Urgent Debates — Dairy Products, Whey Protein—Response to Contamination Incident

The Acting Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries has issued a statutory statement regarding potentially contaminated products on the New Zealand market, and the Minister of Trade has formally notified the World Health Organization and New Zealand’s trading partners. An operational response team has been set up and is updating relevant Ministers. Clearly, this is a very serious issue. Confidence in the Government’s response is critical. The public requires protection. I therefore call on David Shearer to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.

I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. We were shocked, as a country, to learn on Friday, through an email or a press release that was sent out at about 1 o’clock on Saturday morning, that there had been a serious problem regarding the contamination of some of our milk product that has been sent overseas. This has grave consequences for New Zealand. It has grave consequences for both our trading partners and our export markets overseas, but more important, more directly, and more immediately it has obvious consequences on women, fathers, and children in terms of the formula that parents are feeding their children. Many mothers and fathers around this country are worried about the formula they had been feeding their kids because of the risk that botulism might have been introduced to them. That same fear was spread around the rest of the world where New Zealand product had been exported.

The response from the Government and the way that Fonterra responded was of critical importance to the way that we could at least alleviate the many fears that those parents had. The Government was quick off the mark. I commend it for its speed in being able to do that. I believe that the response the Government has made to the emergency, up to now, has been a good one. But we are still left in a situation where there are many, many questions that remain unanswered. From the point of view of Labour Party members, we want to stand with the Government on this issue. This is an issue of “New Zealand Inc.” It is about our futures together. It is not about politics as such. It is about New Zealand, our reputation, and the reputation of our products overseas and offshore. So we will stand with the Government and we will stand with Fonterra, and we will assist as much as we can in providing those answers for parents. But, as I said, there are questions—there are very serious questions—about the way in which this problem emerged and the way in which the Government’s response has taken place so far. As I said, the Ministers have responded quickly, but the question, really, is about the wider governmental response.

I guess the first question that needs to be answered is why this potential contamination took so long to detect. The problem was first alerted back in March, and it took until now for us to actually realise that we have sent offshore milk powder or milk whey that was contaminated with this bacteria. Why did it take so long to tell people about it? We would have thought that given Fonterra’s realisation after the dicyandiamide scare, it would realise that this sort of problem, should it get out, has innumerable, vast consequences for our export industries.

Why has the Ministry of Health not played a major role in getting information to parents? The Prime Minister mentioned that the Ministry of Health was involved in some of the discussions, but it has been notable by the absence of its voice in this particular case. It has not been heard across New Zealand and it has not been able to give that reassurance. In fact, many of the mothers who have been ringing in to get good, accurate information have actually been ringing Plunket. That emphasises, I guess—underlines—the value and the reliance that we put on Plunket in New Zealand.

What protocols did the Ministry for Primary Industries and Fonterra have in place for handling these sorts of situations? Given the dicyandiamide scare and given the melamine scare before that, we would have thought that protocols were in place and that it would simply be a matter of plucking them off the shelf, so to speak, and applying them to this particular context. The fact that the information kept changing, the facts kept changing, is a real concern. There does seem to be an absence of strategic communications within Fonterra that points to some deeper problems within Fonterra around food safety and the way that it responds to it.

As I said in my speech earlier on, Fonterra is our largest company. It is a brand that we feel proud of. It is a company, a cooperative, that is owned by New Zealanders. It is owned by farmers. It is unique in that sense. It can never be sold offshore. It is uniquely and firmly implanted in our country. It came into existence in order to provide that clout on the world stage. Many people have contrasted the fortunes of Fonterra with the fortunes of our meat industry, which is far more fragmented and, as a result, is not doing anywhere near as well. Fonterra came into existence under a Labour Government, which had to overlook and override many of the concerns that the Commerce Commission brought up in regard to the existence of Fonterra. Yet we are very proud of this company, as I have said. We are very proud of a company that has been able to get out there and be the ambassador, if you like, for New Zealand, for our “clean, green” brand, and for our clean, green image.

That brand is, I think, about the 22nd or 23rd most recognised brand in the world. I think New Zealand’s “clean, green”, “100% Pure New Zealand” brand comes just after, or just before, Dell computers. Fonterra was the ambassador of that brand offshore because its products made up 28 percent of our export value. So an incident like this creates real problems not only with our milk exports—which have been shut out of Russia, there are concerns in Viet Nam and Malaysia, and there is the possibility of being shut out of Sri Lanka and, obviously, China, where nearly $3 billion of product goes—but right across the world in terms of the way that we are perceived internationally.

Fonterra is a global company—a truly global company—and it has huge responsibilities. We have given it the right to be a monopoly in our country, and we believe that that was the right way forward, but with that right comes enormous responsibility. As our only truly global company, that responsibility includes protecting our reputation as a source of safe, quality food. Our food commands the top price, the premium price, because we advertise it as clean, green, safe, ethically grown, and sustainable. It is not born from large sheds of cows standing in stalls being fed grain or whatever supplements and chemicals; it is milk that comes from the grass, from the fields that we are blessed with in terms of our environment and our climate.

But our reputation is built on trust. It is built on trust as much as it is built on our technology. The quality of that trust disappears as transparency fades. Transparency is hugely important for New Zealand and the way that we articulate that around the world. We have a reputation for being the most honest and the most transparent country in the world. Transparency International puts us there at No. 1. That is part of our reputation, along with the reputation for being clean and green. On this, Fonterra has, unfortunately, let us down in the last couple of days. As I said before, its strategic communications have been hugely lacking. For me, seeing the changes in response over the last few days has been very disappointing. The representative who was on John Campbell’s show last night—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Romano.

