Food Safety Law Reform Bill

When we were last considering this bill, we were debating the question that Parts 1 to 4, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part. Tamati Coffey had the call and has one minute and 55 seconds remaining.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for that. I will take one minute and 55 seconds to try and finish off what I started, which was now three months ago—so, best of luck.

The bill itself—I demonstrated that I was incredibly supportive of this bill. It’s gone through the select committee and all of the suggestions have been made. How controversial is it? Not very controversial; in fact, it’s had quite a bit of favour from the sector itself. So that’s something to be applauded. It’s in response, of course, to the botulism scare that happened here in New Zealand and, as somebody from an electorate that is reliant heavily on tourism, where we encourage people from all around the world to come and visit our shores, we need to make sure that we’re sending a positive message that when you get here our food is going to be safe.

The proposals are mostly enabling or clarifying positions to strengthen the food safety system. We’re going to be, through this bill, implementing the inquiry recommendations, and the bill includes some other minor enhancements and technical amendments. The bill will also amend three main food safety Acts so that, where possible, similar provisions apply across the sectors. As I’ve said, it’s relatively straightforward, this one. It had unanimous support and both sides of the House supported it during the second reading.

The consultation itself took place and there was good support, as I’ve said, from the sector; a very solid piece of work. They also looked into the financial impacts this bill was going to have, and I’m pleased to report that there were no immediate costs from the bill. There may be some cost to the Ministry for Primary Industries and to business to implement the proposals, and that will be explored in more detail as regulations are developed.

Two points that I wanted to—

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I apologise to my learned colleague; I didn’t realise he had more to say. I take a call on behalf of my colleague Mark Patterson, who’s actually had a family tragedy and so he’s not here this evening, so just to acknowledge him in this moment.

On behalf of New Zealand First, I rise to talk on the Food Safety Law Reform Bill. Just to, I suppose, update the public listening around what this bill does, because it’s been a little time since we last were here discussing it in the committee stage. It was, obviously, as my learned colleague said before, a side effect, or a downstream consequence, of a whey protein concentrate suspected, sort of, botulism issue with Fonterra; more than 1,000 tonnes of consumer product across several countries was affected by a recall of this product. As it turned out, there were no actual cases of consumers becoming ill from the issue that created that recall. But New Zealand prides itself—we have to pride ourselves—on the quality of the food that we produce. We are a food producing nation, still, currently. And while we wish to go forward and, obviously, invest in new technologies and be part of the new digital age and so on, right now we are known best for the food that we grow, the food that we produce, the food that we make. So this bill continues that legacy of making sure that the standards of New Zealand food are not only maintained but can never be questioned by others out there.

I note that there are a couple of Supplementary Order Papers. I note actually the Supplementary Order Paper I picked up off the table is in the name of the Hon David Bennett, which is lovely to see. I see it’s got some very practical, reasonable things in it, which is why I had to read the name twice, but I think that’s excellent. Thank you very much, Mr Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr Bennett for bringing some practical, reasonable steps into the bill.

I do, however, want to acknowledge that New Zealand First did have some qualms, and I probably go to the amendment in section 9, which will amend the Food Act and allow regulation to permit low-THC hemp seed to be in food products. New Zealand First had very collegial conversations with the Minister in the chair. He was able to assure us that a person would have to—

💬 Brett Hudson: Over some low-THC hemp.

No, it’s all right, Mr Hudson; I’ll tell you. If you consume a very, very, very large amount of this particular hemp seed, Mr Hudson, it may have some effect. It may have some effect, but thankfully this amendment to section 9, it’s not going to have any really significant downstream effects. It’s low-THC hemp seed in food products, so the Minister was able to alleviate New Zealand First’s fears.

There was another issue, of course, that we did have some concern around—and I think it’s been expressed by members of the select committee, if I can recall correctly conversations that I have had with my colleague—around small artisan food producers and the compliance costs that are a concern to them. If I recall correctly, there was a particular cheese manufacturer from the North for whom our leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, wanted to make sure that the compliance costs, the travel that they had to take, and so on was taken into account in this legislation, and we are assured by the Minister’s office that the Ministry for Primary Industries is looking at ways to reduce that compliance burden for small producers.

