Locke Keith: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — Second Reading 
Locke Keith: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4729] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is really keen on the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill. We favour the model it embodies which is that food should be properly labelled as to where it comes from. Under this bill that can be the country the region and the subregion within that. 
There are very good reasons for having quite detailed labelling because the product is different depending on the country region and subregion it comes from. It was explained at some length to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee how the soils and the weather in the region are important for the growth of the grape and for the particular grape that excels there. There is an extremely good reason for having detailed labelling from a production and consumer point of view. In this case the consumer is going to rule. The consumer is going to know exactly where the wine came from—not only the producer but right down to the vineyard region subregion and country as I said. 
Of course both consumers and producers are pushing for that detailed labelling. The previous speaker Doug Woolerton mentioned the European Union but around the world the best-practice wine producers and consumers are also asking for labelling because it protects quality. New Zealand is trying to export wine at the higher end of the market at the quality end of the market—that is what we were told repeatedly—and having detailed labelling is essential for that. As the previous speaker indicated the same thing applies to other products. Labelling is something that encourages New Zealand firms to produce quality food products. 
It is ironic that just about a month ago the National and Labour parties which are supporting this bill were so opposed to my colleague Sue Kedgley’s bill on the labelling of food products. All the arguments that have been used here today in favour of this bill were strangely forgotten or opposed when those members opposed the member’s bill from Sue Kedgley. 
Shane Jones 
: What’s the National Party got to say about that? 
KEITH LOCKE 
: What did they say? They said: “Oh we’ll just rely on the State. We’ll make sure that scientifically it’s safe.” Well for a start we cannot necessarily rely on the State just to prove that everything is safe. There are often a lot of unknowns in science. The safety question as this bill shows is only the beginning of wisdom. There are a whole lot of other things to consider in terms of quality—what the consumer wants in terms of quality—and of the ability of consumers to make their own choices. We are not saying—as seemed to be implied by the rejection of Sue Kedgley’s bill—that if it is safe it is OK. That is like saying under this bill that people should drink chardonnay but they will not be told where it comes from. 
We should be able to have a choice about what chardonnay we want to drink or what red wine we want to drink and to know where it comes from. This bill provides for that ability. It is great that the European Union has provided an impetus for it and it is good that the wine producers and consumers of New Zealand and the political parties here today have gone along with it. 
What were the arguments used against Sue Kedgley’s bill? Underneath them all was the trade argument that when New Zealand exports products to say America we do not necessarily want the Americans to know that the products have come from New Zealand. The Americans might prefer the American product or the European product and they might have good consumer reasons for that but if we can sneak in products unlabelled and have a deal with the Americans whereby they send their stuff here unlabelled then we increase trade—even if the consumer dips out. We have seen dip-outs most recently in terms of stuff coming into New Zealand unlabelled with 27000 tonnes of meat coming into New Zealand unlabelled and 40 percent of the pork being unlabelled. We know what happened when 6 tonnes of raw pork came in illegally from Korea recently and not long ago we had the poor people at Eden Park falling sick after eating raw oysters from Korea. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Oh they want to ban them Keith. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Yes. That is the problem that can ensue if we do not know where things come from and if we just have a totally open season without any labelling whatsoever. 
I think we are taking after the European Union in this case but in the case of Sue Kedgley’s bill even though we knew that Australia was setting an example and doing food labelling we did not follow that example. Murray McCully challenged us on the question of producer representation on committees that might be set up to look at labelling and the Greens in principle support having producers on those committees. We do not know whether we really need to specify particular producers in legislation. In this case National suggests the Wine Institute of New Zealand and the New Zealand Grape Growers Council. I think we can formulate something that makes more provision for producer representation. There is producer representation in other industry organisations which is a good thing. 
Basically that is the Green’s position. If we are serious about serving the interests of both producers and consumers in the food area then we have to use this bill as a model. Next time we come back to the House with a food labelling bill we must say that yes in the interest of consumers in the interest of advancing quality and in the interest of true trade that enhances quality and safety around the world we should have labelling. Thank you.