Wine Makers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Wine Makers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4361] 
Wine Makers Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill. Those people who have had an opportunity to study the Wine Bill will know that that this bill separates out Part 5 from that bill. The bill is supported by the entire industry and makes some very important recommendations in order to meet the requirements of the European Union’s labelling standards so that our wine can continue to be exported to the European Union. 
Those of us who have studied the wine industry either from a pleasure or an economic point of view will know that the industry has grown enormously over the last decade or so—somewhere in the order of about $35 million of wine produced in this country in 1992 has increased to $250 million and I suggest that there will be a very strong upward trend in the industry. There is a massive international demand for our wine and with very good reason. We have led the way in producing such wonderful wines as Sauvignon Blanc and New Zealand’s reputation is growing. 
The European market is very important for our wine industry and this bill simply contains our requirement to comply with market regulations. As I have said failure to do so would prevent our wine from being exported in particular to countries like the UK. As someone who has lived in the United Kingdom for the past 5 or 6 years I would have had to be blind not to see the amount of New Zealand wine that is sold there not only in the fine restaurants in High Street but also in retail outlets right across the country. 
I commend the Government for separating out clause 5 from the Wine Bill and including it this bill. That is the whole purpose of the bill and I commend the Government for doing that. It is very necessary to do so because a failure to comply with the European Union’s regulations would mean that we would not reach our export potential. I make the point that in a way it is sad that this bill is required. It really is an example of a non-financial tariff being imposed by the European Union. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Which bill are we talking about? 
JOHN KEY 
: The Wine Makers Amendment Bill. Am I confusing you Mr Chairperson? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No but the member needs to talk about the title and the title only. 
JOHN KEY 
: My great apologies. Maybe we should change the title to state “Part 5 of the Wine Bill”. Clearly the title reflects the fact that the bill is very much related to the wine that is made in this country requiring good labelling. It is very important that those who consume and purchase wine understand what they are buying. One of the reasons that that is so critically important is that failure by one winery to understand and clearly label what is in its wine as this bill demands would really impinge on all winemakers and their reputation. 
The title “Wine Makers Amendment Bill” reflects the guts of what this bill tries to do. Clearly it is related to winemakers and is an amendment of the 1981 Act. I could maybe propose new titles now that would be slightly better than that title such as the “Wine Makers Producers Growers and Manufacturers Amendment Bill”. The wine industry has developed into a very large industry in New Zealand. One could argue that the word “Winemakers” is narrow in the sense that the industry does not involve just the makers of wine. Clearly it also involves growers and those who produce wine. “Makers” is quite a narrow term in a lot of respects. Maybe a broader term would befit a bill such as this. However I do not think we want to slow the passage of this bill in the House simply by arguing the semantics of a four-word title. I could be frivolous and waste the Committee’s time but I feel that that would be totally inappropriate. I would never do that. This Parliament is far too important an institution for me to waste its time simply by arguing that the title of a bill could have five words instead of four. That would be totally inappropriate. 
This is a winemakers’ bill. It is an amendment to an existing bill. It is important legislation and I think at that point I may simply rest my submission on behalf of the National Party as I see Mr Chairperson reaching for the bell. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I take my colleague Mr Key’s point that we do not want to delay the proceedings of the House unnecessarily. However it is important that every member who wishes to do so exercises the right to debate this bill and we are debating the title at this time. There is a disturbing trend that when we do debate bills we need to be given some idea—indeed the public should be given some idea when they read that this bill was debated in Parliament today—of what it was all about. The reality is that somebody reading the  
Otago Daily Times 
 tomorrow morning could simply gloss over the fact that an aspect that is very very important to the wine industry was debated. There is absolutely nothing in the title of this bill that would give any indication to any member of the public that these provisions which were in Part 5 of the Wine Bill are all about securing access for our wine exports to the European Union. 