I would ask the Minister in the chair whether he would take the opportunity, though, to articulate again the fact that the small and medium sized producers have been taken into account. Those concerns: the distance of travel—I think testing facilities are quite some distance from the North. I’m not sure whether it’s Takapuna—from Whangarei to Takapuna, something like that. For those of you who don’t go north very often, Mr Bennett, that’s about an hour, an hour and a half. It’s quite a long way. The roads are not necessarily very good; there’s been some neglect in that area. So we would really appreciate the opportunity—if the Minister would like to just articulate that for us again so that we can be very clear and we can put our concerns to rest.

There’s one other area that I’m very pleased to see, and that’s around the regulations with regard to the criteria included on the need to protect public health and the requirement for any food to be safe and suitable. Making regulations under this new provision requires full Cabinet processes such as public consultation and regulatory impact analysis, including analysis of cost impacts. I wonder if the Minister wouldn’t mind speaking to that also, because, as a parent, obviously, as somebody—well, I eat food, but also there have been times in my life when I’m the person responsible for providing food to young humans. I am interested. I’m relieved to see a statement like that, but I just wonder, to make sure, if the Minister wouldn’t mind articulating and stretching on that for a little bit so that we can give real reassurance to the New Zealand public that these sorts of provisions are in place because the Government recognises that it’s important; there’s an important responsibility to make sure that the food we eat does not harm us.

There is only one other place—my husband is a winemaker, and I note that this bill also amends or impacts on the Wine Act—

💬 Hon David Bennett: I wonder why.

He’s a gold medal - winning winemaker, actually, Mr Bennett—a gold medal - winning winemaker. You should try his pinot noir. But I would be interested, Minister, if you would be able to just give us some clarity about how this bill impacts on the Wine Act 2003. I know you yourself dabble a bit in making a bit of the product, so I thought perhaps you could expand on that, because I know that the winemakers in Martinborough and Central Otago—

💬 Hon David Bennett: When is she going to get back to the bill?

—will be riveted—will be riveted, Mr Bennett, to this particular reading because they are very concerned. They produce a high-quality product here in New Zealand. It’s obviously world-renowned, and I just hope that perhaps the Minister could give us some clarity for those winemakers tuned in here this evening, so that we can see how this bill might affect those.

So New Zealand First will be supporting this piece of legislation. We’ve had such a wonderful relationship with the Minister in the chair. He’s alleviated all our fears. The collegial relationship—it’s fascinating, it works very, very well, you know. So we’re more than happy to support the Minister as he passes through this piece of legislation at committee stage. Thank you so much, Mr Chair.

So as we know, the purpose of this bill amends the three main food safety Acts, the Food Act, Animal Products Act, and Wine Act, to address gaps identified by the whey protein concentrate (WPC) inquiry and make other improvements to the food safety regulatory system. It obviously arose out of the Fonterra botulism, and we know the three purposes: protecting human health, maintaining New Zealand’s reputation, and ensuring steps have been taken to address the recommendations of the WPC inquiry.

I’d particularly like to ask the Minister in the chair, Damien O’Connor, if he could please elaborate on the aspect around the low-THC hemp seeds in food products. This is an area I’m particularly interested in. I think that whenever—

💬 Hon Member: Yeah, right!

💬 Hon David Bennett: Ha, ha!

Not as interested as some members, but whenever the word “hemp” or “marijuana” is mentioned, some people in society tend to freak out. I mean, we’ve just had a bill come through from Chlöe Swarbrick. Myself, I’d probably lean towards a more socio-conservative model, but when it comes to marijuana and hemp, I think there are aspects of this plant that we shouldn’t be scared of. So I’m really encouraged to see this in the bill.

So, Minister, if I could just share some of my thoughts around this and then maybe you might want to elaborate and add a few aspects around this, and why the change is needed around the low-THC hempseeds in food products. My understanding is the definition in the Food Act 2014 does not allow substances regulated under health legislation to be in food, even if the level of substance is safe to consume. Food products are continually evolving and New Zealand’s regulatory system must be able to adapt to new business opportunities, consumer preferences, and technological developments, hence the reason why this aspect is included in this bill.