—Gary Romano, could not give us a reassurance about the milk powder that was actually out there on sale—

💬 Hon David Parker: Karicare

—Karicare, thank you very much—and whether the batch numbers were at fault or whether the actual product itself was the problem. We understand that things can go wrong—of course we understand that—but what we expect from our largest global company is to be told the truth. People expect to be told in a fulsome manner the facts of the case. As I said, that is what we are known for, and that is what the people and the Government in China are expecting from us as well.

John Key was in China in April. We have an ongoing relationship with China that is hugely important. It became our No. 1 trading partner in the world just a few months ago. It has enormous potential to grow even further than that. Our product is regarded there as the most trusted and the most safe. So when its news agency calls our brand into question, it creates enormous concern and enormous worry about the future. We will need to get this right, as Tim Groser said today in the House. Over the next days, weeks, and months getting this right and re-establishing ourselves as an exporter of quality food is going to be hugely important, and the way that we articulate that in the coming days is going to be very, very important.

After that time we are going to have to work hard to build up the respect and the trust that have been lost as a result of this scandal. We have to ask more questions, of course. Have the Ministers done enough from the outset? From what I have seen they certainly have not slackened in their task, which is good, but we have to ask questions about the Ministry for Primary Industries. We have to ask whether that ministry has been too hands-off or, in fact, whether it has not been brought into the loop as quickly as possible. I suggest that it does point to an issue within Fonterra—that it keeps the Ministry for Primary Industries at arm’s length and does not bring it in. As a result, there is a culture amongst some of the more senior people there of, dare I say it, arrogance—that they know better than absolutely anybody else. Well, I hope this brings about some humility from that organisation, because that organisation has put at risk our exports—that is, the farmers in our country—but also, of course, the whole “clean, green” brand of New Zealand itself.

The Ministry for Primary Industries has always pushed to grow exports, and often, I believe, that has overshadowed the emphasis it has put on protection. Our biosecurity and our food safety are two aspects that used to be quite separate, and they have been merged into that one organisation, that one ministry. Those two together, I believe, have maybe lost their way in the bigger infrastructure of the ministry. This is one area that I do believe we need to go back to, to see exactly where they were, how they were brought into the current problems, and what role they actually play, as well.

But our first priority, once again, is the protection of families and their children, the protection of our international standing as a safe food exporter, and our nation’s reputation. We need to work much harder and much faster on that because this issue is bigger than politics. But Fonterra, as I said before, is not bigger than Parliament. It is up to us in this House to come together and to make sure that everything that happens from this moment on happens in the best interests of both parents and of this country. Thank you.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in Parliament today. Can I start by saying and acknowledging that there are a huge number of people across the Government and in the community working hard to resolve this issue. For generations our country has been providing safe and suitable food. We have an outstanding record, but what I can say—and I think I am expressing what many New Zealanders are feeling at the moment—is that this incident is disappointing. I want in my comments now to just work through what we know and what the Government has done in terms of a response. It has been comprehensive. There have been officials working round the clock, and there is also a ministerial response team that has been working and has had a number of meetings.

What we know is that Fonterra notified the Ministry for Primary Industries that three batches of whey protein concentrate were potentially contaminated with Clostridium botulinum. Further notifications have been received by the Ministry for Primary Industries since. The ministry’s companies and verifiers have been tracing the movement of this protein and of the products it has been made into, and any distributional sales. It is important for people to understand at this point that what has been difficult is that the information has changed through this event. But what I can say is that we have had a response team that has involved the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Ministry for Primary Industries, the Ministry of Health, and a number of other agencies to ensure that the public have the best information available from what we have been given.

It has already been in the public domain, obviously, that there were two batches that were recalled by Karicare. The Acting Director-General of Health has taken further actions. When it became clear that the information was uncertain, he took a precautionary measure and issued a cautionary statement to protect the public, which is absolutely the right thing to do.

As I said before, there are a number of other actions that the Government has been taking to ensure a whole-of-Government response. Can I acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that this is above politics. It is important, I think, that we work together across this House to ensure that the public know that we are operating in the best interests of New Zealand.

In terms of other actions that the Government and the ministerial response team and agencies have taken, officials from the Ministry for Primary Industries are at Fonterra sites in Auckland, Hamilton, and Australia to verify information and to obtain a complete picture of the products and locations affected by the contaminated powder. My colleague the Hon Tim Groser will soon have the opportunity to speak, and he will talk about what he has been doing at an international level, because what we do realise is that it is important that our agencies work to ensure certainty around traceability of that product not only for New Zealanders but also for the many mums and dads and the Governments across the world that have been affected by this incident. Yes, we have a strong record as a country in terms of providing safe and suitable food, but we have high expectations of ourselves, and we are disappointed by this incident. It has resulted in Ministers working round the clock—whether it is at an international level, through my colleague the Hon Tim Groser, or domestically, through me and Ministers like the Hon Tony Ryall, the Hon Jo Goodhew, and the Hon Paula Bennett, who has been involved as well—to ensure that the public are protected.

I can also confirm that in terms of the potential contamination of the pipe, Ministry for Primary Industries officials have conducted a physical check of the plant in the Waikato to confirm that the pipe suspected of causing the contamination has been changed.

I want to touch on another issue because, obviously, throughout this issue, given that there was uncertain information, the ministerial response team, Government agencies, and the food and grocery sector have been focused on ensuring that there are no immediate supply issues in terms of infant formula. We want mums and dads around the country to know that we are doing everything we can to ensure that infant formula is on the shelf and safe. What people can be assured is that there have been a number of meetings between Ministers—including the Hon Tony Ryall, the Hon Jo Goodhew, and me—and the food and grocery sector. I want to thank those representatives for their confirmation to me that they will do everything they can to ensure that supply is maintained.

This is obviously an incident that is disappointing. It is having consequences, which my colleague the Hon Tim Groser will talk about. But what I want to assure the New Zealand public is that we are operating on a basis that is about protecting them, and that when information comes to hand, we are doing everything we can to ensure that the information we have been given is communicated in a responsible way.

