O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I understand that Mr Smith is away. I know it is a bit early in the morning to be talking about wine but I am sure there will be a few members in the House who might still have some memories of it. Can I just say that this is a very important bill and it moves into effect what was passed in 2006. Since 2006—10 years ago—a lot has happened in New Zealand across the agribusiness sector. A lot has happened in the wine industry and clearly there is a greater appreciation for the need to protect the intellectual property and the brands that we have built up and are now so very proud of. This bill will give protection to Marlborough sauvignon blanc and to Central Otago pinot noir and it will ensure that what we say is in the bottle indeed comes from the area to which the label refers. In 2006 with the best of intentions the general purpose being the same there was the possibility that wine from overseas could have come in—up to 15 percent of any bottle by volume—and could have arguably tainted the integrity of the brand for something like Marlborough sauvignon blanc. That door has now been closed and in fact anyone who purchases a bottle of Marlborough sauvignon blanc will know that 85 percent comes from Marlborough and possibly 15 percent from somewhere else in New Zealand. But clearly we have moved and those who are smart will have all their wine from Marlborough if they call it Marlborough sauvignon blanc. What the Opposition although supporting the bill is concerned about is perhaps the lost opportunity. We heard time after time from submitters to the select committee and from officials that it is absolutely essential that consumers know where their grapes are grown and where their wine comes from because it is about the integrity of the product. But the Government refuses to move on the area of country-of-origin labelling—that is identifying where food comes from across the rest of the consumer market. What absolute hypocrisy that we could have officials coming and saying such strong things about alcohol—which arguably is the least risk I have to say from a food safety perspective—and refusing to acknowledge that country-of-origin labelling should rightfully be imposed for consumers of products other than alcohol. But anyway moving right on from that where the Government will find that it has some trouble is that if it wants to make any progress on a EU trade deal then—we have been told very clearly—unless we have geographical indicators for food and unless we implement country-of-origin labelling which is actually an overarching umbrella for geographical indicators we are not going to have any trade deal and that is the reality. The Government has missed the opportunity through this piece of legislation to actually move us ahead and to be in a better position to take up any offer of a trade deal with the EU and so we are going to be back in the House with another geographical indicators piece of legislation that refers to food. I do not mind that; I think it is the smartest thing we could do but once again the Government misses the opportunity. My personal view is that I represent an amazing electorate called West Coast - Tasman—two distinct geographical areas; three really but two that are well known: the West Coast bound by the Southern Alps and Golden Bay. These are two areas that in my view should have geographical indicator protection for the products that we produce: seafood dairy beef products. Both of those areas in my view should over time aim to have an international reputation for fine quality and safe food but it is a brand that they have to firstly realise the value of and then work to develop. And then hopefully a visionary Government a Labour-led Government will come with a geographical indicators piece of legislation that will ensure that.In fact the Rangitīkei where the chairman of the Primary Production Committee comes from might even have some value in developing a brand. I mean he tells me that it is a nice area up there that maybe there is some value in having a geographical indicator provenance or appellation. There are a number of terms for it but what it says is that the product that we are selling to the consumer comes from a distinct area and that there are some qualities unique to that that are worth paying a bit more for—because that is what we are about here. It is about value adding. I say to this House and to the Government members of the select committee who missed the opportunity to move in this area that we need geographical indicator legislation for food and for regions like Golden Bay and the West Coast where innovative producers of fine products can build a brand and sell to the rest of the world and tell a story about their magnificent region and why the qualities of their product are different from those of somewhere else in the world. Indeed unless we accept and embrace that and promote that New Zealand does not have a good future. Last night I was at Landcorp where those from Landcorp were promoting Pamu as a brand. It relates to their operation their systems of production and it depends of course upon the provenance of New Zealand Inc. that of our country but I think that as they move down the path to I guess higher value and more brand distinction they will be looking to identify perhaps the meat from the Mackenzie Country or the wool from Mackenzie Country as Icebreaker does. This is an amazing area of opportunity for New Zealand as a primary producing country and the passage of this legislation is needed. It is effectively an update on the 2006 piece of legislation. There is a lot of passion about wine—it must be something related to the passion to drink it. But there is a passion about wine and the need to protect it and how well it has done in the international market. I have to acknowledge the wonderful growth in exports but also too in other areas of primary production we should be using the same wisdom. It may seem repetitive but unless we get that message through not just to the company executives but all the way down through to traders to the stock agents and to the farmers themselves we are not going to get a realisation of the underlying value that we have in this country for the amazing production of quality pasture-fed—for the most part—protein and fibre to the rest of the world. We miss the opportunities every single day because the Government sits on its hands and does not facilitate the growth of that branding and the growth of collaboration across the primary sector. I have said to the Minister for Primary Industries and to members of the select committee that we must move faster. Ireland has developed Origin Green. The Ministry for Primary Industries and the Minister have woken up to it 5 years down the track and they are just now trying to discover why the Irish are making such good progress: the Irish realise that their country has some unique attributes and they are going out and building on those. This piece of legislation says that for wine only we have got some wonderful attributes: Martinborough Marlborough and Central Otago and there will be other areas like Waipara as well. As they build distinct brands and distinct taste profiles for their products they need to have protection through legislation so that no one else in the world can sell a product using those terms. There will still be as we have pointed out here the risk that others might sell wine as in the style of Marlborough sauvignon blanc." but it is not Marlborough sauvignon blanc. So our challenge now and the challenge for those people is to get out and market to the consumer the importance of reading the label carefully and knowing that it is Marlborough sauvignon blanc not "in the style of". I think that the select committee has done a good job to tidy this up but the Government has missed the opportunity to ensure that country-of-origin labelling and geographical indicators—that is appellation and provenance—are legislated for for the whole of our primary food-producing sector."