Wine Bill

I would appreciate the Minister of Agriculture taking a call to explain fully the powers of entry for wine officers. This bill sets up a new category of policeman known as a wine officer—a person who apparently has the opportunity to enter wineries and exercise all the powers given under this section of the Act, together with, I suppose, the direction of scrutiny from some Government department that I am sure will be established, to be known as the “Wine Department”. It is not usual for Parliament to grant these sorts of powers to anybody. It is not usual for Parliament to grant to people, other than perhaps the police, excise officers, and those sorts of people, the right to enter a property quite freely to undertake some sort of activity in scrutinising what is going on in those premises.

I understand there is a necessity to protect the industry in this country. However, I ask the Minister, given the extraordinary depth of capital investment that people have to make to get into the wine industry, why they would want to stuff it up—because that is what the bill suggests in giving this sort of power to a wine officer—by doing something dodgy in the production of their wine? I think it is over the top. Even the suggestion that they simply cannot enter a property, but have to get a warrant from any District Court judge, community magistrate, justice of the peace, or registrar, does not quite do the job. We know that it is easy to go to a justice of the peace. Justices of the peace are unlikely to turn down an officer of the law, which these people will be, so they will grant them a warrant to go jackbooting through a winery, overturning the place, and perhaps even, by their very visit, destroying the reputation of that particular winery’s label. I want the Minister to explain why he thinks it is so important that these wine police are put in place.

That is one of the aspects of the bill that the National Party has serious reservations about. This is an industry that to some extent survives on the reputation created by not only the winemaker but also the location of the vineyard, and, ultimately, the product that consistently comes out of that vineyard. I suggest to the Minister that an overzealous wine policeman getting a warrant to go ferreting through the activities of a particular winery could very quickly destroy the value of a label. It seems to me that if there were unscrupulous characters in the industry, it would be easy for them to go to some gullible wine policeman and say: “I think you had better go and investigate my competition down the road, because they are putting X, Y, and Z in their product.”, which is contrary to the consistency issues that the bill itself sets out to protect. By the wine officer undertaking that activity, there is some destruction of the label, which might have been built up over decades of family activity, of struggling to make the particular business entity work, and of competing in competitions to get a name and a good reputation. It is very important that this Committee is reassured that the necessity of these wine policemen is well understood and totally in keeping with the intention of this bill.

There is another aspect in the bill that bothers us a little bit—that is, the methods by which costs may be recovered under parts of this bill. A range of fees or charges for all sorts of things are listed in the schedules, and one would assume—and the Minister can clear this up—that these fees and charges are not currently an impost upon those who participate in this particular sector.

The member who has just resumed his seat wants wine officers to have to go to a JP to get a warrant before they inspect a winery. All I can say about that is what bureaucracy gone mad is that member advocating now? What new compliance costs does he want to saddle the industry with now? What unreasonable burden does he wish to place on his parliamentary bench now? I do not know. He asked why wine officers have to have the power of entry. The answer to that is very simple. This has to be a rigorous, enforceable law that can protect our winemakers from the plotting of protectionist trade-barrier creators in the marketplace on the other side of the world.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I realise that this Minister does not spend much time in New Zealand, but for the sake of the debate I refer him to clause 66, which makes it very clear that his law—his law—requires wine policemen.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. That is not a point of order. He will have plenty of time to debate that matter. I remind members that while points of order are being heard there will be silence.

The speech we have just heard from the potential leader of the National Party was absolute rubbish. He showed absolutely no understanding of the wine industry, at all. The thing about the wine industry is that if one label gets a bad name, then our entire industry can get a bad name. No one in the wine industry would bag another competitor just for the sake of trying to bring him or her down. It will never happen intentionally, because if one bags someone else one is shooting oneself in the foot. Our small, niche wine industry works on the cooperation of all the winegrowers and winemakers in New Zealand working together, which is why we have got such a harmonious piece of legislation. It is a pity the rest of the country cannot work together as well as the wine industry does. We have legislation here that the industry wholeheartedly supports. Is there any other legislation that has come before this Parliament since members returned for this session that has gone through so harmoniously?

