Food Bill

I move, That the Food Bill be now read a second time. Food safety laws play a very important role in New Zealand. This Food Bill has been under development for over 10 years, and it will be a very important milestone for our Parliament to pass this bill. I want to acknowledge Shane Ardern, chair of the Primary Production Committee, for his important work on this bill, and all other committee members.

As consumers, our food safety regime enables us to buy food with confidence, and to do so safely through shops, cafes, and restaurants around New Zealand. As a nation that relies heavily on food exports, the credibility of our food safety system is hugely important because it helps our exporters have access to overseas markets and sell our products at the premium end of the market. Events within the last year have served to underline the importance of our food safety system, and legislation such as the Food Bill underpins this system.

As other countries like China work to lift their food safety laws, so must we. The whey protein concentrate incident disrupted exports to several markets and raised questions about our food safety system both domestically and internationally. In response, the Government moved to restore confidence and initiated an inquiry to provide an independent assessment of our system. The first part of the inquiry was asked to consider the regulatory arrangements that govern various aspects of the dairy industry. The inquiry reported in December last year. It found that the regulatory framework for dairy food safety in New Zealand is fundamentally sound, consistent with internationally recognised principles, and is considered among the best food safety systems in the world.

The focus of the inquiry was on the Animal Products Act, which covers most dairy products for export. The inquiry outlined the key features of the Animal Products Act regime, which are making food businesses responsible for having systems in place to manage food safety risks, using accredited verifiers to audit the operations of food businesses, and the use by the regulator of the balance between prescriptive and outcome-based standards.

The Government announced a package of support to strengthen our systems. This included a food safety science research centre, a traceability working group, and, very importantly, it included the reform of recall provisions in New Zealand. The inquiry recommended that further work on the Food Bill be considered promptly, and that the enactment of the bill not be delayed. The history of the Food Bill can be traced back to a review of New Zealand’s food safety legislation, which started in 2003. The current regulatory regime is based on a one-size-fits-all approach. It applies a very rigid set of rules, which focus on the premises of food, not the risk of food. This is out of step with other jurisdictions, and given that 50 percent of our exports are food, it is very important that we pass this bill.

I want to remind members of this House of some of the key reasons for this legislation. As I have said, the bill is currently based on the premises, not the risk of food. Secondly, the current Act places an estimated $40 million of unnecessary compliance costs each year on new businesses and those wanting to expand. This stifles start-ups, growth, and innovation in our food sector. Thirdly, over time the current Act will make it increasingly difficult, if it stays in place, to secure recognition with systems, including overseas markets. This will make it less advantageous for us to get access to these markets.

The Food Bill puts in place a risk-based approach where regulatory requirements are based on the extent and nature of the food safety risks associated with particular kinds of businesses. A number of different kinds of businesses will have more flexibility and lower compliance costs than they currently face under the current regime.

When I became Minister for Food Safety I ensured that this bill was considered by the Primary Production Committee and passed with various amendments. The bill had been the subject of some serious criticism. Some of it was based on misunderstanding, and some of it was based on real issues that needed closer consideration. I decided the best way forward was to prepare a Supplementary Order Paper, with proposed changes to the bill, which have now been considered by the select committee.

The bill was referred back to the Primary Production Committee in July of last year, and I provided the select committee with Supplementary Order Paper 278. Supplementary Order Paper 278 addressed the issues with the bill and added greater clarity in a number of areas. For example, the Supplementary Order Paper recommended that low risk and community-related food activities such as sausage sizzles are able to continue under the bill, provided that the food meets the general requirement that it is safe to eat. This is an important example of the balance shown in the bill between the risks of food versus not introducing unnecessary compliance costs. The Supplementary Order Paper also added a very new and important clause to provide a clear immunity from liability for people who donate food in good faith for a charitable, benevolent, or philanthropic purpose. This will help food banks around New Zealand help more disadvantaged New Zealanders who need access to food.

Once the Government announced the whey-protein concentrate inquiry, I asked that the select committee pause its consideration of this bill. This was about recognising that the inquiry’s report could have implications for the bill. I am very grateful to the select committee for its understanding of the need for this delay. Once the inquiry had reported on and endorsed the Food Bill, the select committee process was resumed. At this time I also asked the select committee to consider some further amendments to this bill, such as the recall provisions that had emerged from the whey-protein concentrate incident.

The Primary Production Committee received several hundred submissions, and I want to thank the committee and its able chair for its consideration of the issues raised. I also want to thank the many organisations and New Zealanders that submitted to this select committee process. I am pleased to see that many of the proposed changes in Supplementary Order Paper 278 were well supported. I also welcome the work that the committee did to achieve a report that is supported by all members of the committee. I note that the committee has recommended some further changes to the purpose statement in clause 4 and the key principles to guide regulators in clause 14. I am supportive of the signals that these changes will give to those who are responsible for administering the new legislation.

The enactment of the Food Bill will not be the end of the law reform process. After enactment there will be a period during which a package of regulations and other instruments will be developed and consulted on.

It has been a very long journey to get the Food Bill to where it now stands. Several Ministers for Food Safety, including the Hon Kate Wilkinson, whom I want to acknowledge, have worked on this bill. I am very confident that the select committee process has tested the bill well and has provided a good foundation for progressing this important legislation. I want to acknowledge the strong cross-party support for this bill. I thank again all of those who have worked on this bill over the years, and I particularly want to thank the Primary Production Committee for its thorough work on the bill. I commend this bill to the House.

It is with much pleasure that I rise to speak on the Food Bill. It has been around for some time, and I think the Minister for Food Safety rightly points to approximately 10 years, I guess. It arises from the good work of my colleague, who will speak after me, who initiated a review of the pieces of legislation that govern food production, sale, and exporting in this country. As a country we are entirely dependent upon our ability to do this and to produce safe, reliable, high-quality food for consumers all around the world, as well as for people who buy and consume or are given food here in this country. So it is indeed a very, very important piece of legislation and it did take some time to develop. In fact, it was almost there prior to the election in 2008, and then it sat around for a while. The National Government then did introduce the bill on 26 May 2010. It sat around for a wee while, and the Government was a bit unsure as to whether it should take on the bill. Again, it took some time, until we now have a piece of legislation that I believe is real progress.

