Prosser RichardRICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): New Zealand First has supported this bill through its stages so far and during the second reading I gave notice that that continuing support might be dependent on the presence or removal as it were of one particular clause—Todd Barclay: Come on Prosser.RICHARD PROSSER: —yes Mr Barclay I will get to that—with which we had particular issue and for good reasons.As Mr Shearer touched on it is pertinent that we are examining this bill at this time because it is important not only for the industry here in New Zealand and for our relationships with trading partners for our imports and exports of wine that geographical indicators be recognised in overseas jurisdictions that we have protection for those but also so that our trade partners have the assurance of knowing that their registered geographical indicators will be recognised here. So it is all part of that same framework. In that light looking at Supplementary Order Paper 244 from the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs as he says in his explanatory note it corrects an oversight. It is technical in nature and it brings the bill back to what it was originally intended to be and we do not have an issue with that. Neither do we have an issue with the bill itself apart from as I say the particular clause which is new section 39A in clause 21B. We really have hit a brick wall with this unless of course the Government can see fit to removing it from the bill or altering it dramatically so that it does not cause the issues for us that we have identified. In the commentary on the bill from the Primary Production Committee—of which I am a member I am very happy to say—the committee said: The bill as 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." and really that should be as far as it needs to go. In some ways it could be argued that it is further than it needs to go but it singles out Māori once again. It does not single out any other ethnic group. It does not single out any other people or division of society for any reason or in any way shape or form but that seems to be the politically correct way that National is evolving and that is the clause with which we have a problem. I have put forward two Supplementary Order Papers to overcome this impasse. The first is No. 246 and it is quite simple. It simply calls for the deletion of clause 21B altogether and that would do away with that problem because the further reference then to the function of the Māori advisory committee established under the Trade Marks Act 2002 to advise the registrar whether the proposed use or registration of a geographical indication is likely to be offensive to Māori simply goes away. I am guessing that the Government has probably done some sort of a deal with the Māori Party and that its continued support for other legislation is dependent on having this continued divisive separatist clause included in the bill but if the Government must insist on having that then we have suggested a compromise. It is on Supplementary Order Paper 245 again in my name which suggests replacing the Māori advisory committee established under the Trade Marks Act with the Geographic Board because as I made mention in the second reading these are geographical indications that we are talking about. They are place names they are names of features and they are names that are currently in use and if it must be presumed that the name of a place or a feature is acceptable for general use then it must by definition be acceptable for use in association with a wine or a spirit that is produced in that region or has a close association with it. If there is going to be some sort of a deviation from that then the Geographic Board we feel is the correct body to examine it. As we have seen with some of its recent press statements the Geographic Board is currently examining a number of place names that although they have history in New Zealand are no longer acceptable in current usage. I refer to a hill in North Canterbury and the official name for it is Nigger Hill. That is obviously plainly unacceptable nowadays and the Geographic Board is removing it and it would be a logical continuation that if somebody attempted to register a wine or a spirit with that name it would be offensive to a great many people and not simply Māori. The Geographic Board could use that as an opportunity to remove that name from the Gazette as well as to deny its use on a wine label. So I certainly hope that the Government will look seriously at at least the second of these two Supplementary Order Papers. If it does then obviously our support for the bill will continue. If not it probably will not. Thank you."