I am very proud to be the Minister for Food Safety, and I know the strong record our country has had, but I also want to express on behalf of, I think, many New Zealanders that we are disappointed with this incident. My focus right now is on ensuring that the public are protected and that the agencies that are involved in the operational response have every resource they need. I am working with my ministerial colleagues to ensure that this agile response continues to work round the clock so that we have this issue resolved. What I want to assure people is that there will be a time to ask those appropriate questions, and whether they are asked of the companies involved or in terms of our food systems, I think that is important because we need to ensure that we do everything we can to restore confidence in New Zealand’s trusted reputation.

I cannot stay here for the rest of this debate. It is not that I am not absolutely focused on it or do not want to listen to the rest of the speakers here; it is just that I am spending every waking moment ensuring that the Government response to this issue is comprehensive and ensures that the public get the best information available when we have it. I have to leave the Chamber, but I just want to acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition, who has already spoken, who has said that this is bigger than politics. I look forward to other members in the House working together to ensure that we do everything we can to ensure that the public are protected, that they have the best information, and that our international partners continue to have confidence in our country in terms of our food systems. Thank you.

I rise on behalf of the Green Party in this urgent debate about the contamination of whey and its processing into other products. This has been a very confused few days. I want to start by just running over the time line of what happened. We have certainly been trying to wade our way through the information, some of which has been good and some of which has been a bit confusing.

It looks like what happened is that in May 2012 some whey was processed by Fonterra, and about 20 tonnes were shipped to six customers. At that stage the whey was not tested for Clostridium. That is because of the use that it was going to be put to, it was not seen as necessary to test it for Clostridium, but it appears that at this point it was contaminated as a result of a contaminated pipe, we are told. That was in May 2012.

Nothing happened until March this year. What happened in March 2013 was that the remaining 18 tonnes of the processed product were shipped to Darwin to make infant formula. At that point testing of the product for Clostridium was done. This is the important point. The reason it was done was that, obviously, Clostridium, particularly the harmful forms of Clostridium, is very dangerous to have in infant formula. So it was tested by Fonterra at that point, and at that point Fonterra established that there was a contamination problem in this whey that was to be shipped off to Darwin. That was in March.

The issue I have is what happened between March and July, because it was only on 31 July that it was finally confirmed that it was Clostridium botulinum, which is the toxic kind of Clostridium—there are many non-toxic kinds. It was only at that point that it was confirmed that it was C. botulinum. So there is a gap. I think we really need some answers as to what happened in that gap and why it was only after 5 months that we finally found out that it was the toxic kind of Clostridium, C. botulinum. After 31 July, when it was apparently confirmed that it was the toxic kind of Clostridium, things moved reasonably quickly. The Ministry for Primary Industries was apparently told on 2 August, and then on 3 August the issue went public.

After that there was also some further confusion. I think there are some issues here about supply chain traceability, because it became a bit confusing to parents as to what kinds of infant formula they were meant to be avoiding. Many parents, I suspect, went out and bought the kinds of infant formula that they thought were safe, and it turned out, as advice evolved over the next few days, that that was not necessarily so.

The primary responsibility of Parliament, this Government, and Fonterra in this situation is to protect the health of those who are consuming these food products. Everything else is secondary to that. That has to be the primary purpose of all of the Government actions and all of the fine words that get said in Parliament. That has to be where we start.

Locating the contaminated product is essential to that, and making sure that we have in place supply chain traceability so that we can track that product down very quickly seems to me to be absolutely essential. I have been a little bit disturbed that we have had trouble locating some of that product. It would seem that part of the reason, I am sure, is the 5-month gap between when this was first identified, and when it was finally confirmed that it was actually C. botulinum, which has created part of the problem for tracking the supply chain, as the product has been distributed. We are still hopeful that the final, remaining part of the product—we have been told that most of it, 90 percent of it, has been located—is located very quickly.

The next part of our responsibility is about informing parents from an authoritative voice. That is where, I think, it is very important that the Ministry of Health is involved. Although the Ministry for Primary Industries is, I am sure, a fine department, it necessarily has a different focus from the Ministry of Health, which has a sole focus on the health of people. The Ministry for Primary Industries has a more diverse focus, let us say. I believe it is important, in terms of informing parents and making sure they have good information, both that the source of that advice is one that has no complicated motives but has a simple, straightforward motive, which is health, that is, the Ministry of Health, and that we make greater efforts to actually communicate that to people. Not everybody follows the media very closely every day and keeps track of exactly what is going on, so I think it is important. That is not just for parents of children in New Zealand but, of course, in other countries where the product has been distributed. I believe that should be one of our key priorities.

In terms of where we go from here, questions remain for us about the gap between the finding of the genus Clostridium, the identification of the species C. botulinum, the toxic species, in particular, and the questions we have about why notification took so long. Are there in place measures, what we think would be standard notifications, whereby if a company like Fonterra, or any other company that produces food, finds a potential contaminant like this? I would have assumed that there was in place an automatic process whereby Government agencies are notified, whether it is the Ministry for Primary Industries or the Ministry of Health or both.

We asked questions in the House today—and we will continue to follow that up—about whether there is in place a mechanism whereby there is some kind of automatic notification when these kinds of contaminants or potential contaminants are found, so that the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry of Health are involved right from the beginning. That, to us, seems to be one of the critical issues, because of the time lag involved between the two periods.

We are also, obviously, very interested in looking at the exact relationship between the Ministry for Primary Industries and Fonterra. If you think of the Ministry for Primary Industries as the regulator and Fonterra and the other companies as the industry, it is obviously essential that the regulator has, if you like, in some respects an arm’s length approach from Fonterra. That is, it should be that the ministry is able to take an independent position, and step in on the industry when it is necessary to act in the greater good. That is the role of the Government. The role of the Government is not just to be captured by business, the role of the Government is not to be an arm of corporations or industry; the role of the Government is in this case to act as an arm’s length independent regulator that has both the ability and the motive to intervene if that is necessary. That will be, I think, one of the questions that we will be asking going forward.

