Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGeographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 17 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9899. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment BillFirst ReadingHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I move That the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Primary Production Committee to consider the bill. This bill amends the Geographical Indications (Wines and Spirits) Registration Act 2006. A geographical indication is a name—usually a regional name—that is used to identify the origin of goods where a quality reputation or other characteristic of the goods is related in some essential way to their geographical origin. Foreign wine and spirit producers use geographical indications to identify their products. Well-known examples of these are champagne and Scotch whisky.In New Zealand the main user of geographical indications is the local wine industry. Geographical indications used in New Zealand wines include such terms as Marlborough Martinborough and Gimblett Gravels. Over time as an area’s reputation grows the name adds value. New Zealand wines already attract a premium in foreign markets and we want to preserve that and build on it.It is worth taking a moment to reflect on the amazing progress that the New Zealand wine industry has had in the last decade or so. It was only in the late 1990s that the New Zealand wine exports broke the $100 million barrier. It is now worth $1.5 billion in exports in the last year and rising fast. That is part of the diverse export economy that sustains our living standards here in New Zealand. The Trans-Pacific Partnership with its promise of improved market access is a boost to this industry and we have heard a lot about that over the last few weeks. This bill will also help.If I can go and give a bit of background the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights—otherwise known as the TRIPS agreement—obliges New Zealand to provide protection for geographical indications for wines and spirits. Geographical indications are currently protected in New Zealand by a range of measures including the tort of passing off the Fair Trading Act 1986 the Trade Marks Act 2002 and the relevant provisions of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code.The Geographical Indications (Wines and Spirits) Registration Act 2006 provides for a registration system of geographical indications but this Act is not yet in force. It was passed in anticipation that New Zealand would soon begin negotiations on a wine agreement with the European Union. However negotiations never began. At the time the local wine industry did not have an interest in registering geographical indications so the Act was never brought into force.More recently however the local wine industry has become concerned about the potential misuse of New Zealand geographical indications in export markets. This misuse has the potential to adversely affect the reputation of New Zealand wine which as I have said commands a premium price in export markets. The further the premium grows the further the potential for misuse increases. The risk can be mitigated by registering New Zealand geographical indications in these export markets. However most countries will not register geographical indications unless they are registered in their country of origin. As a result the Government has decided to bring this Act into force. An additional advantage of bringing the Act into force is that it will support New Zealand’s interest in launching free-trade agreement negotiations between New Zealand and the European Union.Before the Act can be brought into force some amendments are necessary to clarify provisions in the Act and to ensure that the registration process runs smoothly and sustainably. These amendments are contained in the amendment bill. Most of these amendments are minor and technical. Some amendments are more significant; I will just quickly mention these.The geographical indication registration expires after 10 years unless a renewal fee is paid. The renewal fees will contribute towards the ongoing maintenance of the register of geographical indications and help to keep the initial application fees down.The second one is that we provide that the terms “New Zealand” “South Island” and “North Island” will be protected as registered geographical indications without the need for an application to be made. These terms are used as geographical indications by local wine producers but might not otherwise meet the definition of “geographical indication” in the Act.The Registrar of Geographical Indications would be given the power to refuse to register a geographical indication if registration or use of the indication would be likely to be offensive to a significant section of society including Māori. This mirrors the provision in the Trade Marks Act and ensures that the geographical indications that might be refused registration as trademarks on offensiveness grounds cannot be registered as geographical indications.Once the amendment bill is enacted the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act can then be brought into force and it will be possible for interested parties to apply to register geographical indications. The Act will be administered by the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand which is also responsible for other registered intellectual property rights such as trademarks and patents.This is I think an important step in the development and maturity of the New Zealand wine industry. I hope that it will provide an opportunity to help sustain the progress that we are making in this important area of the New Zealand economy and it is of course an important provider of much joy and merriment and happiness to New Zealanders and people around the world who enjoy the New Zealand wine in its great variety and wonderful wonderful quality. I do move that this bill now be referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration. Thank you.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a genuine pleasure to speak to the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill at its first reading and for the benefit of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs I will put him out of his misery and let him know that Labour will be supporting this bill. I know that he was worried he might not get the numbers to get this through the House but Labour will be supporting this piece of legislation.I also acknowledge the Minister and that he is taking the lead on this bill. I do realise that when Cabinet approved this piece of legislation it was under the name of both the Minister who just took his seat and also the Hon Tim Groser the former Minister of Trade of our country who is now deeply ensconced in Washington DC and who not only was the Minister for Trade at the time but also is an expert on many things—almost everything. He is also a self-professed expert on wine so I think he will be deeply sad that he is not here to take the first speech in the first reading of this piece of legislation which we think and hope will have a speedy journey through this Parliament because it is one that is relatively non-controversial.The overriding principle around this legislation and the necessity of this piece of legislation is that our wine is good—it is better than good; it is excellent.