Wine Makers Amendment Bill

I rise to support this bill. Those people who have had an opportunity to study the Wine Bill will know that that this bill separates out Part 5 from that bill. The bill is supported by the entire industry, and makes some very important recommendations in order to meet the requirements of the European Union’s labelling standards, so that our wine can continue to be exported to the European Union.

Those of us who have studied the wine industry, either from a pleasure or an economic point of view, will know that the industry has grown enormously over the last decade or so—somewhere in the order of about $35 million of wine produced in this country in 1992 has increased to $250 million, and I suggest that there will be a very strong upward trend in the industry. There is a massive international demand for our wine, and with very good reason. We have led the way in producing such wonderful wines as Sauvignon Blanc, and New Zealand’s reputation is growing.

The European market is very important for our wine industry, and this bill simply contains our requirement to comply with market regulations. As I have said, failure to do so would prevent our wine from being exported, in particular, to countries like the UK. As someone who has lived in the United Kingdom for the past 5 or 6 years, I would have had to be blind not to see the amount of New Zealand wine that is sold there, not only in the fine restaurants in High Street but also in retail outlets right across the country.

I commend the Government for separating out clause 5 from the Wine Bill, and including it this bill. That is the whole purpose of the bill, and I commend the Government for doing that. It is very necessary to do so, because a failure to comply with the European Union’s regulations would mean that we would not reach our export potential. I make the point that, in a way, it is sad that this bill is required. It really is an example of a non-financial tariff being imposed by the European Union.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Which bill are we talking about?

The Wine Makers Amendment Bill. Am I confusing you, Mr Chairperson?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, but the member needs to talk about the title, and the title only.

My great apologies. Maybe we should change the title to state “Part 5 of the Wine Bill”. Clearly, the title reflects the fact that the bill is very much related to the wine that is made in this country requiring good labelling. It is very important that those who consume and purchase wine understand what they are buying. One of the reasons that that is so critically important is that failure by one winery to understand and clearly label what is in its wine, as this bill demands, would really impinge on all winemakers and their reputation.

The title “Wine Makers Amendment Bill” reflects the guts of what this bill tries to do. Clearly, it is related to winemakers and is an amendment of the 1981 Act. I could maybe propose new titles now that would be slightly better than that title, such as the “Wine Makers, Producers, Growers, and Manufacturers Amendment Bill”. The wine industry has developed into a very large industry in New Zealand. One could argue that the word “Winemakers” is narrow, in the sense that the industry does not involve just the makers of wine. Clearly, it also involves growers and those who produce wine. “Makers” is quite a narrow term, in a lot of respects. Maybe a broader term would befit a bill such as this. However, I do not think we want to slow the passage of this bill in the House simply by arguing the semantics of a four-word title. I could be frivolous and waste the Committee’s time, but I feel that that would be totally inappropriate. I would never do that. This Parliament is far too important an institution for me to waste its time simply by arguing that the title of a bill could have five words instead of four. That would be totally inappropriate.

This is a winemakers’ bill. It is an amendment to an existing bill. It is important legislation, and I think at that point I may simply rest my submission on behalf of the National Party, as I see Mr Chairperson reaching for the bell.

I take my colleague Mr Key’s point that we do not want to delay the proceedings of the House unnecessarily. However, it is important that every member who wishes to do so exercises the right to debate this bill, and we are debating the title at this time. There is a disturbing trend that when we do debate bills, we need to be given some idea—indeed, the public should be given some idea, when they read that this bill was debated in Parliament today—of what it was all about. The reality is that somebody reading the Otago Daily Times tomorrow morning could simply gloss over the fact that an aspect that is very, very important to the wine industry was debated. There is absolutely nothing in the title of this bill that would give any indication to any member of the public that these provisions, which were in Part 5 of the Wine Bill, are all about securing access for our wine exports to the European Union.

We receive a lot of complaints about the levels of bureaucracy and the huge numbers of bills that we pass in Parliament, and this bill is crucial, as has been pointed out by Mr Keys. It is absolutely crucial to every winemaker, and indeed, to every wine exporter. This bill is not just about winemakers, as the title would have one believe. The title of the bill is quite wrong. If I had thought about it earlier, I would have put in an amendment to call the bill the “Wine Exporters Amendment Bill”. Winemakers, I would hope, recognise the job that exporters do in sending our good products—world-class products—to the world, because that is hugely important. We need to inform the public, when we debate bills like this one, that their titles are entirely accurate. I do not think anybody here would say that the title of this bill is entirely accurate. The word “exporters” should be included in the title of this bill somewhere along the line, in order to ensure that the wider public do understand exactly what is being reported when they read the paper, as they do on a regular basis, and see that “the `Winemakers and the Potential to Export Wine Bill’ came before the House on this Tuesday and was debated very vigorously and very soundly by all members present.”

I would just like to make that one point: that regrettably the title of this bill does not accurately reflect what these provisions are really all about.

New Zealand First needs to take only a moment on this bill, as we did in the second reading. It is a very important bill for the growers of wine in New Zealand. I believe previous speakers in the second reading and the like have made the issue clear: we need to get this bill through the House because of the requirements of the European Union on our winemakers. I have read all 111 submissions to the Primary Production Committee on Part 5 of the Wine Bill. All those in the industry and those who are interested in this bill want it to go through the House urgently. New Zealand First supports that, and I have nothing further to say.

It is a challenge and a pleasure to rise to speak on this bill. I understand why the Government has separated out Part 5 from the Wine Bill, in order to drive this legislation through the House. It is because these provisions are required to ensure New Zealand’s wine exports meet the labelling regimes in overseas markets, especially those in the European Union.