This issue and this episode have also raised broader questions about the diversification, or lack thereof, of the New Zealand economy. We have seen over previous years, and it has been a strategy of this Government, a kind of simplification of the New Zealand economy. That means that we have become more and more reliant on a single, large industry. That is, of course, the dairy sector. It seems to us that relying on a single, large industry has risks, and I think those risks have been exposed during this period. It does not result in a highly resilient economy; it results, in some respects, in a more fragile economy.

We would argue that this case should be a wake-up call for all of us that we need to diversify not only the New Zealand economy more broadly but also the primary sector. We should not have just a primary sector that is leaning so heavily on dairy, and we should not have an export sector more generally and a tradable sector more generally that are leaning so heavily on dairy. We think it is very important that we develop the manufacturing sector and that we develop the other sectors of the economy, such as the information and communications technology sector, so that we do not simply rely on one large industry, which, if something goes awry and that industry gets into trouble, has significant effects on the New Zealand economy.

We think also that this case does bring home to us the significance and importance of “clean, green, and safe” as the branding of the New Zealand agrifood industry and, of course, of New Zealand as a whole. That branding of “clean, green, and safe” is incredibly valuable, and if we push towards more and more quantity or volume through the sector, and in the process compromise “clean, green, and safe”, then I think that is a significant problem for our export sector. Obviously, we do not know the details of how exactly this problem evolved, but it certainly has brought to the fore how critical those reputational issues are, and how it is very important that we protect them, in order to protect not just the long-term interests of the dairy sector and the agrifood sector but the long-term interests of New Zealand more broadly.

At the end of my contribution, I will just return to the importance of staying focused on the food and those who consume it. That has to be our primary concern. That has to be the concern of the Government. All the other issues around the development of the dairy sector, in terms of finding out what happened, are all very important, but in the first instance our focus needs to remain on making sure that we track down that food and that we notify those parents of the issues involved. That needs to be, at this point in time, our No. 1 focus, and then in time we will be looking at exactly why this happened. Thank you.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to make a contribution in this very serious urgent debate, which doubtless affects us all. There can be no dispute that the Fonterra food contamination scare is a very, very serious matter for New Zealand. As a parent, there is nothing you care more about in the world than your child’s welfare. Every parent in this House would agree with me on that, I am certain. Our immediate concern therefore has to be with the families and their children who may have been affected by this issue, and we must act in a cooperative manner as a Parliament to address that. We stand with the Government and with the Opposition—the Labour Opposition—in this regard. This is a time for questions, certainly, but not yet a time for recriminations. Questions will follow, and from them we certainly hope there will be answers so that situations like this are not repeated. How many children have been affected? One has to assume that there is a huge number potentially affected here and abroad. The news that Nutricia Karicare Stage 1 New Baby Infant Formula, which is for babies from birth, and Nutricia Karicare Gold+ Stage 2 Follow-on Formula, which is for babies from 6 months, have been affected, or may have potentially been affected, by this contaminated powder is truly shocking.

It is important to remember that when children are involved in an issue such as this, the world takes notice. This story has been covered in news agencies not just in the countries affected but further afield, in the United States and in the United Kingdom. It has been covered across the Asian continent, from The Times of India to the Bangkok Post, the Taipei Times, all the way to Saudi Arabia and the Middle East. The BBC, CNN, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Financial Times, and Australia’s the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald have all covered the story. All of these markets and all of these parents are seeing the news that New Zealand products are potentially dangerous for children.

Our whole economy hinges on our capacity to supply our export markets with pure food. That has been one of our great comparative advantages in a world that seeks healthy food. I can speak from personal experience, from 10 years in the wine industry, of the degree of attention that has to be paid to cleanliness, and the degree to which people have to be absolutely fastidious at all stages in the food production chain. As a winemaker, it was my responsibility to make sure that there was no contamination at all entering the wine. In fact, contamination at any stage could have resulted in the product being destroyed. Even if the product was not destroyed, there were residues. I remember one occasion particularly where a competitor winery had an instance where they had not observed a withholding period for an application of fungicide in a vineyard, and a residue of a banned fungicide was detected in a consignment of wine that was exported to the European Union. The Europeans, of course, have extremely stringent controls and safety standards for chemicals of that type. The end result was that an entire shipment was written off. That resulted in extreme financial hardship for that particular winery, which resulted in it going broke.

So, in one way, this food contamination scare is a wake-up call for all of us. Any illusions of complacency that we might have had have been dispelled. It reminds us of how vulnerable our economy is. So it will be vital to get to the heart of this matter—when, why, and how it happened. New Zealand First is of the view that serious questions will need to be asked of the whole role that Fonterra plays in our economy. We do have a lot of eggs in one basket. We place a lot of faith in Fonterra as a large player on the global scene, but I think we lull ourselves into a sense of misunderstanding about Fonterra and its size in the world dairy market. In New Zealand we allow ourselves to believe that we are a major and significant player in dairy in global terms because of the size of our exports relative to production. We know, for example, that New Zealand—mostly through Fonterra—supplies something like 35 percent of the world’s cross-border trade in dairy products, and, for that reason, we believe ourselves to be massively significant.

The reality is, however, that New Zealand produces less than 3 percent of the world’s milk. Most of the world’s dairy production is consumed in the country of origin. Where New Zealand has an advantage is that we have an enormous capacity for production, over and above what our own requirements for consumption are. So that puts us in a position where we are able to export 95 percent of what we produce. That is a good thing because it gives us a strong underpinning to our economy, but it also puts us in a position where, if a scare like this happens, we are reliant on the preservation of our brand’s business—of Fonterra’s brand’s business particularly—because there is not the sheer volume or bulk of other commodities to back it up. Countries that seek these products can get them from other places.

