Smith Lockwood: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — First Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:1030] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 It always frustrates me when Ministers come down to the House and gabble through a speech written by someone else when they introduce a bill and clearly do not have the faintest notion what the bill is doing or what it is about. It is even worse when they do not even know how to pronounce words that have been written into the speech. If Ministers are not going to write their own speeches—if they are going to come in here and read a speech that some official has written for them—they should at least make sure that they can pronounce the words and that they know what they mean. 
Having said that I want to make it clear that National will be supporting the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill. I must say that this legislation has a fascinating history. It would be fair to say that when the issue of geographical indications was first raised here in New Zealand it caused a bit of concern. If members think back we used to make stuff in New Zealand that we used to call champagne. Things like port were made in New Zealand. There was a lot of concern that if the New Zealand Parliament were to have to pass this kind of legislation it might mean that New Zealand would not be able to market products that it has always accepted had certain names and they would lose their identity. 
However over recent years as trade liberalisation has become a major development around the world and as the World Trade Organization—which was formed from the GATT during the Uruguay round of trade negotiations—continued its work of trade liberalisation the issue of geographical indications and if one likes protecting intellectual property in a liberalising market became a major issue for the World Trade Organization. Consequently the World Trade Organization members agreed to an important agreement called the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights more commonly known as the TRIPs agreement. Up until now it would be fair to say that the way in which New Zealand has given effect to that agreement although it has been reasonably effective has been a cumbersome way of giving effect to our international obligations under the TRIPs agreement. 
When National was in office in 1994 it passed the first Geographical Indications Act but it never actually brought its provisions into effect. When this bill whose first reading we are debating today is passed into law it will repeal the 1994 Act and we support that. I think that this bill is an improvement over the 1994 Act. We concur with the Government that instead of simply bringing the 1994 Act into effect it makes sense to replace it with this bill. One of the big differences between the 1994 Act and this bill is that this bill quite wisely restricts the geographical indications legislation to wine and spirits. Under the TRIPs agreement that is an area where New Zealand must make sure we comply very carefully with our international obligations so this legislation makes sense. 
One could give examples to show where this kind of legislation will have effect. The Minister when introducing the bill spoke of champagne and how the TRIPs agreement makes it illegal for New Zealand to call sparkling wine champagne. Of course many fine wines do come from places like Champagne in France. Another classic example of a French geographical indicator is Burgundy. Of course Burgundy is a wine name that has tremendous significance around the world. Many countries I guess would like to market wine under the name Burgundy but of course the TRIPs agreement makes it clear that that is a geographical indicator that has market value to the Burgundy area and that wines produced elsewhere should not be able to use the name Burgundy. Likewise with Bordeaux wines some winemakers around the world might dearly like to call their wines Bordeaux because of the very fine reputation that wines from Bordeaux have. 
Most countries of any significance are members of the World Trade Organization and most are parties to the TRIPs agreement so those kinds of geographic indicators are protected. As the Minister said as time goes on this could have positive spin-offs for New Zealand. I guess that initially it was seen as negative for us that we could not call wines Burgundy. I cannot remember where the situation has got to on port but I guess that in the future we may not be able to call wines port. Of course for us in the future it does have potential benefits—unless we get into the provisions in the clause on homonymous indications. The Minister had a bit of trouble getting that word past her tongue and I am not sure that the Minister explained exactly what it means. Words that have the same spelling or the same sound are homonyms and the bill provides for that. For example one of our indicators could be Marlborough. It would not take much thought to realise that there is more than one Marlborough in the world. It would be extraordinarily difficult for one country to claim an exclusive geographical indicator when there is a homonym that is common to more than one place and the legislation addresses that. 
As with all legislation like this—and earlier on today legislation was introduced to license immigration advisers—we are all the time introducing more and more red tape into our economy. It is really important that this red tape be minimised. The Government has introduced several bills today that bring in miles more red tape but I am not aware of any bill introduced today that actually gets rid of red tape. We always have to be careful of red tape. One feature of this bill that I do support is that it makes no provisions beyond that required of our obligations under the TRIPs agreement. The Government has not taken any great flights of fancy to provide more red tape under this legislation than is required under our obligations under the TRIPs agreement. What is more the level of protection guaranteed by this bill is a level of protection consistent only with that required by article 23 of the TRIPs agreement. Again one of the reasons that National supports this legislation is that it does not go beyond the protections required by the TRIPs agreement. 
Having said that I point out that although National totally supports the bill’s coverage because it goes no further than that required by the TRIPs agreement we must make sure that the processes the bill establishes put in place minimal red-tape requirements. I repeat that today the Labour Government has introduced several bills that will bring in more red tape. I am not aware of any bills that the Government has introduced today that get rid of red tape. One thing that all New Zealand business people understand is that we are becoming absolutely tied up in red tape. It is becoming a major constraint on New Zealand’s economic growth. The select committee should make sure that this legislation does not produce any more red tape in its procedures than is required. 
I repeat that National will support this bill because it is consistent with our international obligations. We support the fact that it repeals the 1994 Act and we support its coverage. We think it is a sensible measure.