That was until we had a speech from Mr Gerry Brownlee, the National member of Parliament for “Elam”, who is trying very hard to make a leadership bid. He has shown he has absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of the wine industry. Obviously, not much wine is grown in “Elam”, although perhaps some is consumed by its member from time to time.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It is not for me to tell you how to run the Committee, but I take this opportunity to point out some matters relating to the Standing Orders. One is that a member is entitled to have the name of his or her seat correctly pronounced. I know that that member, a connoisseur of the product we are discussing here, has had a late dinner and might have a little trouble with his pronunciation. The seat is Ilam. Secondly, it is most inappropriate for a member such as that to risk personal reflections, for fear of the retribution that may soon come.

I humbly apologise. The seat is Ilam. I stand corrected.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Gerry Brownlee is correct: the pronunciation of his constituency should be correct. I am sure the member would want to pronounce it correctly.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is this a new point of order, because I have ruled—[Interruption] There will be silence during points of order.

💬 Rodney Hide: That is precisely my point of order, if you would like to hear it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is it a new point of order?

💬 Rodney Hide: Absolutely. It comes to my attention that you have made a ruling that there is to be no shouting out or interjections during points of order. When Mr Brownlee was taking his point of order Martin Gallagher, sitting behind me, was barracking on like a mad rabbit. As I got up to take my point of order Jill Pettis called out. If members from this side of the Committee do that, we are thrown out, but if one of your mates does it, he or she can stay and the rules can be laughed at.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member has no right to make those insinuations.

💬 Rodney Hide: Of course I have.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I tell Mr Hide that I am on my feet giving a ruling. There were several people saying things during those points of order. I will certainly warn people finally that there will be no discussion while points of order are being taken.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, I have dealt with it. The member will be seated. If the member is dealing with the same point of order, he will be seated.

💬 Rodney Hide: It is not.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is it a new point of order?

💬 Rodney Hide: It is a new point of order. Point one is that that was your third final warning. As I got up to take my point of order, everyone heard Jill Pettis call out to me to sit down. After giving your third final warning you still did nothing. Why do you not act on what you say—“Final warning: Jill Pettis out.”

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I will give the ruling, and I have said that there will be no discussion during points of order—

💬 Rodney Hide: She said it straight after you—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): While I am on my feet and I am speaking there will be silence—[Interruption] Mr Hide, that is the final warning. There will be silence when I am giving a ruling on a point of order, and I say that to all members now.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It is every member’s right to take a point of order, but in so doing members need to be factually accurate, and they need to refer to the Standing Orders. I am sorry to call attention to a quite serious mistake on the part of Mr Rodney Hide. He referred to a member, Mr Martin Gallagher. Well, everyone knows that he lost his seat in 1996.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please continue, Mr Jones.

I apologise to the member for Ilam. I struck a nerve—there is no doubt about that whatsoever. I draw that member’s attention to the matters that were struck out by the Primary Production Committee. Members may recall that when this bill was being considered, just after the first reading, the type of wine police was mentioned on television. The clauses that were struck out from clause 112 onwards, about compliance orders and suchlike, were the clauses that New Zealand Winegrowers required be struck out, and the matter was done.

The area that I am concerned about, and that I would have thought other Opposition members might be more concerned about, is the fact that here we have a Wine Bill with a definition of wine, and I would have thought we might have a definition of fortified wine as well, because that would help us to do something in a member’s bill about the taxes on fortified wine. I ask the Minister what action is being taken with regard to fortified wine, and why no steps have been taken to include in a Wine Bill matters that relate to fortified wine—matters that have caused a great deal of problem in the country.

Mr Gregan’s name has been mentioned a lot. It seems that he has followed in the tradition of Terry Dunleavy, whom I recall, and, of course, George Mazurin. The wine industry has done extremely well over the years; it has very, very successfully lobbied both sides of this House. I think it is a credit to the wine industry, and it is also an indication to other people—

💬 Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. You would have seen this coming, as you have been watching it, as I have. We have Jill Pettis over there swapping recipes with Steve Chadwick, and we have Martin Gallagher over there swapping recipes with a United Future member.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): As the member knows, the whips are entitled to move around. No one—

💬 Phil Heatley: It was one of the whips who was—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The whips, as we have said before, are entitled to move around to speak to members. No other members should be standing. I have warned Mr Gallagher once about that tonight. It is very disconcerting to the speaker, and it is not very polite. I tell all members to show respect to the speaker.

