Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill

I am pleased to debate Part 2, “Amendments to Animal Products (Ancillary and Transitional Provisions) Act 1999”. In the debate on Part 1, I was talking about how well our dairy products are liked overseas, and I shall tell members a little anecdote of a friend whose son took back overseas with him 32 bars of New Zealand chocolate. Do members know how much that would have weighed? They would have been very heavy, but he managed to stay within the weight allowances for travel. I am sure that he will use those bars of chocolate to sustain him through some of the cold, dark winters in the Northern Hemisphere.

💬 Jill Pettis: Like Vogel’s bread.

Like Vogel’s bread, the chocolate is very well liked.

This bill has had the support of the industry, and the Primary Production Committee did receive advice from the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. It is that authority, which I think was set up 3 years ago, that is going through the legislation in New Zealand to look at any legislation that is to do with food safety. It will be conducting a domestic food review to establish a programme that does protect consumers. It will also look a minimising compliance costs, and will ensure that New Zealand’s food industry is positioned for the growth we expect to see in the future. Of course, we have seen enormous growth in the dairy industry, with more and more people going into that area, herds increasing in size, and a lot of conversion of land to dairying. That is a real growth area for New Zealand. Ninety percent of our dairy products are exported.

It is no wonder that all parties support this bill. The select committee made only minor changes to it. I agree with the committee’s report where it states it wants to see compliance costs kept to a minimum. The cost recovery in transition was one point that was debated at the select committee. Select committee members wanted to ensure that the fees that were paid under the Animal Products Act could be transferred to the dairy regulations or that there should be a refund if people had to pay new fees. A National Government—soon to be—would be very keen to see compliance costs reduce and to avoid duplication of cost recovery.

One of the things I have to ask about is the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. We have a Ministry of Health that has over 1,000 people in it. The Ministry of Health has grown and grown; I think it employs about 1,200 people.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: The Minister said it would go down.

The Minister did say the number would go down by 25 percent, but what happened was that it went up by 25 percent. So there was a bit of a problem there. While I totally agree that food safety is extremely important, why did we need to have a separate authority? Why is the Ministry of Health not responsible for New Zealand’s food safety? It seems that the more the bureaucracy grows, the less it does. However, we now have a New Zealand Food Safety Authority, and it gave advice on this bill and is conducting further domestic food reviews.

We support Part 2.

I was surprised that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Annette King, bridled so much when I attacked her sacred cow—I suppose I should not have done that—the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. Essentially, it is just an extension of this Government. That is why she really bridled. This is the Government that says: “If it moves, legislate it.” Here is another example of this taking place. Let me be clear: the New Zealand Food Safety Authority has a reputation of being an overkill organisation. It has a reputation of being almost impossible to deal with, and a reputation of: “Do it our way, or no way.” It has a reputation of not listening, of being threatening, and it has created a view that it is right at all times—of course, it is not.

That is what bothers members of the dairy industry when they ask me to address this concern on their behalf when it comes to this bill. They are concerned that having created one of the biggest and best industries in this country without the benefit of the Labour Government—without the benefit of any Government, to be fair—is that they will be smacked with red tape and legislation and it will get out of control. I caution the Minister in the chair that it is something she needs to be cognisant of. This country can ill-afford to have its largest primary export earner damaged in any way. It is a real issue because in the minds of our dairy industry and producers this is the type of thing that concerns them. The perception, whether or not it is real, is what counts.

One has only to look at the changes that have taken place across the landscape of New Zealand to realise just how significant the dairy industry now is to this country. I was brought up on a dairy farm, and I recall my father milking 120 cows and having an economic unit. He was a significant player in the industry, and that is not very long ago. Now unless people are milking something in the vicinity of 350 to 400 cows, they are not significant players. But what is not in doubt is that the intellectual property that has now been captured in this huge organisation called Fonterra, which is a culmination of huge industry players, is something that should not be ignored, and that is the concern that people have.

