Roy Eric: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6243] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I did not intend to take a call but I have been persuaded to do so by my colleague’s argument. There are some very good things about this bill and some things that have missed the mark so first I will just say what is good. It is good that New Zealand now has a wine industry that has come of age so we want to protect our identity. Members will recall that in the 1960s New Zealand wine was a joke around the world. We used to see it featured on various television programmes made in the UK as some kind of mistake or as something that certainly did not have the prestige that it has today. So it is good that the wine industry has come of age. The wine that comes out of New Zealand is synonymous with quality and with quite a few specialty areas. A number of New Zealand wines such as sauvignon blanc and pinot noir can stand up anywhere in the world and the good thing about New Zealand is that it has a diverse climate that allows it to produce a great variety of boutique wines. That is good. 
But I am concerned about the process of registering geographical indications. I think that the comment from my colleague Mr Groser as to how this process will function hits upon the issue. It seems to me that we are setting up a bureaucracy in the wine industry that is not mirrored in other areas where there is an appellation strategy—that is a naming branding strategy—where we hand it to the industry and say that it is the industry’s responsibility. Maybe—and I do not know much about this area—an international geographical indication which is what Part 2 provides for needs the kind of protection provided by an Act of Parliament. I do not know that but I accept it may be the case. However I do not accept that we have to create a registrar a registry and a whole lot of laws around that. I believe it is the industry’s responsibility to determine how it wants to do that and how it wants to progress. 
At various times we have had illustrations of how this Labour Government has created myriads of increased bureaucratic offices around the capital. I forget how many more tennis court - sized office spaces there are but the number is significant. And here it seems that we are setting up another bureaucracy. That rings a few alarm bells for me. As I read through Part 2 and saw precisely what it does I became more and more convinced that this is something we should do in the same way that we have done with regard to the dairy industry and its branding or to the branding of any other sector and say it is the industry’s responsibility to set the system up. 
In one of my other roles in Parliament I sit on the Regulations Review Committee. When I reached the end of Part 2 I saw in clause 55 a whole raft of regulation-making powers and that just made me quiver with concern. Clause 55 states: “The Governor-General may from time to time by Order in Council make regulations …”. Set out are 11 different subclauses prescribing the areas that the regulations can be set up for. I can see that there are not really a great deal of checks and balances in that. We are setting up a registrar and giving that official the power to co-opt and appoint people on to his or her own committee and then they will draft regulations as they deem fit without having any responsibility back to the industry as far as I can determine in terms of Part 2. I invite the Minister or anybody else who is promoting this bill to show me how that process works. I ask to be shown the responsibility the registrar has to the industry—the consultation process and the authority that the registrar has to operate on the industry’s behalf. It is Parliament that is giving authority to the registrar not the industry. Not only are we doing that but the registrar is going to keep the registry surrounding geographical indications—