It was not really causing me any problems. But I note that is the second time the National Party has interrupted my speech for New Zealand First. Obviously, I have hit a sore nerve for the National Party and for Gerry Brownlee, the member for Ilam, with his recent failed leadership bid. [Interruption] Yes, and I saw the light a long time ago. One of the interesting things in this legislation is the removal of honey wine, and the retention of mead, with an interesting interpretation of it. I am pleased that the select committee took note when I warned the Minister last year in my first reading speech—and Mr Woolerton made this point—of the consequences of this particular legislation. I refer to Hansard, Volume 603, at page 1526. New Zealand First is very, very delighted that the warning given in the first reading came to fruition during the select committee process, and action was taken on that warning. The select committee should be congratulated on taking notice of the warning. The way in which the select committee conducted itself with Mr Gregan has been exemplary.

But I just ask the Minister, taking into account all the interruptions, why fortified wine was not included in this legislation. It would have been a wonderful opportunity to do something about it, and concern has been expressed about that situation.

I would like to speak to these various clauses during this Committee stage, and I indicated that in my first speech. But before I do, I would like to thank the Minister in the chair—the “Minister of Fart Tax”—for standing up and giving us an oration on what he did not understand about this bill. When we in the select committee—I as a member, and my colleagues—first received the bill, and David Carter will confirm this, we actually had a bill twice as thick as this one, which was filled with compliance costs. We made the changes—took the knife to it and carved out those compliance costs. Yes, there are still some there, but the Minister seems to be unaware of that. In fact, I can say that, of the submitters, and there were over 100, a large number claimed that the bill could over-regulate the wine industry, and stifle innovation and development. That has happened in every industry in this country for the last 4 years through regulation, legislation, compliance costs, and taxes.

In fact, the Committee will recall that on 6 May 2003, the Government went into urgency, as we are now, except I believe that it was extraordinary urgency, and spoke until the early hours of the morning when the National Party defended the right of old ladies to have a sherry without it costing them a fortune.

💬 Hon David Carter: A mean and uncaring Government.

Yes. At that time the Government went into extraordinary urgency on the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill, otherwise known as the sherry tax, arguing that it would put up the price of alcohol to youngsters to keep them off the streets and to keep them from drinking. The interesting thing at that time was that the alcohol involved was 14 to 23 percent by volume, and that affects sherry. Not many teenagers drink sherry.

💬 Hon David Carter: The teenager over there does.

There is a teenager over there, that is right—the young member over there. Alcohol of a strength of 14 to 23 percent by volume would net the Government $18 million this year and next year. As Gerry Brownlee, the member for Ilam, said, it would be straight out of grandma’s pocket. At that stage the wine industry stood up to the Government and said “No more”, that it could not cope with all of that. That is just one compliance cost that I would like to indicate to the Minister that the wine industry has had to face. It would have had to face much more if it had not been for work by the select committee to cut out all the regulation and legislation we were faced with when we first received this bill.

There is a rigid and inflexible bureaucracy in the European Union, and we all know that. Certainly, the “Minister of Fart Tax” knows that, because he spends most of his time overseas on the other side of the world and not fronting up to constituents here. He knows all about the European Union, so he will know that over there, bureaucracy has strangled that wine industry. I am not too sure whether there are wine police in the European Union, with all sorts of uncertain powers, going through the books of winery businesses and having a taste of the product. I do not know whether the Minister has followed wine police in the European Union, but I wonder whether he is interested in what the powers will be for wine police in New Zealand. Has the Minister considered that after a morning of visiting a number of wineries his wine officers may need a designated driver and a police escort to do their job? Has the Minister considered that?

💬 Hon David Carter: Ruth Dyson might have.

I could not comment on Ruth Dyson. I do not think that is appropriate. But has the Minister considered that compliance cost when passing this bill? Apart from accident compensation regulations and employment relations regulations, and the increase in taxes, the compliance costs originally in this bill were excessive, and we took a knife to that. I have already thanked Philip Gregan for helping us out with that and I would like to do so again.

I shall pick up on the questions raised by my colleague Phil Heatley and ask the Minister why he felt we had to hear so many submissions and so much angst amongst the submitters. I suggest that if he does not have the answer I shall take him through to explain to him the need for the alterations we made. There was widespread submission about the positioning of clause 128. For those members interested, that is the clause around consultation and notification. The concern expressed to us that required some significant work by the select committee was the issue of consultation. I take this opportunity to advise the Minister that the distrust in which the industry held the Labour Government was caused by the sherry tax to which my colleague Phil Heatley has just referred. Not only were discussions occurring between the industry and the Minister as the bill was devised, but at the same time other Cabinet colleagues of the Minister wrote to various members of the industry saying that no further tax increases would be imposed by surprise. Then as Mr Heatley has reminded the House tonight, we were slammed into urgency and we worked through the night fighting gallantly to avoid grandma’s tax.

