Tisch Lindsay: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9495] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I shall take a brief call on this very important legislation. I was fortunate to sit on the select committee in Christchurch. However not being a wine connoisseur I know very little about the industry. I am known as one who went to a restaurant and when someone asked me whether I wanted a Sauvignon Blanc I asked whether that was a red or a white. That was my understanding— 
Hon David Carter 
: Where were your French lessons? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I did not take French so French is not one of my fortes. 
Darren Hughes 
: The member’s friend is Johnny Walker. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: There we have it. We have talked about the granny tax and if we look at clauses 85 to 97 on compliance costs huge compliance costs have already been mentioned in this debate. One of the issues in all legislation that this Government has become very prone to is to bring in charges that will affect an industry by way of regulation. Phil Heatley and my colleague David Carter talked about the sherry tax. That tax was imposed with a view to stopping younger-age drinking or binge drinking. Who are the people who would be affected by that? The alcohol volume in those drinks was much higher than anything younger people would be interested in. It was those older folk who like to have their wine and sherry before they go to bed. The young member over there who wants to criticise and make comments about the habits of people should reflect that this Government has done the industry a disservice and an injustice. 
I want to come back to the work that was done by the chairperson of the select committee. I was impressed with his knowledge and understanding. All the members made a contribution to that select committee process and I sat on the select committee once only down in Christchurch. I pay a special tribute to the Hon David Carter because he steered through a major change from the original drafting as we have heard tonight in the second reading and Committee stage speeches. We have seen that a cut-and-slash approach has been through and taken out some compliance that was not in the industry’s interests. It was a bill that had been hastily prepared. Legislation should be industry driven. It should be what the industry requires and wants and we have heard tonight that the current bill is a vast improvement. 
As I said earlier I am not a wine drinker but I certainly appreciate the fine wines of people who understand the industry. I was in the fortunate position last year of being in Spain and in Madrid in particular. Some New Zealand wine importers were at a function at the ambassador’s home. The reputation of New Zealand wines was such that those people were saying to us—Bernie Ogilvy and Jill Pettis the junior Government whip were there and will appreciate what I am saying—that they could not get enough New Zealand wine. The reputation of New Zealand wine was such that it was outstripping French wine. The Spaniards were more interested in buying New Zealand wine than they were in wine from across the border in France. 
So New Zealand wine has a reputation throughout the world not just in New Zealand. When we looked at the expanding markets within the European Union and as we travelled through France to the UK we saw that the reputation of New Zealand wine had preceded it. If members have ever spent time in the United States they will know that on the Pacific rim—the western seaboard of the United States particularly California—New Zealand wine has a high reputation. This bill allows the industry to have some transparency and accountability. National supports the bill we are now debating which has come about under the chairmanship of the Hon David Carter and we are pleased to be part of that process. I draw the Committee’s attention to those particular clauses—[ 
Interruption 
] I just sought another call so I will continue in the same vein. I draw the Committee’s attention— 
Dail Jones 
: He isn’t even speaking to the bill. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I am. I am talking about clauses 85 to 97 which—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. When I sought leave that the bill be taken as one question the House gave me leave for a wide-ranging debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite correct. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I bring the Committee’s attention to that because there was a comment made by the New Zealand First member that I was not speaking to the bill. I want to assure members that I am speaking to the bill because I did attempt— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Would you reach the microphone if you weren’t standing on the bill? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I am standing. I want to draw the Committee’s attention to clauses 85 to 97 because those provisions contain the compliance costs that we see in so much legislation today which is one of the issues that National has with any legislation. I have called it regulatory creep. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No new taxes. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: This is a Government that said there would be no new taxes yet we have had 18 new taxes. We sat in the House under urgency one night which members will remember and increased the tax for those poor elderly people who like to have their port and sherry. The Hon Dr Nick Smith had the bottles lined up here which showed that the younger people whom that piece of legislation was aimed at do not drink those ports and sherries. They are into those ready-made drinks which I do not know much about because I am not a connoisseur. The member has just handed me a couple of examples. This one is a schnapps Archers Aqua orange with 5.5 percent alcohol by volume. 
Hon David Carter 
: They wouldn’t be covered by the bill. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: They are not covered by the bill. The point we made was that that tax was increased at that time which did a disservice to the whole industry. The Government’s increasing taxes and compliance costs while this bill was being debated in its early stages did the wine industry no good. That is why I go back to the point I have been making. It was the Hon David Carter as chair and members of the National team who were able to bring some sense accountability and transparency into the bill we are debating tonight. National has great pleasure in supporting it because we were very much part of making this user-friendly legislation and the wine industry has supported it but I still come back to clauses 85 to 97 which relate to the high compliance costs that we will have to deal with. 
I also want to go back to clauses 56 57 and so on which concern the wine officers. These are extraordinary provisions. There will be people called “wine officers” who will police the regulations. They will have the power to get search warrants and enter property. That came up earlier when the member for Ilam Gerry Brownlee spoke. He talked about how one had to go and get a search warrant from a JP District Court judge community magistrate or registrar under clause 66 “Issue of search warrant”. I ask the Minister in the chair Jim Sutton to take a call on that. 
The wine officers have extraordinary powers and one would hope that those powers are not misdirected. Those powers are there for the benefit of the industry. We would like to make sure that that is the fact. Nothing concerns me more than people being given powers and thinking they can go out there and do anything they like. We are interested in the well-being of the industry. We want to make sure that wine officers do have the mandate and that their role is clearly defined. Otherwise we will find that the industry will be disadvantaged.