The Minister did, of course, raise what has been the primary driver of the National Government, of course, and that is reducing costs. Everyone thinks that is a great objective, because the Government knows the cost of everything, but it does not realise the value of some of these pieces of legislation. In fact, the integrity and reputation of New Zealand as a producer of food is probably the most valuable and most important thing that we as a country can uphold. So this piece of legislation has to, firstly, uphold that reputation.

In fact, the Primary Production Committee, in looking at Supplementary Order Paper 278, realised that we actually needed to emphasise even more the primary purpose of the bill in that Supplementary Order Paper. So we stated or had put into the commentary of the bill the words: “to maintain New Zealand’s reputation as a producer and exporter of safe and suitable food.” I think it was absolutely essential that we did that, because the Minister, as she said, could imply that it was about reducing costs for industry. Well, no Government wants to add costs. But we do not want to deregulate, as the National Government did in housing, mining, banking, and electricity, because the results of that were disastrous. Alongside this bill the National Government is deregulating meat inspection. So, although we are moving to incorporate a robust system here, in fact, alongside it we are creating some risks—but more about that later.

As I say, this bill does amend not just one piece of legislation but a number of them that go back some time. They are certainly due for a once-over. I would like to work through, I guess, as the commentary does, and just outline some of the focus points of the legislation. The sale of food by small producers was a very topical political issue, both with the previous Government—and I can remember having a discussion in Cabinet about it—and the incoming Government, where people involved primarily in fund-raising activities, sausage sizzles and such like, I guess you could say, were concerned that they were going to be regulated out of existence or have to meet such costs and compliance that they would not be able to do that activity. The previous Labour Government and the National Government now, supported by all members of the select committee, realised that that is not what we want to do. We cannot have that happen, and I believe this Supplementary Order Paper clarifies that. I acknowledge the Minister’s efforts in this area.

The second area of scrutiny, for probably about the third time, I guess, was that of food recall. Where there is a suspected problem with food, the ability of the director-general to step in and recall food is essential if we are to prevent any further reputational damage to our country or, indeed, to that of public health or anyone who might consume unsafe food. We have clarified that, and I guess the onus of proof was the point of debate. We believe that if there is a reasonable belief that the food is unsafe or unsuitable or contaminated, then that should mean that the director-general should be able to recall the food, and I think that that is a fair threshold. I have spoken about the purpose of the bill. We must keep that in mind as we move through there, with food safety being the greatest priority, along with public health.

One of the other issues raised was the clearance of imported food. With the high dollar in more recent years we have been bombarded and, some might say, flooded with imported food products, and the issue of how that should be cleared was one of some debate at the select committee. We have a biosecurity system that, in my view, is not entirely up to scratch. We have a system that allows products to come into the country, to be then cleared in most part by biosecurity officials, and then to be distributed through the country. With that imported product comes some risk. With food there is an additional risk. The pork industry is having to face up and try to manage that risk as we speak because of an adjusted import health standard, which I will not go into at the moment.

On the clearance of imported food, because we have the new, electronic Joint Border Management System, there are some issues and some questions that I think still need to be asked as we move forward from this legislation. The bill as amended will now allow food to be cleared through electronic assessment and approval. That is, I guess, part of the streamlining process, but it does raise questions through the whole area of biosecurity as to whether that is sufficient. The Opposition puts on the table our commitment to scrutinise this and follow very carefully the issues of biosecurity, because I personally am not convinced that we might have this absolutely right. There were issues around search warrants and the ability to move in and seize product that might be contaminated, and I think the select committee, across parties, has attempted to get that right.

If I can go on to an amendment that I will put before the House in the Committee stage on this bill—tomorrow, I believe—and that is the one of country-of-origin labelling. There has been a huge amount of work to progress, as I say, the integrity of our food safety systems, and often to put more burden on the growers and the processors of our food, to ensure that if we export we can say to our consumers: “This food is safe. It is high quality, and you can be guaranteed of that. We have certified this food and there is no harm possible from this.” In doing so, we have the contradictory situation where we share most standards across the Tasman through the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, but New Zealand has sought an exemption to the country-of-origin labelling provisions.

There will be people who might stand up and say that it is complex because we have mixed products and ingredients in food. I accept that, but most of the countries throughout the world have a standard, mandatory country-of-origin labelling regime, and it is time that we implemented that for ourselves. If countries like Argentina, Brazil, Greece, Hungary, Japan, Mexico, and the list goes on, can have country-of-origin labelling of their food and consumers know where their food is coming from, then why not New Zealanders? Why not New Zealanders? So I am asking all parties across the House—and we have had positive indications from some thus far that they will be supporting the amendment that I will bring to the House tomorrow. I ask the Government to reconsider its position, because it is not a trade barrier at all. It is not giving huge advantage to our producers. It is saying that if you grow and produce this food in our country, then you should be able to label it, and anyone else who is not doing so should have to say where their product came from. It is a fair proposition, and I hope that the House will pick that up.

Can I say before I finish that there is an overarching concern that the Opposition lays on the table, and it is that this National Government removed the Food Safety Authority as an entity and merged all our expertise into the Ministry for Primary Industries. Labour puts on the table now that we will set up an independent food safety authority once again, with the expertise, with the focus, and with the ability to implement this piece of legislation when it passes through.

It is a privilege and a pleasure to speak on the Food Bill today. This bill, as the Minister for Food Safety outlined and as others have said, replaces or amends a number of Acts: the Food Act 1981, the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974, the Animal Products Act 1999, and the Wine Act 2003. So it is a very significant piece of work.

