Jones Dail: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9497] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I might not have taken another call if it were not for the fact that I was provoked by the three National Party speakers who spoke about the night when we had the sherry tax debate in the House and commented about how hard they worked that night. As I recall that debate when we came to the final vote at 5 in the morning there were 13 New Zealand First votes against the sherry tax and—wait a minute—there were 10 National Party votes that night. There were 13 New Zealand First votes and 10 National Party votes. National members say that they are hard-working yet that shows how hard they fought against that tax. They had 10 votes. I am not sure how the system works but that suggests to me that there might have been about five out of 27 National Party members around the building that night to vote against the sherry tax. So 22 of them were nicely tucked up in bed having had a sip of port or sherry perhaps and only five of them were left here that night whereas we had 13. 
Our leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters was here. He made the last speech on that bill that night. The Rt Hon Winston Peters fought to the end for the rights of the working classes who were having their port and sherry taxes put up. We in New Zealand First were fighting hard. The National Party had 10 votes. About five of those members huddled around the Chamber—[ 
Interruption 
] I would not have raised this issue if it were not for the fact that the National members were banging on so much about it. Sometimes they really do shoot themselves in the foot. They have raised that issue though they behaved ignominiously on that particular night when they went home to bed and left New Zealand First to do all the fighting on that tax. 
As far as wine officers are concerned I do not want to rub the point in because I think I have done that well enough. We have made that well known to everybody. I would expect that if New Zealand wants to improve the quality of its wine and wants to assure overseas countries that there is transparency—that is the famous word that we used today—and that we have high standards we have to prove that we have a means of policing that. We cannot sell wine overseas with a New Zealand label of quality wine unless we can prove to the French or the Americans—and the Americans seem to be worse than the French—that we have people checking that the quality of our wine is first-rate. The National members have sat on this bill for months and months and they do not seem to know what they were doing or why they were doing it. I was not even a member of the Primary Production Committee. However when I made my maiden speech in 1976 I spoke on wine. I have taken an interest in it and have been in the west Auckland area. That is why we have wine officers; it as simple as that. It is extraordinary that the National members should have filibustered all this evening on something that was obvious. 
The other point to bear in mind is that the director-general finally issues the notices. It is the director-general who has that responsibility and under clause 128 it is the director-general who must consult and if he or she does not do so the director-general is in breach of a statutory duty. That is not the duty of Jim Anderton or whomever the Minister is. The director-general has a statutory duty to consult and the Minister must check with the director-general. If there is no consultation it is the director-general’s job that would be on the line in terms of the State Service Commission’s requirements. That would be a term of the employment of the director-general in so far as the wine industry is concerned. 
What were the National members doing on the select committee for goodness’ sake? They cannot understand the need for proper control of wine or for ensuring the export of proper quality wine. They cannot understand that the wine industry is a unified industry wanting to work together for the interests of the industry. The fact is that when we had a big debate on port and sherry wine those members were not here in the Chamber. They were not here to listen to the debate. If they had been here to listen to the New Zealand First members telling them how these things are done they might have learnt a thing or two. But I see their numbers are down again tonight as well in the voting and maybe that is the whole problem. The National members are never willing to learn and they know nothing about the wine industry despite having spent so much time on it in the select committee.