That is the basis on which we made a significant change to clause 3, “Objects of Act”, and we took the opportunity to insert a new clause 3(da), which meant that the fundamental object of the legislation is to promote consultation with industry organisations on the regulation of the industry as an aid to fostering efficiency in growth in the New Zealand wine industry. I have to say that even as the legislation now passes through the House, there is still an element of concern amongst the industry as we move from the legislative stage to the regulation-making stage.

As many members in this House will know, in legislation such as this, the devil is in the detail. Regulations will be required, and we accept that, but I certainly hope that there will be widespread meaningful consultation with the industry as those regulations develop. Following the process the select committee went through, officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry would have appreciated the need to foster that relationship. I certainly do not criticise them in any way whatsoever. However, it is important for the Minister also to appreciate the importance of genuine consultation.

A great deal of harm was done to the relationship by the $18 million tax increase, or grandma’s sherry increase; that sort of mistrust is easy to create, and often it is very, very difficult to regain support and confidence. After all, the Minister, with his recent escapades with the flatulence tax, knows exactly how easy it is to upset a community by simply promoting bad, bad policy. That is the principal clause I wish to speak on in this contribution—the significant changes the select committee made, strongly enforcing the requirement of consultation, moving it to the front of the bill, and the alteration to clause 3 with the insertion of new paragraph (da).

My second point is about the submission received from winegrowers regarding the positioning of clause 128. The committee gave a lot of thought to moving that clause, because that request was made to us. On reflection, and on seeking advice, we were advised that to do so would give an inconsistent tone to the bill, and the committee happily accepted that recommendation.

I shall take a brief call on this very important legislation. I was fortunate to sit on the select committee in Christchurch. However, not being a wine connoisseur, I know very little about the industry. I am known as one who went to a restaurant and when someone asked me whether I wanted a Sauvignon Blanc, I asked whether that was a red or a white. That was my understanding—

💬 Hon David Carter: Where were your French lessons?

I did not take French, so French is not one of my fortes.

💬 Darren Hughes: The member’s friend is Johnny Walker.

There we have it. We have talked about the granny tax, and if we look at clauses 85 to 97 on compliance costs, huge compliance costs have already been mentioned in this debate. One of the issues in all legislation that this Government has become very prone to is to bring in charges that will affect an industry, by way of regulation. Phil Heatley and my colleague David Carter talked about the sherry tax. That tax was imposed with a view to stopping younger-age drinking or binge drinking. Who are the people who would be affected by that? The alcohol volume in those drinks was much higher than anything younger people would be interested in. It was those older folk, who like to have their wine and sherry before they go to bed. The young member over there who wants to criticise and make comments about the habits of people should reflect that this Government has done the industry a disservice and an injustice.

I want to come back to the work that was done by the chairperson of the select committee. I was impressed with his knowledge and understanding. All the members made a contribution to that select committee process, and I sat on the select committee, once only, down in Christchurch. I pay a special tribute to the Hon David Carter, because he steered through a major change from the original drafting, as we have heard tonight in the second reading and Committee stage speeches. We have seen that a cut-and-slash approach has been through and taken out some compliance that was not in the industry’s interests. It was a bill that had been hastily prepared. Legislation should be industry driven. It should be what the industry requires and wants, and we have heard tonight that the current bill is a vast improvement.

As I said earlier, I am not a wine drinker, but I certainly appreciate the fine wines of people who understand the industry. I was in the fortunate position last year of being in Spain, and in Madrid in particular. Some New Zealand wine importers were at a function at the ambassador’s home. The reputation of New Zealand wines was such that those people were saying to us—Bernie Ogilvy and Jill Pettis, the junior Government whip, were there and will appreciate what I am saying—that they could not get enough New Zealand wine. The reputation of New Zealand wine was such that it was outstripping French wine. The Spaniards were more interested in buying New Zealand wine than they were in wine from across the border in France.