As others have said, it had a very, very long gestation period, but the issue at stake here, and the reason why as much attention has been paid to it over such a long time, is reputational. New Zealand is an export nation of food. In fact, we are unique in the world in terms of the dependence on protein food exports and in terms of the size of that export return on our economy. I do not know of another nation like that and we are unique in the world in that regard, to the best of my knowledge. Reputation is absolutely essential, and solid legislative protection around the quality and the guarantee of that quality is absolutely essential to that reputation.

The Primary Production Committee was faced with an enormous task of trying to balance, on the one hand, the major export companies that export food and, on the other hand, the small, fund-raising calf days, Lions and Rotary Club fund-raisers with sausage sizzles in front of The Warehouse, farmers’ markets, and other such. Even marae derive a fair amount of their income nowadays from the sale or the preparation of food. So a wide sector of society is concerned about what needed to be put in place in regard to having some certainty that food was safe, but on the other hand, one would not want to be over-bureaucratic and require the high level of food handling certification that is necessary, obviously, for a commercial restaurant or other food outlet.

The committee was charged with the task of how you come up with something that covers that whole area of concern, and I think, on balance, that we have arrived at a place that is far better than where we started in regard to that. So small outlets or small organisations that are fund-raising, such as voluntary groups, church groups, marae, etc., will now be able to sell food with a far lower level of compliance, and have a far lower level of cost, than they have had in the past, and at the other end of the spectrum, particularly in light of the whey protein concentrate case, the regulatory framework and the power that the director-general has in regard to recall has been enhanced. So there has been a substantial, I guess, piece of movement in regard to where we were prior to that.

The clearance of imported food has been something of a debating point in New Zealand in recent times in the media, particularly with the growth in our exports to Asian areas and China, so being able to create a regime where foreign nations have total faith that our systems are robust and our traceability is second to none—and that traceability stems right back to the farm gate or to the origin of the food—has set us aside as world leaders. So this piece of legislation will, when it is enacted, enhance that. I have no doubt about that. It will be, and is being, looked at, as other international jurisdictions look to enhance their own food safety legislation, as something that will be seen as a leading area for people to go and look at.

The committee was provided with the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister spoke of, Supplementary Order Paper 278. This Supplementary Order Paper was bigger in size—in fact, I think it was over 400 pages—than the original bill itself was. You would have to sort of wonder at how the original drafting could lead to such an outcome. Well, as the previous speaker, Damien O’Connor, said, the original drafting, of course, started under the previous Government, so that may shed some light on the explanation for that. But, equally, it has been a fast-moving vehicle, you might say, in terms of where our trading has moved from and to, the kind of extra testing that is now required, and the more sophisticated testing systems we have that are able to pick up different contaminants that we were not able to pick up 100 years ago, 50 years go, or even 10 years ago. This is an area where technology absolutely comes to fore. Science is a leading area. The number of ingredients that now can go into some of the more finely processed nutraceuticals, pharmaceuticals, and foodstuffs is such that no one would have dreamt of it so many years ago. To be able to keep pace with that is always going to be a challenge for this Parliament. I think, to a large extent, this Food Bill has achieved that.

I also want to place on record our thanks for the forbearance, I guess, of the officials, who certainly were worked hard through this process. Every time they came back, we had another series of questions for them, so I want to acknowledge the work that they did. Also, I want to acknowledge my parliamentary colleagues on the Primary Production Committee. There was very good cross-party support to make progress on this. The Hon Damien O’Connor mentioned the bipartisan—you might say multi-partisan—approach that was taken to this. I will be interested in hearing the contribution from the Greens in a few moments. But, overall, there was support from the Greens on most aspects of the bill. There were some concerns raised. I am sure we will hear about them in a moment. Overall, the committee worked very well together. Of course, there was a member from the New Zealand First Party there, Richard Prosser, who was there by leave of the committee and he made a sound contribution during the process also. I acknowledge them and thank them.

My own colleagues, of course—Ian McKelvie and Colin King—were both substantial contributors to the process. Our select committee has the unprecedented situation in Parliament, in the time I have been here, of having a Deputy Speaker as a member of the select committee. Of course, he is someone who has served in Parliament for a long time and brings a lot of parliamentary experience to it. I think the bill will enhance New Zealand food safety, and I look forward to its passage through the House.

Today I feel a little bit like a mother about to give birth after an abnormally long gestation period, because I need to tell you that this is even longer than an elephant’s, this one. We are talking years and years and years. As the Minister for Food Safety said, it has been over 10 years. In fact, the Food Bill started between 2002 and 2006.

At that stage I was responsible for food safety in New Zealand as the Minister for Food Safety. I am sure Shane Ardern will commend me for the work that I actually undertook, because it was during that stage that I undertook a domestic food review. The consultation for it took place between 2002 and 2006. That domestic food review did take 4 years, and it documented a number of problems with our food safety regime in New Zealand, including the significant and rising incidence of food-borne illness. This was of particular concern because it affected the New Zealand population. It also identified three different food regimes and three different regulators operating simultaneously, with resulting poor lines of accountability and unnecessary confusion, inconsistency, duplication, and complexity.

What we were told was the cost of the food-borne illness, and it was considered to be at that stage around $86 million a year. Approximately 90 percent of this cost was attributed to the loss of productivity due to the absence of a workforce when somebody is affected by a food-borne illness. It also identified a number of confusions about when the Government is involved. There were a significant number of businesses that were unaware of the legislation they must meet to ensure that the food they sell is safe and suitable, and certainly regarding who administers the legislation. These factors alone did lead to non-compliance, unnecessary regulatory costs, and significant and unnecessary compliance costs.

That was the beginning of the whole process for this legislation. It was really important that we got it right because food production in New Zealand stands out among food-producing OECD nations as a dominant contributor to the country’s manufacturing production, gross domestic product, import intensity, export intensity, and trade balance. It also employs an awful lot of people—around 35,000 to 40,000 businesses, depending on the definition, and up to 200,000 additional part-time food premises. It accounts for about 20 percent of the working population in jobs. It has a real value, at the time that this work was done, of around $13.6 billion. So you can see it was a very, very significant sector—it still is a very significant sector—and we pride ourselves on the food safety of this country. We live and fall by the food safety of the food that we export and eat in this country. We are judged, as a food producer, by how well we perform in this area.