So maybe we have too many eggs in the one basket. With size comes economies of scale, and efficiency is one of those things, but there is a down side, and that is increased vulnerability. The balance needs to be the right one. We must rethink our approach to risk, given the role of the dairy sector. Fonterra is a global company, but along with the gains that come from globalisation, there is immense responsibility. New Zealand First will not rush to judgment on this crisis, but we would ultimately like to see some good come of it. That means that the following need to be addressed: firstly, that this type of situation is not repeated; secondly, that our systems emerge stronger and more robust; and, thirdly, that New Zealand does get credit for dealing directly and openly with this crisis.

I think it is pertinent to point out at this point that at the moment we have a scare—a scare relating to a potential contamination of a very small quantity of one product line from one company. In the fullness of time it will probably turn out that, in actual fact, nobody has been hurt by it. But one thing that has been hurt is New Zealand’s reputation, and the reputation of our premium brands has been hurt. We will work hard and we will get that reputation back, but it is also worthy of note that in some markets the efforts that we undertake in order to ensure that we do regain our premium place in those markets mean that those markets will offer us a correspondingly lower price, because they realise that there is that element of risk and they realise that there is that great element of importance to us.

I think it is probably a good time for us to consider that we have this enormous potential for effect on our entire economy—on brand New Zealand, on “New Zealand Inc.”—as a result of one scare from one small potential contamination from one product from one line. I ask the House whether we have given consideration to what the effects on our economy would be if a disaster were to occur on a much greater scale, and if we were faced with a genuine problem around an issue such as foot-and-mouth disease. I think this scare over possible contamination should serve as a canary in the mine shaft to New Zealand. It should serve as a warning as to how vulnerable we are, as to how vulnerable our export-based economy is, and as to how vulnerable all of us are here in New Zealand if our primary sector is threatened. I think it is a good time for New Zealand to look at our biosecurity systems. This wake-up call of an organism potentially leaving New Zealand gives us cause to wonder what would happen if an unwanted organism was to enter New Zealand. New Zealand First is on record as saying that we believe that this Government’s approach to biosecurity means that foot-and-mouth is a matter of when and not if, and when that day comes, that will be truly disastrous for us all.

I reiterate that New Zealand First does not rush to judgment on this crisis. We do stand with the Government and with the Opposition in standing with Fonterra, and ensuring that we do have a resolution to this issue as soon as possible. But I think that at the same time it is necessary for us all to give serious consideration to how severe an outbreak could be. Thank you.

Like others across the House—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): This is a 5-minute call.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Like others across the House, I say that no one would wish this day to have come. This is about “New Zealand Inc.” This is about an industry that is 26 percent of New Zealand’s exports with 35,000 workers plus an estimated 10,000 self-employed, we believe. I thank the Government for its response, but, like others, I say that it seems to us as observers—and these are questions for another day—that if it is the case that Ministers were blind-sided, as they possibly appear to have been, then substantial questions need to be answered in coming days and weeks, once we are through this crisis, as to where we got to in the last few days.

This is about, firstly, as others have said, the safety of the smallest individuals—children—both in New Zealand and in other jurisdictions. We have to continue to do everything that is humanly possible to ensure that that safety continues and that children do not fall foul, either in our jurisdiction or internationally, of the difficulties that we are now in with these milk products.

Equally linked to that, of course, is New Zealand’s international reputation. A reputation can be destroyed in this day and age in a millisecond and can take months, if not years, of work to restore by both the Government and the private sector. The only way we maintain and enhance that reputation is by ensuring that our international markets and those Governments and regulators in foreign jurisdictions have trust and confidence that we will communicate clearly, that we will communicate consistently, that we will do all that is within our power—and I include in these comments, of course, Fonterra—to ensure that these matters are remedied.

I welcome the Government’s response in response to the Labour Party and Opposition parties’ comments that this is above politics and, of course, it is. There are times in this Parliament where we need to rise above politics, when the national interest is at stake, and one could argue in fiscal terms that the national interest is indeed at stake. I would say in response to Minister Kaye and to Minister Groser that it may well be appropriate, given the non-partisan nature that we have over this issue, that they may wish to extend to Opposition parties briefings about these particular issues we have in common. To date that has not occurred. We know that there have been other and greater priorities, and I acknowledge those, but I say to those Ministers that if we are serious in joining together to resolve this, then those briefings are important.

Can I make one other comment, and again it is a matter for coming days, but there needs to be, as others have said, a full, open, and transparent set of inquiries into these matters. I note, I believe from either a Minister or the Prime Minister’s response today, that the feeling is that there should be a Fonterra inquiry and a Ministry for Primary Industries inquiry. Can I make the suggestion to those Ministers that that is all well and good, but if we are trying to restore confidence in foreign jurisdictions, I think it will be necessary for an independent form of inquiry that goes beyond the Government department and that goes beyond Fonterra. I think that, given the publicity that is in the China Daily Mail and others, it would not be acceptable for Fonterra to be inquiring into itself, or for the Government department to inquire into itself. There needs to be somebody of standing, somebody outside those regimes, who can make a full account of the facts, put that in a transparent way, and put that account before Parliament and the people of New Zealand, and enable Minister Groser and others to take that out to foreign jurisdictions and give assurances that are independently verified that these matters will be resolved and will not occur again.

Can I say, finally, to those in Fonterra that they will need to look very, very carefully at their conduct over this issue given melamine, given dicyandiamide, and given this. They must explain, they must communicate, and they must be consistent not only to the parents in New Zealand and foreign jurisdictions but also to international markets. Sadly, I think they have been found wanting.

