Sutton Jim: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
Sutton Jim: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9477] 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the Wine Bill be now read a second time 
. The purposes of the bill have always been quite straightforward. They are to have legislation that protects the interests of consumers and the reputation of New Zealand wine. At the same time the legislation has to be sufficiently robust and enforceable to protect producers from the protectionist technical barriers that are a reality of life in the international trading environment of the 21st century. 
The Wine Bill was referred to the Primary Production Committee on 17 October last year. Since then the committee has undertaken a great deal of work on the bill. In response to the urgent need to enhance our regulatory export regime the committee divided Part 5 out of the bill and reported it back as the Wine Makers Amendment Bill in early December last year. That bill was enacted in March this year. It was aimed at maintaining access to overseas markets particularly the European Union in the period leading up to the passage and commencement of this legislation. Once the committee had divided out Part 5 it sought submissions on the remainder of the bill. Submissions were received from last December through to May this year. 
Many submissions reflected an old mindset toward the regulation of the making and exporting of wine. They concentrated on seeking to reduce compliance costs and minimise regulatory powers. The committee had the difficult task of reconciling the industry’s need for a legally enforceable regime primarily around standards and exports with submitters’ requests for a narrow regulatory regime. Submissions focused on five key issues those being the definition of “wine” limiting the types of standards that can be set under the bill the simplification of wine standards management plans the removal of compliance orders and improving the consultation requirements. 
Submitters sought clarification of the definitions of wines in the bill. In particular they sought definitions that are consistent with the definitions of the types of wine in the New Zealand food standards. That makes sense as does providing a means of updating those definitions to maintain consistency with the definitions in the food standards. I support the committee’s recommendation to insert new definitions and an ability to change them by Order in Council to reflect any changes in the definitions in the New Zealand food standards. 
Winemakers were concerned that the bill appeared to allow a whole raft of wine standards to be set. That is not what was intended. Instead it was intended to enable some wine standards to cross-reference relevant food standards so as to create a single regime for both wine standards and relevant food standards. The committee proposed a clearer means of achieving the outcome of a single regime for wine standards and relevant food standards. It recommends two key amendments to the bill. The first is to amend clause 14(2)(e)(i) to clearly and directly reference New Zealand food standards. That has the effect of making wine standards management plans which are the key compliance regime within the bill also about compliance with the relevant food standards. The second amendment is consequential. It removes clause 33(2)(a) to (i) which effectively repeats the scope of the New Zealand food standards. 
The third key issue simplification of the wine standards management plans arose from winemakers thinking that their wine standards management plans would be markedly different from each others and would need to be highly complex which would therefore increase the compliance costs. These plans are the key compliance regime for wine standards relevant food standards and relevant export requirements. I want to allay that concern. Wine standards management plans are expected to be comparatively simple documents. The industry should be able to develop templates as provided for in the bill which would allow individual wineries to apply the templates to their businesses. The committee has taken that on board and has recommended no amendments in respect of wine standards management plans beyond technical amendments and the amendment to clause 14(2)(e)(i) which I referred to earlier. I support that decision. 
The fourth key issue was the removal of the clauses relating to compliance orders. Submitters sought to remove those clauses as they saw them as bureaucratic and unnecessary given the other enforcement powers in the bill. However those other powers are significantly more severe than compliance orders. They include prosecutions suspension of winemaking operations and deregistration of wine standards management plans. As the bill requires all winemakers to have a registered wine standards management plan deregistration would preclude the winemaker from being able to make wine legally for sale in New Zealand which would clearly be a disastrous state of affairs. The industry sought strict enforcement not the safer approach that compliance orders would give. Compliance orders are a useful enforcement tool but removing them would not undermine the integrity of the bill. I therefore accept the committee’s recommendation that the clauses providing for and relating to compliance orders be removed from the bill. 
Finally submitters sought amendments to the bill to highlight and extend the nature of consultation under the bill. Submitters saw strengthened consultation requirements as a solution to their concerns about the nature and extent of the regulations and director-general’s notices that could be issued under the legislation. Submitters sought three key amendments in that respect: first a new objective recognising consultation as an aid to fostering the efficiency and growth of the industry; second an application of the consultation requirements in clause 128 to the making of all regulations under the bill; and third the insertion of a principle of consultation at the front of the bill or alternatively a shifting of clause 128 to the front of the bill. The committee has recommended amending the bill in respect of the first two of those proposals and is against inserting a new principle-of-consultation clause or shifting clause 128. I agree with that view. Making the promotion of consultation with the industry on regulation of the industry an objective of the bill is a key amendment proposed by the committee. It highlights the need for the New Zealand Food Safety Authority to work with the wine industry to achieve a successful win-win outcome for both the Government and the industry. 
I would like to thank the Primary Production Committee for considering this bill so thoroughly and for reporting it back on Tuesday 19 August with amendments that both improve and clarify the bill. I commend this bill to the House.