Heatley Phil: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9509] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to bring the House’s attention back to the Wine Bill. We have heard about genetic engineering we have heard Michael Cullen show off in front of his Council of Trade Unions mates and now we are going to get back to the Wine Bill. I want members to know that when we first received this bill from the Government it was twice as thick and twice as long as it is now and it was full of bureaucracy and compliance costs. The Primary Production Committee as a responsible select committee took the knife to it and cut out copious quantities of regulation and legislation—powers that would have come no doubt in the future—simply because we do not believe that the wine industry at this time needs to be burdened with more and more compliance costs which certainly would have happened had the committee not done the work it did on the bill. 
 I would like to acknowledge the chairman of the committee David Carter who worked hard in keeping us focused and keeping Labour Party members focused. I acknowledge Janet Mackey a responsible deputy chairperson. I acknowledge other members of the committee. The “MP for Helsinki” Harry Duynhoven was on the committee. Also there was the member of Parliament who abstains Ashraf Choudhary and Ian Ewen-Street who from time to time is on the committee. He is an occasional member of the Primary Production Committee and we welcomed him back for that particular part of the bill. There was also Dover Samuels and of course Doug Woolerton and others. I certainly acknowledge all of them and the good work they did in cutting out the bureaucracy and compliance costs that many of the submitters brought to our attention. 
The select committee received 115 submissions and we talked about that earlier but we did not mention that by far the majority of them were concerned primarily about the compliance costs I have mentioned. We heard 26 submissions and the majority—just over 17 I think—of them were concerned about those compliance costs. Some believed that innovation would be stifled within the industry and development would not happen as quickly as it has in recent years. We heard about the inflexible bureaucracy within the European Union and about how the Minister Jim Sutton was going to bring that bureaucracy into our industry in New Zealand. Submitters expressed concerns that what happened over there and what has hurt the industry over there was going to hurt the industry here. They understood there had to be a degree of regulation. They appreciated the fact that the wine industry is underpinned by this legislation but they did not feel that the amount of compliance cost brought about by the original Government bill—Jim Sutton’s bill—was necessary. So the select committee carved out many clauses. They will not be missed. The wine industry I know is grateful to the National Party and others on the committee for recognising that and making those changes. 
Too many compliance costs have hit this industry in recent years. Members will be aware of rising accident compensation costs the costs of employing people and the difficulty of employing people within the industry. Members will be aware of transport costs escalating and all sorts of indirect taxes. Members will also be well aware of the extraordinary urgency that went on several months ago. On 6 May 2003 as I recall the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill otherwise known as the sherry tax was debated until the early hours of the morning under extraordinary urgency in this Parliament. That bill raised the excise tax on alcoholic beverages 14 to 23 percent alcohol by volume I recall netting the Government 18 million bucks and we debated that until the early hours of the morning. That affected the industry indirectly but not as much as it affected all those elderly people in the provinces and the cities who purchase sherry and other products with those alcohol volumes. It did not affect them that much but it certainly affected them. 
I was intrigued I must say by the Hon Matt Robson’s comments that that legislation which was rushed through the House was intended to curb youth drinking. I think most of us see that as ridiculous a stupid concept; about as stupid as the “fart tax” and when his Labour Party colleagues discovered that he and Jim Anderton were actually taxing the elderly of this country with the sherry tax they were under tremendous pressure. No youth in this country drink sherry. They never did. They are not taxed. This tax has not put them off drinking but I can tell members that a lot of responsible adult drinkers who have earned the right to have a sherry after dinner after work or after bowls were hurt by that. I still hear about that throughout the country as I visit elderly folk who are concerned about the way this Government is going. The unexpected imposition of that further excise tax on fortified wines the sherry tax hurt and disappointed the industry and we heard a lot about that during the submissions interestingly enough. The submitters were quite suspicious when they came to the select committee about the Government’s agenda over wine excise and where it was heading. They were concerned that 6 May earlier this year was actually a flag for further interference within the industry and further stifling of the industry. We listened to those concerns and we made a lot of changes. 
The Wine Bill as members will be aware introduced cost recovery for services provided to the industry—that is by the Government—including activities such as recordkeeping. A number of submissions related to increases in compliance costs. The committee worked quite hard to ensure that there was a minimal impact on the industry in respect of these regulations and of course the levies. Certainly this industry is levied enough. Certainly it is taxed enough both directly and indirectly and I do not need to go over those issues. Those compliance cost matters were the issues that came up time and time again. I can only say with some pride that I was able to work with David Carter and members such as Janet Mackey Doug Woolerton and others to see those compliance costs carved out of the bill or kept to a minimum so that this industry can continue to do well in the future. 
Certainly the bill still requires all winemakers to operate under a registered wine standard management plan situation. But that is to enforce food safety and labelling provisions. That is all about market access which they recognise needs to be maintained and of course increased. We are happy with those provisions. There is some regulation coming out of this legislation. There will be some compliance costs but I can assure members that there is not the compliance-costs content in this bill that there originally was when it came to the select committee. So we support this bill. We support the extensive changes that were made to make sure that the industry does not face the bureaucracy it could have faced and we happily support the passing of this legislation.