We receive a lot of complaints about the levels of bureaucracy and the huge numbers of bills that we pass in Parliament and this bill is crucial as has been pointed out by Mr Keys. It is absolutely crucial to every winemaker and indeed to every wine exporter. This bill is not just about winemakers as the title would have one believe. The title of the bill is quite wrong. If I had thought about it earlier I would have put in an amendment to call the bill the “Wine Exporters Amendment Bill”. Winemakers I would hope recognise the job that exporters do in sending our good products—world-class products—to the world because that is hugely important. We need to inform the public when we debate bills like this one that their titles are entirely accurate. I do not think anybody here would say that the title of this bill is entirely accurate. The word “exporters” should be included in the title of this bill somewhere along the line in order to ensure that the wider public do understand exactly what is being reported when they read the paper as they do on a regular basis and see that “the `Winemakers and the Potential to Export Wine Bill’ came before the House on this Tuesday and was debated very vigorously and very soundly by all members present.” 
I would just like to make that one point: that regrettably the title of this bill does not accurately reflect what these provisions are really all about. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First needs to take only a moment on this bill as we did in the second reading. It is a very important bill for the growers of wine in New Zealand. I believe previous speakers in the second reading and the like have made the issue clear: we need to get this bill through the House because of the requirements of the European Union on our winemakers. I have read all 111 submissions to the Primary Production Committee on Part 5 of the Wine Bill. All those in the industry and those who are interested in this bill want it to go through the House urgently. New Zealand First supports that and I have nothing further to say. 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 It is a challenge and a pleasure to rise to speak on this bill. I understand why the Government has separated out Part 5 from the Wine Bill in order to drive this legislation through the House. It is because these provisions are required to ensure New Zealand’s wine exports meet the labelling regimes in overseas markets especially those in the European Union. 
One has only to travel around New Zealand to understand the importance of winemaking and wine exports to our economy. But I am not certain that we have captured that importance in the title of this bill. I think we have probably exercised a lack of flair. In fact I would go as far as to say I am a little saddened by the title. The title “Wine Makers Amendment Bill” lacks a certain elegance does it not? Although I hasten to add that this is not National’s position surely we could have exercised a certain flair. After all no winemaker has ever sold his or her clarets or Sauvignon Blancs under the exciting description of “pressed and fermented grape squeezings in a glass container”. I am sure that if we use the present title for this legislation it probably will not grip the winemaking industry and I do not think it will grip the wider New Zealand public. 
I think we have missed an opportunity here to capture the exciting allure—a little mystery perhaps—of winemaking and wine taking. I do not think that members of the Committee who have participated in an evening of wine sampling with a few friends in the middle of winter around a fire with a big juicy red in the hand would say that this title captures that excitement and pleasure. We could probably try a more appropriate title like “New Zealand’s Exotic Wines Amendment Bill” or “Wine Exporters Amendment Bill” because I think those titles would probably be more accurate descriptions of what we are trying to capture. The “New Zealand Wine Exporters Amendment Bill” might in fact be a better way of branding not only our industry but our place in the sun when it comes to winemaking. 
As an aside though if we can work together to hasten the passage of this amendment bill through the House I wonder why it is that the Government cannot use its powers to speed other important legislation through the House like the Wool Industry Restructuring Bill or the Resource Management Amendment Bill for example. When it comes to passing those pieces of legislation the Government is dragging its feet. The Wine Makers Amendment Bill is probably setting a precedent—I hope it is—in how the Government might want to conduct its business through this House. If that is the case I am sure that on other occasions it would be a real pleasure to speak about legislation of this quality. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on this bill. An important part of any debate of course is the title and as other speakers have said this bill takes out Part 5 from the Wine Bill. As my colleague John Key has suggested the words “Part 5” should be in the title. That would clearly reflect or crystallise what the bill is about. We support this bill which is about allowing New Zealand wine to have access into overseas countries. The European Union is very important in terms of labelling and access. 
I had the opportunity just as the junior Labour whip had to be able to sample some New Zealand wine recently in Madrid. 