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The more you drink the better it gets.KRIS FAAFOI: Well that is your opinion. This piece of legislation is needed to protect and also to increase the potential earnings for New Zealand whether it be from Central Otago—and I will come to a story around that of a recent example soon—the Canterbury region the Wairarapa the Hawke’s Bay or Waiheke Island. Our wine is so good that there could be a certain element within the industry that may want to take a geographic indication and pass its product off as one of the quality products that we produce here in New Zealand.The recent event that I was talking about was that I was enjoying dinner with a parliamentary delegation for the Government Administration Committee in Canberra. We were talking to the President of the Senate Stephen Parry at a dinner that he hosted and I had the pleasure of sitting at the table with a former Speaker of the Australian Parliament Bronwyn Bishop. The President of the Senate was talking about how good the quality of Tasmanian wine was and one of our delegates said: “But have you tasted some of our Central Otago Pinots though Mr President?”. Bronwyn Bishop who is no longer the Speaker of Parliament House said: “Oh no they’re rubbish.” She almost caused a diplomatic incident there and we did commit to sending her a bottle of good Central Otago Pinot to prove just how good our wine is. But she has got problems about helicopters and her own transport so I do not think she is hanging out for that bottle of wine.This piece of legislation will ensure precision around where wine comes from. I note that the Minister did go into some detail about the functions of this piece of legislation but I think one of the most important ones—certainly the most important one that the officials are pushing in the regulatory impact statements—is that in the past you could pass off New Zealand wine as being wine from a region if 85 percent of the grapes in the bottle of wine were from that region. We have gone from a situation where you could have 85 percent—and let us choose a region at random; say the Hawke’s Bay—of the grapes from the Hawke’s Bay and 15 percent of the grapes in that make-up of wine could be from anywhere else including overseas.To make sure that there is certainty and integrity in our product this piece of legislation says that that is not good enough to be labelled as being from a particular region in New Zealand or from New Zealand and we are going to make sure that they are 100 percent from that region or from New Zealand. I think that as an exporter of wine our country needs that certainty in other trade markets so that for people buying our wine—and I know that it is going great guns in the UK—they have certainty that it is not a blend of our grapes and Australian grapes but it is a 100 percent New Zealand product.I think that precision of information will ensure the integrity of our exports overseas and I understand that also it is a reciprocal agreement with deals that we are looking to do especially with the EU in that because they want certainty about the product that we send to them we will have certainty about the product that they send to us. It is not so much wine coming across that I think we would want certainty with. I am a whisky drinker so I want to know with a decent amount of certainty that the whisky that I buy of a particular brand and from a particular place does come from that particular place. I think it is even-stevens to make sure that if we have certainty from our end as a consumer they have certainty about the product that we are sending away as well.The Minister also made out the case for registration in that it lasts for 10 years. One issue that I think we will want some certainty and some clarity around in the select committee is how the registration system will work and to make sure—and I am sure that the wine industry will make a submission—that the system around payment and costs for running the registration system is fair and that it is not too onerous especially front-loading it when you register a geographic indication the first time. It gives them the ability to spread it over time to make sure we are not putting a massive burden on winegrowers and wine producers at the very beginning which would make it very difficult for them to I guess at the first instance make sense of that.Going back to some of the indications from my reading of some of the publications that came out when former Minister of Trade Tim Groser said that this piece of legislation would be introduced to the House they said that it would also prevent the use of indications such as “in the style of”. You will not be able to say “in the style of Marlborough” or “in the style of New Zealand” or “in the style of Hawke’s Bay” because I guess some producers could try to use that sneaky language to get out of that.I think that is tricky and sneaky and I think we have seen an example of that recently with “in the style of Eminem” “in the style of Coldplay”—the taking of someone else’s intellectual property and using it for your own benefit and calling it “pretty legal”. In this instance it will not be “pretty legal”; it will be illegal. To say that things are “in the style of Marlborough” or “in the style of Hawke’s Bay” will no longer be allowed. Maybe we could transfer that over to other areas and say well “in the style of Eminem” and “in the style of Coldplay” is not really fair either. So let us see whether we can get some agreement there as well.That aside there is massive potential here for our wine industry to use this as a selling point. I think there have been indications from those in the industry themselves that if we do not take this action with this piece of legislation there will be risks to our reputation and risks to our brand and it will prevent them from telling a story about wine that comes from their specific region or wine that has come from our country.Having a look at some of the media that came out when this piece of legislation was first mooted Blair Walter from Felton Road Wines was talking about his particular brand of Riesling. Again I think the Minister said that this was updating a piece of legislation that was passed in 2006. It has not been enacted yet so we are updating it to make it more modern. Mr Walter said that the rules were made years ago to protect the consumer to ensure that what they were getting was a good quality wine and he is right. But he said that nowadays as that wine producer it is almost becoming a trade barrier if we cannot guarantee that a wine is from a particular area. So I guess it makes this piece of legislation necessary to protect not only the brands and the consumers of New Zealand but also the potential trade earnings we can get from really really good wine that as I said at the beginning of my speech is heading overseas. I understand it was somewhere in the vicinity of $1.4 billion of exports for New Zealand wine to the year to September last year. That is a lot of money—and there is a lot more potentially that we can earn—and there is nothing to protect those potential earnings. This piece of legislation should be supported.