So 10 years ago this started. We now have this bill, and all I can say to the members of the Primary Production Committee is thank you for the work that you did, but now we want to see this Parliament pass this bill before the general election of 2014. It should not end up being carried over to the next Parliament for those members to finish it. It must be finished in this Parliament. I urge the members of the committee—the influential members of the committee, Mr King and Mr Ardern, in particular—to make sure that the Minister gets this bill through the House before we rise for the election. I am sure it would be a legacy from the members of the select committee, two of whom are retiring at this election. They would like to see this bill passed and to say that after 10 years we finally got a bill in place that had agreement from this House and we have put in place the best possible food regime for this country.

Labour supports the bill. Our main comment would be that it is 4 long years since the bill was introduced. The bill was first introduced in May 2010. It had its first reading in July 2010 and, look, we are in May 2014 and we are having our second reading. That is an awful long time for a bill to sit around and for things to be considered. The committee, in fact, got 527 submissions on this bill. Only 19 of them were actually heard. The bill is actually quite a different beast from when it was introduced. There have been some things in here that I think greatly improve on what was originally put into the bill.

I think there are perhaps a couple of things that I would like to talk about, and one of great interest to the public and perhaps the only thing the public ever remembered about the Food Bill was the public outcry about the “sausage sizzle clause”. If you were to ask people what was in that Food Bill that Parliament introduced 4 years ago and did the work on 10 years ago, the only thing they will remember is the “sausage sizzle clause”, which meant that good folk raising money for charity were not going to be able to have their sausage sizzle because they would be ruled out through over-regulation of food safety. I am pleased to see that this has been amended and made sensible in this bill. So those who are acting for a charitable purpose will still be able to have their sausage sizzles and their bacon sandwiches, and their whitebait patties, I imagine, are another very important thing that will be able to be done under this exemption. That is very sensible. It was never intended that this would stop sausage sizzles. It was about how you got the food plans properly organised and who should have a food safety plan and so on. This exemption makes that clear and I am very pleased to see it happen.

Another area that I think is important is where you make changes to ensure that no one can say a food is unsuitable on grounds of moral, religious, or ethical aversion to that food. You would have mayhem if somebody for some moral or religious reason said “We can’t have that food on the shelf because we don’t agree with it.” So this, in fact, is made clear in the bill—that it would not make a food unsuitable for consumption on those grounds.

The last thing I will mention—and my very good colleague Damien O’Connor, who has been carrying on with this bill, mentioned it—is the great sadness I had when the Food Safety Authority was dumped by this Government. It went in the total opposite direction of the rest of the world, which had been setting up independent food safety authorities—separate from industry and separate from Government departments that deal with industry. The Food Safety Authority had very high recognition, very high acceptance. In fact, its reputation was an international reputation, and it developed that in a very, very short space of time. It was led ably by Andrew McKenzie and a wonderful team of people who specialised not only in domestic food but in the export of our food. They did much of the negotiation around our food when it came to our free-trade deal with China. They were world class. I think it was a philosophical burp for National to get rid of it. There was no reason to get rid of the Food Safety Authority. What happened was that it led to an error very early on, where it changed from the Food Safety Authority to—what is it called now—the “Ministry of Food” or “Ministry of Agriculture”, or whatever the name of it is now. National mixed it up again with industry.

We will have an independent food safety authority. The rest of the world believes that for the safety of the public, for honesty, openness, and transparency, you should have an authority that is separated from industry. So I just wanted to put that on the table. I am sure that although the members opposite may not say it publicly, those members who are well-informed on the Primary Production Committee know that that was a very stupid mistake. It was a political error that was made and has been to the detriment of New Zealand.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a pleasure to be speaking on the Food Bill. It has certainly had a long history, and I have been involved with it from its gestation, as the previous speaker, Annette King, termed it. Something like 10 years ago I was on the Food Safety Authority’s consumer forum when the bill was being introduced then. The Food Safety Authority, under Andrew McKenzie and some other longstanding staff there, put it to us as to what they wanted to do to modernise the Food Act. The primary part of that was admirable. It was to get a risk-based approach to food safety, and there are some very good aspects in the bill around that. However, the bill does go much further. It has to go further and it must have some variations from just the risk-based approach to food safety.

I agree with the previous speaker that it has been a loss to have the New Zealand Food Safety Authority disappear into the Ministry for Primary Industries, effectively out of sight for so many people. When I was spokesperson for the Soil and Health Association on that consumer forum, we were concerned, even then, at the lack of independence that we saw in that Food Safety Authority and its absolute trade focus, as opposed to having enough emphasis on the food safety of regular New Zealanders. But that has deteriorated by going back into the Ministry for Primary Industries. In time, certainly the Green Party wants to see the Food Safety Authority be pulled back out of the Ministry for Primary Industries and be made even more independent than it suggested it was.

When I came in as a member of Parliament in November 2011, there had been a very vigilant community watch on the progression of the Food Bill. There was huge concern. Some of it seemed to be misguided, but it certainly was not all misguided. There were mistakes in the bill and there was certainly room for improvement. So in that summer of 2011-12, when I probably should have been taking a deep breath before Parliament started in February, I was bombarded with emails from people with serious concern, and I have done my best to follow through with them since. In fact, when we had 500-odd submissions to the second Primary Production Committee consideration, with the Food Bill, and we did hear 19 of them, some of them were seen as representative of much greater groups, but there were some that still wanted to be heard. I met with nine of the 10 of those to make sure their voices were heard.