So New Zealand wine has a reputation throughout the world, not just in New Zealand. When we looked at the expanding markets within the European Union, and as we travelled through France to the UK, we saw that the reputation of New Zealand wine had preceded it. If members have ever spent time in the United States, they will know that on the Pacific rim—the western seaboard of the United States, particularly California—New Zealand wine has a high reputation. This bill allows the industry to have some transparency and accountability. National supports the bill we are now debating, which has come about under the chairmanship of the Hon David Carter, and we are pleased to be part of that process. I draw the Committee’s attention to those particular clauses—[Interruption] I just sought another call, so I will continue in the same vein. I draw the Committee’s attention—

💬 Dail Jones: He isn’t even speaking to the bill.

I am. I am talking about clauses 85 to 97, which—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. When I sought leave that the bill be taken as one question, the House gave me leave for a wide-ranging debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is quite correct.

I bring the Committee’s attention to that, because there was a comment made by the New Zealand First member that I was not speaking to the bill. I want to assure members that I am speaking to the bill, because I did attempt—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Would you reach the microphone if you weren’t standing on the bill?

I am standing. I want to draw the Committee’s attention to clauses 85 to 97, because those provisions contain the compliance costs that we see in so much legislation today, which is one of the issues that National has with any legislation. I have called it regulatory creep.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: No new taxes.

This is a Government that said there would be no new taxes, yet we have had 18 new taxes. We sat in the House under urgency one night, which members will remember, and increased the tax for those poor, elderly people who like to have their port and sherry. The Hon Dr Nick Smith had the bottles lined up here, which showed that the younger people whom that piece of legislation was aimed at do not drink those ports and sherries. They are into those ready-made drinks, which I do not know much about because I am not a connoisseur. The member has just handed me a couple of examples. This one is a schnapps Archers Aqua orange, with 5.5 percent alcohol by volume.

💬 Hon David Carter: They wouldn’t be covered by the bill.

They are not covered by the bill. The point we made was that that tax was increased at that time, which did a disservice to the whole industry. The Government’s increasing taxes and compliance costs while this bill was being debated in its early stages did the wine industry no good. That is why I go back to the point I have been making. It was the Hon David Carter, as chair, and members of the National team who were able to bring some sense, accountability, and transparency into the bill we are debating tonight. National has great pleasure in supporting it, because we were very much part of making this user-friendly legislation, and the wine industry has supported it, but I still come back to clauses 85 to 97, which relate to the high compliance costs that we will have to deal with.

I also want to go back to clauses 56, 57, and so on, which concern the wine officers. These are extraordinary provisions. There will be people called “wine officers” who will police the regulations. They will have the power to get search warrants and enter property. That came up earlier when the member for Ilam, Gerry Brownlee, spoke. He talked about how one had to go and get a search warrant from a JP, District Court judge, community magistrate, or registrar, under clause 66, “Issue of search warrant”. I ask the Minister in the chair, Jim Sutton, to take a call on that.

The wine officers have extraordinary powers, and one would hope that those powers are not misdirected. Those powers are there for the benefit of the industry. We would like to make sure that that is the fact. Nothing concerns me more than people being given powers and thinking they can go out there and do anything they like. We are interested in the well-being of the industry. We want to make sure that wine officers do have the mandate and that their role is clearly defined. Otherwise, we will find that the industry will be disadvantaged.

I might not have taken another call if it were not for the fact that I was provoked by the three National Party speakers who spoke about the night when we had the sherry tax debate in the House, and commented about how hard they worked that night. As I recall that debate, when we came to the final vote at 5 in the morning, there were 13 New Zealand First votes against the sherry tax, and—wait a minute—there were 10 National Party votes that night. There were 13 New Zealand First votes and 10 National Party votes. National members say that they are hard-working, yet that shows how hard they fought against that tax. They had 10 votes. I am not sure how the system works, but that suggests to me that there might have been about five out of 27 National Party members around the building that night to vote against the sherry tax. So 22 of them were nicely tucked up in bed, having had a sip of port or sherry, perhaps, and only five of them were left here that night, whereas we had 13.

Our leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, was here. He made the last speech on that bill that night. The Rt Hon Winston Peters fought to the end for the rights of the working classes, who were having their port and sherry taxes put up. We in New Zealand First were fighting hard. The National Party had 10 votes. About five of those members huddled around the Chamber—[Interruption] I would not have raised this issue if it were not for the fact that the National members were banging on so much about it. Sometimes they really do shoot themselves in the foot. They have raised that issue, though they behaved ignominiously on that particular night, when they went home to bed and left New Zealand First to do all the fighting on that tax.