The reason it’s needed now is that in April 2017, the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation approved a standard for low-THC hemp to be in food. Under the food treaty with Australia, New Zealand is required to adopt this standard without undue delay, which is what we are doing. The proposed change around this is the amendment to section 9, which was just alluded to before, of the Food Act to allow regulations to permit the low-THC hempseed to be in food products.

I know that there were a few concerns raised in the ministerial forum. They originally had concerns about potential impacts on roadside drug-testing and whether marketing low-THC hemp would confuse the public about the acceptability and safety of cannabis—so in a sense blur the lines. But the Minister might want to talk about that. My understanding is these issues have been addressed, but the Minister might want to elaborate on that aspect of it there.

The benefits that I understand around having low-THC hemp is that this amendment will also help futureproof the Food Act, because similar interface issues are likely to arise in the future. Food science and technology and the development of foods for health are growing rapidly. For example, a 2015 report by KPMG stated that the annual global nutraceutical market, which the hemp is involved in, is primed for rapid growth and was expected to be worth a lot of money by 2018.

So I guess just coming back to my original point there around this aspect of the bill, it does seem to be an aspect of society where we have become a little bit nervous when there is mention of the word “hemp” and mention of the word “marijuana”, but I do think it’s important to take an objective look at this plant and have a look at the aspects of this plant that can be used for good purposes. I think this bill has done that, which I appreciate.

In closing—so, just coming back to the key objectives of this bill, around one I didn’t mention, which is harmonising the implementation of the WPC inquiry recommendations across the three food safety Acts. So it’s about bringing them together, which is, in essence, about simplicity, which is certainly something that makes sense for Governments to do. So I certainly commend this bill to the committee, and I look forward to the Minister’s response around this particular aspect of the bill. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to continue where I left off just before. I was talking about the financial impacts of the bill, about which I stated before that there would be no real immediate costs from the bill, but there are a couple of points I wanted to make. One was that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) had identified the need to invest in its IT systems to store risk management programmes. As well as that, businesses were set to incur some costs too, and I was wondering if there was some talk about how we could quantify that, just while we’ve got the opportunity to.

There were some amendments to the Food Act that I wanted to also bring up and touch on and get some clarification on, on top of that. As a small-business owner and as a hospitality provider myself, I’m quite familiar with the Food Act and the amendments made to it. Now, the Food Act—for those people that don’t know it—overarches the whole food regulatory system here in New Zealand. The amendments made in this part were for the purpose of implementing the inquiry recommendations and also for imposing the new design for delegated legislation and clarifying the relationship between both of those, and also to make other changes for overall improvement and consistency.

I wanted to bring in clause 8, which has been removed, and I just wanted to know a bit more about that area. That would have required operators to send full copies of their plans to their verifiers. Now this change was made, apparently, because of the likely compliance impact on businesses, which would be greater than the food safety gains. Some select committee members have stated their discomfort with that being removed, but despite all of that happening, it did go through, and the members of the committee supported the bill through to its second reading. So I would like to know just a wee bit more about that, too.

Also, clause 24 in that particular part of the amendments to the Food Act—that was also removed. It stated that it would’ve required a verifying agency to hold and store copies of food control plans supplied by the operators. Now, I guess, from the outset, it looks like quite a reasonable thing to expect, so I’m just looking to find out why exactly it was removed—again, just while we’ve got the opportunity.

Clause 25 was also removed, and that there would’ve required a verifier not working for an agency to hold and store copies of food control plans supplied by the operator. It seems that maybe the rationale was the same as the first one—clause 24—being removed, but I’d just like to hear a bit more clarification around that.

All in all, I think that the bill is a very solid piece of work, and I commend the committee and all of the work that’s gone into it for that reason. There is one little pit that I did want to point out, especially around giving the Director-General of MPI the permission to compel parties that provide services to a food business to provide information, and then to also be able to inform the public as well, which I think is a good move in terms of efficiency and time. I’d just like to hear a bit of the background behind that, and also just say that MPI and their statutory role in contingency planning—all in all, with those few modifications, I think that it will lead to a better system, all in all.