There has been big concern, and I am very pleased to see that, at this point, the Green Party will be voting for the Food Bill because of the significant changes that we have been able to have through good negotiation and discussion. I agree with Shane Ardern that the officials certainly worked hard, having to accept and listen to our changes and suggestions. I met with successive Ministers like Kate Wilkinson on the bill. We discussed a number of things and she listened well. I was concerned about one change she was not going to make, and it was good that with the following Minister we have managed to get some breakthrough. But between the two Ministers—Kate Wilkinson and Nikki Kaye—we have had some significant changes. One of them was that genetic modification, which had been removed from the bill the first time round at the select committee, has been reinstated into the Food Bill as a food safety issue, and it seriously is a food safety issue. I will address that further at some stage.

Food safety is now the overriding principle of the bill, instead of just one of the factors to be considered, because this seriously is a strongly trade-focused bill. But the fact that food safety is now the overriding principle we feel really helps in terms of protecting our sovereignty, because sovereignty and the aspect of having international regulation landed on to New Zealand consumers and producers without coming past Parliament, for example, was a major concern for many of the submitters. One way of addressing that is ensuring that food safety has primacy. So it was great to see that change.

However, this bill is certainly not just about exports and high-volume trade. In saying that, we do need to recognise that agriculture is 56.4 percent of our export value, and we certainly need to make sure that food safety of those exports is held in absolute high regard internationally. That is also obviously a strong part of the bill. But it is not just about those. This also covers the sale, swapping, and gifting of food, and we have achieved some changes to ensure that there is an expectation that the regulators—the Minister for Food Safety, the Ministry for Primary Industries, the local territorial authorities, and other administrators—will be exempting from unnecessary bureaucracy the smaller producers who may have otherwise been caught with the bill. We have made sure that expectation is in the report from the select committee. The Minister has also agreed with me to meet and to look at how these exemptions might be done in the future to make sure there is not a ridiculous amount of bureaucracy on people who could not afford realistically even to pay the maybe $150 to the local territorial authority. You see, there are people who may sell only a few garnishes. They may have some trees that come ripe once a year. For a couple of weeks they are picking apricots or apples, or whatever they are doing, and selling them at the gate, but they also have a little bit of surplus and they want to sell that at the corner dairy, maybe the organic store, or maybe to a restaurateur. The bill actually catches them and says that they would have to go on to one of the food plans, be audited, and pay that basic fee—a bit over $100. But if they are selling only a few hundred dollars’ worth, maybe even a couple of thousand dollars’ worth, that is clearly a mischief and nonsensical.

As I put to the Minister, and as I put to the select committee, friends, and others, our lives would be the lesser for it if we actually stalled people who supply those fantastic garnishes, those extra herbs, and those novel salad ingredients that make our restaurant experiences and our farmers market experiences somewhat more. That was a very important aspect to have sorted out in the bill. Right back in 2011 those were the sorts of things that people were concerned about. Home gardeners who bartered or swapped food, or sold food directly to consumers and small growers felt that they were going to be wrapped up in the bill and, as I say, they would have been. Barter was a big issue and, of course, barter is a sale. That has been sorted out and there have been some major achievements there.

I will also be introducing Supplementary Order Paper 449 to do with one aspect of the bill that was not caught up and that is regarding country-of-origin labelling as well. It is really good to see that the Labour Party after a long, long time has come and acknowledged and seen that the international call is for country-of-origin labelling, and New Zealand is one of the outliers from that. My Supplementary Order Paper 449 will be pointing out that single-component foods must have country-of-origin requirements. But any labelling laws and existing labelling laws must require regular monitoring and enforcement, and we do need that to be enshrined in this legislation. I use as an example genetic-engineered labelling, which has not been enforced for more than 10 years. We look forward to the Committee stage of this bill and we have certainly got, with this great tome of a bill, a lot to go through. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to take a call during the second reading of the Food Bill. In doing so, it brings to mind one of Churchill’s great statements where he said: “Never … was so much owed by so many to so few.” Of course, he was referring to the Battle of Britain. I use that comment with regard to the Food Bill, because every man, woman, and child in New Zealand now living and in future generations will rely on the protection that that bill gives this country.

The previous speakers have certainly drilled down into the character and nature of the bill. The members of the Primary Production Committee are certainly confident that we applied ourselves as a select committee in the very best capacity possible. I want to pay particular respect to my Green colleague Steffan Browning. He certainly took up the cudgels for the small operator and he asked questions. Many of those questions did have very sensible arguments and reasons why, but I would like it put on record that he did contribute to the finality and the accuracy of this particular bill. I also want to pay respects to all the other members: Ian McKelvie, the chair, as well as Shane Ardern, Damien O’Connor over on the other side of the House there, and also the member from the New Zealand First Party.

It was a great effort but, again, I just want to leave the House during the second reading with the very structured comment that this is incredibly complex. You are dealing with the massive organisations that produce food—immense in New Zealand—but you are also dealing with the farmers markets and the small trading activities. There is also the requirement to have similar processes within the animal products bill as well as the Food Bill. I am delighted to see the bill at this stage and I share too the feeling of the House, the Parliament here, that we can progress this matter through to conclusion for the benefit of all New Zealand. Thank you.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the second reading of the Food Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. This is an enormous bill, and it is perhaps somewhat ironic that it has taken Parliament a very long time to digest it. Four years ago, almost to the day, the first version was introduced to the House and referred to the Primary Production Committee. The committee reported back in December of that year, and in July of last year the bill was again referred back to the committee for further examination. The bill has altered greatly over that time, and as it stands there are now nearly 400 pages of Supplementary Order Papers.

The Primary Production Committee, on which I am privileged to sit as an observer, has dedicated a great deal of time and effort into the bill we now have before us. Under the very able chairmanship of Mr Ardern, the committee has listened to countless submissions and wrestled with the vagaries of law and life that they have thrown up. As such, I am doubly privileged to be able to make New Zealand First’s first contribution to this bill, coming through as it has from the 49th Parliament, from which New Zealand First took a short sabbatical, thanks to the misunderstandings of 2008. But enough of that. We are back now, we are here now, and we are supporting this bill through the House.