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I would like to start by acknowledging the knowledge of the previous speaker Kris Faafoi of the subject but I would like to make one small correction: 85 percent of the grapes that go into making up a wine can indeed come from one geographical indicator and 15 percent of the remaining if the grower chooses to must come from within New Zealand. So that still remains but it has been changed to make it clear that the grapes cannot come from overseas if a grower wants to claim that same geographical indicator.I want to bring a little bit of my own personal experience to this debate. I was involved with New Zealand Winegrowers prior to the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act being passed in 2006. We sought to have that bill passed and then we sought to have it not enacted really for good reasons around trade. Trade with the EU can be fraught—particularly around agricultural products—and the one card that we had to play was not having the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act enforced in law at that stage.However time has moved on. We are now in a position where we want that to pass through and the wine industry wants that. I am no longer involved in it but I do note that New Zealand winegrowers are present here today. It is a very important bill. The New Zealand wine industry relies on selling on its good name and I think one of things to bring to this debate is how the geographical indication really is so important in selling wine. The consumers like to know the provenance of the product that they are drinking.In fact I thought that one of the things I would talk about today is “terroir” which is the French word that means the place the geography the soil the climate and the people who are involved in making the wine. It does not really have a literal English translation. I have heard it described in a New Zealand context with the Māori word “tūrangawaewae”—a place to stand. I think that is quite appropriate but in the sense that wine consumers can and do recognise styles of wine and where they come from by the taste. The greats like sauvignon blanc chardonnay and Pinot noir are grown all around the world but New Zealand Marlborough sauvignon blanc is a unique product and it has a unique taste to it. That comes from the terroir. Even though you can isolate different flavours down to a part of a vineyard a Marlborough sauvignon blanc is quite distinctive and is easily picked up by other people around the world who know exactly what that is.It is really important that this bill is passed so that those customers and their consumers can have confidence that when they pick up a bottle with “Marlborough” on the label that is what it will be. Likewise with Central Otago Pinor noir. It also has its own unique terroir and you could also say the same for a Hawke’s Bay syrah. So all of those flavours are important to people and they are prepared to pay. My colleague across the House Mr Faafoi likes his Scotch whisky—allegedly well he said so—and the same principle applies allegedly.I think that all these things come back to why the wine industry is so successful. Given that we are in the midst of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement ratification I should mention that the reason that the wine industry is so successful and why we need these geographical indications passed in law goes back to CER being passed when the wine industry had to face the harsh winds of competition and it really made the wine industry fit for exporting because it had to deliver what the customers wanted. Rather than just producing a wine that people had no choice about they had to buy what was available; it did not matter where it was grown—the industry then had to focus on the consumer and that is when all of our unique terroirs were actually discovered. Rather than just being able to grow grapes they were able to grow grapes that made wines that were distinctive. So that is what led to that.The New Zealand South Island and North Island geographical indications which will be an enduring part of this bill are important because if there is a weather event and a wine company needs more grapes to actually make its wine it can still have a geographical indications of the South Island if all the grapes are sourced from within the South Island or New Zealand if the grapes come from across the islands. So that is a really important trade point. It will be very important that that comes in with the bill. Likewise having a renewal of the geographical indications every 10 years gives an opportunity to push boundaries out or pull them back in if that is required as time goes on.It has been a great pleasure to support this bill. It has been a long time coming and I have been waiting since 2005 I think when we really started talking about this until today. So it is with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Like others I stand to support this bill. I think we should be incredibly proud of New Zealand’s wine industry. It lines up with many of the products and services that we export.I have spent quite a bit of time in the United States and a number of people will talk about New Zealand wines when they know you are a Kiwi. I remember in Washington DC last time I was over I wandered into the Safeway that is a few hundred yards from the embassy and looked for the New Zealand wines—I think it might be a few hundred yards closer now that Tim Groser is there but however. There were three Americans standing there looking for New Zealand wine and when they heard the accent—not that I am an expert; I know how to buy it but I am not an expert on it as others across the House are—they were keen to talk about New Zealand wine and how fantastic it is.This is an important piece of legislation in an intellectual property sense and in a commercial sense both in protecting Brand New Zealand and those brands within the wine sector but also I think in aiding and abetting the continued promotion of New Zealand wines. I want to commend the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Paul Goldsmith. This is a substantial piece of legislation and very important. It is better than his first effort which was the Standards and Accreditation Bill which I know will go down in history as a fantastic piece of legislation. I suspect though that his colleagues and others watching around New Zealand will somehow take greater cognisance of this piece of legislation than the Standards and Accreditation Bill.It is interesting. I know we do have a number of connoisseurs in the House. I know by reputation that Tim Groser will probably be his own geographical indication in Washington DC by the end of his stewardship. He is a man who is well-oaked shall we say—well-oaked—and he has done everything he can throughout his career as a senior diplomat a world-class trade negotiator inventor of many things and many things yet to come—Kris Faafoi: Splitter of the atom.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Splitter of the atom. By the time he finishes as ambassador he will have done probably what no other person can do as a Kiwi internationally in terms of promoting the New Zealand wine and possibly spirits industries.I note that Maggie Barry is also world-renowned in respect of her appreciation of New Zealand wines. I am told she likes a rough red with a touch of bitterness to it. Todd Barclay I am told also had a passion for gooseberry wine occasionally—slightly green and you know yet to mature. And Judith Collins I am also told was very very fond in her younger days of that wonderful New Zealand wine Cold Duck. So was Trevor Mallard but I think that was in a different life. Or was it that sticky wine noble rot? I am not sure.I know that all the jocularity aside—and that proves that I have not imbibed because I would have slurred that particularly complex word—and in all seriousness this is an important piece of legislation. There is a massive contribution made to New Zealand in terms of export dollars and reputation by the wine industry. I know that Philip Gregan has championed the wine industry for many many years and has done a superb job. I remember some interactions with him when I was on the Primary Production Committee many many years ago. He along with others and with the previous speaker Stuart Smith has been at pains to champion the industry and grow it over the years. The wine industry has moved from the days when Grant Robertson was a great Marque Vue guy I think back in his student days—Grant Robertson: Spumante I think you’ll find.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —Spumante—and you had a limited selection when you went into a restaurant. It was sort of white or red and if you were lucky it was sort of medium or strong if you will.Peeni Henare: In a cask.