As far as wine officers are concerned, I do not want to rub the point in, because I think I have done that well enough. We have made that well known to everybody. I would expect that if New Zealand wants to improve the quality of its wine, and wants to assure overseas countries that there is transparency—that is the famous word that we used today—and that we have high standards, we have to prove that we have a means of policing that. We cannot sell wine overseas with a New Zealand label of quality wine, unless we can prove to the French or the Americans—and the Americans seem to be worse than the French—that we have people checking that the quality of our wine is first-rate. The National members have sat on this bill for months and months, and they do not seem to know what they were doing or why they were doing it. I was not even a member of the Primary Production Committee. However, when I made my maiden speech in 1976, I spoke on wine. I have taken an interest in it and have been in the west Auckland area. That is why we have wine officers; it as simple as that. It is extraordinary that the National members should have filibustered all this evening on something that was obvious.

The other point to bear in mind is that the director-general finally issues the notices. It is the director-general who has that responsibility, and, under clause 128, it is the director-general who must consult, and if he or she does not do so, the director-general is in breach of a statutory duty. That is not the duty of Jim Anderton or whomever the Minister is. The director-general has a statutory duty to consult, and the Minister must check with the director-general. If there is no consultation, it is the director-general’s job that would be on the line, in terms of the State Service Commission’s requirements. That would be a term of the employment of the director-general, in so far as the wine industry is concerned.

What were the National members doing on the select committee, for goodness’ sake? They cannot understand the need for proper control of wine or for ensuring the export of proper quality wine. They cannot understand that the wine industry is a unified industry, wanting to work together for the interests of the industry. The fact is that when we had a big debate on port and sherry wine, those members were not here in the Chamber. They were not here to listen to the debate. If they had been here to listen to the New Zealand First members telling them how these things are done, they might have learnt a thing or two. But I see their numbers are down again tonight as well in the voting, and maybe that is the whole problem. The National members are never willing to learn, and they know nothing about the wine industry, despite having spent so much time on it in the select committee.

The member who has just resumed his seat was quite right. The reason for having wine officers, and the reason they are given powers of entry, is so that we can demonstrate to the world that we have a rigorous law governing the quality and standards of wine, and that we have the means to enforce it. That is it; it is very simple. The National Party members should have been able to grasp that over the many months that the Primary Production Committee was working on the bill. I would have thought they would get it by now.

There was also a lot of discussion while the National and New Zealand First members squabbled over who was most put out when the tax was increased on sherry and port. I know they will take this personally, but I do have to ask myself whether this is the same National Party and the same New Zealand First Party that were in cahoots when they promised that the wine excise would be removed, and the only tax on alcoholic liquors would be GST. Yes, they are is the selfsame parties. That just goes to show that when members are so assiduous in their researching of a topic, they damage their grey cells and cannot remember things.

I want to say to members that we know this debate will not go for much longer, because the National members want to get away and have their secret caucus meeting before they go home for the weekend. We are all dying to learn what the outcome will be, and who will be—oh, I should not say those words, although this is a wide-ranging debate, as one of the members who spoke has pointed out. This is a wide-ranging debate, so I dare say it is entirely relevant that we consider who may be the next “back-down Bill”—or the next leader of the National Party. Some of the National members, who may be hiding behind their benches, are plotting. They must be somewhere, doing something. They may be hiding behind their benches, planning their secret caucus meeting and who their next leader will be. It is obvious that their attention has not been fully engaged by this bill, so there must be something else on their minds.

First, I want to return a remark or two to the New Zealand First Party—a party well known for its party spirit, and for its ability to make considerably important decisions at very small hours in the morning. How is it that a party led by none other than the Rt Hon Winston Peters, a man who often proclaims himself to be a friend of the producers of this country, is now buying into the argument being advanced by the Minister that the only way the world can be assured that New Zealand produces good wine is to have a Government inspector put a stamp on it? The only way we can be sure that New Zealand wine is good is if it has a gold medal from a Government inspector! I think that is a sad day for the industry, and a very sad representation of an industry by a party that, I am afraid, is way out of touch with what is going on in the commercial world in New Zealand.

