Heatley Phil: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9486] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I was intrigued by the last speaker who indicated that this bill does not have high compliance costs. It was never intended that it should have high compliance costs but I need to remind the Chair that as previous speakers have indicated when this bill first hit our desks in October last year it had a high degree of compliance costs. The member whose eye was the keenest in identifying those costs was David Carter but we were quick to follow because we did not see the necessity to load more and more compliance costs on the wine industry—a successful New Zealand business. 
Although David Carter’s eye was keener than most we still found it necessary to equip ourselves with advice. That is where I too would like to acknowledge Phil Gregan and if he were here tonight I am sure he would appreciate my saying that. I am sure I would win his vote if he lived in Whangarei and I acknowledge him for the time and effort he put in. I enjoyed his input—he was very succinct and clear. His “yes” meant yes and his “no” meant no. He was a very patient adviser and a very patient advocate for the wine industry and I am letting that be known. 
It is interesting to note that when we worked through this bill clause by clause word by word with our knives out carving out the bureaucracy and compliance costs Phil Gregan— 
Hon David Carter 
: The “Paper Reduction Bill”. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: It was. When we come to the debate on the title in the Committee stage we will be considering calling this bill—and Rodney Hide will be interested in this—the “Paper Reduction Bill” because we carved so much crap and compliance costs out of it. 
Phil Gregan was interesting. For instance we would say to him: “This is what this clause deals with in our view. Can you give us a brief precis on that?”. He did. We would say: “Is this acceptable or unacceptable?”. He would tell us and we would move on. We would say: “Is this negotiable?” and he would indicate whether it was negotiable. If it was negotiable we would negotiate and move on. We would say: “Is this non-negotiable?” and on behalf of the wine industry he would say: “This is non-negotiable.” and it was. We made changes and I am proud of that. That is the end of my acknowledgment of Phil Gregan. If he were here tonight he would appreciate that; and if he has any family living in the Whangarei electorate I am sure they will indicate their thanks in 2005. I acknowledge David Carter and all my colleagues on the Primary Production Committee who worked well together on that committee. 
Trade issues came up a fair bit. Madam Speaker you will recall—because you have been taking an intense interest in this bill over the last 18 months—that Part 5 of the original bill was separated out and passed earlier this year as the Wine Makers Amendment Act. That legislation governed the labelling of wine to ensure its access to export markets—particularly if I recall to the European Union. The bill originally dealt with trade issues. We carved off Part 5 but the bill continues and the guts of it still continues to deal with trade issues. 
We do have a successful wine industry and I have to confess that my family as consumers contributes to that industry in one way or another. At the heart of the Wine Bill is the concept of wine standards management plans. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: “WSMPS”. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: That is what we ended up calling them and it was all to do with trade and standards. Those plans provide a single comprehensive and verifiable regime for food safety compliance and we know how important that is when it comes to trade wine composition labelling and overseas market access requirements. Those are the four legs of the table. They are the issues that provide stability for this industry when exporting overseas: food safety wine composition labelling and overseas market access requirements. All are important. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What if the table doesn’t have four legs? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: It is quite true that three-legged tables do not have four legs but I am talking about the success of this industry being underpinned by those four concepts: food safety wine composition labelling and overseas market access requirements. 
Wine standards management plans which are at the heart of the bill are developed by the industry and approved by another body. It is envisaged that they might be developed on a type of template basis across a particular wine industry incorporating what exists because a fair bit does exist. Most manufacturers understand the importance of labelling and of winning and maintaining market access. They understand the issues to do with food safety so a lot of those things are already in place. However the wine standards management plans will make sure that on a template basis or on a more specific basis they can incorporate the codes of practice within the industry. That is very important for export markets. 
Much was made of the Coopers Creek fiasco some time ago and members have addressed that. I know that David Carter knows a fair bit about it and the member of Parliament who spoke on behalf of United Future also mentioned it. The Coopers Creek incident caused a lot of trouble for the wine industry overseas and we do not want to see that happen again. We hope that such incidents have been curtailed firstly by Part 5 of the original bill which was separated out and made into an amendment to the Wine Makers Act and secondly by the wine standards management plans. The bill also requires that all winemakers must operate under a registered wine standards management plan specific to them. There is a degree of flexibility there and we have been quite concerned to make sure that growers do not face too many hurdles in obtaining them—particularly those who have standards in place which of course involves most growers these days. 
The bill contains strong powers of suspension in respect of the Director-General of Agriculture who has the powers to act against registered plans that no longer meet the requirements of this legislation. If winegrowers do not comply as of the date the bill is passed and those particular clauses come into effect the Director-General of Agriculture can use his or her powers of suspension. That is addressed in clause 17 which is a clause I would like to speak about in more detail during the Committee stage because such powers should not be used loosely. We talked for some time with submitters about that but we also understood that those in the industry who do not comply and bring the whole industry into disrepute—particularly in our overseas markets—need to be punished. The Director-General of Agriculture clearly has powers to address that problem under clause 17 which I will speak about later. 
The need to pass this legislation is vital to the future of the rapidly growing wine industry. The setting the monitoring the compliance and the enforcing of agreed wine quality standards plus a more flexible system to ensure continued market access and a revised system for setting levies are seen by the industry as being the main benefits. The downside of the legislation which I will address is seen by the industry as being the cost of compliance and I will be talking about that. That matter has to do with clauses 85 to 97 and I can assure members that they will hear about it later.