First of all, I would just like to acknowledge to my colleague Mr Cosgrove that I have taken very careful note of your constructive suggestions. You will understand that I cannot go beyond that. I think all of us understand that there is a very high degree of unanimity in this House on this matter, and I think that it has got certain common elements to it. The first and most important common element coming through clearly from all of the leaders’ speeches and subsequent comments that we have just heard in this snap debate is a deep concern for the very, very young children who could be affected. Thank God we have not heard reports of that so far. Also, so closely associated with that is deep concern for their parents, their caregivers, their grandparents, their relatives, and all of these people who worry about these little people, because of the intense emotional bond that you feel to one of your own at that age.

Rather than talk about this in generalities, I would like to talk about it specifically. I do not know whether members noticed, but half an hour ago I was in the visitors gallery with two of my own little mokopuna, Lucia and Sophia—reflecting the Italian heritage of part of my wider family. They are visiting me, their grandpa, from Hong Kong. The elder little girl was about 8 months old when the disaster in 2008 occurred over milk poisoning, and I had just been appointed, informally, Minister of Trade to replace my parliamentary colleague Phil Goff, and was sent on a plane to the APEC leaders meeting. At that stage we did not know whether it was New Zealand milk. We did not know what the cause of it was. Just before I got on the plane, my daughter-in-law, who was also up there half an hour ago, rang me and said: “Congratulations on becoming a Minister. Now you are the Minister of Trade, you’ve got to do something about this, because I can’t find infant formula for your granddaughter.”—who was the child up there.

So I went to make an appointment with the Chinese Minister of Commerce, Chen Deming, who would also be very well-known to Mr Goff, and at the end of this discussion, in which neither of us really knew what was going on, other that dozens of babies in China were going to hospital with renal failure, for reasons that neither of us really knew at the time, I told him this story in slightly more diplomatic terms. And he paused and he said: “This is extraordinary, because I have just received the same phone call about one of my granddaughters.” It is moments like that when you realise how completely trivial positions are and that, at the end of the day, human beings are speaking to human beings across cultures with exactly the same concerns.

Members will appreciate that I have tried to do what I can for the parents and caregivers of children in China today. I have been speaking to China Central Television, one of the main Chinese television channels, trying to convey our sympathy and understanding for the uncertainties of the situation they are in. But I do think we should acknowledge that this is a very testing time for the caregivers of these children. As I say, thank God we have not heard of any illness so far, but, for technical reasons that I do not really have time to go into, you should not read too much optimism into that statement because of the delays that can occur under certain clinical conditions.

I do appreciate that members outside a small group of Ministers—well, not that small; eight Ministers are involved in this—have not been briefed properly by us for the reasons that Mr Cosgrove was alluding to, fully understanding the need for priorities here. But one thing that I can put to rest immediately is that the Director-General of Health and his senior officials have been intimately involved in this. The front face in terms of the media has been the Director-General, but I can assure members that the Ministry of Health is deeply involved, and I personally heard the Director-General in one of our teleconferences at least once with his technical advisers talking about the health aspects of this. This will slowly emerge as we are able to have more time to brief people more fully on these issues.

In the very brief time that I have left, just let me assure members that in terms of my part in this puzzle, I will leave no stone unturned to try to both deal with the immediate human concerns of our customers and then contain the economic damage to our country for all the reasons that are stunningly obvious. Just to make one final concluding comment, I am optimistic that with the proud record of this country—we are a small but sophisticated country—we will find our way through. Thank you.

Thanks for the opportunity to make some comments this afternoon in what is a very important debate. It is important because of health and safety and food security. It is also important for our exports and, overall, our economy.

I think it is important to remind everyone in the House that our primary sector exports make up about 72 percent of our total merchandise exports and are, indeed, a crucial part of the New Zealand economy. As a small country of around 4.5 million people, food production is hugely important to us. We feed about 40 million people and we export to almost 200 countries around the world. We have been renowned for our food production, and, indeed, over about a century we have been exporting some of the finest food products to all of these different parts of the planet. Of course, that is underpinned by our high-quality food safety systems, biosecurity, animal welfare, and, indeed, environmental management. They all form a part of underpinning our exports to almost 200 countries around the world.

Importantly, when you get out from New Zealand—and I have been lucky enough to go on a couple of trade missions this year: one to Latin America with the Prime Minister, and one when I led a delegation to China recently—when you look back at New Zealand, and when you are in other countries and you hear them talk about all of those things that I have just talked about, they are fundamentally important to exporters. We need to ensure that we do the utmost to hold up our integrity on the world stage as the producer of some of the best and finest food in the world.

Importantly, this particular incident that we are discussing in the House this afternoon is disappointing. It is disappointing that it has occurred. Consumers are disappointed, the Government is disappointed, our trading partners are disappointed, and our hard-working farmers, who get up at 4 a.m. or 5 a.m. every morning and produce a high-quality food product, are disappointed as well. We will, however, get through this. It will knock our reputation around a bit, but we will be stronger. We will be stronger as a country from this event into the future.

There are a whole lot of questions that we all want to ask and, indeed, we want answers to, and at the appropriate time we will be able to get the answers to those questions that we all so desire. Right now, the focus is on the health and well-being of our children, particularly, and our families, and I want to acknowledge the work that Minister Kaye, Minister Ryall, and Minister Goodhew have done in this space. I also want to acknowledge the work that Minister Groser has done on the international stage in reaching out to our markets.

The response across the Government has, I believe, shown to the New Zealand public how importantly we have treated this issue from when Ministers became aware of it on Friday afternoon. We set up a ministerial group. Officials from a number of agencies have come together and, indeed, have worked all weekend. I have been impressed by our all-of-Government approach and, indeed, I have been keeping in touch with the industry, and its response has been consistent. Food safety is the top priority for New Zealand, and we need to do what we can to assure New Zealanders and our export markets that we are taking this very, very seriously.