The bill provides a regulatory framework to enable businesses to take primary responsibility for the sale of safe and suitable food. Food businesses will be regulated relative to the degree of risk posed by the food selling activity that they are engaged in. A number of risk management tools are included in this bill. They include food control plans for high-risk businesses, such as restaurants; national programmes for medium to low risk businesses, such as horticulture producers; food handling guidance and the educational information for low-risk operators, such as those engaged in fund-raising activities like cake stalls and sausage sizzles, which probably every member of this House has been engaged in; and monitoring programmes set by regulation to impose measures in specific circumstances for determining the safety and suitability of food.

One of the issues that comes up all the time is that very issue of the school barbecue, the fund-raising event, the cake stall, and that kind of thing. The committee members endeavoured to ensure that they were thorough around food safety, and the marketing and sale of food both domestically and internationally, but without putting in place a whole lot of costly compliance and regulation and unintended consequences for those who want to be involved in community activities such as the school barbecue or, in the rural electorates, the school calf day.

Unfortunately, the State has a bit of a reputation for being heavy handed and over the top, you might say, and sometimes ridiculous in the compliance requirements that it places on those people. Putting in place a framework that can accommodate both that and also imported and exported food so that we absolutely guarantee our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand, which is so valuable to us, is an essential piece of work for Parliament and the select committee to carry out. I am confident that the committee has got it right on this one, that it has found the middle ground between the absolute need to make our food safe in every regard and the need to preserve the traditions that make our Kiwi way of life special. Under the auspices of the law that this will bill become, the Rotary Club will still be able to sell sausages for a dollar each outside the supermarket on a Saturday morning, the primary school will still be allowed to run a cake stall to pay for new volleyball nets, and Biddy from Manawatū will still be able to milk her four cows and make her cheese—her famous cheese, I should add, well known to more than one of the honourable and erstwhile members of the committee.

The committee is very much driven by consensus, and I think that is a good thing, because food safety—the safety of the food that we eat and the safety of the food we export—is of paramount importance to everyone in New Zealand. So much of our economy is based on the export of food as part of our primary production sector that the economic impact of a failing in export food safety standards would impact on everyone in this country. This is a reality not lost on any party in this House, and I am gladdened that all parties are on board with this bill and that we are all on the same side. There has been criticism of elements of the bill, as presented to the committee by submitters. I do believe that the very great majority of these concerns have been satisfied by the changes that the committee has recommended and by the substantial Supplementary Order Paper 278, which the Minister for Food Safety has proposed. In particular, there was criticism of the perceived focus of the bill, which, in the minds of some, gave a priority to commercial concerns over and above those of absolute food safety. In clause 4 of the preliminary provisions of the bill, the purpose of it is stated as to restate and reform the law relating to how persons trade in food, and achieve the safety and suitability of food for sale, provide for risk-based measures that minimise and manage risks to public health, and protect and promote public health, and provide certainty for food businesses in relation to how the requirements of this Act will affect their activities, and to require persons who trade in food to take responsibility for the safety and suitability of that food.

With reference to this purpose, the report of the select committee states: “Primacy of food safety. The bill as introduced does not in our view give enough weight to the principle of food safety. To maintain the primacy of food safety as the overriding principle of the bill, we recommend adding subclause 14(2), to ensure that in the event of conflict in the decision-making process between the principles in clause 14, the Minister or chief executive must give the greatest priority to that of food safety and the protection of public health. We also note that the risk factors referred to in clause 14(e) are not specified, and we recommend that the clause be amended to include a list of all the risk factors to be considered.”

The changes to clause 14 also address concerns raised by some submitters that the introduction of international agreements and treaties could put at risk the primacy of food safety in this legislation and could undermine New Zealand’s ability to set its own food standards. New Zealand First is confident that this recommendation will satisfy the concerns, the quite legitimate concerns, of those submitters who raised this possibility.

It is not possible to comment on all aspects of this bill. It is simply too large and too comprehensive, and there are simply too many of them. Suffice it to say that there will be plenty of opportunities to expand on what we have examined individually as members and collectively as a Parliament through the remaining stages of this bill. For now, New Zealand First is glad that this bill has reached the stage that it is at after 4 years of gestation. We are glad to be in a position to contribute to it. We will support it, and we will also be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 440 in the name of Damien O’Connor regarding country-of-origin labelling, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

It is very good to see a fellow food producer and hunter-gatherer in the Chair today, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Food Bill was introduced to the House in 2010 by the Hon Kate Wilkinson. It has gone through two different select committee processes, two Ministers have put a huge effort into this in the interim, and 4 years later we are back in the House for the second reading of a very large and complex piece of legislation. When this bill was first promoted by this House, I was, in fact, involved in local government. I know that local government was absolutely terrified of the potential ramifications of this bill and spent a lot of resources, time, and energy—and frittered a lot of it away, as it turned out—in raising objection to it.

None the less, it got to a very satisfactory spot in the world, and it has come back into the House from the Primary Production Committee in very good form. I think, as almost all the other speakers have agreed really, that it is a piece of legislation that is essential for New Zealand. Firstly, it protects the safety of our own people and, secondly, it protects our reputation in the market place and goes a long way to ensuring that continues. The select committee deliberations were a fascinating process. We heard submissions from many of the bigger operators in the country and some of the very smallest. I heard the submissions and took the opportunity to traverse the ranges into the Wairarapa and visit Biddy Fraser-Davis and her four cows. Interestingly, they were called Dizzy, Holly, Patsy, and Isobel. She made cheese from each of them on a daily basis, by hand—

💬 Shane Ardern: Did they vote Green?

I think they voted Green, as the chairman of the Primary Production Committee says. But that is a fascinating thing to do. When you think about our opportunities for tourism that we have in this country and the new opportunities that we have got through cycle trails and walking trails, this kind of small cottage industry is going to be a very important part of our future tourism thing. This bill has enabled this to take place with a lot less cost involved than what was envisaged when the legislation was first promoted to the House.

