Connell Brian: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Connell Brian: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4367] 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman for allowing me to take another call and make a contribution to this debate. I commend the last speaker because he is quite right in saying that clause 147 comes just before clause 148. In particular I am concerned that the bill contains strong powers of suspension for the Director-General of Agriculture and Forestry to act against registered plans that no longer meet the requirements of the bill. That is a very significant power. The questions I have are as follows. 
Do we really want to see an industry that is in its fledgling state being so highly regulated? I understand the need to meet labelling requirements but I suggest that maybe this is a little bit of overkill. I can imagine my good colleague Mr Tisch on his second bottle of claret suddenly saying: “We have to stop drinking this because I haven’t checked the label carefully enough.” While he was in Spain I am sure that had he found the label did not quite specify exactly what was in it he would have relied on his taste buds as opposed to what he might or might not have been able to read in his state. 
The next question is more pragmatic. How are we going to police these new regulations? I have read the bill and it seems that a third party a credited person under the supervision of the agency recognised by the regulator is responsible for routine compliance monitoring verification and other functions. That to me suggests that we are creating another bureaucracy. Although the wine industry bodies will be asked to seek a mandate from wine businesses for a compulsory levy on relevant types of wine to fund the industry-good activities do they really want to start going down that path? 
I remember when the Wine Bill was introduced to the House the Minister concerned gave assurances to members that it was something the industry wanted. We took him at his word. When some of my colleagues and I went and spoke to the winemakers some of them said they were not even aware of the bill as opposed to the undertakings that the Minister had given us that everybody wanted it. 
I look at clause 148 and then understand why we want to be more specific in some of our labelling but as I have said my concern is how it will be policed and how it will be monitored. I see an industry that is at present very easy to operate becoming bogged down in bureaucracy and I fear unnecessary compliance costs. It may open a Pandora’s box. The cost of compliance and regulation in this country is an issue that causes me and my National colleagues grave concern. 
I wonder whether the Minister in the chair Damien O’Connor would care to take a call and explain to us how he might divine a path through this legislation that gives the winemakers what they want in terms of some access to the EU market without creating a compliance nightmare. This is something that could create more problems than it solves for this industry. If we are to compete on an international basis we should use our natural advantage—and that is that we are good at producing things without introducing a whole level of bureaucracy and unnecessary costs. 
So I wonder whether the Minister could capture that point when he gets to his feet—because I am sure he will; he is a very direct sort of guy—and say “This is how we intend to handle it.” People will be listening out there today in the wine industry who will be desperately concerned to see how this issue may be handled. I just leave the Committee with that thought—it is something we will sell ourselves short on if we do not pick it up because we do have natural advantages and we do not want to give those away. 
Clause 148 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment.