Food Bill

I move, That the Food Bill be now read a third time. I am very pleased to stand here and speak on the third reading of the Food Bill. This bill has been a long time coming. For over 10 years it has been in development, and its passing represents a very significant reform of New Zealand’s law. We cannot underestimate what this bill means to New Zealand from an economic perspective. We know that there are thousands of people in New Zealand who are employed in the food sector—in fact, 18 percent of our working population. We know that many livelihoods and thousands of businesses rely on our food exports. In fact, more than half of our exports are in food. We also know that there are many overseas visitors who come here and want to experience our food and beverage, and that is why this bill is incredibly important for New Zealand.

Given the importance of this bill to the food sector in New Zealand, it is important to realise that the broad agreement in the previous debates about the need to replace the 1981 Food Act has been very clear. As has been acknowledged, the prescriptive one-size-fits-all approach of the current regime causes unnecessary cost to food businesses and also fails to ensure that all food safety risks are properly managed. There have been estimates that this bill could reduce compliance costs by over $40 million, and that is a great thing for New Zealand. The need to move to a more flexible and risk-based approach to food safety was also recognised in last year’s report from the inquiry into the whey protein concentrate incident.

Most New Zealanders understand that the way a food safety system works is that when you are exporting hundreds and millions of food products, there will always be error. But what matters is that your food safety system is strong and that you can manage a decent response to that error. That is why it was pleasing that the inquiry found that New Zealand’s regulatory system for dairy food safety is considered to be among the best in the world. It did recommend, though, that there were areas where we should strengthen our food safety system. That is why this Government is incredibly proud to have developed a number of initiatives, including progress on the New Zealand Food Safety Science and Research Centre, but also in setting up a New Zealand Food Safety and Assurance Advisory Council. We have also moved on recall provisions, which are in this bill. The need for new legislation is therefore widely accepted and this is incredibly positive.

I do want to acknowledge that there were concerns during the passage of this bill through this House, and some of those concerns related to community fund-raisers. So what I have been very clear about since I have become Minister for Food Safety is that we need to strike an appropriate balance to achieve good food safety while also ensuring that New Zealanders can get on and do what they have always done, like community sausage sizzles.

There are also, of course, some differences between sides of this House in the debate. I want to acknowledge the discussion that we had in terms of country-of-origin labelling. As I have said, the House of Representatives in Australia is conducting an inquiry in this area. Although I do not have confidence in a comprehensive, mandatory country-of-origin labelling scheme, I think there is more work to do in this area, and I do want to acknowledge that we have about 70 percent coverage in the area of voluntary country-of-origin labelling with regard to single-ingredient foods.

The passing of the Food Bill is not the end of the process of law reform. There is a significant programme of work ahead to ensure that the bill is properly implemented. This will include developing and consulting on a package of regulations and other legislative instruments that will refine the final shape of the regulatory regime. The Ministry for Primary Industries has been working towards the implementation of this bill for some time, as members across this House know.

Finally, I would like to close by again acknowledging not only the importance of this bill to New Zealand from an economic perspective but also that this is a modern, risk-based framework that will reduce compliance costs in New Zealand. It will also enable us to improve our food safety in New Zealand, whether that is through the greater intelligence that will come as a result of our system or whether that is through the on-the-spot fines that we will be able to give in areas like labelling.

Also, there are provisions in this bill that show our compassion as a nation. There are provisions in this bill that enable us to have more companies that are able to donate food in good faith, and I do believe that those provisions—the good Samaritan clause—will be very helpful for some of the food banks of New Zealand.

The process of reform has spanned two administrations. I acknowledge the contributions particularly of the Hon Annette King and the Hon Kate Wilkinson. The bill has been considered twice by the Primary Production Committee and I would really like to thank Shane Ardern, in particular, for his excellent chairing of this committee, and the Opposition members of the committee for their constructive approach. I do want to thank all Opposition members for the work that they have done on this bill.

I would also like to thank the many officials who have worked over the years on this legislation. I am not going to name all of them. I recognise that I will leave people out, but can I acknowledge Hilary Eade, Karen Adair, Carole Inkster as well, and Howard Staveley. I have definitely missed people out, and I apologise at this point, but thank you. I understand the huge work that many public servants do in this country. Some will never be on the front page of the paper, but they work behind the scenes to do a great job on legislation.

I would like to acknowledge, as well, the many industry groups and other people who contributed to the development of this legislation. It is going to be a great piece of legislation for New Zealand. After many years of its development, I commend this bill to the House.

I am pleased to follow the Minister for Food Safety and acknowledge many of the things that she has said—firstly, about the thousands of people around the country who will be very pleased to see the passage of the Food Bill. It is not only large in size, a bit like an elephant; its gestation period is about the same length. It is at least 10 years, I guess, since this was conceived, in terms of the need to bring together all the pieces of legislation and to have some alignment for a country that still relies for its wealth on the production of food. Ensuring that everyone involved in every part of the supply chain knows what they have to do—and that is produce, process, distribute, handle, and sell safe food—is what this country still depends upon. In spite of all our efforts to broaden the base of our economy, primary production and the production of food and fibre still drive our wealth creation for the most part.

The Minister pointed out the reality that we are relying on a risk-based system. Labour is supporting the legislation, but we are also cautious because in 1992 a risk-based system was introduced for health and safety. Without proper monitoring, proper resourcing, and proper policing of this legislation, we could very well end up with some major mistakes that we as a country cannot afford to make. We have seen a few mistakes lately in the food safety area. They have cost us literally hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of our international reputation and the efforts to get back into the market. The dairy industry is still floundering in some areas, particularly in the area of infant formula, after what was an unfortunate botch-up, if you will pardon the pun. So we support a risk-based regime on the basis that oversight, monitoring, and, where necessary, penalties are fairly and appropriately implemented.

There were a number of issues as we worked through the bill and then the Supplementary Order Papers—issues like recall powers, the power of entry, and all of those things around what we deem to be low risk and high risk—for example, sausage sizzles were not deemed to be high risk. The Primary Production Committee has twice, of course, teased through these issues, and I think we did our very best to reach the right balance and ensure that we have a healthy system for producing food, but one that does not cripple the good old Kiwi ways of sausage sizzles, exchanging food, and getting on and helping one’s neighbour, as we should.

The issue of country-of-origin labelling, raised by the Minister herself, has been a debatable point at the end of the progress of this bill. I introduced Supplementary Order Paper 440 not to do anything more than our Tasman neighbours but to do the same as them. The Minister pointed to an inquiry taking place in Australia and she implied that it is to discredit the regime that they have in Australia. There will always be the need for ongoing reviews and improvements. That does not mean to say there is no value in country-of-origin labelling. Australia is committed to it. We should be committed to it under the Food Standards Australia New Zealand agreement, but we have an exemption. We applied for an exemption, to not have country-of-origin labelling.

For a country that depends upon the ongoing process of producing safe and fine foods for the world’s most discerning customers, the question is why we would not have country-of-origin labelling. We impose—and this bill continues with that—quite tight restrictions on people producing food, to make sure that it cannot be contaminated and that it is free of any unwanted pests, diseases, organisms, or anything that might affect people’s health. In doing so, we impose a cost on those producers. The very least we can do is to give them the pride to brand their product “product of New Zealand” so they can expect and rightfully get a premium for that product. That is why we believe that country-of-origin labelling is part of a smart branding strategy for New Zealand’s products, which should go to the most discerning customers in the world, who are able to pay the premium that we need to keep our farmers and our producers viable.

It is not easy. Around the world, primary producers are either peasants or highly subsidised; in New Zealand they are not. For the good farmers, horticulturalists, and viticulturists in this country to make a decent return on their investments and their efforts, they need to know that their efforts will be acknowledged not by some big supermarket chain that dictates where their products are sold but by customers who want New Zealand produce because it is safe and of high quality. We have missed an opportunity. Labour commits, when we come into office on 21 September, that we will set about introducing country-of-origin labelling in order to be alongside our Australian partners and not to give them an upper hand as we go to the world market selling produce that is very similar in some ways, theirs marked “product of Australia” and ours not necessarily marked “product of New Zealand”.

There were a number of issues that were in the bill, and I will touch on them just briefly, I guess, while not wanting to relitigate them all. I think it is important to know that we, as a committee, went through most areas of concern.

There was one issue with the purpose of the bill. Even at the latter stages we sat down and said that what we are trying to do with the bill is actually “to maintain New Zealand’s reputation as a producer and exporter of safe and suitable food.” That was not one of the objects of the original bill, but time has moved on—10 years—in this area, and in terms of retail supply and control through the world, the dynamics have changed. Supermarkets do have more power, and it is harder for producers, even though they are from New Zealand, with our good reputation, to get out there and leverage a fair position. So we figured that and, I guess, committed to putting upfront the object of this new piece of legislation to endorse the production of food from the country.

We also put in that “the Minister or chief executive must give the greatest priority to that of food safety and the protection of public health.” That is very, very important for this legislation. It is not just about selling good food; we are concerned about public health as well.

There were issues, for example, about the clearance of imported food—the concerns we still have around biosecurity and how the current system deals with food. Pork, of course, is the most topical one. We are importing almost half of the pork we consume in this country, with biosecurity risks. How should those risks be addressed, and how does that affect the producers in this country?

As I said, I spoke of the power to search and the concerns around civil rights issues with that. I do not think any one of the officials wants to charge in on any individual unfairly, but it is necessary, should we consider there to be a major food scare, that we have the right to recall and to take action on that.

The sale of food by small producers—I have talked about that previously. We need to ensure that small producers, who are often at the front edge of innovation, are able to get out there and sell their food in the domestic market, trial their products, and then maybe build to a point where they can become major exporters.

Labour supports this bill. We welcome its passage, finally, after 10 years, through the House. It did take the National Government a while to get into gear on this, but it has provided an opportunity to go back and scrutinise the bill once again, address issues of recall powers that were raised by the botulism issue, improve the bill, and pass it through this House. But, finally, we warn Parliament that this bill, without proper oversight, scrutiny, and resources, could fail us, just as the occupation health and safety legislation did. We cannot afford for that to happen. We support the Food Bill to support the producers and to support this country.

I rise in support of the Food Bill as well. The member who has just resumed his seat, Damien O’Connor, who was a substantial contributor in the Primary Production Committee, raised the issue of country-of-origin labelling. This was an issue of some debate, I have to suggest, during the deliberations at the select committee.

One of the reasons the committee, on balance, was not able to reach the position the member is taking was just simply because of the complexity of being able to identify the country of origin of a multi-ingredient food. In some cases where it is a single-ingredient food, the manufacturer or the processor of that food can have country-of-origin labelling, and of course they would, because there is an advantage commercially, presumably, for them to do so. But imagine having a product that has multiple ingredients and that one minor ingredient in there—maybe even something that is used in the process of producing the food, as opposed to an ingredient itself, or a cleaning process—has a foreign or non-New Zealand - based substance in it. If the company producing the product says in its labelling that it is a product of New Zealand or of New Zealand only, and subsequently it is found out that something involved in the process is not from New Zealand, it could end up as a potential contaminant in the food and it potentially would be in breach of that law.

On balance, it is going to be interesting to see what the Australians do, because they have adopted that system. They are going through a thorough inquiry right now. Once we know the outcomes of that inquiry or what they do, it will be interesting to see what they actually come up with. So I do not think we are quite at the point of the simplicity that is being described, where we can just have a labelling system that identifies exactly the origin of the product and can go with that.

Previous speakers have spoken of the fact that this bill does update some fairly old legislation. Probably the main one would be the current Food Act 1981, which is over 30 years old. When you look at what has happened in science and technology and the processing of food and at our need to be very sophisticated, I guess, in that regard, to be competitive in the world—and bearing in mind that this country has an economy that is very dependent on food exports, as 72 percent of our tradable exports come from the primary sector, and most of that is food, but not all of it—then, obviously, having legislation that is current and able to cope with the complexity of that is essential for New Zealand’s reputation.

And that is really what it is all about. This bill is about “New Zealand Inc.” It is about the reputation of New Zealand as a source of high-quality products, with systems that are able to respond quickly to any type of food scare—which there will be. We have had, of course, the recent whey protein concentrate case, which was thoroughly investigated and responded to quickly, and there will be more. Those who stand up in this House and suggest that it will never happen again are kidding themselves. We export thousands of tonnes of protein products, all able to carry different types of bacteria, so at some stage in the future there will be a further food scare for New Zealand in terms of its exports. That makes it essential to be able to respond in a way that is credible internationally and is backed well and truly by a solid legislative framework. This Food Bill, in my opinion, moves a long way towards being able to achieve that outcome in a modern, sophisticated export market.

At the same time, it actually frees up a lot of what would be considered Kiwiana activities that were restricted and probably, if you read the finer points of the old law, were in breach of the law on many occasions. These include what you and I and everyone else in Parliament would consider as just normal activities like a school calf day, a marae tangi, the exchange of food at various church or other fund-raising activities, and even down to the way that a private residence might, from time to time, take in some travelling guests, which probably falls slightly short of what we would deem to be a bed and breakfast but nearly achieves that goal. These would have had to have full compliance and food-handling certificates, which, of course, would make the activities uneconomic and destroy something about what is good about New Zealand.

We also saw quite a heavy submission process around what are becoming more and more common—farmers markets and the small processors of various types of food that are traded at these farmers markets. They do not have a high turnover, they are not substantial businesses, but they do add a certain amount of flavour and colour to what it is to be a New Zealander and what it is to be able to travel around in some of our smaller provincial towns at times and visit these various outfits. They serve up a variety of different beverages and products and foods that are all part of what we enjoy.

The legislation itself, the Food Bill, will replace a number of Acts. There is the Food Act 1981, which I have talked about. It also replaces the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974 and the Food (Safety) Regulations 2002. It amends the Animal Products Act 1999 and the Wine Act 2003. Just by hearing that, you can understand the complexity of it. It does not just mean protein foods; there is a range of other products involved.

I look forward to the passage of this bill through the House. The select committee did work well together. There was cross-party support on most issues in the select committee. I want to thank the officials. They certainly were put through their paces, if you like. They had to work very hard to answer the many complex questions that were raised. The bill itself came out of the select committee and then was reported back to the select committee after the whey protein concentrate case, pending the inquiry on that, and further amendments were made. I recommend the passage of this bill. I look forward to the passage of the bill.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I too am pleased to speak at the third reading of the Food Bill. This bill is a major improvement on the current laws as they stand, which impinge on all food businesses across the country. As previous speakers have mentioned, currently we have the Food Act, which is 30 years old and way out of date, and also some even worse Food Hygiene Regulations, which are about 40-plus years old. They are highly prescriptive, highly outdated, and have led to a whole bunch of misalignment and inconsistencies among territorial authorities and local councils right across the country. It has been a nightmare for small businesses—or for all businesses operating in the food area—to try to navigate their way through dealing with all of the complexities and trying to fit within the parameters or the strict prescribed requirements in the existing legislation. Thankfully, we can all now say haere rā. Haere rā to that regime, and haere mai to this good bill.

It is a voluminous piece of legislation and a long time in the making. Ten-plus years ago this legislation was conceived under the Labour Government. There has been a lot of work going on. I commend also the officials who have worked tirelessly over the years to craft this piece of legislation. It is a significant piece of legislation but also it is very well drafted because it covers the full ambit, the full scope, of all food businesses, whether they be a small coffee cart or a marae that might have a little catering operation or café, and right through to major food exports, manufacturers, meal producers, and the like. So it is a significant piece of legislation. It is really positive for our country because, as speakers have mentioned, the food sector is so important to our country, to our livelihood, and to our standard of living.

I just want to repeat this because it is really important that people comprehend these numbers. Eighteen percent of the working population in New Zealand are employed directly or indirectly in the food sector. There are around 35,000 to 40,000 regulated businesses that operate food businesses right across the country. But even more important is the turnover. Food retailers turn over some $26 billion a year, total food manufactured in New Zealand is worth over $41.5 billion a year, and the food sector as a whole contributes over 52 percent of New Zealand’s total value of exports. Those numbers alone really demonstrate how important and how crucial the food industry is to our country and to our way of life. That is why it is really important that we have this piece of legislation now, which is up to date, which is modern, and which has brought us into the 21st century, whereby we are speaking the same language as our important customers, our trade customers overseas.

An important aspect of our trade and our export industries is that we benefit from free-trade agreements. Mutual recognition of our food safety systems is an important element of those free-trade agreements, and they give our exporters an advantage in a highly competitive market place. It is really important that this piece of legislation is enacted so that we are walking the talk and we are providing a world-class, modern, risk-based, flexible food safety system. By doing that, we can give confidence to our customers—not only to New Zealand food businesses but also to our own local consumers. As we know, when you produce food—Māoris, especially, know this very well—and when you are hosting manuhiri, your mana is on the line. Your mana is at stake when you host people, and the last thing that you want to do and the last thing we as a nation would want to do to our manuhiri, to our visitors, is to have an outbreak of food-borne illnesses. I shudder at the thought of people falling crook or when we hear reports of serious outbreaks of—I will test Hansard people out—illness with names like campylobacteriosis, salmonellosis, listeriosis, other forms of -osis, and E. coli and all those nasty food-borne illnesses.

It is really important that we have legislation that is fit for purpose, that is modern, and that can deal with those high-risk businesses that are perhaps cutting a few corners or not being as stringent as they should be. It is also important that we are not putting unreasonable or overbearing compliance costs on those businesses or industries that really do not have to try to meet such high standards.

One of the really commendable aspects of this bill is the sliding scale - type approach based on the risk that various industries and businesses have and the food they produce. Obviously, a coffee cart is nowhere near as high risk as a major meal producer or exporter, so this bill does very well in terms of capturing all of those different types of industry participants in the food sector, which, as I mentioned in previous contributions, is very important to Māori. The primary sector, the land and sea, our bounty that we have in Aotearoa—Māori are major, major stakeholders in those sectors. My colleagues across the floor know them well. Mr McKelvie would know Atihau-Whanganui Incorporation up at the Whanganui River and Morikaunui Incorporation and those major sheep and beef producers. Mr Ardern would know Parininihi ki Waitōtara Incorporation. Māori are major participants in those fields, and they are also moving up the value chain. They are moving up the value chain—such as the likes of Miraka Ltd, a major Māori-owned dairy processor taking on Fonterra, and giving it a good crack as well. I need only talk about my own iwi down in the south. Ngāi Tahu are making major plays into dairy conversions and growing the milk supply from out of the south.

This piece of legislation is important for all New Zealand, all Kiwi businesses, for consumers, for our customers, for our reputation, and it is really important also for Māori.

I would just like to conclude by talking about, as I call it, the COOL aspect of this legislation—country-of-origin labelling—and Supplementary Order Paper 440 by Damien O’Connor, which, unfortunately, was not adopted by the Government. I am heartened by the remarks from the Minister that it will be looking into that issue, because we were simply basing it on aligning country-of-origin labelling between New Zealand and our major export market over there across the Tasman. So I look forward to seeing some progress in that area, hopefully, because Kiwis do like to know where our kai is coming from. I think that if people go down to buy a single-product item, if you have got a pork chop there or a pork belly, people will look again if they know that it is from Ontario or from some big, major hog producer over in North America. So we hope to see progress in that area, but, otherwise, this is a very, very great piece of legislation and I commend it to the House. Kia ora tātou.

I am pleased to be able to rise and say that the Green Party is supporting the Food Bill. Although we are supporting the Food Bill, we still have some reservations, and I will discuss those as we go. There have been some major changes to the bill, particularly in the last couple of years, from where it started, effectively 11 years ago.

We have followed its history. I personally have followed it since way back when it was first mooted in the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. I think Annette King was the food safety Minister then, and she brought it to the authority’s consumer forum, where I was, as a concept of modernising and improving the risk-based approach to food safety, with the different tiers of foods, food production, and the likes, and how they should be handled and what sort of food plans and the likes that different food should go under. It was a great concept and it is a great concept, and we have got this far.

However, there were a number of concerns from when the Food Bill had finished with the first part of the Primary Production Committee consideration, before I was a member of Parliament. When it came back from there, potentially it would have incorporated provisions on seed that is grown for anything, whether it be pasture seed, whether it be vegetable seed, whether it be potatoes for planting, whether it be sunflowers for planting, or anything. All seed-propagating material was being caught up in it, so it was very good that Kate Wilkinson, the then food safety Minister, very quickly realised that this was a mistake, that there was no way that it should be incorporated that way, and that only food that was going to be consumed should go through the Food Bill. So that was the first major change that was mooted, and that was successfully changed.

However, there were other issues that were very concerning. Genetic engineering, or “genetic modification”, as the bill describes it, had been taken out as something that should be considered as a food safety item. It took a fair amount of negotiation and lobbying and lots of submissions and emails to nearly all of us in the House from people who were very concerned about that. So it was really good that the new Minister for Food Safety, Nikki Kaye, saw that provision reinserted, so that genetic modification is in the Food Bill as something that may be considered as a food safety issue and that seriously needs to be considered as a food safety issue. I will touch on that later.

There were issues around the donating of food and whether food could be donated, whether community groups could be dispensing food without being caught up in undue bureaucracy, and whether people would be able to swap food. The way the bill could have been read suggested that that may not be legal in the full sense, again unless there was some level of bureaucracy and registration of the people swapping it, and the like. So I am very pleased to say that with negotiation and submissions and discussion in the Primary Production Committee, that was corrected. The inclusion of a good Samaritan clause to allow people to keep donating food to those in need is well cemented in the bill. That is fantastic. There are assurances that swapping food will remain legal. People can swap among their neighbours and the community and their relations, and there is no hint of any problems with that. These were major gains.

One part that was most unfortunate, which has not been a gain as yet, was country-of-origin labelling. Labour, very nicely, joined the party with the Greens, who have been lobbying. We have taken to Parliament the petition of a huge number of submitters wanting country-of-origin labelling—not any old country-of-origin labelling but mandatory country-of-origin labelling. The Minister has spoken about the voluntary system and says it has got something like 70 percent coverage. That is not good enough. Not only is it not good enough in terms of coverage but, because it is voluntary, there is no real system of auditing. Of course, food safety is not audited well in terms of the domestic food supply in this country anyway, and I will discuss that a bit more as we go.

One hundred and five of New Zealand’s 120 trading partners have country-of-origin labelling. It is not a matter of being voluntary, and maybe the supermarket chains will put up a voluntary level of it, so that they do not have a stronger, more comprehensive system enforced on them. They are taking—how do you call it—a token approach. Some of it is quite good, but it is not good enough when consumers cannot make those proper choices. I have a member’s bill for the consumer’s right to know around food and country-of-origin labelling, and I am hoping that in time that will be introduced. Not only that but it will probably be a fresh Government and Labour has now come to the party. After opposing country-of-origin labelling for so long, Labour will obviously support the Greens in getting that through.

I am concerned when the Minister says “Well, hey, Australia is reviewing it.” They have got quite comprehensive country-of-origin labelling there, but it could, again, be somewhat better. If we are going to align with Australia, we should align immediately and have mandatory country-of-origin labelling like them, not after Tony Abbott has got amongst it and wrecked it, like he is about to wreck so many other protections for consumers and the people of Australia. That is no example to follow for this country.

The other concern is domestic food sovereignty. There was a lot of concern from submitters that we were losing our ability to make our own regulations around food safety in this country. They refer to international organisations like the Codex Alimentarius Commission, where New Zealand has a reasonable role to play in the dairy section and in some other parts. The commission is the international food standard - setting body that helps with harmonisation of food standards throughout the world. That organisation was fine once. That organisation was truly independent and looked at truly independent science, and made proper decisions that reflected the genuine risk. But that organisation now is subject to the same lobbying and interference that it seems our Food Standards Australia New Zealand, our joint partnership with Australia, seems to be subject to, which interferes with the real decisions, or what the real decisions should be, around food safety for New Zealand, or for New Zealanders, in particular.

It was really good that in the select committee we ended up seeing some move towards some independence around food safety decisions, but the only way that that has happened is that we have got food safety as a primacy, as the most important part of the Food Bill. It was not. It was just one of the things that needed to be taken into account, and trade is a major part of the things that need to be taken into account, apparently. But in the situation where there is a question of whether it is a trade agreement that is driving it or whether it is food safety, food safety has primacy. That is really good and that is one of the major achievements that has happened in very recent times to the Food Bill.

However, if there is a decision around food safety, who is calling the shots on the science behind it? When the Minister was in front of the select committee for the committee’s consideration of the Budget estimates recently, I put it to her about the labelling of genetically engineered food and that there was a real issue around the food safety of that—and there is. Animals fed genetically engineered food are in very bad shape. Their fecundity, their fertility, is dropping significantly. Their lifespan is dropping. Their gut mechanisms are badly influenced. There is severe ulceration in way more animals that are fed that. We are feeding it to animals in this country, and the food from that—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.

💬 Steffan Browning: I did not hear the bell.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Order! Just before I call the next speaker, can I just remind the member that the box that you have on your desk, which talks about genetic engineering, is not acceptable. It is not a visual aid in terms of promoting the speech and I would ask the member to remove it. I did not interrupt while the member was speaking. I did not want to interrupt his speech, but we cannot have advertising of any sort other than visual aids that help in the presentation of your speech. That certainly was outside the realms of that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was exactly what I was talking about as I sat down, but I never heard a bell being rung.

Well, you went for 10 minutes and I motioned at the time for you to wind up. It is not a requirement to ring a bell, but the member had a 10-minute speech and I did motion 20 seconds out for the member to wind it up. You went for a good 10 minutes.

It is a pleasure to speak during the third reading of the Food Bill. It is a piece of work that the Primary Production Committee worked long and hard over. When we as a Parliament think about what our dining habits were 40 years ago—the old meat and three vegetables—certainly today our consumption of food is a lot more complex than it was. Also, from the point of view of the modern world around aligning the various Acts, it became very evident that the Animal Products Act needed to align with the Food Act. That was duly done.

As a nation we export 85 percent of what we produce. However, in saying all that, this particular bill covers all food sold in New Zealand, including exported food and imported food. There has been a lot of commentary around country-of-origin labelling. It would be a mistake to confuse that with food safety. However, that is a discussion for another day.

The mechanism in the bill as it is written has various levels of risk-based assessment. From that point of view, those who are producing high-risk foods will have to have a written food control plan and they will be audited against that. Those who produce medium to low risk foods will operate under a national food plan, effectively. There are three levels of those food plans, but, again, the verifiers will, in actual fact, audit under the national plan depending on the activities of the person who is operating that business. That is quite important because it gets away from the one-size-fits-all approach that was in the old Act and is far more appropriate. There is a lot of complexity. When I think of my community in Marlborough, it will be pretty straightforward, but when you think of a massive city like Auckland, it is going to be incredibly complex to work through.

One point that needs to be made is that this is a very good piece of legislation. The Primary Production Committee applied itself to it very, very well and worked very, very collegially. However, we do have to watch the cost that this could potentially add to business. That is going to be a responsibility, no doubt, of this Parliament going forward. It gives me great pleasure to see this bill get to this stage. I must give full commendation to the Minister for Food Safety, Nikki Kaye, for ushering it through Parliament. Thank you very much.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to this third reading of the Food Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill. This bill has been a long time in the making—10 years or thereabouts—and even when it does finally become law, it will not be completely up to date. This we know. But we know also that it is a necessary piece of legislation and that it is a very necessary update to what had become some very wide discrepancies between New Zealand’s food safety regulations and processes and the risks posed by various foodstuffs in various situations and also in the available science and best practice that may be brought to bear upon them. This is a very lengthy and detailed work of law—a veritable tome, one could say. It is a tome but not a tomb. That is relevant because a tomb is where we will all wind up if we get it wrong with regards to food safety.

Supplementary Order Paper 278, brought forward by the current Minister for Food Safety, who has inherited this process and brought it to this point of fruition, is larger still: 400 pages or thereabouts. It is a significant and overarching work, and we congratulate the Minister on the very comprehensive reworking that she has undertaken of the bill as it was presented to her.

There are many aspects of the law as it relates to food safety that we could focus on. Colleagues from across the House, I am sure, will touch on most of them. It is important to note, I believe, that this bill moves the focus on food safety for foods for consumption from one centred on the premises in which food is prepared to one centred on the level of risk associated with the food itself. There is sound reasoning behind this, we believe, and we are happy to support this change in mind-set. The inspection, traceability, and recall provisions contained in the bill provide a sound mechanism by which incidents such as the Fonterra botulism scare may be addressed in the future. These two considerations—the risk associated with food and the ability to trace and recall potentially dangerous foodstuffs and produce potentially carrying risk and intended either for domestic consumption or for export—are of very great importance, in our opinion.

