Prosser RichardRICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): It is always a pleasure to follow my erstwhile friend and colleague from the Primary Production Committee and the Green Party Steffan Browning. He has that wonderful ability that the Greens have of being able to support a bill but to do so very very grumpily. So thanks for that Mr Browning. I know it is early in the morning. I am very pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in the second reading of the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supported this bill to the select committee and we continue to do so because it is a necessary piece of legislation for the wine industry and for New Zealand's international trade. But I do have to flag at this point that our support might not continue beyond the Committee of the whole House. I give that indication because of a clause that has found its way into the bill to which New Zealand First finds that we are diametrically opposed. As with so much of this Government's legislation—as with too much of this Government's legislation—it is a clause that makes special reference and gives special preference yet again for no adequately explained reason to Māori on the basis of race and that is a great shame. It would be a great shame if New Zealand First members were forced to withdraw our support for a bill that we acknowledge is a necessary thing for the wine industry—Hon Member: You've got to be joking man. RICHARD PROSSER: —listen and learn Mr Tirikatene you will understand; I will explain—and for New Zealand's international trade both imports and exports of wine and spirits to the rest of the world particularly to Europe because of a clause that the Government has decided to include in it which is not only entirely unnecessary but is actually counter-productive in a number of regards. It is counter-productive in that not only is it yet another example of the promotion of separatism but at best it could be seen as paternalistic and insulting to Māori. Members on both sides will doubtless argue that yet again here is New Zealand First being racist again here is New Zealand First indulging in Māori bashing—the same tired old inaccurate excuses that they trot out for supporting political correctness every time New Zealand First stands up for one franchise one people one united people and one law for all. The thing is that Māori is an official language of this country and it should not need that kind of special recognition that it somehow needs this kind of paternalistic help and support. It is insulting it is derogatory and it does not need this special justification. Clause 21B is the offending article that has raised our ire. It will insert new section 39A which is proposed to read: It is a function of an advisory committee appointed under section 177(1) of the Trade Marks Act 2002 to advise the Registrar whether the use of a geographical indication in relation to wine or spirits or the registration of the geographical indication is or is likely to be offensive to Māori." The explanation given for the reasoning behind this proposed change as is recorded in the report of the select committee is that although the bill as it is introduced provides that "the Registrar must not register a geographical indication if its use or registration is deemed offensive to a significant section of the community including Māori." the bill does not specify whom the registrar should consult to determine whether or not the registration of the geographical indication would be offensive to Māori. And that is true but by the same token neither does it specify whom the registrar should consult in order to determine whether or not any other given geographical indication might be offensive to anybody else—or more specifically anyone we would presume who is not Māori. I will come back to that point but it is worth remembering at this point I think that we are dealing with geographical indicators here. This bill deals with geographical names and features that might be or are associated with wine labels and the production of wines and spirits. We are not talking about words phrases or cultural concepts and for those who might argue that to some Māori at least and in some situations these may well be one and the same it is essentially place names and names of geographical features that are already in use and it is difficult to see how their inclusion on a label could be offensive to anybody.There are already provisions in the law allowing such names words and wording to be removed from official use and recognition if they are deemed offensive and indeed the Geographic Board is undertaking just such an exercise right at the moment with regard to some names that although they might reflect a period of this country's history when certain nomenclature was not considered offensive by a large majority of the country at that time are no longer considered to be so. There is a place in North Canterbury that is named and officially gazetted as Nigger Hill and that is plainly no longer acceptable in terms of the values and mores of modern New Zealand. It is going to be removed and rightly so. I do not believe there is a single rational person in New Zealand or a member of this House who would disagree with that. But that is a decision of the Geographic Board and should not we believe be a function of the advisory committee to the registrar of trademarks. If a name or a feature is deemed acceptable for use as a place name then surely it should be acceptable for use on the label of a wine or a spirit that is associated with that place or feature. Perhaps the Māori Language Commission could be consulted if there is any perceived offensive potential in the combination of certain place names with certain products though once again because it is going to be established and gazetted—names of places and features that will be registered—it is difficult to see how such an offence could be caused. To return to my earlier point this proposed new clause does not make any specific reference to any significant section of the community who might be offended other than Māori. That is plainly racist and separatist and it is insulting and derogatory to Māori. We need to be mindful that this bill deals not only with our own registration of geographical indicators for New Zealand wines and spirits but also it deals with this country's recognition of the registered indicators from other parts of the world from where we import such products. On that note there is a place in Australia that goes by the name of Chinamans Knob. That may or may not sell more wine but it could well be seen as being offensive to any number of people in this country if it were to appear on a bottle of imported Australian wine and yet we have made no provision in this bill as to whom the registrar should consult on that matter. The New Zealand Gazetteer on the Land Information New Zealand website in fact lists all sorts of officially recognised and presumably acceptable place names that could be offensive to all manner of people and knobs feature quite heavily. There is a Scotts Knob which might offend people of Scottish heritage—or it may well persuade them to buy more of the stuff. There is a Richards Knob and I myself might choose to take offence at that but the bill does not make any special mention of a body to be established or consulted in terms of asking me whether I object to that or not. My point really is that we do not regard this as an insurmountable obstacle. Agencies that already exist could be utilised in order to satisfy the requirement that "the Registrar must not register a geographical indication if its use or registration is deemed offensive …" without requiring another inspection of every application by yet another agency presumably requiring the payment of yet another fee. Further to that a colleague of mine suggested that we could go one step further and require that any such agency that is going to undertake that activity should make up a list of words or names that might give offence and the reasons for that before any such application is submitted so that both the applicants and officialdom would have some guidelines to work with. My colleague suggested that in similar circumstances references to things that are sacred—perhaps names of gods and so forth—might come into play but again we are not talking about those sorts of cultural concepts. We are talking about place names that are already in use and that are already deemed acceptable. It is unlikely that anything outside those parameters would find its way on to a wine label and if it was to do so it is more likely actually that that sort of thing would probably be outside the scope of this bill. So we will be proposing some changes to the bill when it comes to the Committee of the whole House. New Zealand First will be introducing Supplementary Order Papers to either scrap the proposed inclusion of clause 21B and new section 39A altogether or to perhaps replace the proposed use of the advisory committee for the registrar of trademarks with the oversight of the Geographic Board or the Māori Language Commission instead and to suggest as I say that whatever agency finally is settled on it comes up with a list of names words and phrases and so forth first against which applications can be measured so that we do avoid the potential for any offence being caused and also so that we avoid the requirement for people paying unnecessary additional fees. We do hope that the Government will take a genuine objective look at these proposals that we will bring forward. In closing I reiterate that we do agree that in all other regards this is a necessary bill. It is long overdue in some aspects and we support its passage through the House at this stage. Thank you very much."