One has only to travel around New Zealand to understand the importance of winemaking and wine exports to our economy. But I am not certain that we have captured that importance in the title of this bill. I think we have probably exercised a lack of flair. In fact, I would go as far as to say I am a little saddened by the title. The title “Wine Makers Amendment Bill” lacks a certain elegance, does it not? Although I hasten to add that this is not National’s position, surely we could have exercised a certain flair. After all, no winemaker has ever sold his or her clarets or Sauvignon Blancs under the exciting description of “pressed and fermented grape squeezings in a glass container”. I am sure that if we use the present title for this legislation it probably will not grip the winemaking industry, and I do not think it will grip the wider New Zealand public.

I think we have missed an opportunity here to capture the exciting allure—a little mystery perhaps—of winemaking and wine taking. I do not think that members of the Committee who have participated in an evening of wine sampling with a few friends in the middle of winter around a fire with a big juicy red in the hand would say that this title captures that excitement and pleasure. We could probably try a more appropriate title, like “New Zealand’s Exotic Wines Amendment Bill” or “Wine Exporters Amendment Bill”, because I think those titles would probably be more accurate descriptions of what we are trying to capture. The “New Zealand Wine Exporters Amendment Bill” might, in fact, be a better way of branding not only our industry but our place in the sun, when it comes to winemaking.

As an aside, though, if we can work together to hasten the passage of this amendment bill through the House, I wonder why it is that the Government cannot use its powers to speed other important legislation through the House, like the Wool Industry Restructuring Bill or the Resource Management Amendment Bill, for example. When it comes to passing those pieces of legislation the Government is dragging its feet. The Wine Makers Amendment Bill is probably setting a precedent—I hope it is—in how the Government might want to conduct its business through this House. If that is the case, I am sure that on other occasions it would be a real pleasure to speak about legislation of this quality.

I will take just a brief call on this bill. An important part of any debate, of course, is the title, and as other speakers have said, this bill takes out Part 5 from the Wine Bill. As my colleague John Key has suggested, the words “Part 5” should be in the title. That would clearly reflect, or crystallise, what the bill is about. We support this bill, which is about allowing New Zealand wine to have access into overseas countries. The European Union is very important, in terms of labelling and access.

I had the opportunity, just as the junior Labour whip had, to be able to sample some New Zealand wine recently in Madrid.

💬 Brian Connell: As business?

It was part of business. It was at the ambassador’s home in Madrid. There were people there who were importing New Zealand wine into Spain, and it is a growing and exciting market. I was unaware that that market had such potential through Spain and into Portugal. When one has New Zealanders involved in the export of New Zealand wine to that part of the world, then that is something to be encouraged. We want to make sure, as this bill allows, that they have access to that market. Of course, the European Union is very strict in its regulations and licensing, and our overseas exports are growing. They have doubled between 1990 and 2000, and the value of wine exports has increased from $34.7 million in 1992 through to $246 million in 2002. So in a 10-year period our wine exports have gone up by $200 million. That is significant, and we want to make sure that our exporters are able to compete in the marketplace internationally.

Having sampled that wine and been privileged to meet importers of New Zealand wine while visiting Spain, I certainly support, as National does, the progress of this bill. As I said, probably the title should reflect what the bill is about, and the words “Part 5” should be part of the title. National will be supporting that amendment.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement

The sad issue, I guess, is that when one reads the commencement date one learns the bill comes in the day after the day on which it receives the royal assent. The real question is why this bill is being presented to the Committee with a commencement date sometime, I would suggest, in April or May. As the submissions to the Primary Production Committee pointed out—all 111 of them—this is crucial legislation for the winemakers of New Zealand, and the facts are that they will not have this legislation passed now, and that its commencement date will be later than the Government promised them. Winemakers were promised that the bill would be passed before Christmas. The bill was to have been a nice little Christmas present for them, and its commencement date was to have been before Christmas. Clearly they will not have that, as Christmas has come and gone. Indeed, the commencement date will now take place, as I have suggested, in April or May.

That saddens me, because winemaking is a crucial business and industry for New Zealand. It is an industry with a strong upward trend and an industry that, in many respects, will have its future in the export markets. We simply do not have enough people in New Zealand who will keep consuming wine, compared with the number needed to drink the volume of wine we could manufacture in this country, because we do it so well. I think that the Government has been a little tardy in introducing this bill, and because of that the commencement date will be later than the date that we on the National side of the House had hoped for.

The commencement clause is important. I always seem to be following Mr Key in these debates, and, as he says, it is important for winegrowers to understand exactly when this whole process is taking place. Clause 2 states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” When is that? Which date is that—in which month and year? That clause is very open-ended. Can anyone in this House recall writing a contract, for example, that was so open-ended as to come into force sometime? Is that clause not an example of bad governance?

I think that the Government really needs to take a hard look at itself, and to put some defined parameters around the commencement date of bills—not just this bill, but any other bill that comes before the House—to give a bit of certainty on this issue. Gracious me, that is what industry in New Zealand—indeed, anywhere else for that matter, but especially in New Zealand—is looking for these days. Industry is looking for a little certainty surrounding a very simple thing like a commencement date. If the Government cannot find an appropriate commencement date, that would indicate to me that the management and control of government in this country is not what it should be. Perhaps we have known that for 3-and-a-bit years now.

Nevertheless, the commencement date of any legislation is very important to those specifically concerned with the particular industry it deals with. Quite frankly, the open-ended date in this bill is not appropriate, and it is something that I believe the Government needs to address. But we would hope, for the sake of the wine industry, that this legislation will commence in the not too distant future.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 146 agreed to.

Clause 147 agreed to.

Clause 148 New sections 31 and 31A substituted