Wine Makers Amendment Bill

I want to take a quick call on this clause. This bill, as members will know, and as those members of the public who have had an opportunity to study the bill will know, came about, rather interestingly, on the back of the labelling requirements of the European Union. I am the member of Parliament for Helensville, and within that electorate we have a growing wine industry. I have a real sense of pride, when I drive around my electorate, in seeing the vines of those wineries growing at the side of the road, and knowing they produce really international, world-class wine. I could name them for members, but they could probably name them back to me as the makers of the wines that they enjoy on an evening at any time of the year—Kumeu River, Nobilo Wines, Matua Valley Wines, Soljans Estate Winery, and I could name many more.

Interestingly enough, one of the wineries in my electorate is Coopers Creek, which is the very winery that led to this bill. Members will remember that in 1997 Coopers Creek was involved in a wine-labelling scandal that resulted in the demand that companies made sure they produced accurate labels. It is very, very important that the industry produces wine that is labelled accurately. Clause 148 certainly speaks to that objective quite clearly, and addresses at some length the need for that. Simply put, that is very, very important for the entire industry, because it relies very heavily, I guess, on a collective responsibility. If some consumers, particularly in the international market, were to try a bottle of New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc for the first time, whether chilled from their refrigerator or at a local restaurant, have it opened at their table and poured into their wine glasses as they were about to consume their food for the evening, and if they were to sip something that had a Sauvignon Blanc reputation—tasting maybe of gooseberry, with a light raspberry flavour to it—

💬 Jill Pettis: It sounds as though you are speaking from experience.

I admit to the junior whip for the Labour Party that it is an experience I have partaken of from time to time. I can assure her that it would not be my first time; I cannot describe myself as a virgin drinker of New Zealand wines. I simply cannot put that label on myself, although labelling is the very nature of this whole bill. In some ways it is quite ironic that I am talking about labels for myself, because I am not here to talk about myself. Goodness knows, I do that often enough. I am here to talk about this bill.

The interesting thing is that if that wine I was referring to was not, for instance, a Sauvignon Blanc but a blend of some sort that had been mislabelled, then that could give the entire industry a bad name. The good name of the industry is really what we are trying to protect in this legislation, as well as our access rights to overseas markets for New Zealand wine. So clause 148 is an important part of this bill, and it drives this part of the legislation through—legislation that is supported by all winemakers in New Zealand. It is my great privilege, along with the National Party, to support the passage of this bill through the House and to support the very capable Minister.

I want to make the astounding revelation to the Committee that clause 148, of course, follows clause 147, which, for the benefit of some members, might be an interesting revelation. Clause 147 is a very important part of the bill because it is about the availability of information. I will not dwell on that, but I think it needs to be emphasised that the availability of information to winegrowers and exporters—the people who want to get out there and do the job of selling our product to the world—is very, very important. The access requirements for overseas markets are to be made available for inspection “free of charge, or for purchase at reasonable cost,’’ I note. That is quite contradictory, but it is a very important clause.

We come then to clause 148, and I note that new section 31(1)(h), which is inserted by that clause, states “prescribing the information or other matters that must be specified,”. There are some matters of concern relating to that provision. It is possibly not known to many members that some wines may well contain fish extracts. Fish extract is used to fine the wine—to take all the cloudy particles out of it. Will we demand of our winegrowers in this country that when people are enjoying a glass of wine in Spain or New York and they turn the bottle round to read the label, they can read that it “May contain fish extracts”? That will totally muck up, if I can put it that way, the experience of—[Interruption] Well, it is. It is a very important part. Have we clarified just exactly what will be on the label and what will not? If the department requires such explicit information, then I have a real problem. I do not believe for one moment that it is our intention to put on a label details that may well upset the experience—and it is a real experience—of enjoying a nice bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon, or whatever, from New Zealand because of the sort of information that is required on labels. That is a matter the ministry needs to clarify.

I make the point, as well, that not very long ago there was a degree of panic within the wine industry, when it demanded the removal of Chilean wine off the shelves because of a product called sorbitol. Sorbitol was not listed on the label, but we do drink it constantly—for example, when we have a bottle of Diet Coke. Sorbitol is just an artificial sweetener. But because there was a real problem with, I think, the Austrian industry adding antifreeze, for goodness’ sake, to its wine, resulting in people dying, that was seen by the New Zealand industry at that time as a reason to ensure that labels listed everything that was in products and that anything not listed on labels but in products should be included. The product sorbitol was used as the reason to remove Chilean wine, which is perfectly fine—in fact, it is of outstanding quality—from the shelves. We are not exactly squeaky clean in terms of these non - tariff trade barriers in our own backyard. It is very important to note that.

I am emphasising this point to ensure that those in the ministry do not get overly carried away by this labelling requirement. It does have importance in terms of whether product comes from Central Otago or Gisborne, and of ensuring that it is true to type—for example, a Riesling or a Chardonnay. But there are hugely creative people within our wine industry, so if we can come up with better ways of blending wines or ways of grafting grapes that perhaps are quite different from those in other countries, do we need to constrain ourselves just to meet some European requirement? I suspect that because people in the wine industry will read this bill and see the requirements, it might constrain some of the more creative and innovative members of this wonderful little industry that we are developing. It is also worth reflecting that our wine industry is a mere 20 years old. It is still in its infancy, and still evolving. To put prescriptive regulation around this industry at this time is not appropriate.

Thank you, Mr Chairman, for allowing me to take another call and make a contribution to this debate. I commend the last speaker, because he is quite right in saying that clause 147 comes just before clause 148. In particular, I am concerned that the bill contains strong powers of suspension for the Director-General of Agriculture and Forestry to act against registered plans that no longer meet the requirements of the bill. That is a very significant power. The questions I have are as follows.

Do we really want to see an industry that is in its fledgling state being so highly regulated? I understand the need to meet labelling requirements, but I suggest that maybe this is a little bit of overkill. I can imagine my good colleague Mr Tisch on his second bottle of claret suddenly saying: “We have to stop drinking this, because I haven’t checked the label carefully enough.” While he was in Spain I am sure that, had he found the label did not quite specify exactly what was in it, he would have relied on his taste buds, as opposed to what he might or might not have been able to read in his state.

The next question is more pragmatic. How are we going to police these new regulations? I have read the bill and it seems that a third party, a credited person, under the supervision of the agency, recognised by the regulator, is responsible for routine compliance monitoring, verification, and other functions. That to me suggests that we are creating another bureaucracy. Although the wine industry bodies will be asked to seek a mandate from wine businesses for a compulsory levy on relevant types of wine, to fund the industry-good activities, do they really want to start going down that path?

I remember when the Wine Bill was introduced to the House the Minister concerned gave assurances to members that it was something the industry wanted. We took him at his word. When some of my colleagues and I went and spoke to the winemakers, some of them said they were not even aware of the bill, as opposed to the undertakings that the Minister had given us that everybody wanted it.

I look at clause 148, and then understand why we want to be more specific in some of our labelling, but, as I have said, my concern is how it will be policed and how it will be monitored. I see an industry that is at present very easy to operate becoming bogged down in bureaucracy, and I fear unnecessary compliance costs. It may open a Pandora’s box. The cost of compliance and regulation in this country is an issue that causes me and my National colleagues grave concern.

I wonder whether the Minister in the chair, Damien O’Connor, would care to take a call and explain to us how he might divine a path through this legislation that gives the winemakers what they want in terms of some access to the EU market without creating a compliance nightmare. This is something that could create more problems than it solves for this industry. If we are to compete on an international basis, we should use our natural advantage—and that is that we are good at producing things without introducing a whole level of bureaucracy and unnecessary costs.

So I wonder whether the Minister could capture that point when he gets to his feet—because I am sure he will; he is a very direct sort of guy—and say “This is how we intend to handle it.” People will be listening out there today, in the wine industry, who will be desperately concerned to see how this issue may be handled. I just leave the Committee with that thought—it is something we will sell ourselves short on if we do not pick it up, because we do have natural advantages and we do not want to give those away.

Clause 148 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.