Again, I’ve got nothing else to specifically point out in this, but there’s just a few clarifications that I’m hoping we might be able to get on that piece. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like to first of all thank the Labour Party for supporting this bill. I think that it’s really important that we have support across the House. The speeches tonight have shown an indication—maybe through the speaking notes, but—of certainly some of the issues—

💬 Hon Member: Oh, come on!

—that have arisen in this bill, and I’d just like to thank you. I don’t give praise to the left very often, but in this case it is great to see that you are actually doing the right thing for New Zealand for once and supporting this bill. [Interruption] I know, I know, it’s difficult for you to accept that, but this legislation’s really important.

It’s important for a number of factors. First of all, New Zealand is a food-producing country, and we need to have the highest standards of food production and for people to have confidence in those rules and regulations that are in this country. That’s a crucial part of enabling New Zealanders, who are consumers, to actually have some security and that what they buy actually meets the standards. Also—

💬 Hon Dr David Clark: Careful—it makes your hair fall out. That member should know.

The member over there, who is balder than anyone else in this House—it’s great to hear him talking about hair loss. But I’m sure that as Minister of Health, he’ll work for some solutions in that area. But it is really important for New Zealanders to be able to have confidence, and also for us as an export-industry country that really exports a lot of food products that we have those high standards here. So I think it is great that we see the Government parties supporting this bill along with the Opposition here tonight. I think that shows that Parliament is supportive of the general health and well-being of all New Zealanders but also is supporting our export industries in a way that I think we can all be very proud of.

There are some changes that have occurred during the process of this bill, and those reflect some accommodations with our Australian colleagues. We’ve heard about the THC and other things there that actually reflect the joint arrangements between the two countries around food safety. That’s a unique arrangement—where two countries work together under the same regulatory system—and I think that’s something that’s also very impressive in our system.

But, in saying that, this is not a bill that necessarily will solve all problems. The food safety and integrity issue is a difficult one, and there’s always going to be issues around compliance costs and balancing that against achieving the goals of higher standards of level for the safety of our consumers. That’s a difficult balance to achieve, and I’d just like to thank the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) personally for the great work that they and their officials do in supporting this bill but also for the way that they actually implement this legislation. They’ll get some pressure from food producers who think that they are too regulatory, but at the same time they have a very important role to play in our system of maintaining that integrity, not only for our consumers but also for “Brand New Zealand”. So I think that we should all thank MPI for their great work in this area. It’s not an easy process.

It’s good to see that Minister Damien O’Connor is also supporting this bill passing through. It is under a time frame that needs to be passed, and we recognise that. With the contribution of all parties in this House, I think that we can actually work towards a food system that is strong and maintains the values that all political parties would want to see in our New Zealand food system, but, at the same time, it gives consumers comfort and direction around some of the issues that are involved.

So this is good to see it coming through the parliamentary process. It’s not perfect. It will take some time to work through. But we need to be engaging, and this is a very good first step. With the good work of MPI and the understanding of food producers and consumers, I think we can all work towards getting a very good resolution of these issues for the benefit of all going forward. So I thank all members for their support.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Unlike the last member, David Bennett, I’d like to just talk about a couple of issues in the bill. I just have a couple of questions around process, really, that, hopefully, the Minister will answer. I mean, I agree with the previous member—

💬 Hon Amy Adams: No, you don’t. You’re filibustering—be honest. We can see it.

Leadership bid started already. We’re going to hear it. They’re all going to line up and they’re all going to have a go every time there’s something on. Get the face on TV and go hard—go hard, Amy. Here we go. In the Hansard—filibustering.

There’s no leadership bids going on here; I actually have some real genuine questions for the Minister.

💬 Ian McKelvie: Ask him after hours.

Are you going to put your hand up for the leadership as well, Mr McKelvie? Go hard. Or does it mean, because he’s sitting beside Amy, that he’s—he’s asking Amy at the moment, “What can you give me if I vote?” Here we go. It’s all beginning. And then he’s going to go and someone else is going to come and sit down. We’re going to have this all night. They’re going to come in and out. It’s going to be the best show in town.