The industry groups have expressed deep disappointment that this has happened, but they are committed to doing what they can to assure New Zealanders and overseas markets that, as an exporting food nation, we treat these food safety issues extremely seriously. We will get through this. We will be stronger for it. Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution this afternoon on what is a very important issue.

Well, right from the earliest moments of this incident, our first thoughts were for the safety and security of our food. In our health portfolio roles, both Minister Ryall and I were intricately involved right from the beginning, and it very quickly became apparent that our most vulnerable citizens—our youngest children—would be those most at risk if their milk formula powder should be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum. From the earliest time on Friday, as other Ministers have expressed, Ministers from across portfolios joined together to look from all angles at how we could work our way through this incident—the Minister for Food Safety, Nikki Kaye; the Minister for Primary Industries, Nathan Guy; Minister Ryall and me; and the foreign affairs and trade Ministers McCully and Groser, along with other senior Ministers.

I want to say right now that I feel for the families who, through this time, have worried about what information should be in front of them. Those parents are of course hungry for information, and it would be fair to say that as information has changed and as the information put before the Ministry for Primary Industries has improved in its quantity and quality, then more information has been able to be conveyed to parents. As many members here in the House will know, two products have now been recalled. I want to lay on the record of the House today, again, the names of those two products: Nutricia Karicare Stage 1 New Baby Infant Formula—that is, from birth—all batches, and Nutricia Karicare Gold+ Stage 2 Follow-on Formula, from 6 months, all batches. There is a recall currently under way. I urge any families using those products to return them to the place of purchase.

In terms of the role of the Ministry of Health, its role has been to maintain vigilance regarding any possible cases of infant botulism, and I want to just remind the House of the symptoms that people should be looking out for: poor feeding or a weak suck on the part of a baby or toddler, lethargy and floppiness, a weak cry, facial weakness, and an impaired gag reflex. But, in essence, if there are any concerns on the part of a parent, they should ring PlunketLine or Healthline, or take their child to a doctor. In terms of Healthline and PlunketLine, well, their volumes have increased significantly. That tells me that our messages about the phone numbers, which are consistently going out via websites and other media, have been heard. Yesterday PlunketLine had 1,500 calls. It has done a wonderful job, as has Healthline, of gearing up the numbers of people who are taking shifts to respond to the increased numbers of calls coming to it for the advice that families so eagerly seek. I just want to actually thank those people who are staffing those lines for the extra work that I know they have done.

In terms of the other roles the Ministry of Health has, they are around working to ensure the adequacy of supply, and that includes the adequacy of supply to our paediatric units, our baby-care units, and, in addition to that, maintaining the information that goes out to general practices, so that the doctors whom families go to for advice are also completely up to date with what they need to know. These are the roles that the Ministry of Health has undertaken. It has sat at the table, through the Director-General and his senior deputy directors-general. They are sitting round the table, keeping Ministers informed, and working with the Ministry for Primary Industries. This is a concerted, united front, so that we can present the very best of information to the public of New Zealand, to reassure those families who will be concerned with the most up-to-date information that we have before us. So I just want to finish by thanking all of the people within the health sector who have done their bit to reassure those families and to say to the House that we are really hoping that soon the families will be able to look back on this and be sure that their babies are fine.

Kia ora to the people in the gallery. Like many people in this House, I am a parent. I am the father of five beautiful daughters, and although I am a great advocate of “Breast is best”, I, like most parents, have relied on infant formula to sustain our helpless but beautiful babies. We have got up in the middle of the night to mix the formula to make the milk. That is the only thing that our infant babies live on. That is why, around the world, people have reacted so strongly to this. It is an emotional issue—what we feed our children—and we should realise that. No parent should make any apology for being concerned.

I have been a dairy farmer. I can appreciate the effort that goes in to providing clean and pure milk to the company. I was also the chairman of a select committee that set up Fonterra back in the year 2000. So I understand that companies set up through the legislation had some advantages, but they also had with the legislation clear responsibilities. Fonterra was to be, of course, given its size and importance to our economy, the guardian of a reputation that had been built up by generations of people that the dairy industry produced the safest and best food in the world. As the primary industry spokesperson on behalf of the Labour Party, I am now supporting the Government and supporting Fonterra to get out around the world and reassure all our customers that the food that we produce from this country will be safe, will be pure, will be suitable for customers, and will meet every one of their expectations, including safety.

Clearly, we have had a problem here. A mistake has been made and we could spend a lot of time here trying to analyse time lines and what went on and what could have been done. The most important thing now is that we support the Government, the Government agencies, and Fonterra to get out around the world to explain how we produce our milk and milk products in this country, and to give people an assurance that the systems are fine.

There are, of course, questions starting to emerge today from China news sites—questions around the laissez-faire market ideology that does determine some of the current thinking by Government. In our own papers we have got: “Is Fonterra Too Big For Its Gumboots?”. Then we have another reference here to Fonterra harming New Zealand and itself. We know these things. That is why it is important that we act together to resolve this as quickly as possible.

Fonterra is our single biggest company. We are proud of it. It is the single biggest exporter of anything from this country and our economy relies upon it. It is a hybrid cooperative. In this House recently we made changes to legislation that did expand a number of the masters that Fonterra should answer to. As a pure cooperative, it was first and foremost to answer to its farmers, and that was the traditional way of thinking. The new world, which both farmers and the new unit holders through Trading Among Farmers realise, is that it firstly must be responsible to its consumers, to its customers—the people who buy its products—and must always keep in mind that the health and safety of those consumers and of its workers should be its highest priority.

The farmers who have owned this company, and who do so along with unit holders, investors, today, are aware of the emerging, as I say, reality of social media, of media and communication that can send around the world at a flash any concern that might emerge from Fonterra’s operations and from its products, and they have to be on top of that reality. Nothing should be hidden from the processes and the products that Fonterra produces in this country. As I say, I think the priority that Fonterra must state clearly to the public—more often perhaps to politicians—is that the health and safety of its consumers through its products, and the health and safety of its workers at its worksites, is the No. 1 priority for it. Production, growth, and profit are all things that flow from good management, and I wish Fonterra all the very best with that.

