Nash StuartSTUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Speaking on the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill in my view this legislates what is already happening currently. I mean we all know about Marlborough sauvignon blanc Otago pinot noir and of course Hawke's Bay syrah and chardonnay. Most of us can tell you about the regional variations but very few of us can tell you the brands associated with those variations. So I just think that what this is doing is sort of codifying what happens already.The one thing I would say is that I firmly believe that winemakers are inherently honest anyway. I do not think you are going to get a winemaker who is going to say their brand is from Hawke's Bay—even though everyone wants to be from Hawke's Bay—when it is not. They understand the damage they can do to their brand by being dishonest—in fact not only to their own personal brand but probably the country's brand. So what this does in a way is certainly to codify what is happening at this point in time.There are three points that I would want to make: (1) the value of a brand; (2) a couple of advantages of this; and (3) a couple of concerns that I have. I have got only 4 minutes so let me start. The first question I would like to ask is: how much is a brand actually worth? I mean what are we actually protecting here? In 2005 the Ministry of Economic Development tried to quantify the value of Brand New Zealand". It came up with a figure of $20 billion a year. That is how much in an overseas market the "clean green" and "100% Pure" brand is worth. PricewaterhouseCoopers did a study and it showed that 80 percent of those who are exporting leverage off our brand so our national brand is worth a considerable amount of money in global markets. But I think certainly in the wine industry we have matured to the point where brands have evolved to a point where we can actually use sub-brands in overseas markets to differentiate quality and distinctive character.The other thing also—it is not just the producers that this legislation is protecting; it is also the consumers. When you buy a good Hawke's Bay wine you have an expectation that it is going to be ultra-premium. This is also sending a message that we understand the value to the market but we also understand the integrity of the producers themselves. I must admit that this legislation does seem at odds with Nick Smith's moves within the Resource Management Act to take away the ability of regions to for example declare themselves GE-free. In Hawke's Bay we would like to declare ourselves GE-free but Nick Smith says that cannot happen which is at odds with this legislation because I think that regional brands can be very very powerful if done well like is happening in Hawke's Bay. I do have a couple of concerns. First and foremost the registration of geographic indication in this bill is effective for only 5 years. In the initial bill it was for 10 years but for some reason the Primary Production Committee has pared it back to 5 years. Anyone who knows anything about marketing or brand development will tell you that an investment in a brand is often about time it is about building up the attributes that sit behind that brand and it is not done overnight. I suppose the one concern I have is that there is a possibility that wine producers within a region invest heavily in the brand for that region but find that in 5 years' time they are not allowed to re-register. I am just unsure why the select committee saw fit to reduce the time of registration from 10 years down to 5 years.The other concern I have is that looking through this bill it actually does not allude to any penalties at all or to any sort of penalty regime for actually breaking the rules. I could be wrong; I have had a look through it a couple of times. The thing we are trying to say here first and foremost is that brands are vitally important and wineries understand the value of brands but the other thing that I think we need to make very clear is that if you break those rules or if a winery or a wine agent or a distributor breaks those rules then we need to send a very clear message that that will not be tolerated. I think we should come down quite hard on that. The third point I have a concern about is that it talks about continuity of use in this bill. Continuity of use is defined as 32 years or if a producer has been using a brand in good faith 22 years. Yet they are only allowing registration for 5 years. That seems a little bit incongruous and I am not too sure why they have done that. Having said that I am fully supportive of this legislation especially coming from the top wine-growing region in New Zealand—that is the Hawke's Bay. I know this will only add value. I do not see there being any downside. I just think it could have been slightly wider in order to protect the value of a brand as it is developed by certain wineries within a region. Thank you very much."