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: In a cask or not—or in Mr Faafoi’s case a bladder depending on what polytech he went to. But it has now moved into a world-class industry from Otago. Who would have thought?I lived in Perth for a number of years and I have to say that way back then you could not really beat a Margaret River red—they were pretty good. I have to say as I send the odd bottle over to friends whom I worked with even they would agree that an Otago Pinot is right up there—right up there. I know Mr Barclay has been proving that point for many months since he made it into Parliament. Equally we are known for sauvignon blanc all around the world. Cloudy Bay of course I would argue was probably the flagship brand for that many many years ago and blazed a trail for the wine industry throughout the world.I think there is more that we can do and perhaps more that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and other Government agencies can do to assist the wine industry to grow especially in the States and in other places. I was recently in Italy talking to a politician and the first thing he said to me was: “Sav blanc—I love your wine.” He had a few bob this guy and he used to import a few cases every year because he loved it so much. When he comes back to New Zealand he enjoys it.Not only is it a great industry and not only is there a bit of fun and humour around it from time to time—even in this place—but I think it actually is a flagship industry for New Zealand. People who go to social functions at our missions and at our embassies are exposed to that. Our diplomatic folk in all seriousness do a lot to promote the industry. It is one of the things that we are known for—little old New Zealand yet again with only 4.5 million people producing a world-class product. The only criticism of it I think is that we do not produce enough for the vast number of people in the world who have come in contact with it enjoyed it and would like to buy more of it.I think this legislation is important to protect those brands. I think it is important in terms of our trading position. I commend all those in that business. It is a risky business. It is a business where you have got to put a lot of capital out you have got to spend a lot of money you have got to do things right and you have got to hope like hell that you have got it right and that the weather does not do you over—[Interruption] speaking of blue duck—and I think it is a superb industry but it is a risky industry. There is a lot of capital put up a lot of risk you have to know what you are doing. You can get it wrong and you can lose your shirt and many people have over the years. So I commend those people who are prepared to guts it up and promote a world-class product and who risk their shirt to grow a business employ people and provide a world-class flagship export product. To those on the other side—last orders.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): That effort by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove is going to be a little hard to follow because being one who favours drinking beer myself I do not know the names of the wines quite as closely as he does. But I would actually like to just make mention of Vilagrad Winery which is in Ōhaupō in my electorate which had a fire in the last 12 months and has literally risen from the ashes rebuilt itself and got going again.It is a pleasure today to speak on this bill. New Zealand wines do attract a premium in the overseas market and we do need to preserve and build on this. I want to make note of the fact that for 20 consecutive years year on year the wine industry has had an increase in export value. I think that it is pretty impressive by anybody’s standards from any industry that it has been able to do that. When we talk about geographic indications in relation to wine it is important to note that we have 550000 wine tourists in this country. The definition of a wine tourist is a tourist who visits a winery; it is not a definition of how much they consume when they go there. But it is really important to notice that if we have got 550000 people coming to visit our wineries in New Zealand and they spend almost I understand $3 billion—which was a 2015 figure—then people are interested in the geographical specifics of where our wine comes from.This bill is actually replacing or updating the principal Act which was passed in 2006 but was never enacted for the reason that my colleague Stuart Smith explained before—he has been well integrated into this industry which was that negotiations never began with the EU. But at this point in time there is an additional advantage of bringing the Act into force as that will support New Zealand’s interest in launching free-trade agreement negotiations with the EU.I think it is important to note that in this legislation the geographical indication will expire after 10 years unless a renewal fee is paid and that renewal fee will pay for the ongoing maintenance of running the programme. It is also important to note that the terms “New Zealand” “South Island” and “North Island” will be protected and the registrar will have the ability to turn down any offensive names that come forward.So it is a pleasure to speak on this bill this afternoon and I commend it to the House. Thank you.MOJO MATHERS (Green): It is my pleasure to take a call on this Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill. We will be supporting it. The heart of this bill is about maintaining the integrity of New Zealand wine and protecting the hard-won reputations of wine from the good wine-growing regions from being undermined by inferior products usurping their names.It is part of a wider thing really of appreciation by many consumers for products from a single origin—for example single-origin chocolate and single-origin coffee are an incredibly different taste experience from the mass-produced commodities. And it is similarly the case with wine. You can have a very different consumer experience and appreciation when you learn to sample wines from different geographical areas. The geographical indications are a way of telling a story about that product: about the region that it comes from about the soil that it has been grown in about the weather that produces that particular flavour of wine—and it is also why the vintage of wine and taste will change from year to year because the weather changes from year to year—and about all of the other people who grow the wine. All of that is captured in geographical indications as a way of furthering the relationships between the consumers and the product. That is something that the Green Party is right behind. It is about building a relationship between consumers and products and the people who produce those products and the area where those products comes from. It is important to really build that awareness.Geographical indication is just one way of helping to build that awareness amongst consumers for the product and alongside that people often want to know about the history of the region. I remember being quite fascinated with single-origin chocolate—discovering where the cocoa beans had been grown and who grew them and how they were transported here to New Zealand to be made into single-origin chocolate. That has opened my eyes to a whole other way of relating to the products that we consume.I think it is exactly the same for tourists who come to New Zealand and tour the wineries. They can then develop an appreciation of where the wine that they are drinking has come from why it might taste and have the flavours that it does and why it will be distinctive to that area and all of this is building individuality and uniqueness as part of bringing value-added products to the primary production sector. That is something that we really want to be maintaining not trying to compete in a sort of mass-produced anonymous commodities market where it does not matter where the product has come from it is all been blended to be standardised and all the uniqueness and variation has been taken out. That is not the way that we should be building our economy.Our economy should be built on diversification and on relationships between the consumers and the product that they are consuming and purchasing and an understanding and appreciation of where it comes from. With that understanding and appreciation of the uniqueness of the product that they are consuming there is very often a willingness to pay a premium for that product because consumers have built that relationship and that is something that we need to be maximising. That is what this bill is doing and that is why we absolutely support it.There is one important amendment that is included in this bill that I think is incredibly important. It now stipulates that the 15 percent of the wine that does not come from the geographical area still has to come from New Zealand. I think that is an incredibly important amendment. It would be extremely bizarre to go through all this effort to create a unique geographical indication and brand for an area and then dilute that with imported wine. So it is absolutely wonderful that this has been included in this bill. With that it is a pleasure to support the bill. Thank you.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in this first reading of the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee. This is an area of particular interest to me being a winemaker by trade and I am sure it will be of particular interest to Mr Stuart Smith when we come to consider the bill at the Primary Production Committee under the most able and affable chairmanship of Mr McKelvie.Good things take time and good wine is no exception. It would seem—or at least I would hope because it certainly seems the case—that good legislation is no exception either. I say that because the genesis of this amendment bill lies in the primary Act which is the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act 2006. The explanatory note of this bill says that the primary Act was enacted in 2006 but never brought into force. I am grateful for the explanation that Mr Smith gave about the reasons why it was not enacted at the time because it did seem a little bit like making hay while the sun was shining. I wondered whether perhaps back in 2006 things were going so well that Parliament was not very busy. Maybe the House was up to speed with everything and the Government did not have much to do and on that basis it thought it could enact a few laws and just have them on the back-burner waiting to be brought into force if and when there was a rainy day and it needed to be done in a hurry. But I digress a little.The Act was never brought into force and now that it is about to be we have discovered that there are a few things that are not quite right with it. There are things that need to be remedied and brought up to speed as it were before we bring the Act out of mothballs dust it off and fire it up. Hence we are here debating this amendment bill. It is not a monumental piece of legislation. It is not going to set the world on fire. I very much doubt that the 6 o’clock news on either channel will run this as a headline.Hon David Cunliffe: Well I don’t know.RICHARD PROSSER: Well you say that but you never know.Hon David Cunliffe: It’s been a quiet week.RICHARD PROSSER: It has not been that quiet I think. But nevertheless it is an important piece of legislation and it is important that we get it right. So to do that we need to understand why it has come about and what the reasoning and purposes for it are. We will pull all this to bits again in the select committee. We will examine the entrails of the original legislation and so forth.But there is no substitute for going back to the beginning. When I discovered that the Act had been lurking around for 10 years my curiosity was piqued somewhat. So I went back into the archives. I went back and had a look at the Hansard from when the original legislation was introduced. It is intriguing looking back 10 years into Hansard and seeing some of the names that pop out of the pages. Some who have been in the House a long time will remember them and many who were outside the House but followed the proceedings of the House will remember them. They are names that were household names back then walking the corridors of power and so many of them are not here any more but some still are.The Hon Judith Tizard was the Associate Minister of Commerce at the time and moved the original bill back in December 2005. It was 13 December which quite by coincidence—at least I imagine it is by coincidence—was the 363rd anniversary of the day that Abel Tasman first sighted New Zealand. I mention this because it would not have occurred to Captain Tasman back then that perhaps three and a half centuries later the legislature of the islands that he was looking at for the first time would be debating a bill to give recognition to geographical indications of areas that might possibly be bearing his name. I doubt that the Hon Judith Tizard gave that possibility very much thought either. In fact her speech from the files of Hansard gives no indication that that may have been the case.She did however outline the purpose of the bill which was “to put in place a modern efficient and cost-effective process for the registration of geographical indications of wines and spirits which both serves the purposes of our industries and meets our obligations under the TRIPs agreement.” The TRIPs agreement is the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of International Property Rights. The Minister went on to outline quite a bit more about what the bill was intended for and why it would be a very good thing for Parliament to pass it.It was not to everyone’s satisfaction I have to say because she was followed by a certain Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith who began his contribution by expressing frustration at what he perceived was the Minister’s lack of understanding of the bill. He chastised her in the inimitable way that Dr Smith did—and I presume still does—for gabbling and for not having the “faintest notion” of what the bill was about. He roundly castigated her for her lack of proper pronunciation. Mr Assistant Speaker I am sure you will appreciate as will others in the House that when you have been castigated by Lockwood Smith for improper pronunciation you certainly know you have been castigated.But he did support the bill. He expressed the National Opposition’s support for it—get used to that term gentlemen—as did Mr Doug Woolerton from the New Zealand First Party in his inimitable laconic style and also Keith Locke and Shane Jones but not the Māori Party. I found this quite intriguing. Before he was an “Hon” Dr Pita Sharples railed against the bill. He said that it breached the Treaty. He began his speech actually by saying it was going to contribute to the extermination of the tuatara. It all seemed to make sense as his speech unfolded. He proclaimed that his party’s opposition to the bill was on the basis of the recognition of tino rangatiratanga. So I will be fascinated to see whether or not the Māori Party supports this amendment bill. Perhaps there is enough in it enough that has been changed to change the minds of the Māori Party members. Maybe they will find it within themselves to revisit that original opposition.So here we find ourselves in the 51st Parliament bringing modification to an Act that was originally initiated by the 48th Parliament and some of the changes that the amendment bill brings about are technical and some are minor. There is nothing as I say earth-shattering—there is nothing in here that I can see in the first reading that we will violently oppose. There are some questions obviously that I will look forward to examining as I say in greater detail in the select committee. The fixed term for a geographical indication limiting it to 10 years with an ongoing right of renewal is obviously a feature of this amendment. It may be a good thing or it might just be a cynical ploy to extract even more in the way of fees from an industry that is already horribly overburdened with taxes and levies and duties but I will reserve judgment on that until we have had submissions from the submitters to the select committee.The provisions relating to the origin of wine we certainly agree with in that the 85 percent requirement for grapes to have been grown in the particular geographical location remains but it also enforces the requirement for the other 15 percent to be at least from New Zealand. It is one thing to say that a Pinot noir is a Central Otago Pinot noir if 85 percent of the grapes were grown in Central Otago and the other 15 percent were perhaps grown in Waipara but it is quite another matter to call it a Central Otago Pinot noir when the other 15 percent—one-sixth of the wine in fact—were grown in Chile Tasmania Bulgaria or anywhere else.So at this stage I do not intend to take too much more of the House’s time but I reiterate that New Zealand First will support this bill’s referral to the select committee and very probably beyond. I look forward to examining it there particularly regarding the safety of the tuataras. Thank you.TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): That was just a very riveting piece of history there from Mr Prosser. It was quite entertaining. I did read somewhere though that Abel Tasman was a beer drinker but I am not what the relevance is to this piece of legislation.Before I begin I just want to acknowledge the representatives from the winegrowers’ association who are here in support of this bill and the reason why I wanted to do that is that I understand that there was an industry-wide push to have this piece of legislation and as Mr Prosser said it has been a long time in the making. So I just want to acknowledge the industry for its contribution to that. I also want to acknowledge the Minister—who is no longer in the House—who is leading this bill Paul Goldsmith—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!TODD BARCLAY: —for his work on this as well as Tim Groser who is obviously no longer—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Can I just interrupt the member and give him a bit of friendly advice. Do not refer to the absence of members even nicely.TODD BARCLAY: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. So getting back to the bill the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill as we know it provides a mechanism for the registration of the geographical indicators for wine and spirits. Essentially this enables the identification of wine and spirits as originating from a particular region or a country or an area of the world and representing an electorate that has a small but significant wine-growing and wine business population with areas of Central Otago—particularly the Gibbston Valley—I say this is pretty important. I think it has already been remarked that New Zealand is very well regarded for various aspects of its wine particularly its sauvignon blanc. But Central Otago Pinot noir is also very highly regarded and anything we can do to protect the integrity of our premium brand and our reputation as a premium exporter and just the reputation that we have as a producer of products with a constant level of high quality is really important. I think this legislation is critical in that regard particularly as we embark on the further export of wine products.We have seen that dating back to just 1990—the year I was born—our wine export value was almost insignificant. It was almost nothing and today it is worth up to about $1.5 billion. That is huge and the indications show that further exportation is going to take place and the industry is going to continue to grow. As we look to compete more head-on with various competitors across the world maintaining that integrity and the reputation of our products is going to be incredibly important. Effectively 79 percent of our wine is exported and about a third of that is exported to the US. With the signing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement the tariff savings will also be a contributing factor in opening up that market for our wines.As I have said the integrity and reputation and the confidence as well that consumers have in what they are buying as being genuine products of New Zealand or genuine products of Central Otago Marlborough Martinborough or wherever are going to be increasingly important as we look to compete at the premium level. The tourism number of around 550000 wine tourists coming to New Zealand last year is significant and it is significant in the Queenstown part of my electorate as well. We see an increasing number of visitors who are well educated in the wine space coming to New Zealand and if they feel like they are not getting the genuine product when they are purchasing wine then that could have a detrimental effect when they go back home and talk to their colleagues and associates about their travel plans.So as a member of the Primary Production Committee it is a great pleasure to commend this bill to the House. I look forward to following it through the parliamentary process participating in that and listening to all of the organisations and individuals who have got a view on this piece of legislation. Thank you.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I rise to speak to the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill. I come from Marlborough. I am pleased to hear that there are wine industry people in the gallery above me who are very very keen to see this bill passed. It is an interesting one however that although we acknowledge the provenance that is behind this bill which is the absolute issue of markets recognising where stuff comes from—the paddock-to-plate - type scenario—we actually need to support this all the way. So we need to be sure that the product that we are going to put a name to actually will not negatively impact on the reputation of the regions that we will be using the names of. What I am referring to is the issue of big pesticide use labour issues and other social aspects that go with the industrialisation of the wine industry in my region.When we are having eels or tuna killed in a stream—200 of them recently—probably by glyphosate spraying is it the council or is it from adjacent overseas-owned vineyards? If we are going—and we must go—down this track then we must clean up the act of the wine industry around it. There is some really good news stuff from the wine industry too and that is that it wants to be 20 percent organic by 2020. That is a step in the direction of cleaning up some of the reputation that it has had before.Stuart Smith may chortle but this spring—and I have said it in the House before and I have said it to the industry before—just as in 2007 the member over there who is chortling had 100 percent vineyard herbicide coverage in spring to crank up his soil temperatures using a non-sustainable method. But that can get a sustainable wine-growing tick. It is nuts. There is nothing sustainable about having 100 percent of your surface area sprayed with herbicide every spring and of course we know that we have got herbicide resistance with ryegrass in Marlborough from repeated spraying. So I support this bill and our party is going to support this bill but the reputation in our markets is not through having bulk pesticide and herbicide spraying.I know that there is work done to make sure that there is little if any residue of pesticides in the sprays and it is important that we make sure that products going to market are as clean as possible. They can be cleaner and so can the environment in my region where we have tuna dying from pesticides where we are getting spray resistance from herbicides and where we have a lot of people getting sick but we cannot quite put the finger on why. The pesticides invariably used are carcinogenic or probable carcinogens as the World Health Organization says for glyphosate. Others are endocrine disrupters or neurotoxins.We can improve the health of my region Hawke’s Bay and the other regions where we are growing a lot of grapes. It is a fantastic industry—it is doing us proud at the moment in terms of economic benefit—but it needs to convert to doing a lot better than the so-called sustainable wine-growing that is actually almost a crock of the proverbial. Yes it is integrated pest management and it is not spraying every 2 calendar weeks or whatever—there is a certain level of monitoring and decision making around it—but it is a choice of what products are used when there is a pest outbreak. It is an issue of what systems are being used.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member’s time has concluded.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): It is a pleasure to take a call in support of the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge speakers who have gone before and the contribution from New Zealand First with some of the history of this. It has been a week in this House of bonhomie and consensual decision-making and this is not the first bill that has gone through with most probably unanimous support. I guess that is what the public likes to see—Parliament speaking with one voice. The last one was about protecting fish in the Kermadec Islands and in respect of this one you might say some people drink in that way. This will improve the quality of the perception of our wine. Amongst other things it will require geographical indications that will go from 85 percent to 100 percent of the grapes for the wine coming from the regions that are on the indication and that is a good thing—a good thing.There is an interesting history for this bill. The original Act was passed in 2006 by the Hon Judith Tizard. It lay in a veritable legislative stupor. It was not actually set up and now we are back 10 years later to give it a kick along and improve it with the amendment. I think we are all probably of the same mind that the industry has come of age and it is time to lift the bar on geographical indications to 100 percent. So that is good and we expect that when this bill goes through with the broad support of the House the implementation steps will be taken.We will get such great names as “North Island” “South Island” and “New Zealand” thrown in and then beyond that it is going to be up to the regions to define and agree on their geographical indications. So for members opposite they will have a great interest in Marlborough Martinborough Hokonui in the case of the member for Southland—God knows what it is going to come up with—and Central Otago. He is a member who has got a vast swathe of Southland and a little tiny weeny bit of Central Otago so that he can do his odd weekend clinic in the vineyards so I guess that is a fair apportionment. We all smile because this subject matter brings to mind some of the finer parts of recreation and life in New Zealand.I do want to acknowledge the wine industry—the viticulture industry. There are a lot of hard-working people there doing very well. They have had their ups and downs. Grape prices collapsed a few years ago and they have recovered a bit like dairy being down at the moment. There has been a lot of consolidation in the industry. There are a few people who went to set up vineyards and their own wine labels as a kind of lifestyle choice or retirement hobby and it has turned out to be bloody hard work and there has been a lot of consolidation to group that into more economic unit sizes. But it is a high-quality industry. New Zealand wine can hold its head up very high by international standards and arguably there is no finer sauvignon blanc grown in the world than that which comes from Marlborough in New Zealand. I have yet to taste a Pinot noir that I prefer to the one from good old Central Otago.I want to acknowledge Waipara which is doing extremely well and Martinborough as well as Hawke’s Bay and other regions. We have of course in west Auckland—where I have the privilege of being an MP—a fine tradition of the Dalmatian winemakers. There are the Babiches the Brajkoviches and many others who have come up with brands like Nobilo Wines Soljans Estate Winery and Kūmeu River which makes some of the world’s very finest chardonnay and we are very proud of that tradition in the west.Of course Labour will be supporting this bill. We commend the bill to the House. We look forward to its I think unanimous passage and along with the Kermadec fish reserve we look forward to many more years of research of the product. Thank you very much.JONO NAYLOR (National): It is a pleasure to rise to speak to the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill—I just wanted to make sure that I could actually say it without stumbling over the words for a start. Coming from Palmerston North I have got to say that I am very much used to the importance of trading off a good name for a geographical location. So it is something that is dear to my heart—the importance of actually being able to stand by your geographical location and being able to trade off that. However when it comes to wine I have to acknowledge that I am not as learned as Mr Faafoi or any of my colleagues on this side. In fact probably I am just one step above philistine when it comes to my knowledge of wine. But what I absolutely am committed to is this Government being absolutely 100 percent behind our exporters—100 percent behind those who are doing very well—and helping them to ensure that their success continues to grow.In 1990 as my colleague Mr Barclay said earlier the wine export industry was basically non-existent. I have brought a little graphical example—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): They have all been pulled out.JONO NAYLOR: What was that?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): All the vines have been pulled out. The Government paid a subsidy to pull vines out.JONO NAYLOR: Oh OK. Anyway—thank you Mr Assistant Speaker; I thought I had done something wrong which is normally when you intervene but OK—in 1990 the export wine industry was practically nil and you can see a sharp increase on this graph up to 2015 when we are now at over $1.5 billion in exports.If we want our exporters to be successful—if we want them to continue to be successful—we have got to make sure that our legislation continues to support and back them. Giving them this ability to trade off their geographical location to ensure that that has some sound basis behind it so that the consumers can be confident that what they are buying is in fact what it is that they are buying is really important. No disrespect to beer making but clearly obviously it is not necessarily that important whether or not Tui is manufactured in Mangatainoka just around the corner from where I live.Kris Faafoi: It is for them.JONO NAYLOR: It is for the people of Mangatainoka clearly but not necessarily for the consumers.I think I have said enough. There has been a good-humoured debate obviously going on with this bill. But what this bill is going to do I hope is continue to allow this graph to grow at the exponential rate that it already has over the last 25 years. I look forward to seeing even greater wine exports from our country with the aid of this legislation.