I think it is important to point out the growth that the dairy industry has sustained. It has helped this country grow, but it does create some reality, I guess, for those looking at Fonterra from the outside. In 1990 the whole dairy industry produced about half a million tonnes of product for the world markets. About 5 percent of their total production gets consumed in New Zealand and that has been consistent right throughout. This year the company will export to the world about 2.7 million tonnes of product. There has been, from some farming leaders, reference to the fact that the tonnage involved here—38 tonnes—is a very, very small percentage of that total production. That is true. None the less, that small amount of contaminated production is something that the world is focusing on and we are focusing on, and we have to get that sorted out.

One of the questions I have raised—it is not cheap politics but it is a real question—is about the Government agency, the Ministry for Primary Industries, and its ability and capability to get alongside Fonterra to help resolve this as quickly as possible. I did go and look at the funding for that agency to ask whether it has been funded, because I was encouraged by the Prime Minister’s statement that all possible resources will be committed to resolving this and to reassuring our customers. The question I must ask, and it is one that will be answered down the track, is whether the actual cutback in funding for the Ministry for Primary Industries has been at the right time, when the dairy industry growth has been so phenomenal.

We have had a meat industry report—again, meat striking trouble and some challenges getting into the Chinese market—that identified that there were insufficient resources to properly follow through with the changes in accreditation and assurances that the Chinese market needed. The question I ask, and it is for the Government to answer at some stage in the future, is whether the cutback in funding from, indeed, $427 million in 2008 to $417 million in 2013 at a time of rapid growth, particularly into markets, has, perhaps, in some way contributed to this.

I go back. As I say, we are supporting the Prime Minister. He has given an assurance that all possible resources will be used. Our leader, David Shearer, has said that there needs to be questions asked of Fonterra’s systems and the interaction. There will be time for that. Of course, the Minister for Food Safety, Nikki Kaye, said that Ministry for Primary Industries staff would be placed at Fonterra sites. That is welcomed. One of the issues may be—because the reality is that the dairy industry is a self-regulated industry, unlike many others in the food industry—whether the Government is considering moving back to slightly more regulation.

There will be international observers. They will not be watching us here in the House—they do not have to endure that—but they will be looking for assurances from Parliament, and I think it is important to give assurances. We take food safety very seriously. This is a piece of legislation that is due to be back before Parliament to be passed, and which governs the way that we deal with all food in this country. Rest assured we have good legislation.

The focus, as I say, on safety for consumers and workers must be the primary consideration. Indeed, it is the primary consideration after a few lessons around worker safety that we have learnt, but particularly around food safety. It is the No. 1 focus and priority, and it is committed to and supported by all parties in this House.

The second thing is that we have good systems of food production in this country. They may not be perfect, but anyone in the international market place can be assured that they are next to perfect, and that, in fact, what we have identified here through an audit process, through testing, is that we have had a problem. That is something that acknowledges that the systems do work. We have got a healthy democracy. We have got a robust system of accountability back to Parliament. All the food produced in this country will ultimately be observed, tested, audited, and checked by Parliament, and our customers should be sure that we will be looking after their interests in the long term.

I want to, firstly, commend our team of Ministers for what obviously has been a very strong response to a very difficult situation. For New Zealand this is a critical issue. It alerts us to the importance of the dairy industry to New Zealand and, more important, it has reminded us of the importance of food safety to this country.

Today I had the opportunity to ask Minister Groser what reports he had received of international reaction to the potential contamination of whey protein concentrate and what measures the Government will be taking to reassure overseas markets and consumers of our position. The Minister of Trade’s answers and knowledge of these issues reinforce the expertise that this country has and has been able to apply to this most critical of issues. I think, again, I want to commend the whole team of Ministers who have put a lot of work into this issue over the last 3 days. It is particularly important to this country.

I think also worth noting are the efforts of the chief executive of Fonterra, who was on the plane to China as quickly as he could be, and although there is a significant amount of work to be done to understand the ramifications of this issue and what caused this issue, I think Fonterra has reacted in a manner that is befitting its place in this whole issue.

It is worth noting again the Prime Minister’s statement that now is not the time for recrimination. Now is the time to ensure that consumers have the best information possible available to them. However, having said that, we need to understand in the fullness of time the reasons for the initial uncertainty, the reasons this contamination took place, and the reasons that, I guess, there was some uncertainty about the timing of the announcements that were made as a consequence of that.

It also reinforces for New Zealand the need to track all of our product and part products from paddock to plate. That is something that our food industries, our meat industry and all other aspects of our food industry, have been particularly fussy about, and something, of course, that the National Animal Identification and Tracing legislation enforced, or reinforced, for the cattle industry in New Zealand, and it is no doubt an issue that will follow into many other of our products or paddock-placed products that end up on the plate in this country. So it is really important that we have that traceability and that we understand where those products have gone.

I referred in the course of that little discussion to the part products. Of course, the dairy industry is a manufacturer of numerous part products that make up end products. This is the issue that we face with this whey product here today. It is a product of which very small parts can be added to all sorts of things, from energy drinks to milk replacer products and, in fact, to calf milk products. That is another product that has been recalled in the course of this process.

Because of the nature of this country we are all feeling the effects of this. We are all feeling for those parents of possibly affected children. We are all affected by any possible damage to our reputation as a producer of great food products. We rely on our reputation for our future and our country’s living. I have listened carefully to all the debate, comment, and questions on this issue today, and I would like to commend all speakers for their constructive input. I also want to add, having listened to all speakers today, that were I a mother, father, or member of the public, I would feel I had been much better briefed on this topic as a result of today’s discussion. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.