Brian Connell 
: As business? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It was part of business. It was at the ambassador’s home in Madrid. There were people there who were importing New Zealand wine into Spain and it is a growing and exciting market. I was unaware that that market had such potential through Spain and into Portugal. When one has New Zealanders involved in the export of New Zealand wine to that part of the world then that is something to be encouraged. We want to make sure as this bill allows that they have access to that market. Of course the European Union is very strict in its regulations and licensing and our overseas exports are growing. They have doubled between 1990 and 2000 and the value of wine exports has increased from $34.7 million in 1992 through to $246 million in 2002. So in a 10-year period our wine exports have gone up by $200 million. That is significant and we want to make sure that our exporters are able to compete in the marketplace internationally. 
Having sampled that wine and been privileged to meet importers of New Zealand wine while visiting Spain I certainly support as National does the progress of this bill. As I said probably the title should reflect what the bill is about and the words “Part 5” should be part of the title. National will be supporting that amendment. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2Commencement 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 The sad issue I guess is that when one reads the commencement date one learns the bill comes in the day after the day on which it receives the royal assent. The real question is why this bill is being presented to the Committee with a commencement date sometime I would suggest in April or May. As the submissions to the Primary Production Committee pointed out—all 111 of them—this is crucial legislation for the winemakers of New Zealand and the facts are that they will not have this legislation passed now and that its commencement date will be later than the Government promised them. Winemakers were promised that the bill would be passed before Christmas. The bill was to have been a nice little Christmas present for them and its commencement date was to have been before Christmas. Clearly they will not have that as Christmas has come and gone. Indeed the commencement date will now take place as I have suggested in April or May. 
That saddens me because winemaking is a crucial business and industry for New Zealand. It is an industry with a strong upward trend and an industry that in many respects will have its future in the export markets. We simply do not have enough people in New Zealand who will keep consuming wine compared with the number needed to drink the volume of wine we could manufacture in this country because we do it so well. I think that the Government has been a little tardy in introducing this bill and because of that the commencement date will be later than the date that we on the National side of the House had hoped for. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The commencement clause is important. I always seem to be following Mr Key in these debates and as he says it is important for winegrowers to understand exactly when this whole process is taking place. Clause 2 states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” When is that? Which date is that—in which month and year? That clause is very open-ended. Can anyone in this House recall writing a contract for example that was so open-ended as to come into force sometime? Is that clause not an example of bad governance? 
I think that the Government really needs to take a hard look at itself and to put some defined parameters around the commencement date of bills—not just this bill but any other bill that comes before the House—to give a bit of certainty on this issue. Gracious me that is what industry in New Zealand—indeed anywhere else for that matter but especially in New Zealand—is looking for these days. Industry is looking for a little certainty surrounding a very simple thing like a commencement date. If the Government cannot find an appropriate commencement date that would indicate to me that the management and control of government in this country is not what it should be. Perhaps we have known that for 3-and-a-bit years now. 
Nevertheless the commencement date of any legislation is very important to those specifically concerned with the particular industry it deals with. Quite frankly the open-ended date in this bill is not appropriate and it is something that I believe the Government needs to address. But we would hope for the sake of the wine industry that this legislation will commence in the not too distant future. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Clause 146 agreed to.  
Clause 147 agreed to.  
Clause 148 New sections 31 and 31A substituted 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 I want to take a quick call on this clause. This bill as members will know and as those members of the public who have had an opportunity to study the bill will know came about rather interestingly on the back of the labelling requirements of the European Union. I am the member of Parliament for Helensville and within that electorate we have a growing wine industry. I have a real sense of pride when I drive around my electorate in seeing the vines of those wineries growing at the side of the road and knowing they produce really international world-class wine. I could name them for members but they could probably name them back to me as the makers of the wines that they enjoy on an evening at any time of the year—Kumeu River Nobilo Wines Matua Valley Wines Soljans Estate Winery and I could name many more. 
Interestingly enough one of the wineries in my electorate is Coopers Creek which is the very winery that led to this bill. Members will remember that in 1997 Coopers Creek was involved in a wine-labelling scandal that resulted in the demand that companies made sure they produced accurate labels. It is very very important that the industry produces wine that is labelled accurately. Clause 148 certainly speaks to that objective quite clearly and addresses at some length the need for that. Simply put that is very very important for the entire industry because it relies very heavily I guess on a collective responsibility. If some consumers particularly in the international market were to try a bottle of New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc for the first time whether chilled from their refrigerator or at a local restaurant have it opened at their table and poured into their wine glasses as they were about to consume their food for the evening and if they were to sip something that had a Sauvignon Blanc reputation—tasting maybe of gooseberry with a light raspberry flavour to it— 
Jill Pettis 
: It sounds as though you are speaking from experience. 