Anyway, anyway, here we go. Back to the bill—and thank you very much, Mr Chair; I was just a bit distracted by that member having a go and I thought—anyway. Clause 233 talks about “Notification of certain matters”.

💬 Hon Member: Yeah, that’s important.

And it is important because what it says here is the director-general—and this is important—“… must—(a) publish the notice, or notification that it has been issued, in the Gazette;”, and this is how notices have been communicated to the general public in the trade for time immemorial. But what it does say here, it talks about “where the Director-General considers it practicable, cause the notice to be brought to the attention of persons likely to be affected … by [the] notice [, by] publication in any newspaper or trade journal,”.

The question I have here is what is the test when we talk about “considers it practicable”? The reason I ask that is that it is very easy for the director-general to say to any notice, “Let’s just put this in the trade journal, or let’s put it in a little public notice in any newspaper.” The concern I have about these notices is they do affect the health and well-being of a business. If someone has made a decision based on a certain regulation or something, then the director-general issues a notice—and they should be looking in the Gazette, but I actually think this should be published; this must be published in trade journals, or we must do whatever we can to actually get that information out there to people who are likely to be affected.

And again, what is the test around “likely to be affected”? Is that a test that the director-general him or herself is going to make? Or is it actually an objective test? But we can move away from this if we say that they must be published in trade journals or in newspapers. It is not a hard test—or even if we specify a newspaper over a readership of say 100,000 so we know it’s going to go in the Dominion Post, or the New Zealand Herald, etc. It’s not hard to give effect to. The last thing I would want to see is these notices just published in the Gazette when it would’ve been really easy for the director-general just to direct his or her staff to put it in trade journals. It just makes it a lot easier. It is very important, as the last member alluded to, for the integrity of the system that people have the ability to get the information required to undertake business.

Another point I’d like a bit of clarification on is new section 118A, inserted by clause 234. This talks about “Automated electronic systems”. I’m assuming—and I could be wrong here—reading new section 118A, we’re talking about an email system. But I’m not too sure if my assumption’s correct. It says here, “The Director-General”—and, again, I’m quoting—“may arrange for the use of an automated electronic system to do the actions”, and the actions are “(a) [the] exercising a power: (b) carrying out a function: (c) carrying out a duty:”, so they’re quite important. But, again, under what circumstances, or what safeguards are in place to ensure that the director-general’s actions are actually communicated and received?

If we go to new section 118A(4) subparagraph (a) and (b) it says, “The Director-General may make an arrangement only if satisfied that—”, and I quote, “(a) the system has the capacity to do the action with reasonable reliability;”. And this is where my concern rests. What is the definition of “reasonable reliability”? Is it the fact that the director-general has communicated with this person or this organisation more than once and got a reply? Or is it an assumption because someone has got an email address that they’re going to receive the message? What is the test around that?

What it does say is it talks about, and I quote—this is new section 118A(4)(b)—“(b) a process is available under which a person affected by an action done by the system can have the action reviewed”—I know I’m going on a bit here, but it’s important—“by a person described … without undue delay.” Again, I’m not too sure what the definition of “undue delay” might be. Because we’re talking about notices, here, that can have an impact on someone’s business. Is “undue delay” within 24 hours? Is it within a week? Is it within a month? So just a little bit of guidance around what undue delay actually represents.

The reason I ask these questions is I would hate for the judiciary to have to interpret what these are because someone comes forward and says, “I did not receive the notice. You might’ve sent me an email, but I was out of the country.”, or “That email isn’t used.”, and the Ministry for Primary Industries says, “Well, we believed that you’d received this without undue delay, and we expected you would get it within a day.”, and the person says, “I was in Uzbekistan. I wasn’t back for a week—I was negotiating some sort of trade deal—undue delay?” So I just think a little bit of a clarification around that.

The other thing it says, and this is quite interesting because what it does say—

💬 Ian McKelvie: You’ve got to remember this speech’ll be on record.

Mr McKelvie will be interested in this—

💬 Hon David Bennett: We want to hear about Greg. Greg O’Connor’s cowshed is better than this.