We did consider a lot of issues in the course of this and the select committee process was a fascinating one, I thought. Also I think we have a pretty good select committee in the primary production sector, led by our dairy-farming colleague from the King Country—I was going to say Taranaki, but I had better say the King Country—Shane Ardern. Of course, we get on pretty well as a select committee and I think we came to some pretty good conclusions. So despite some interesting discussion, the committee—under Shane Ardern’s expert leadership and with some very good input from all of its members—came to a conclusion that I have got much pleasure in supporting as the bill traverses its way through this House. Thank you.

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to add my contribution at the second reading of the Food Bill. Although I am not a member of the Primary Production Committee, I do want to acknowledge the work that has gone into the bill at the committee level by colleagues from all around this House. This is a significant piece of legislation. It is a good 470-odd pages thick. As other speakers have noted, it covers the broad spectrum of food businesses—from our small coffee cart operator right through to our multinational major food industrial production export companies. So it is a significant piece of legislation.

It has been a long time in the making. We have heard some profound quotes from Churchill this afternoon. We have even had our whaea, Annette King, evoking imagery of giving birth. I would rather not go there, but I would like to add my own contribution that this legislation is like the good old Mainland cheese ads from about the 1990s, in that good things take time. Just as we can picture the beautiful mainland of Te Wai Pounamu, my wonderful electorate, the beautiful alps there, and the wonderful old karauas there who were there talking about their cheese-making abilities, indeed, this piece of legislation is the same. It is long overdue. But it has had a very good once-over. It has been well scrutinised by the committee. There have been a number of very thoughtful submissions made, and they have resulted in some positive amendments being made to the bill.

In thinking about this, although I might not be learned in all of the aspects of this bill, I do think of the times that I have worked in the food industry. I worked for an iwi export fisheries company—my own folks, whānau, down there in Ngāi Tahu. I know the amount of work and effort that goes into the export industries and the seafood industries, in terms of the licensing that they have to maintain—the very strict highest international standards that our exporters have to meet to be able to comply and to sell our produce around the word. So I am very well aware of the great level of work and effort and cost that those businesses incur in being able to trade our wonderful seafood, our bounty from the sea and from right across the land, overseas.

I am reminded that when I was in the seafood industry we followed a consignment of lobster—what we might call crayfish. It is actually a delicacy, I guess, but those who enjoy their recreational fishing and can put a pot down or dive can enjoy a good feed of crays. A lot of effort goes into the export of that product—from potting it in places like, maybe, the Chatham Islands or down in Fiordland way where we are from. That product goes all the way through our export facilities. It is packed out, chilled down, and put on to the big aeroplanes flying all the way over to Hong Kong. From there it goes into some what they call grey channels and it is sped through under the cover of darkness into some ports in southern China. All that effort went in with all the care and attention we paid to getting our product in pristine shape to the market, and then when we saw it arrive on the other side it was almost heartbreaking, because it just got ripped open and dumped on the concrete floor. That is what our customers chose to do with our product, but at least we made sure that we upheld our reputation—that we supply the finest food products to the world, to discerning customers and to high-paying, discerning markets worldwide.

Getting back to the bill, we do see that we are improving the food-handling practices and the food control through the implementation of food control plans and national programmes. I like the focus of the bill, that it is all around risk management rather than the 30-year-old regulations around food hygiene, where inspectors would check whether a wall was clean or check the premises. This is all about the practices. This is all about the handling of food and making sure that the practices are compliant and that they all fall under the umbrella of the relevant food control plans or national programmes.

We know we are dealing with a whole raft of all different types of businesses that trade in food, as I mentioned earlier. Of course, no one size fits all, but we do not want to add overly cumbersome, bureaucratic requirements on small operators, especially. I am pleased that the select committee and the Minister for Food Safety’s Supplementary Order Paper 278 have made some common-sense amendments that will mean that the likes of the Kiwiana sausage sizzle and the good old bring a plate to the local, whatever it is, club or any other social occasion that people go to—those good old traditions that we hold dear—

💬 Carol Beaumont: Not bring a plate.

Well, yes, bring a plate with some lovely home-cooked kai on it. Those good old traditions are being excluded from the full ambit of this legislation because we would not want to go down that path of regulating the good old traditions of the Kiwi sausage sizzle.

This is, as I mentioned, a very sensible piece of legislation. There are also many other aspects in the bill around the monitoring of the different types of food businesses, because, of course, there are also the medium to higher-risk businesses, based on the types of food that they produce and sell, and therefore there would be more compliance, more regulation, I guess, and stricter standards that they would have to abide by. This legislation allows for that. It allows for the smaller operators and right through to the higher-risk operators, the bigger, more industrial producers, to also be regulated in the right fashion.

I just want to touch on another point that was an issue that has been raised by my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor through his Supplementary Order Paper 440, which is around country-of-origin labelling. We are disappointed that country-of-origin labelling has not been included in the legislation. If we are so proud, as a nation, to be selling our produce and supporting our way of life here, it should be a requirement that we put our country-of-origin label on our produce. I know we do that on the export side, but I think Kiwis want to know not only that the food has been made in a safe way and that people are not going to get sick but also where that food has come from. I know that my colleague Damien mentioned that other countries have followed suit and they do apply country-of-origin labelling.

As I have mentioned in other debates, I was surprised to learn that the vast majority of the pork that is consumed in our country is not New Zealand pork. It actually comes from Canada. I do not think the average Kiwi would know that the bacon, sausages, or other pork-related products that they consume come largely from Canada. But if there was country-of-origin labelling that we were required to abide by, then I think it would be good for educating the public as to where their food is coming from.