I want to talk about the appallingly low incomes that New Zealanders have to endure under this Labour Government. A couple of weeks ago the Government Statistician produced new income figures for New Zealand. Members might be a little confused about why I am talking about that during the debate on the Wine Bill. Fortunately, in his bit of a whine to the Committee, the Minister opened this debate to very wide-ranging topics, so I want to make it very clear that New Zealanders are becoming poorer by the day under this Government.

One of the most fascinating statistics produced by the statistician was that if the income of all New Zealanders from wages and salaries was aggregated—part time and full time—the income from that source alone is only $337 a week per person in the workforce. That tells us that lots of New Zealanders are struggling out there. Lots of New Zealanders have trouble buying just the groceries, let alone contemplating buying a bottle of gold medal, Government inspector – stamped wine. Then there is the issue of people who are full time in the workforce. Full-time wage and salary earners are now earning $550-odd a week. Then we got a crowing statement from the Government that that represented a 5 percent increase, and was it not doing well!

I noticed something—

💬 Hon Matt Robson: You have never bothered to struggle in the supermarket.

I do walk around supermarkets, Mr Robson, and I have noticed that many people put products out of place around the supermarket. They have gone about with their trolleys and taken the items they wanted, but suddenly worked out that they cannot afford them, and have had to ditch them all over the place. That member should look out for it next time. It would be a new experience for someone from the Alliance, the Progressive party, and the “What Other Name Can We Come Up With Next Party?”, to go around the supermarket like ordinary people do a couple of times a week. If that member did, he would see that people are having to make hard choices about the food they buy for their families, because this Government has them screwed down on very low incomes. Unbelievable!

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: That is right for the great city of Wellington, but Fendalton supermarkets? Get a life!

Well, there we have it. Marian Hobbs, the Christchurch deserter, is referring to the Fendalton New World supermarket—a supermarket very well run, I might say, by the Turner family for over 67 years—and suggesting that people who go to that supermarket do not have a problem. It might interest the Hon Marian Hobbs to know that my electorate has one of the highest number of State houses in the country. I want to tell that member that despite their income-related rents, those people will continue to vote for me, because they know that I have an interest in their well-being—unlike the Labour Party that enjoys their poverty. This is the Government that spouts that New Zealanders, from all sources of wages and salaries, are now earning an average of $337 a week, and says: “Aren’t they well off?”. That is the typical Helen Clark response.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I realise this is a robust debate. However—

Wide-ranging now.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): —and it is a wide-ranging debate. However, I would remind members from all sides of the Chamber that they need to come back to the Wine Bill now.

I am very happy to take a call and speak to the Wine Bill. I want to thank the Minister for finally taking a call. We have been asking questions all night about why he could put such a messy bill before the Primary Production Committee. He finally stood up and took a call—but I do not think he talked about wine at all. He did a lot of whining, but I did not hear him talk about the Wine Bill at all. I heard him at one stage talk about the “Back-down Bill”. I thought that was appropriate. He is the Minister, who in only the last few days has backed down completely on the proposed bill coming before the House and—it was due any day—to enforce the flatulence tax. That is what the current Minister in the chair, the Hon Jim Sutton, will be remembered for. When he gives his valedictory speech, it will not be much use because people will not remember him for the Wine Bill. I will remember tonight, when we asked questions for a couple of hours and the Minister sat there reading his comic, because he did not know much about the Wine Bill. People will remember that Minister as being the man who proposed the flatulence tax, and then finally had to back down.

I was also intrigued by the very interesting comments from the New Zealand First member when he reminded us of the night we battled until 4 a.m. or a quarter to 5 in the morning on the “Grandmas’ tax”. [Interruption] It was 5 o’clock, he reminds us. He also reminded us that the National Party battled through those many hours of debate as it fought to stop that tax—fought gallantly—and that the New Zealand First team suddenly appeared at voting time. Mr Dail Jones should look back at the records. There were minimal contributions from that member. There were minimal contributions from any New Zealand First members on that evening. But he has confirmed to the Committee that the vote being taken at a quarter to 5 was clearly after the closing time of the Green Parrot, which must have been at half past four.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: They’d drunk the wine; they’d drunk it all.

I cannot confirm or deny that. I was not there. But along they came, into the House, and finally managed to vote against the “sherry tax”. I want to thank the members for doing so, because the National Party gallantly fought that fight through the early hours of the morning, taking call after call. I just hope that the New Zealand First members, as they arrived at work, appreciated the way we had kept that debate going for hours and hours.