In addition, there is the issue of food sovereignty, which was and is a very genuine concern held by a great many of the submitters. I want to address some of these considerations. Risk-based food assessment with regards to food safety covers many aspects of life in New Zealand. Some of the potential implications of it were a source of angst expressed by numerous submitters and, indeed, shared by many, if not most, of the Primary Production Committee. One of the defining features of our easygoing, egalitarian Kiwi lifestyle is the ability for people to swap, share, sell, and otherwise trade food and produce for fund-raising, pocket money, and, indeed, just for fun. The cake stall at the school gala, the Lions club sausage sizzle out the front of the supermarket on a Saturday morning, the beach barbecue, and the jam raffle so that the volunteer fire brigade can buy a new inflatable boat for the surf lifesaving club—these things are dear to us as a people, and although the select committee fully understood the need to ensure that food for consumption is made to be as safe as possible, the committee also understood very keenly the need to preserve those things that go to the heart of this country as a nation and as a people.

Submitters impressed this view upon the committee, and the committee, in turn, impressed it upon the officials from the Ministry for Primary Industries. To their credit, the officials took that information on board and delivered what I believe is a good, workable compromise that upholds and respects the rights of all concerned. They have done sterling service, and they, along with the select committee and the Minister, deserve our recognition and appreciation. The bill they have delivered does not spell the end for the farmers markets, sausage sizzles, homemade jam, or cake stalls. We can rest easy in our beds as far as that is concerned.

Food sovereignty was at least as pressing a concern for many people as was the issue of small producers and fund-raisers. Many people held the fear that this bill would open the door to overseas standards and foreign companies, to trade treaties taking priority over the need for food safety, and to New Zealand facing the wrath of the World Trade Organization for having the temerity to require imported food to adhere to the standard that we deem acceptable in our own land. This bill does not require that that be so. It does not sell our collective national soul for a mess of pottage—whatever that is. Pottage—what is it? I confess I do not really know. It is genetically modified porridge, perhaps. I am sure my erstwhile colleague from the Greens will be only too happy to enlighten me. But I digress, perhaps, just a little.

I believe that this is somewhat justified. This has been a lengthy and mentally taxing process—this shepherding and this assisting to shepherd this weighty and truly voluminous text of law through the process of the Primary Production Committee, on which I am privileged to sit as an observer. A more fine and august body of men and women it would be a challenge to find, even from amongst such a splendid assemblage as we find ourselves in the presence of here in this House. But shepherded it has been, and here we now find ourselves. The sovereignty of New Zealanders’ daily bread is not at risk from this bill. It may well be that some other insidious legation—perhaps one being crafted behind the closed doors of the Trans-Pacific Partnership—may come to threaten our right to self-determination in that particular manner. Time will tell, but it is not this bill that is of concern in this regard.

The bill is not perfect. There are some things that it could have done but will not be doing. Of greatest concern, of course, is the omission of country-of-origin labelling on all imported foodstuffs. It is a shame that the Government chose not to address this issue of its own volition. It could—and, indeed, should—have been an integral part of a bill intended primarily to address the safety of the food that we eat. Knowing where that food comes from is a fundamental part of that question, I would contend. It is a shame the Government further chose to disregard the very fine Supplementary Order Paper 440 on the matter in the name of the Hon Damien O’Connor and the also very fine Supplementary Order Paper 449 in the name of Steffan Browning. It is a shame that the Government instead chose to put the issue of country-of-origin labelling in the too-hard basket. Other countries have it. Australia has it. It does not appear to be too hard for the Aussies. Perhaps Australians are a brighter bunch than this National Government.

I am partially encouraged by some indications from the Minister that she may be thinking of looking at smart applications for the listing of origin labelling information. This would be a logical step. There is some truth in the argument that many food products contain ingredients from a number of different source countries, and, further, that processing itself may take place in more than one jurisdiction. There will undeniably be a very great deal of information pertaining to the origins of some foods, but that is not, in our view, a sufficient reason for effectively withholding that information from the consumer. Technology exists now that can make the paper trail available, and we would contend that such technology could and should be being used now.

We would very much hope there is no truth in the suggestion that the Government may have caved into pressure from some quarters that tacitly implied that country-of-origin labelling could be perceived by some countries as a non-tariff barrier to trade. I would suggest in response that any such positioning from another country would serve only to reinforce the need for such labelling. There are some places in this world that I personally seek quite deliberately to avoid when choosing the sources for the food that I eat. I would like to know from the labels on the stuff that I buy whether or not those places are included in the list of ingredients.

However, it is not the end of the world, and a future Government can always revisit this particular aspect of what is otherwise a fairly sound and reasonable piece of legislation. I will flag right now that this is something that a Government in which New Zealand First has influence will, indeed, be revisiting. All in all, this is fundamentally a good and necessary bill, and one that is certainly very overdue. New Zealand First supports this bill, and having voiced such concerns as we do have, I commend it to the House. Thank you.

The Food Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation that will be passed by this Parliament. It underpins what we are, what we do, and what we eat, although, listening to the last two speakers from the other side of the House, you would wonder whether the chairman is going to retire from the House at the end of this term. He obviously was quite confused by the different opinions we have heard from down there. This bill has been in the incubator for some 10 years now and has emerged in the last weeks of the 50th Parliament, after much serious scrutiny by at least three Ministers for Food Safety, a couple of select committees, and many hundreds of submitters.

I was involved in the local government sector at the time this bill was first mooted. I would have to say, there was significant fear in the local government sector. I would not say “fear” is the right word, but there was definitely nervousness in the small foods sector and in many of our voluntary organisations that contribute to our community in such a strong way and that use food as a mode of fund-raising. There was also significant fear—or unrest, I guess, would be a better term—in the Māori community around what this bill might mean for the country. So I think it is a great tribute to Minister Kaye, the previous Minister for Food Safety Kate Wilkinson, the select committees, and all those submitters that we now have what I think is a world-leading piece of legislation that will provide us with great security as we move forward. It also gives confidence to our communities that the food they buy and consume is safe.

Food safety is all about safe and suitable food. It is about ensuring that our food is affordable, that the regime we have put in place has integrity, and that that regime is enforceable. This is primarily why the bill could not include things such as country-of-origin labelling. They are complex and could well be expensive.

Another matter that impacted on the bill’s progress was the whey protein concentrate incident. Consequently, some changes were recommended as a result of that, primarily around recall processes, although, on the whole, that inquiry gave the bill even more credence, as it found that further changes were not necessary and that the bill would, in fact, complete its objectives and achieve what we in New Zealand wanted it to achieve. This bill is very important to New Zealand, and I look forward to its passing into law in a few minutes’ time. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to speak on what is—as others right across this House have said, and I agree with them—a very important bill, the Food Bill. Of course, we are supporting this bill. Just putting it in context, food is like shelter. It is a fundamental human need. It is an area where we require good regulation, and others have talked about how outdated our legislation in this area has become and said that this was well and truly needed. It has taken a very long time to get here, but we have got a comprehensive review, and we all agree that in most regards this bill provides a useful and modern piece of legislation for what is not only an important human need—the need to eat—but also, for us, a very important source of our national wealth.

I do want to say that the regulation in this area—and it is a bit like the consumer credit area, which we are going to be speaking about next—is supported by Labour, as a result of work that was started by Labour, but it has had a very long gestation. I am not sure whether there are significant consequences as a result of the delays on this bill. I guess that others who were on the Primary Production Committee may be better placed to answer that particular question, but certainly delays with the consumer credit legislation have had dire consequences for families, and that will be a matter for us to talk about later this evening.

Despite that, we now have legislation, as I say, that replaces other legislation and that will replace other related legislation and regulations to create a modern piece of legislation with flexibility, and that is appropriate to the diversity and complexity that is the food sector. Others have talked about our needing to look at dimensions around the production of food, the processing of food, the serving and retailing of food, the importing and exporting of food, and along the whole supply chain related to all of those areas. So it is quite a complex and significant area, and that presumably accounts for the size of this bill.

Food is an interesting issue in a country that is becoming increasingly unequal. I do want to note, given that we are talking about food, that for struggling families food has, sadly, become a discretionary item. It is hard to imagine, really, but food has become the bit of a household budget that people can reduce, and they sometimes reduce it to an extent that is almost hard to imagine, especially for people like the people in this House tonight. But some families are cutting back their expenditure on food to such an extent that it is hard to imagine how they are having a balanced, nutritional set of meals in their house, and, in fact, many times they are not.

Why has it become discretionary? Well, because you cannot change the accommodation costs you face, and we know that the housing costs have been going upwards. I come from Auckland and accommodation costs there are huge, so that takes a fair chunk of household income. Of course, this is in the context of low wages for many people. So if housing prices are going up and 46 percent of people are not getting a pay increase, you can see where the squeeze comes. As a country I think it is really to our shame that we see that children are having to be provided with food in schools—breakfast, lunch—because there are children going to school without food. I do think that when we are talking about the Food Bill it is important to note some of those important matters.

I just want to come back and say that this bill does substantially reform the regulatory regime for the safety and suitability of food, and others have explained far more eloquently than I can about the risk regime that is being covered in this legislation. It is very important that we do that. We need to know that the food that we eat is safe. We need to know that the food that we produce and send to others to eat is safe. As has been said, the food and beverage sector of our economy is huge. It is still huge to this day. We have an important comparative advantage in this area. It has been the lifeblood of this country, and it remains so.

There is a question—and it is a question that I believe is really significant—about whether we are looking at this sector in the right way and whether we are doing enough to lift the value in the sector, to look at innovation, and to ensure that we are moving to a value-added kind of thing, rather than continuing to just sell milk powder. Are we looking at and doing enough to develop things like nutraceuticals? Are we looking at some of the areas where we can further process food—and, in doing so, create work here in this country—to ensure that we can get better prices for the food that we export? My view is that it is another area where the Government is failing to look enough at the Government’s role in economic development. What is the Government’s role in trying to make sure that we really go for the value-add in the food and beverage industry?

But, none the less, food is worth 52 percent of our exports, so it is hugely significant. People come to this country and even do food tourism, or certainly, even if they are not specifically doing food tourism, part of the package of coming to this beautiful country is to eat some of the wonderful food that we produce here. So it is important not only for the money that we earn as a country; the domestic market is also, of course, significant. We need food to survive, but, of course, food also has another dimension around hospitality and recreation. We share food with friends and family. We enjoy food. So I am glad to see that some of the concerns that were raised around sausage sizzles and the like have been dealt with by the select committee. You know, I think that it was important that we got that balance right.

For the food that we sell, it is important that we have a hugely positive reputation in this area. We cannot—any of us—take any satisfaction from when our reputation as a food-exporting country is damaged. Of course, we have had some recent occurrences that have not served us well, and the whole country potentially suffers as a consequence of that, if it is significant. I do think that the work around food safety has been important. I want to acknowledge the role of my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor. I acknowledge him for the work he has done in making sure that we are very vocal about this and that we are saying that the way that things are set up at the moment is not right. The hurdles are high for our country. Other countries demand a lot from us in the food that we export. Particularly, the high-end markets—the Japanese market, the European market—demand high standards from us, and we need to have a regulatory regime that stacks up against that.

I want to finish by talking about the demands of consumers. I am Labour’s consumer affairs spokesperson. Internationally, consumers are driving some of the regulation in the food and beverage sector, particularly through the global supermarket companies. These food companies are hugely dominant global corporates. They are requiring more and more of us and of other countries, and that includes being really clear about traceability, being really clear about what is in food, being clear about the safety regime, and, of course, being clear about the origin of food. Country-of-origin labelling is important, and it serves us well because we do still have a good reputation as a country for our safety and our quality of food. The fact that things come from New Zealand probably earns us extra money for those products. That is important.

But I want to talk also about the need to have country-of-origin labelling that serves domestic consumers as well. This is why I think it is a real shame that that is not in this bill and that Damien O’Connor’s Supplementary Order Paper 440 was not supported. This is the way we need to move. All around the world country-of-origin labelling is becoming required. Our Australian colleagues, with whom we share a standards code, the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, have country-of-origin labelling. We need to do more. Frankly, it is not good enough to just say “Oh, well, it’s too complicated.”, which I think an earlier speaker said, and “It’s not possible, due to the complexity.” Well, actually, it is possible and Labour will do it.

I commend this bill, the Food Bill, to the House.

I understand the next call is a split call—Meka Whaitiri, 5 minutes.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. Food safety lies at the heart of the New Zealand primary export sector and thus the nation’s economic fortunes. The purpose of the Food Bill is to improve the interface of the regulatory processes across food sectors, as well as maintain New Zealand’s reputation as a producer and exporter of safe and suitable food. I join with all members of this House in supporting the third reading of this important bill. It is both timely and needed, and it does ensure that New Zealand’s food standards are brought into the 21st century.

I was not a member of the Primary Production Committee—I have only just recently joined it—but my contribution on the passage of this bill at this third reading is to acknowledge the historical context of it. As others have mentioned, the bill has been 10 years in the making. Labour supported the first reading 4 years ago. I heard mention of the Hon Annette King and the Hon Kate Wilkinson, so, obviously, it has been an important issue not just for this House but for the nation to ensure that our food safety standards and our reputation internationally are protected, and this bill definitely does those things. Therefore, I do commend the Minister, Nikki Kaye, for bringing the bill through today and, of course, all members of the select committee.

I am not too sure, Mr Assistant Speaker, whether you do the shopping for your household, but when I go shopping for my household, not only am I really interested in the nutritional value of the food that I shop for, in terms of energy, calories, and protein, but one thing I really look for is the origin of the product that I am purchasing or am about to purchase. That is one of the fundamental things that I believe as consumers in this country we should do. We should know where food comes from. More and more Kiwis are very discerning about what they are putting in their bodies, particularly as mothers. Of particular importance to me is what I am feeding my two teenage sons, although they are monsters so they will pretty much eat everything. But there are a lot of families out there who do have issues about ensuring that we know where our food comes from.

I join with the Hon Damien O’Connor, who has put up Supplementary Order Paper 440 and debated quite rigorously in the select committee for country-of-origin labelling. I too heard that one of the reasons why we did not address it in the select committee was the complexity of it. For me, Kiwis are quite ingenious. We never give up, we never concede, and we never take a backward step. If we are thrown the challenge of something being complex or too hard, that Kiwi spirit gets into us and we work doubly hard to get over it. For me, the remark that a speaker supporting this bill made in the House made me think of the days when we always fought for things that were in our best interests.

I join particularly with members on this side of the House by saying that we have lost an opportunity by not having country-of-origin labelling. But I too believe that when voters go to the polls in September, we will have a Labour-led Government, and this will definitely be one of the areas in the Food Bill that we address to ensure that all consumers in this country can assure themselves that they know where the products they are purchasing come from. Thank you.

I am pleased to be rising to speak in support of this bill, the Food Bill. Food safety is an incredibly important issue, and it is great that it is now being made the overarching principle that this bill is based upon. A review of our laws is long overdue. Food-borne illnesses are extremely nasty, they can be fatal, and they can have lasting health impacts. And as we have seen not long ago, just one incident of food safety concerns in our food exports can have a lasting impact on our food-exporting industry. It is critical that we get food safety right in New Zealand.

The Green Party strongly supports the risk-based approach that underpins this bill, and that basically means recognising that some types of food pose a higher risk than other types of food, and also that the scale of the food production is really important—whether it is local food production, regional food production, nationwide, or for the export market, and therefore the number of people who could potentially be seriously impacted by a food safety upset is taken into account.

As I said at the previous reading, one of the major concerns for non-commercial producers of food—ordinary, everyday Kiwis—has been that they can continue to do what they have always done, which is grow their own produce and be able to use the surplus from their gardens to swap with friends or donate to schools and clubs for fund-raising—whether it is fruit and vegetables, jams and pickles, baking, eggs, and so on. It is incredibly important for local food resilience that we can continue to do that, and it is our expectation that this bill will not adversely impact on our ability to do these things and to continue to do them.

We are extremely pleased that GE has been incorporated into the bill as a food safety issue. I remember reading about the negative impacts of GE food overseas and the host of serious health consequences. It is important that we do not become complacent and that we remain vigilant for these types of potential problems in New Zealand. But having said that, although we like all of these things, we are seriously disappointed that the Government did not take on board Supplementary Order Paper 449 and the proposed amendments to bring in country-of-origin labelling. This is something that consumers really, really want—the right to know where their food comes from. It is fundamental. It is fundamental because of the safety concerns, and it is fundamental because people want to be able to make their own informed decisions about the food they buy, how it is made, where it comes from, and what the standards are in the country where the food has come from. They might be concerned about animal welfare standards. They may be concerned about environmental impacts. They may be concerned about the labour standards in countries overseas, and prefer to purchase food from one country but not from another.

Of course, in New Zealand we really want to be able to support Kiwi producers, and very often we will choose to do that over and above imported food. I still constantly meet people who are surprised that, for example, so much of the pork that is available at the supermarket and so on is not produced in New Zealand. There are people who really want to say: “But this is shocking. If I’d known that it was imported from Canada, I wouldn’t be buying it. It should be labelled.” It should be, and it is simple and straightforward to do with single-ingredient products. We should have mandatory labelling. The other advantage of mandatory labelling—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

I am very pleased to stand in support of the Food Bill. Indeed, it was an issue back in the 2011 election. It is something that is very important to New Zealanders. Our food and beverages industry is a key part of our economy, and the work that has been undertaken on this Food Bill over 10 years has brought about a very effective piece of legislation that will do our country good in the years to come. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.