Brownlee Gerry: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9488] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 The development of the wine industry in New Zealand particularly post-1990 has been quite extraordinary. In debating this bill it is worth paying tribute to those who pioneered the industry many many years ago. We should think of some of the difficulties they faced in their time. I understand that for a time it was not legal for a winery to sell anything less than 6 gallons of its product in any one sale. We have progressed to a point today where I understand New Zealand has in excess of 1600 wineries producing some of the best wines in the world. It is appropriate that this bill is passed to give the sorts of protections that the industry requires. 
My support for this bill is based on my belief that the industry is quite comfortable with the provisions in it. Earlier in the year I was approached by Brent Rawstron and the Giesen Brothers from Canterbury—an area that is starting to flourish as a wine-producing area. They raised a number of concerns which I believe are mitigated by the bill reported back to the House. 
New Zealand produces unique wines. I have a somewhat uneducated palate when it comes to wines. Montana Wines was entering an agreement with the then Seagram’s company in the United States a couple of years ago and Montana facilitated an opportunity for me to travel to the Napa Valley in the US as part of the friendship programme that New Zealand operates with the US. However under our current Government I understand that that programme is almost curtailed because friendship with the US is off the agenda. We do not talk about it; we simply subject ourselves to a humiliating 12-minute pull-aside that goes something like: “Hello George”; “Hello Helen”; “How’s the family?”; “Not too bad. What other things would you like to talk about?”; “Well I don’t know.”; “Hang on I’ve got to answer my cellphone but nice of you to come Helen. Goodbye.” Then the Government puts out a press release saying what a great relationship we have with that country. 
I turn back to the bill. I was able to travel up to the Napa Valley and to a winery owned by Seagram’s which at that stage was marketing— 
Jill Pettis 
: Tell the truth. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Good God Madam Chair! You must do something. That member is yelling out. They call her the paint-stripper. Just look at the varnish on the walls of the Chamber—it is starting to bubble. It will cost the taxpayer a fortune to fix if that woman is not made to shut up. 
I went to the large winery that Seagram’s had at the top of the valley and the people there decided to have a tasting between two locally produced wines and two wines imported under the Brancott Estate label. They defied me to pick the difference. Even with my very uneducated palate there was no question which of those two wines came from New Zealand. They were unique in their taste they were quite fulsome and I could understand why they were selling at such a premium in the US. It is an industry that is growing considerably and needs encouragement. 
I recall also attending a luncheon at the Windows on the World restaurant at the top of the World Trade Center—the building that was the victim of a terrorist attack just a wee while ago. I was there with the Hon Phil Goff; a well-known traveller and a gentleman well known for frequenting the best and most expensive restaurants all over the world and around the country. He is our Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and I believe he is able to visit extremely good restaurants in that capacity. He has a quite considerable chequebook made available to him by the taxpayer. We were both guests that day of a well-known company that has connections in New Zealand and those people were able to show us that some New Zealand wines on that wine list were selling at a price in excess of US$30. That is NZ$60 or NZ$70. The mark-up potential for the retailer in the US is very big and it is only to be hoped that that price is reflected in the price to the grower as our wines embrace a standard that allows more of them to be marketed in such a strong way. 
The other reason why we are pleased to support this bill is that although we are not particularly in favour of excessive regulation we do notice the significant acreage of vineyard going in around the country. The other Sunday I drove up to a small mountain village called Hanmer. I noticed on the way at Waipara that hundreds of acres are being planted in grapes. I have noticed also in the Marlborough area the progress of the grape across the Wairau Plains. Those vineyards are going to provide significant employment opportunities for New Zealanders. 
They also challenge the current Government to do something about the appallingly low incomes of New Zealanders these days. The Government is saying that New Zealand is now a $17-an-hour economy. Well I doubt that anybody—with all due respect to winegrowers—working in a vineyard pruning for example is earning $17 an hour. In that regard there is a duty on the Government to ensure that regulation like this does not become too big an impost on that winegrower. 
We also notice that a significant number of New Zealanders have their superannuation funds tied up in these vineyards that are appearing around the countryside. It is also in the interests of those people that we have an industry that is able to flourish and grow and that can be easily recognised by the international community for its excellence. 
Although the National Party initially greeted this bill with some degree of scepticism we were very pleased with the response we got when we approached perhaps the greatest connoisseur of wines in this House Mr Speaker himself who was instrumental in ensuring that the select committee dealt with the concerns that the industry had. 
Can I further say that the issue of the lack of trust in the Government is something we will keep a strong eye on. We were surprised that it decided to put on the sherry tax a few years ago. That was supposedly because it did not want 15-year-olds drinking sherry. I have to say I have not noticed hordes of 15-year-olds racing out to the sherry shop since the Government put the price up. Frankly they were not racing there before. We are worried that the Government may see this growing industry as a significant revenue source—that is a source of revenue over and above its natural growth. We most certainly would not want that. I can say that although the contentious issue of excise always is one on which the industry represents itself very well— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: My God this is hard work! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I say to Mr Woolerton that it was not me who called for urgency on this bill. It was not me who said that we have to plunge Parliament into urgency to pass this boring legislation; that we have to require the whole of Parliament to be here until midnight for the next 4 nights to pass this legislation. It was not me; it was that genius Dr Michael Cullen that extraordinary manager of the Order Paper of the House. Michael Cullen would not have a clue. So here we are in the dark of night heading towards the wee hours—no it is only half past 8. I am even bored with my own speech having recognised the time! 
I will conclude simply by saying that the National Party supports this legislation in the full belief that it has support from the industry and with the watching brief that we do not want this sneaky “lefty” Government applying additional costs to those people in the country who have invested in this very very productive sector. 
Bill read a second time.