I have touched on risk management programmes before and was coming to the defence of the industry in saying that what it has in place now is second to none. The industry already has first-class risk-management programmes. One only needs to go to a dairy farm to see what hurdles people need to jump through in order to be able to supply their local dairy company. If people do not do it to those exacting standards, the milk is dumped. That can be a penalty of $2,000 or $3,000 to each of those suppliers on any given day. So they have some real self-interest in making sure that these things are in order. This bill simply brings those actions into a legislative form that protects their interests.

I appreciate that it will maintain our ability to keep exporting into international markets, and, of course, that is important to the industry. But we must not do it in such a way that brings us back to the pack. I have already touched on that in an earlier call. I think we are in dire trouble if we try to reach out to the standards that some of the European nations want to impose on us, simply because we are more efficient and they are not. We do not subsidise our agricultural sector at all. With those European nations we are dealing with subsidies to the tune of £30 billion annually. I just hope that the Minister, instead of getting on her high horse when I talked about the New Zealand Food Safety Authority and the threat that it represents to a lot of dairy suppliers, will take those concerns more seriously.

I too have had experience in the dairy industry, just like my colleague Mr Connell. New Zealand First supports Part 2. The products produced by this industry are wide ranging and very well received offshore. We need to protect the borders, and to make sure the industry is protected for the rest of our lives, because this country was built on the efforts of the pioneers in the primary industries. This Government has been rewarded, not because of its own efforts but because the Rt Hon Winston Peters and the Rt Hon Jim Bolger interfered with the dollar, and the industry got on its own two feet, demonstrated its reliability, and returned to the Government a percentage of the surplus it now enjoys.

I have to be very careful in speaking to this bill, because the Minister in the chair, the Hon Annette King, saw me one day in Masterton eating some of these products. I am being very guarded, and hope she does not let out the secret about what I was eating.

The dairy industry has grown. What was once sheep country on the Napier - Taupō plains is now huge dairy farms. Some of those farms are milking over a thousand cows. The dairy industry provides this country with huge dollars.

I want to touch on something Mr Connell mentioned. He was brought up on a dairy farm; I was brought up on a sheep farm, but I did have to milk two cows every day before I went to school—only two, but that was an effort. I had to drag the cream can out to the front gate, and, at the end of the week, make sure I got the cream can back with a chit in it saying what the quality of the milk was, and I was paid according to that. Today, when driving around the country, one sees milk tankers collecting milk from a wide range of areas, including places that previously were not dairy-farming country. Around Taupō, my colleague Ron Mark is a director of a trust that has won a number of awards for being one of the top dairy providers in this country.

New Zealand First supports Part 2 of this bill.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank members for their contribution to this debate, and to thank the Primary Production Committee for the way it dealt with the bill and reported it back without amendment. I thank the committee members for the points they raised, but I do not agree with all of them. This bill is all about managing the risk to human and animal health from the consumption and use of dairy products, and facilitating the entry of dairy products into overseas markets. I do not think there is any argument about that, and I think both our medical professional people here today outlined very well the first objective, when it comes to protecting people’s health.

I was a little disappointed in Mr Connell’s contribution, in that he did criticise the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. It is a very new organisation and not a threat to industry, but there to help industry—to help facilitate exports and the making of quality products. I am particularly proud of that organisation. I know that it works incredibly well with industry, and what the member said was a little unfair of him. I realise he was trying to put a bit of spice into the debate—trying to gear it up a bit—and maybe to have something to say. But I personally am very proud of the agency, and I think many other New Zealanders are, as well.

The only other comment I would make to Mr Connell is that I take his point about us not wanting to have standards forced on us by overseas European markets. There is only one problem with that: if we do not accept the standards that they will accept in order to allow our products in, they have the right to say they do not want our products. So there is a balance between saying: “Well, stuff your standards.”, and making sure we have a standard that is acceptable to the people who buy our products. After all, it is a buyer’s market. We are the best in the world, but it is still a buyer’s market out there and we have to meet the standards that buyers find acceptable. In the same way, we expect people who send products to our country to meet our standards.

I thank members for their contributions. This bill will see through a measure that started some time ago, and at the end of the day it will bring the dairy industry in line with the Animal Products Act.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 330 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to, and Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2