McCully Murray: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — Second Reading 
McCully Murray: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4726] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I could tell from the faces of members around the Chamber that they shared my view that that was easily the most exciting and indeed moving speech ever made in the House by Judith Tizard! [ 
Interruption 
] The look of excitement on Mr Woolerton’s face was a picture to behold! I was moved to reflect that we on the Opposition side of the House worked out some time ago how to tell which members of the Labour Party are in trouble with the Labour Party leadership—they are the ones who are sent down here to the Chamber to suffer during a Judith Tizard speech. She knows she has a unique capacity to make a 10-minute speech sound as though it is an hour and a half long. Mr Jones is clearly in the dogbox yet again because he has been sent down to the Chamber by the Labour whips to endure the speech from the Minister. I tender my sympathy to Mr Jones and to the other members who have fallen foul of their whips and been required to suffer that experience. 
This bill is important. It has a deep significance at this particular time in the history of the wine industry as the Minister told the House when she read her carefully prepared notes—which she had obviously not looked at prior to coming into the Chamber. This bill brings New Zealand into line with certain trade obligations. As a relative newcomer to the ways of the trade sector I have discovered people in the sector have acronyms for everything. [ 
Interruption 
] I know I should not mention trade deals while members of New Zealand First are in the House because they get excited but I say this bill brings the New Zealand wine industry into compliance with obligations the country has under the World Trade Organization and particularly the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights which the Minister referred to. 
I normally have the services of my very well-qualified colleague Mr Groser to interpret these matters for me and it is a matter of some disquiet to me that I do not have his expertise available to me and to the House on this occasion. I say to Mr Woolerton that unfortunately his own expertise on this topic does not quite rival that of my learned colleague Mr Groser. But the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights which is part of the World Trade Organization set-up makes some requirements of New Zealand that are recognised in this bill. As the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Judith Tizard told the House we had in fact passed previous legislation in 1994. That legislation was not brought into operation but the fact that this bill is now required is an indication of the growing reputation and maturity of the industry. 
This bill—to provide a more colloquial account of its utility than the Minister did—will enable winegrowers in New Zealand who manage to achieve a particular quality or character in their wine as a consequence of their skill to have the geographical location recognised in references to their wine. I refer in particular to a quotation from the Wine Institute of New Zealand which represents the winegrowers of New Zealand: “A geographical indication is an indication that identifies a wine or spirit as originating in the territory of a country or a regional locality in that territory where a given quality or reputation or other characteristic of the wine or spirit is essentially attributable to its geographical origins.” It is a tribute to the growing maturing of the industry in New Zealand that there is interest in having this legislation so that some of our more successful winemakers and winegrowers on the international stage are able to take advantage of the facility provided by this bill. 
I do not intend to rehearse the detail of the bill; the Minister did that perhaps to an excessive extent for the purposes of those members who were intent on staying awake. One aspect of the bill gives me some disquiet and I hope some members will give consideration to it when we get to the Committee stage. I refer in particular to clause 51 and to the way that the registrar is empowered by this legislation to appoint committees. The registrar is the person charged under this legislation with receiving and dealing with applications from the industry. Under clause 51 the registrar has the power where the registrar thinks fit to “establish a geographical indications committee”. Where such a committee is to be put together the registrar may appoint some members from the industry but the Surveyor-General or the Surveyor-General’s representative and a member of the New Zealand Geographic Board are required to be members of that committee. I should explain to members that the registrar is as a requirement of this bill a bureaucrat. The legislation requires that the registrar be an official within the Government department that is to administer the legislation. Only when that bureaucrat sees fit to do so will there be an attempt to establish a committee for the purpose of consulting on the applications lodged with the registrar. 
That proposal was the subject of some questioning in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. I regret to report to the House that due to some obligations I had on the Privileges Committee I was unable to be there for some of the hearings in relation to this bill. But I did subsequently take the opportunity to talk to representatives of the industry. Indeed today I have updated those discussions with my colleague Mr Hayes. It appears to me that we have a potential imbalance in this legislation as a result of clause 51 and some of the other clauses that relate to it. I urge the Minister if she is to take an ongoing interest in this measure to give some thought over the next few days to clause 51 and the related provisions in terms of the way that the industry will be able to interface with the registrar. 
I see no absolute requirement for the Surveyor-General or a member of the New Zealand Geographic Board to be mandated as members of any committee established under clause 51 and clause 52 of the bill. If those people have some specialist expertise they can simply be invited to come along to tell committee members what they think about the attribution of certain place names to a type of wine or whatever the proposal is. As the bill stands those people are required to be members of any committee that is established by the registrar. More worrying to me though is the fact that the registrar can simply decide that the registrar—an official a bureaucrat—needs no help. 
During the Committee stage I intend to move that we reconfigure those clauses so that the registrar sits on a board alongside some industry representatives from New Zealand winegrowers and that those individuals jointly have the responsibility to undertake the tasks of the registrar. It seems to me that this measure will be successful only if it is implemented in a way that reflects the expertise of the wine industry. To have before the House a provision in important legislation like this that the expertise of the wine industry will be accessed only if a bureaucrat who may know nothing about the topic whatsoever decides to call in that expertise seems to me to be rather inadequate. So I give notice to the Government that National will move accordingly during the Committee stage. I have consulted with the industry and I am satisfied that such a move is in compliance with the wishes it has previously expressed. 
I simply say to the Minister in charge of the bill to other members on the Government side of the House and to members of New Zealand First and the Green Party in particular who are listening intently to this very interesting address that I hope they will give some thought to this matter. If they take the trouble to consult with the industry they will find there is strong support for those sorts of changes in the legislation. I hope they will give those proposals some consideration over the next few days. I welcome the fact that the bill is before the House. I thank the select committee for the time it has given to it but I commend to the House the utility of some further thought being given to the matters I have briefly outlined today.