Eckhoff Gerrard: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4265] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The wine industry is a relatively young industry in this country although I think Mr Assid Corban was one of the first. In a real sense it is a young industry although there have been those who have been involved in this industry for a heck of a long time. But we have got to the stage where exports are now absolutely essential for this burgeoning young industry. And of course we know that in most countries the bureaucratic structures that abound constantly demand that we comply with those structures. In many cases they are construed more as tariff barriers than being concerned with the content of a particular food or wine or whatever other product it happens to be. But we have to comply and that is taken as read. If we cannot export our product we are indeed troubled and Europe is such a hugely important market to us. 
Europe of course is the home of wine. The French wine industry is the one that most countries aspire to reach. The level of most of its wine is absolutely first rate. Perhaps not many members of this House are aware that most of the wine one drinks in France actually comes from Italy where it is much cheaper. It is sent over in casks and when one is strolling down the Champs Elysées and enjoying a glass of wine at a roadside café it is dollars to donuts that one will actually be drinking Italian wine. Now that is just an interesting little aside that I thought the House would be terribly thrilled to hear about. 
But I think it is important that we have truth on the labels of our wine in this country—that is that a Riesling is a Riesling or a blend is a blend. Many like Mr Ian Ewen-Street and myself have sophisticated tastes. Mr Ewen-Street comes from that rather interesting wine-growing area of Marlborough. I of course come from Central Otago where some of the finest Riesling that I have ever drunk comes from. It is very important for somebody from overseas to know that he or she is buying Central Otago wine or Marlborough wine or Hawke’s Bay wine or wherever it might come from. But what happens if we get to the stage where we cannot blend? That is happening too. We are getting wine from Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne and down into other areas. We are putting 10 percent in with the local product just to up the sugar or add a bit of flavour or whatever it might be. That is necessary for the wine as well. 
When this bill was before it the select committee recognised that it was essential to maintain the ability of exporters to ensure that the requirements placed on them by the European Union were on the label so that they could carry on with the business of exporting our quality wines right through Europe and to the Americas as well where our products are becoming increasingly respected for their excellence. That is why as I mentioned earlier we must have some sort of truth in the labelling of our wines. 
As I mentioned earlier many would argue that tariff barriers are the reason behind why we have to comply with these bureaucratic structures. I remind this industry that we were guilty of doing the same thing to Chilean wine some years ago when the wine industry was hugely concerned about the flood of very cheap and in many cases very good Chilean wines coming into the country. Somebody found some additive he had heard of or read about that caused some sort of problem so he rang the Ministry of Health and Chilean wines were taken off the shelves. It was nothing to do with the quality of the wine or a safety issue. It was everything to do with a tariff barrier that we placed against Chilean wine. At the stage that happened the wine industry in New Zealand was still struggling to get a good base for itself so we are not as squeaky clean as some would have us believe. So we are guilty as well as I said earlier of those non-tariff trade barriers. 
When playing a round of golf with the Chilean Ambassador at the diplomats and MPs match just recently I was delighted to discover that he was a wine drinker. During that round we discussed the pleasantries of a wine called Cousino Macul which he knew very well. It is an excellent wine and he was delighted that he could buy it in New Zealand. A free-trade agreement—which I am sure is supported by the Minister of Finance—would ensure that such opportunities abound into the future so that we can all enjoy those wonderful wines. 
I mentioned earlier and I say again that problems do exist if we become too constricted too constrained and too bureaucratic. The burgeoning young wine industry got there without the help of Jim Anderton’s $100 million—or I should say the taxpayers’ $100 million. In recent times no taxpayer input has gone into the wine industry. It has developed extremely well by itself and it does not need the plethora of bureaucratic structures it will get. The submissions that the select committee has received in recent times have expressed huge concern that the Wine Makers Amendment Bill is going from about three or four pages long to 100 pages long. That will place some real compliance costs on the industry and the industry has a very real concern that it cannot afford them. 
New Zealand does not just have huge wineries like Montana or Corbans—which are some of the well-known ones—it also has little boutique wineries. Many accountants will tell us that much of the industry is actually struggling. One cannot make a fortune selling wine at $10 or $12 a bottle; one has to get right up to $30 or $40 a bottle and beyond to be profitable so the compliance costs within that industry are of major concern to small wineries that produce not much more than 2000 or 3000 cases a year. That output does not give them the large volume that would ensure some sort of economy of scale so it is very important that compliance costs are kept to an absolute minimum. We look forward to addressing that issue in the near future when the full bill is considered by the select committee.