Wine growing bludgers whine as tax payer will no longer pay their MPI compliance cost

new-zealand-wine-centre

Turns out the MPI has been under-charging wine growers for their compliance services, effectively propping up our wine industry with tax payers dollars.  It’s about to end.  Queue the whining.

New Zealand winegrowers say changes to the way the Ministry for Primary Industries wants to recover the cost of its wine regulatory programmes will cost the industry $2.9 million a year and are “manifestly unjustifiable”.

The ministry is reviewing how it recovers the costs of its biosecurity and food safety systems across the country’s primary industries, after under-recovering for several years as the volumes of exports grew, according to its consultation paper on proposed revisions to the cost recovery regime.

While taxpayers in part fund it, under legislation the industry which benefits from the work must shoulder some of the cost. This is the first review of the cost recovery regime since 2008.

Since 2009 the volume of wine exports has increased 56 percent to 320 million litres in 2014.

MPI’s proposed changes would recover $2.1M from the wine sector in the 2015 to 2016 year, from a forecast $170,000 forecast for this financial year.

Why should the tax payer shoulder any of the Wine industry’s biosecurity and food safety costs?  These should be shifted directly onto the industry, who will in turn shift it onto the consumers.  There is no justification for any tax payer support of private companies.

New Zealand Winegrowers calculates the proposed changes as costing the industry $2.9M annually, adding to the $200M it pays the Government in excise tax each year.

“From our perspective requiring the industry to pay an additional $2.9M to MPI every year is manifestly unjustifiable,” NZ Winegrowers chairman Steven Green said.

“Other major primary industries are subject to the user-pays regime, however unlike the wine industry, none of those sectors also pay a product specific tax.”

This is completely irrelevant to the argument, and NZ Winegrowers should get their grape stained fingers out of the New Zealand tax payer’s pockets.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Deant1967

    This has less to do the the winegrowers having “their hands in the taxpayers pockets” and more to do with MPI being tits at their job. When did their useless bueracrats decide they had under recovered? When the wine industries exports went through the roof? and they thought like all socialists – lets have a slice of that. Ask IRD how much more they are receiving in excise tax due the the success of the wine industry, that tax is meant to cover all of the governments costs and the rest into the general fund.

  • Disinfectant

    I would add only one comment; so long as the wine growers are getting value for money and the bureaucracy is not charging self serving fees.

  • Nige.

    Wine is so dirt cheap (when its bought from the supermarket). The consumer could easily afford the neccesary make up % required.

    • StreuthCobber

      Unless you live out west where the trusts control the liquor and the money.

  • Woody

    An issue I had with this when I heard it yesterday was that the wine industry would have to hike prices for local product because of this, but MPIs charges are for export product, not local, so why should I have to pay more to subsidise the wine industries export market.

  • Tom

    I’d far rather my tax dollars went to a worthy cause like wine production than some dopped up, baby factory beneficiary,

    • OneTrack

      The problem is, at the moment you have to do both.

33%