I want to finish by talking briefly about the bill, and commenting on the superb job the select committee did in carving out so much of the bill, with regard to compliance orders. I want to reinforce the point made earlier that there was a very good reason for taking out the part that the industry found absolutely objectionable—

💬 Hon Steve Maharey: A listening Government.

Hon DAVID CARTER I say to Mr Maharey that if the Government had listened, the select committee would not have had hours and hours and days and days of work to do tidying up that mess. There was a suggestion made, in fact, that the Government had listened, and that there was a high degree of agreement amongst the industry for the bill as it was presented to the select committee—and then we were besieged by hundreds of submissions. They all said the same thing: the Government promised to listen, we had a bit of a round of consultation, and then the Government ignored what the industry was saying completely. So there is Mr Maharey’s idea of listening. He would go around the road shows, such as they have on at the moment regarding public access—

💬 Simon Power: Oh, they’re going well, those public meetings.

I ask Mr Power whether they are a bit like the huis. Yes, the Government has a great spin job going at the moment—but we are talking about the Wine Bill.

I remind Mr Maharey that if Government members are going to consult, then they should do some listening and not present a mess to a select committee, as they did on this occasion.

💬 Hon Steve Maharey: Oh, OK.

I am pleased to hear him saying that is OK. So we have won that battle, and we have won on the flatulence tax. The next one we have to win is public access.

I move, That the question be now put.

There is no doubt about it. The social fabric of New Zealand will be to some extent destroyed by the Government’s proposal to stop smoking in bars. There is no question about that at all.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I warn the member to bring his speech back to the Wine Bill, please.

One of the other things that people enjoy in those bars is wine. I think it is an outrageous proposal that the only way they can be assured about the wine they are drinking now, it seems—as the Minister has told us—is if that wine has a Government stamp on it. What a backward-looking Government.

💬 Simon Power: Carless days.

That was us, actually, so we do not want to talk about that. But one of the great things about carless days was that we could visit bars and not be worried about driving home. The point, though, is that it is just not fair or reasonable for the Government to promote the idea that in passing this legislation it has somehow done the industry a particular favour. All the Government has done, after months and months, is finally find some time in Parliament. It is members’ time, I might say, because we are not able to ask questions of the Government over the next couple of days—mainly because we know how much trouble Government members get into every time they are asked a question. We know that they do not like the scrutiny they are being put under. So here we are, taking some members’ time to pass this bill.

We want to see this bill passed for the industry. There are aspects of it that are clearly necessary. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade really does do himself a huge disservice by suggesting that the only way in which New Zealand’s wine industry can progress, grow, and be respected by buyers off shore is if there is a Government stamp on the wine. I want to know what the proposal is for training all these wine officers. What will make them so capable of issuing the stamp?

💬 Simon Power: Rick Barker will do well at that.

My friend Simon Power suggests that—

💬 Government Members: Oh!

Settle down! We have an appointment at 9.30—the whole lot of us.

The new wine officers may be appointed by the Hon Rick Barker.

💬 Simon Power: Good call, he does JPs.

He appoints JPs now and he does a fine job of that.

One of the great advantages of the Minister being able to appoint wine officers is that when he comes to the Chamber with his clear plastic file—which we can see clean through when we look across the House—he will have some papers to put inside it. We would then have the assurance that that was the Government’s transparent way of appointing these officers.

I started my speech by coupling the issue of smoking in bars with this bill. It seems to me that there is a freedom issue involved in this bill, as well. While the industry may want to have all wine produced in New Zealand certified as being of a particular quality, I would have thought that having the industry itself run such an organisation might have been better than having the Government set up its own bureaucracy around these so-called “wine policemen”. It is a very antiquated idea that the only way anyone can be assured that a bottle of wine produced in New Zealand is of a particular quality, is to refer to the Government stamp. That puts us back in the Dark Ages somewhat, as does the idea that people who are capable of earning their own income, and capable of making most choices in their lives, cannot go into a public bar and smoke cigarettes. But apparently it is going to be OK for those same people to buy marijuana and smoke that in all sorts of places. It is just hopeless.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 162 in the name of the Hon Jim Sutton to clause 61 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to, and clauses 1 to 143 and schedules, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading