I think is fair and reasonable. Subclause (2) requires the Registrar of Registered Geographical Indications to take into account the need for “equitable treatment of the producers … and (b) the need to ensure that consumers are not misled.” So I think we have a sensible middle path through that. 
I am also pleased that the bill deals with the quite important issue of geographical indications that have fallen into disuse. “Into disuse” has several different meanings in the context of geographical indications. In particular there is the issue about the point at which a geographical indication becomes so widely used that it is generic. That is an issue that is actually very important to New Zealand. Although this particular legislation relates only to wines and spirits because the Uruguay negotiations gave this higher level of protection only to wines and spirits we have had to approach this issue from the perspective that this may become a template for geographical indications in other agricultural industries. 
This is a key negotiating objective of the European Union. It is called in the jargon of negotiations extension and to put it in common-sense terms it simply would mean that if the European Union succeeded in its negotiating objective the same provisions that we are considering here that will give effect to a higher level of protection would apply to other agricultural products—and potentially other products as well. For our most important goods export—tourism is our largest foreign exchange earner but dairying is our largest export earner in the more conventional sense of an export—this is absolutely crucial because many of the products that our dairy industry produces use terms that in our view have become generic. 
But this is a highly contestable area. On the one hand there are generic words like “cheddar” which originally was a particular type of hard cheese developed in the English village of Cheddar but which is now used right around the world and can no longer be considered to be a geographical indication in terms of the origin of the product. As a product of the colonial process and as in many other countries in Latin America and the New World more generally many industries in New Zealand have adopted the terms that were used when the same product was originally being produced in Europe. So this is potentially a very significant issue. I think we have a way through that makes sense. 
In the time available I want to touch on the one remaining difference of opinion which is the procedures in in particular clauses 51 and 52. Clause 31 sets out that the registrar shall be an employee of the ministry. A definition at the beginning of the bill makes it clear that that ministry could change but at the moment we consider it to be the Ministry of Economic Development and we have no problem with that. Obviously the registrar must be an official. But the difference between the National Party position and the Government position on this relates to the non-mandatory nature of the geographical indications committee. In the language of clause 51 the registrar is the person to make the decision as to whether he or she will use the expertise of the industry to make decisions about a geographical indication. Clause 51 states: “The Registrar may if the Registrar thinks fit establish a … committee”. 
We think this is a mistake. The industry had quite strong views on that. The point here is that the drawing up of a geographical indication is not a matter of pure science. It is not a matter of simply putting in place cadastral boundaries and including everything that comes from there—that comes from the Wairarapa for example. It is not as straightforward as that. It is much more complex and at the end of the day the decision involves a high level of subjectivity. We do not believe that the official no matter how well intentioned she or he may be will have the requisite level of knowledge in every case to make an informed decision. So we put on notice our concern and we may have to come back to it at a future date. Thank you.