JOHN KEY 
: I admit to the junior whip for the Labour Party that it is an experience I have partaken of from time to time. I can assure her that it would not be my first time; I cannot describe myself as a virgin drinker of New Zealand wines. I simply cannot put that label on myself although labelling is the very nature of this whole bill. In some ways it is quite ironic that I am talking about labels for myself because I am not here to talk about myself. Goodness knows I do that often enough. I am here to talk about this bill. 
The interesting thing is that if that wine I was referring to was not for instance a Sauvignon Blanc but a blend of some sort that had been mislabelled then that could give the entire industry a bad name. The good name of the industry is really what we are trying to protect in this legislation as well as our access rights to overseas markets for New Zealand wine. So clause 148 is an important part of this bill and it drives this part of the legislation through—legislation that is supported by all winemakers in New Zealand. It is my great privilege along with the National Party to support the passage of this bill through the House and to support the very capable Minister. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I want to make the astounding revelation to the Committee that clause 148 of course follows clause 147 which for the benefit of some members might be an interesting revelation. Clause 147 is a very important part of the bill because it is about the availability of information. I will not dwell on that but I think it needs to be emphasised that the availability of information to winegrowers and exporters—the people who want to get out there and do the job of selling our product to the world—is very very important. The access requirements for overseas markets are to be made available for inspection “free of charge or for purchase at reasonable cost’’ I note. That is quite contradictory but it is a very important clause. 
We come then to clause 148 and I note that new section 31(1)(h) which is inserted by that clause states “prescribing the information or other matters that must be specified”.There are some matters of concern relating to that provision. It is possibly not known to many members that some wines may well contain fish extracts. Fish extract is used to fine the wine—to take all the cloudy particles out of it. Will we demand of our winegrowers in this country that when people are enjoying a glass of wine in Spain or New York and they turn the bottle round to read the label they can read that it “May contain fish extracts”? That will totally muck up if I can put it that way the experience of—[ 
Interruption 
] Well it is. It is a very important part. Have we clarified just exactly what will be on the label and what will not? If the department requires such explicit information then I have a real problem. I do not believe for one moment that it is our intention to put on a label details that may well upset the experience—and it is a real experience—of enjoying a nice bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon or whatever from New Zealand because of the sort of information that is required on labels. That is a matter the ministry needs to clarify. 
I make the point as well that not very long ago there was a degree of panic within the wine industry when it demanded the removal of Chilean wine off the shelves because of a product called sorbitol. Sorbitol was not listed on the label but we do drink it constantly—for example when we have a bottle of Diet Coke. Sorbitol is just an artificial sweetener. But because there was a real problem with I think the Austrian industry adding antifreeze for goodness’ sake to its wine resulting in people dying that was seen by the New Zealand industry at that time as a reason to ensure that labels listed everything that was in products and that anything not listed on labels but in products should be included. The product sorbitol was used as the reason to remove Chilean wine which is perfectly fine—in fact it is of outstanding quality—from the shelves. We are not exactly squeaky clean in terms of these non - tariff trade barriers in our own backyard. It is very important to note that. 
I am emphasising this point to ensure that those in the ministry do not get overly carried away by this labelling requirement. It does have importance in terms of whether product comes from Central Otago or Gisborne and of ensuring that it is true to type—for example a Riesling or a Chardonnay. But there are hugely creative people within our wine industry so if we can come up with better ways of blending wines or ways of grafting grapes that perhaps are quite different from those in other countries do we need to constrain ourselves just to meet some European requirement? I suspect that because people in the wine industry will read this bill and see the requirements it might constrain some of the more creative and innovative members of this wonderful little industry that we are developing. It is also worth reflecting that our wine industry is a mere 20 years old. It is still in its infancy and still evolving. To put prescriptive regulation around this industry at this time is not appropriate. 
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.