Apart from that, I just want to conclude by briefly mentioning that this piece of legislation is really good for Māori. There are stepping stones for Māori to improve their food safety systems. I know there is Te Kai Manawa Ora, the programme that started off from the new Food Safety Authority, which label we will be bringing back. But also it encourages Māori, and maraes especially, to go into food and trade. I commend all those aspects of the bill, and I look forward to it progressing through this House. Kia ora tātou.

This is going to be a very short call in support of the Food Bill at its second reading. Lots of good words have been said today in the House, and as a food producer—both my husband and I are food producers, with sheep meat exports—I am really proud to stand here and support the bill.

I congratulate the Primary Production Committee on the great work that it continues to do. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

This is a split call—5 minutes.

I am very pleased that we are supporting this bill, the Food Bill. Back in December 2011, just after this 50th Parliament had started, the first mass emails were from people who were extremely concerned about the Food Bill. We were literally inundated with hundreds, if not thousands, of emails, due to a very effective social media campaign that expressed significant concern that this bill had far too far-reaching powers. You could sort of understand the concerns that people were expressing, because the ability to grow our own food, to share the surplus with our family and friends, and to contribute that surplus to fund-raising events is a fundamental part of our Kiwi identity. It contributes to our own sense of well-being, to our sense of security, and to our sense of community resilience and independence.

We are talking about things like the fruits and vegetables from the garden, jams and pickles, surplus eggs that a few of our chooks may have laid, baking, heritage seeds, trading these heritage seeds and trading these heritage foods amongst people, and so on. People were very, very concerned that this bill might be unduly restrictive and discourage people from undertaking these activities. That, of course, was extremely concerning for us in the Green Party, because we strongly believe that we need to be doing everything that we can to promote and encourage independent food production amongst families and at the local community level.

For me personally, this was really highlighted during the Christchurch and Canterbury earthquakes. Soon after the February quake, the roads to east Christchurch, and in particular to the New Brighton strip, were cut off. The supermarkets were closed. There was nowhere where you could go and buy food. I biked over there, and what we saw were people who had surplus in their gardens and so on putting their surplus food on to the pavement in plastic bags with signs saying “Please help yourself”. It was an absolute saviour for people—that the communities would get together, use their collective goods and their surplus produce from the gardens and the food that they had in their cupboards and so on, and share it amongst each other. Since the Christchurch earthquakes, because of the incredibly important role of being able to grow your own, there has been a renewed interest in things like community gardens and in growing your own. Whatever happens, we do not want to be imposing, in the name of food safety, restrictive controls on that ability at that sort of very grassroots level, and that extends, of course, to fund-raising and so on.

So it is fantastic that we are now supporting this bill, partly due to the fact of my colleague Steffan Browning’s tremendous work on articulating the concerns of small producers, of local food producers, and so on, and watching out for their interests. We are very pleased that the Primary Production Committee has listened to these concerns, and the Minister for Food Safety as well, and has come back with a bill that seems to strike the right balance between ensuring food safety and protecting our international reputation, but not being unduly restrictive on local food producers. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Food Bill. This is an important piece of legislation. It is also—for people listening to this debate—a very substantial piece. It is one of the biggest bills I have ever seen. But it is important work. It has taken a long time to get to this point. Labour is supporting this bill. Basically, it makes substantial reforms to the regulatory regime for the safety and suitability of food, and it will eventually fully replace the Food Act 1981 and the Food Hygiene Regulations.

I am speaking on this bill for two reasons, really—first of all, because of the importance of the food industry for our country. I think everybody in this House would recognise just how important the food and beverage sector is for our country and how important it is that we get it right in terms of making sure that there is confidence that the food produced in this country is safe. We have seen very recently what happens when that is threatened in any way. Our livelihood as a country is entirely—or very substantially, anyway—dependent on the success of this sector.

Certainly, I think there is a lot more that we need to be doing, and I would make the point that in terms of our economic development there is a lot more that we could be doing with the food and beverage sector to ensure that we create more value-added products and that we create better jobs in the food sector that are better paid. But this Government, of course, seems to be completely blind to the idea of looking at economic development, looking at strategies that do create good and sustainable manufacturing and processing work in this country. That is possibly another story for another day, but it is really important for our country to get it right.

Of course, as consumer affairs spokesperson I also want to say that this bill is important because consumers want to have confidence that the food they eat is safe and that it is not going to cause risks to their health. Of course, it is pretty fundamental: what you eat is a very important thing. So from that point of view as well, this bill is important.

I do want to say that the missed opportunity is one that my very good colleague Damien O’Connor has picked up on, and that is that we need to add country-of-origin labelling into this bill. There is a real missed opportunity here, and we know that New Zealand consumers increasingly want to see that information. You can see already in our supermarkets that in the produce area, in particular, there is already voluntary country-of-origin labelling of produce. I know that many people do, effectively, choose to buy produce that has been grown in this country.

I think that from a New Zealand point of view that is important. We want to support our producers. We want to be confident, and the thing about the New Zealand industry is that—as anybody who has studied it at all or been involved in it will know—we do have very high standards. We need to maintain those standards. But consumers can be confident about New Zealand food generally, and that is why many New Zealanders, apart from wanting to support local producers, want to buy New Zealand food. The hoops that we have to jump through as a country in exporting our food mean that we have got high standards.

Certainly, when I was on a task force, the Food and Beverage Taskforce, we looked at the degree of traceability, for example, that was expected of New Zealand food. Japanese consumers, in particular, were the example I can recall looking at. They wanted to know about traceability of the lamb they were purchasing in their supermarkets.

Country-of-origin labelling—I am very glad to see that Damien O’Connor has got Supplementary Order Paper 440 on this issue. It will amend the bill “to require the responsible Minister to adopt Food Standard 1.2.11 of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code 2002, which would introduce mandatory country of origin labelling for some foods manufactured or prepared for sale or sold in New Zealand or imported into New Zealand.”

I do hope that members opposite will take this opportunity to listen to what consumers want and support that Supplementary Order Paper, and ensure that we do have country-of-origin labelling. Thank you.

I commend the Food Bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.