Sharples Pita: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — Second Reading 
Sharples Pita: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4730] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Four days ago the nation willingly contributed to the extinction of the last living representative of the reptilian order. And before everyone starts calling out about Fred and Wilma Barney and Betty and Dino let me tell members what I am talking about. The Maori Party acknowledges the demise of a tipuna an ancestor that is the sole survivor from a lineage stretching back over 225 million years. It is a tipuna that up until Monday graced our 5c coins—the tuatara the unique living fossil that exists today in its ancestral home of Takapourewa Stephens Island in Cook Strait. 
The survival of the tuatara was threatened by habitat loss introduced animals and global warming and now it seems the decommissioning of currency. For Ngati Koata of the Marlborough Sounds the protection and rights of the tuatara had nothing to do with the Reserve Bank. Indeed it was the concern they had over the failure of the Crown to protect and exercise tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga over their indigenous flora and fauna such as the tuatara that saw them join with Ngati Kuri Ngati Wai Te Rarawa Ngati Porou and Ngati Kahungunu to present the 262nd claim lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal—a claim known as Wai 262. 
 For Ngati Koata their iwi responsibility of kaitiakitanga has seen them care for the tuatara without the need for the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill. When a local wine producer Waimea Estates first announced that its latest wine would be launched with the Tuatara label Ngati Koata upheld their kaitiaki responsibilities to provide protection for the geographical indication of their ancestral name. Such was the significance of the authenticity of that name the identity and the whakapapa of the tuatara that Ngati Koata were able to impress upon Waimea Estates a recognition of their ownership control and protection of their cultural and intellectual property. 
And so it came to be that on 5 June 2006 Waimea Estates introduced a new label into the United States with a flashy launch at The New Zealander which is a restaurant in Alameda California. It was the latest addition to the Waimea Estates wine cellar—the Spinyback label. It was a win-win all round. Ngati Koata retain the naming rights of their customary and intellectual heritage rights associated with the tuatara and Waimea Estates capitalises on a unique brand. An arrangement was worked out between the wine producer and the iwi to ensure that Ngati Koata also benefit from the use of their intellectual property rights. And it is going to be a good deal more than a 5c coin. 
This was achieved before the bill ever saw the light of day. The bill sets in place legislative obligation to provide protection for geographical indications which are location-specific naming rights that the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) classifies as intellectual property. The TRIPs agreement creates the incentive to establish an effective administrative system to establish process and maintain registration; to deal to restrictions on the use of geographical indications and exemptions; and to set in place an appeals process to challenge decisions made by the registrar if necessary. Well that is a lot of words and systems and processes and administration for what Ngati Koata and Waimea Estates seem to have done pretty much on their own already. 
Members should not get me wrong—the Maori Party believes that geographical indicators have the most potential of all provisions in the TRIPs agreement to benefit the indigenous people. In their essence the indicators could offer protection and rights over the regionally based products and produce of hapu and iwi. But this bill is not about the protection of indigenous crops. It is not about the legal customary rights to biological and genetic resources of indigenous and taonga species. It does not cover pohutukawa; koromiko; kumara; puawananga which is clematis; indigenous forests; kereru which is the pigeon; pupu-harakeke; which is the flax snail; or the tuatara. It is about wine which is not indigenous to Aotearoa. 
But that is not why the Maori Party is opposed to this bill. It comes back to the questions asked by the Wai 262 claimants Dell Wihongi Haana Murray the late John Hippolite the late Tama Poata Katarina Rimene and the late Te Witi McMath. They asked whether the law or trademarks in Aotearoa recognise kaitiakitanga the guardianship of tangata whenua. Is the use of the trademark registration system by third parties in relation to taonga works particularly design and symbols a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi or its principles? What about the scope of the Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples or the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? How do these international treaties enhance the protection preservation control use development and regulation of Maori knowledge—matauranga Maori? 
The Mataatua declaration signed at Whakatane in 1993 recognises the importance of self-determination for enabling indigenous peoples to protect our culture customs and intellectual property rights. You see there are already protective mechanisms in place. There is already a flora and fauna and cultural intellectual property claim before the tribunal. Such was the significance of the authenticity of that name the identity and the whakapapa of the tuatara that Ngati Koata went that way. 
The United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which to this Government’s shame it has shied away from states: “Indigenous peoples are entitled to the recognition of the full ownership control and protection of their cultural and intellectual property.” That means in plain English Maori words and names. Yet in this bill a proposal is put to safeguard and preserve the name “Marlborough” as one of the foremost sauvignon blanc wine regions of the world. The bill will preserve the uniqueness of the location called Marlborough. But what about Marlborough west of Boston? What about Marlborough of Wiltshire England? And while we are talking about original names what about Kenepuru Te Tai Tapu Te Wairau and Awatere—the names of the original peoples the mana whenua of this area Marlborough? 
If we are looking at trade names let us look at the registration of Awatere Terrace Vineyards in this area. This bill introduces the “first in time first in right” principle for determining which right has the priority. So theoretically Awatere Terrace Vineyards which was first in can use the word “Awatere” and Tohu Wines the first local indigenous wine company producing wine for domestic and export markets is deprived of the use of their own name. The name “Awatere” comes from their whakapapa. Yet this bill we are discussing today might prevent Tohu Wines from using their own name their name which was passed down through whakapapa lines. 
The bill does state that in some very limited circumstances there is the potential for a later-filed geographical indication to be registered despite a pre-existing trademark having priority. In determining whether a later-filed geographical indication is to be registered the registrar considers such things as the legitimate interests of the owner of the trademark and of third parties and other factors which may include international considerations. Yet given the appalling recent record overseas of this Government in the increasingly hostile position towards indigenous peoples and our right to self-determination one wonders whether cultural appropriation would cause any concern. Indeed one wonders whether the Government is opening the gate for cultural appropriation and the denigration of indigenous people to be acceptable. Let us recap: deleting the Treaty from legislation; deleting the Treaty from education; removing Maori arts from the curriculum; the foreshore and seabed—shall we go on? 
The Maori Party recognises the tino rangatiratanga of hapu and iwi in relation to their own cultural heritage rights and taonga. Because of that recognition we will not support this bill.