Carter David: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
Carter David: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9479] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 Yes I think that by the time the bill finally came back to the House it was a win-win for all concerned but I do not think the Minister of Agriculture can take any credit for that. A huge amount of hard work was done by officials the Wine Institute of New Zealand—and I will refer to that shortly—and the members of the Primary Production Committee who tidied up what was an ill-prepared bill at the time it was given to the select committee. 
I want to pay tribute to the New Zealand wine industry. We heard during submissions that the industry currently exports about $250 million of wine and that figure is predicted to nearly triple over the next few years. I think all New Zealanders take pride in the reputation that our wine has achieved right around the globe. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to this industry which is earning a lot of export dollars for our country and is doing so because the people involved are entrepreneurial. They just want to get on with it. 
The evidence before the select committee showed me how diverse this industry is. Yes there are one or two quite large players in the industry but most of the people involved in it are relatively small operators of boutique wineries who “eager out” markets for themselves both here and overseas— 
Rodney Hide 
: And it all tastes great. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Well no. I think we had evidence before us—not enough I might add—that some wines taste excellent and some will improve with age. I think that is the politest way one can say it. Anyway I do not want to be diverted because this bill is very serious legislation and if we move quickly through it tonight there might be a chance to enjoy some New Zealand product before the end of it. 
The point I want to make about the diversity of the industry is that it operates in a tough environment and these people do not want to be stressed by a whole lot of additional costs in compliance. I guess the submitters in total were saying to us that the bill as presented to the select committee was a complete overreaction. It was a bureaucratic nightmare which resulted in the number of submitters totalling 115 and I do not recall any who were supportive of the legislation as it was referred to the select committee. 
I have to say the timing of the calling of submissions could not have been worse because there was huge anti-Government feeling and a lack of trust on the part of the industry. At the same time that we were receiving those submissions Mr Anderton had convinced his— 
Rodney Hide 
: Oh he’s an idiot. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I could not possibly comment. Mr Anderton had convinced Mr Sutton that it was time to impose a sneaky little excise tax totalling $18 million. It was in that environment that we had to deal with 115 submitters who were angry with the Government. They were angry quite justifiably—Mr Sutton is nodding his head; he regrets that move—and they were angry for two reasons. The No. 1 reason was that Mr Anderton had only just written a letter to the industry saying there would be no more sneaky taxes and promising to consult. Darren Hughes is hanging his head in shame because he knows how honest Mr Anderton is; he has to work with him. But sadly the industry briefly trusted Mr Anderton who had signed that letter. I doubt whether that will happen again. 
The second point I want to make is that the tax the Government imposed was on beverages of 14 to 23 percent alcohol in content—namely ports and sherries. 
Darren Hughes 
: It’s a bit like your poll rating. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I challenge Mr Hughes as the young baby of the House to listen to this. Mr Hughes stood in the House and said that the Government needed to do that because young people were drinking sherry and port. I say to Mr Hughes that he should get out there go down to Courtenay Place with Winston Peters and have a look. The young people are not drinking sherry and they are not drinking port. There was no need for that tax to be passed. That was the climate created by the Government and the problem handled by the select committee as we beavered away to tidy up Mr Sutton’s mess. 
The bill was certainly overkill when we first saw it. The difficulty we had was that the officials who came before us said they had consulted the industry and the bill had widespread support. Well if it had widespread support why did we have so many angry winemakers come before us? We scratched our heads for a while thinking about the best way round it. I will not say the answer was the chairman’s idea but I guess it probably was. We came up with— 
Darren Hughes 
: Who is the chairman of that committee? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Darren Hughes can take a call and he can let the House know who the chairman is. We came up with the brilliant idea of saying we needed some help from the industry and we appointed Mr Philip Gregan of New Zealand Winegrowers previously known as the Wine Institute to come along as a special adviser and work closely and collegially with the officials to see whether we could find a way through the mess that Mr Sutton had handed to us. We should not have had to do that. That work should have been done before the bill was ever presented to us. But I have to say that because of the way the process then worked we are now presenting legislation back to the House that is hugely more acceptable to the industry than it was. We were able to iron out some of the wrinkles. We were able to achieve what I think the industry will find is far better legislation with which to operate. 
I implore the Minister if he is working with an industry such as this again to take some time to listen. We have just had the debacle about the flatulence tax where the Minister blindly called farmers whingers and moaners then half-heartedly had to back down. But there is never an apology from that Minister to say he got it wrong. In the case of the Wine Bill there is absolutely no doubt that he got it wrong. 
Mr Sutton referred to the changes we made and I will talk quite specifically to those as we work through the Committee stage later on. 
 The point I want to talk about is that Mr Sutton made a comment regarding the changes to the compliance orders and the fact we have now imposed a far more drastic regime on the industry. I think Mr Sutton needs that to be explained to him. The solution to a bad operation is now more drastic than it was because that is what the industry wanted. The industry told us that it did not want some mealy-mouthed bureaucratic regime—[ 
Interruption 
] Sorry Mr Sutton? No his interjection has run out of steam already. The industry did not want some mealy-mouthed bureaucratic process by which a bad operator could continue to damage the industry. The industry said that if a guy operating in the wine industry was not operating professionally and safely then the industry wanted that person out of the game altogether. The committee supported that argument because we do not want anything done within the industry to damage the hard work that has gone into creating this now very significant export industry. 
I conclude by paying tribute to Mr Philip Gregan for the work he did. 
Phil Heatley 
: Phil Heatley. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No Phil Heatley can take his own praise. Mr Gregan travelled down here on a regular basis at times at short notice as we worked through this issue on our agenda amongst a lot of other work. The spirit with which he was received by the committee his work with the officials and the advice we collectively got mean I can certainly support with pride this legislation coming back into the House tonight. I think it was a very good process and one that in the future other select committees could look at using. When legislation required by an industry creates so much angst at the start we parliamentarians need at least to try to find a way to work through it in a select committee process so that what is passed has a great deal more acceptability than what was first presented to the select committee.