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Happy St Patrick’s Day to everybody.Kris Faafoi: What’s a good Irish drop?CLARE CURRAN: Oh no. Nobody would like me to tell my Irish jokes as we are standing here tonight. I do think that mentioning St Patrick’s Day is important given the topic of conversation and I hope we have all been having a little wine tonight talking about the wine and whisky. Before we get into the serious part of the bill I would say that I am a bit concerned about the spelling of the word “whisky” in this discussion as we will take it through the select committee. In my view coming from an Irish background—and I think on this particular day I am allowed to have an opinion on this and the opinion is allowed to be respected—whisky should be spelt with an “e” and not just a “y”. So I just want to put that on the record for the House.It is a curious thing to be debating an amendment to an Act that was passed 10 years ago and was not enacted. It has been sitting in an un-enacted state—if there is such a term—since then. It seems that the impetus for the amendment that we have before us tonight in this first reading is an amendment that has been driven by the wine industry and imminent free-trade talks with the European Union whereas 10 years ago that impetus was not there from the amount of reading that I have been able to do on the bill. This impetus has now changed and I think the member across the House Jono Naylor who got up before me to speak was quite rightly pointing out that the wine industry is becoming an increasingly important part of our economy. I think somewhere in the regulatory impact statement it might have been there is a prediction that it is going to be $2 billion of value to our economy in the near future and that is clearly important. Our wine industry is a critical part of our economy and we need to ensure that we are doing the best that we can to protect it.I know we are talking about geographical indications which is a curious phrase and no doubt one that we will all become very familiar with over the passage of this bill. I am certainly keen for the geographical indication of Central Otago to become a meme and for that to be a powerful meme as I am sure it is in our export markets with our major export markets being Europe and Australia and the US as I understand it for wine. This bill seemed to come up again with a survey that was done by the Ministry for Primary Industries last year and there were a number of submissions on that and a number of options that are set out in the regulatory impact statement around how it should be dealt with again.As I said the impetus for this seems to have come from the wine industry itself around ensuring that it is protected in the European market. So Labour is supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee because we think that this needs to be looked at again. But as no doubt other speakers have canvassed through the afternoon there are some substantial changes in this amendment bill to the original legislation from 10 years ago in 2006 with the major amendment being to increase the percentage of local—being New Zealand—grapes in wine to 100 percent as opposed to 85 percent. That was the option that was recommended following that survey and in the regulatory impact statement. I think that is clearly something that will be debated in the select committee as to what the implications of that are and what the risks are of sticking with the existing legislation which is 85 percent. I think they used the phrase “cross-country blending” risks as being one of the major reasons for making that substantial change from the 2006 legislation and also the potential for abuse of wines being created in other countries that are labelled as being “in the style of”—for example Central Otago Pinot noir or Marlborough sauvignon blanc or whatever. I am only going to talk about the South Island because that is what really matters when it comes to geographical indications.What is curious—and this is what I would like to tease out a bit more as we go through the discussion on this bill—is that when this legislation was enacted in 2006 it was enacted at a time according to the regulatory impact statement “when it was expected that negotiations would soon begin on a Wine Agreement with the EU. Negotiations were never started and at the time the New Zealand wine industry did not support the implementation of [this legislation]. As a result [it] was never brought into force.” So I think what we have to do is some catch-up around that: why things have changed what the benefits are now what will actually occur as a result of bringing this legislation into force whether there will be any costs—well of course there will be costs but what the implications of those costs will be and whether they will be costs primarily to the industry—the extent to which there will be a bureaucratic system that is set up to keep a register of the geographical indications what that will involve and the pros and cons of that around the benefits to the wine industry generally and to our trade relationships with the European Union particularly as a consequence. So I am looking forward to that.I am also looking forward to—quickly Mr Assistant Speaker—any innovation that occurs as a result of at least having the discussion and possible legislative outcomes on this around tracing. I think this is a really important area of innovation for food and wine and any other beverages and produce from New Zealand around the innovative technologies that are emerging around tracing what you eat where it comes from including the history the soil quality the geographical surroundings etc. There is a lot of movement happening in this area. Fish is a good example of that. If you go into a restaurant anywhere in the world and you buy a fish that has come from New Zealand there is the potential for you to be able to then trace where that fish came from where it was caught when it was caught what the circumstances were of it being caught and what the surrounding environment was like. That is value-adding for New Zealand food and beverages and I think that this legislation is taking a step in that direction in marketing the importance to the world of the wine industry the grapes and the amazing environment in which they are grown. That can only be a good thing so we are supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I am taking a very short call to support the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill in its first reading. It is really good to see the support for this bill.Just this morning I was in a meeting attended by my colleagues and some business people who are exporting 95 percent of their products. I asked them what the value of Made in New Zealand was to them and the answer was that it is huge. So this bill is about adding that value to our wine and spirit products. The reputation of products that are made here in New Zealand is important to us and if the geographical origin of wine and spirit products is registered giving a clear indication of the specific region it is coming from that will give confidence not only to consumers but also to makers because then they can claim a special place in the market especially the export market. I do not drink but I understand it is very important for those who do drink. I support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.