Carter David: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
Carter David: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9495] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I shall pick up on the questions raised by my colleague Phil Heatley and ask the Minister why he felt we had to hear so many submissions and so much angst amongst the submitters. I suggest that if he does not have the answer I shall take him through to explain to him the need for the alterations we made. There was widespread submission about the positioning of clause 128. For those members interested that is the clause around consultation and notification. The concern expressed to us that required some significant work by the select committee was the issue of consultation. I take this opportunity to advise the Minister that the distrust in which the industry held the Labour Government was caused by the sherry tax to which my colleague Phil Heatley has just referred. Not only were discussions occurring between the industry and the Minister as the bill was devised but at the same time other Cabinet colleagues of the Minister wrote to various members of the industry saying that no further tax increases would be imposed by surprise. Then as Mr Heatley has reminded the House tonight we were slammed into urgency and we worked through the night fighting gallantly to avoid grandma’s tax. 
That is the basis on which we made a significant change to clause 3 “Objects of Act” and we took the opportunity to insert a new clause 3(da) which meant that the fundamental object of the legislation is to promote consultation with industry organisations on the regulation of the industry as an aid to fostering efficiency in growth in the New Zealand wine industry. I have to say that even as the legislation now passes through the House there is still an element of concern amongst the industry as we move from the legislative stage to the regulation-making stage. 
As many members in this House will know in legislation such as this the devil is in the detail. Regulations will be required and we accept that but I certainly hope that there will be widespread meaningful consultation with the industry as those regulations develop. Following the process the select committee went through officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry would have appreciated the need to foster that relationship. I certainly do not criticise them in any way whatsoever. However it is important for the Minister also to appreciate the importance of genuine consultation. 
A great deal of harm was done to the relationship by the $18 million tax increase or grandma’s sherry increase; that sort of mistrust is easy to create and often it is very very difficult to regain support and confidence. After all the Minister with his recent escapades with the flatulence tax knows exactly how easy it is to upset a community by simply promoting bad bad policy. That is the principal clause I wish to speak on in this contribution—the significant changes the select committee made strongly enforcing the requirement of consultation moving it to the front of the bill and the alteration to clause 3 with the insertion of new paragraph (da). 
My second point is about the submission received from winegrowers regarding the positioning of clause 128. The committee gave a lot of thought to moving that clause because that request was made to us. On reflection and on seeking advice we were advised that to do so would give an inconsistent tone to the bill and the committee happily accepted that recommendation.