—and certainly Mr Bennett will be interested in this, because I know that Mr Bennett’s passion as a dairy farmer is food safety. For the first time I heard someone from a former Government talk about “Brand New Zealand”—from the dairy industry. How ironic now that we’re putting all this sort of stuff in place. Mr Bennett used to give me a lot of gyp about talking about “Brand New Zealand”, but here we are.

So this is new section 118A(6), and it says, and I quote—

💬 Hon David Bennett: Say “Brand New Zealand” again. Say it with a deep voice. Say it like a man.

A dairy farmer—talk about “Brand New Zealand”. They’re the ones that get the benefit, and yet some of them—not Mr Bennett; he’s a dairy farmer that acts, I know, with integrity, but some don’t, and I would like to see Mr Bennett hold more of them to account.

Anyway, we’re talking about the previous bill, or the bill before the bill. But anyway, what it says here—and this is most interesting—and I quote, “The Director-General must consult the Privacy Commissioner about including in an arrangement actions that involve the collection or use of personal information.” So what does this actually mean? So does this mean that every time the director-general goes out to a supplier or a customer or someone who is involved in this and asks for personal information—I mean, I’m assuming personal information is also about business information and where do you live, what’s the address of your company, etc.—that they’re going to have to consult the Privacy Commissioner? Or is the Privacy Commissioner going actually to come up with a ruling that states that this is the sort of information that the director-general can collect with impunity? I would suspect that every time the Privacy Commissioner sent out an automated electronic notice or request—i.e., let’s assume it’s an email—that asks for personal information, it will be incredibly onerous if they have to go to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and get a ruling on whether they can actually collect the information they’re asking for.

The reason I ask this is that we are operating in the 21st century. I am all for automated electronic systems. We need to move to the 21st century where electronic systems are the norm, they’re the way of doing business, because, let’s be honest about this, writing letters and that sort of carry on isn’t the way forward. So we’ve got to just get this sorted. Whenever someone asks, you know, “Mr McKelvie’s a farmer, can I collect information from him?”, going to the Privacy Commissioner to ask if they can actually collect this information, I would’ve thought, could be quite onerous.

I’m just after a little bit of clarification about what this actually means but also what we’re trying to achieve here. We have got systems like the New Zealand Business Number, for example, on which a supplier, a business, or a sole trader can enter all the information required. So I’m just sort of wondering what sort of personal information we’re trying to collect that would require a trip to the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner is an office we hold in high integrity—there’s no doubt about that. The Privacy Commissioner must, and I totally agree, be satisfied that the information that is being requested is done so for a proper reason.

💬 Hon Member: Oh, of course.

Absolutely. So I’m just seeing where we’re coming from on this. The interesting thing, the last point I’ll make in the last 13 seconds is in new clause 118B(2), inserted by section 234, it says, “An action allowed or required by this Act done by the system—… (b) is not invalid by virtue only of the fact that it is done by [a] system.” I look at this and I wonder what this actually means.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thought it best that I take a call before I started forgetting all the questions that have been put to me. I guess the bill hasn’t been in the House for some time and there may be some people who are listening who may not have quite worked out what it’s all about, so I thought I would go back to basics.

This bill is a very important piece of legislation. Unfortunately, because of the false botulism scare—which was an international debacle, effectively—we weren’t in the position to properly test milk powder that was thought to have botulism in it. As we do always take a precautionary approach, we went out and alerted some of our trading partners, and that has literally cost us hundreds of millions of dollars. Subsequent to that, the previous Government held an inquiry. It came back with recommendations—in fact, there were 38 of them in all. It did undertake some very good work—I acknowledge the set-up and establishment of the New Zealand Food Safety Science and Research Centre and the Food Safety and Assurance Advisory Council—and it conducted a number of other practical operational changes that we hope will prevent any such thing in the future. I will acknowledge the previous Minister of Food Safety, David Bennett, and his, I guess, shepherding of this bill into the House.

I have to say there have been a lot of very good questions put to me in the committee and there have been a lot of others. Can I just say, firstly—and starting to address some put by our coalition partner, New Zealand First—they have consistently raised issues about the impact of food legislation on small producers. Can I assure the Hon Tracey Martin, in regard to the question that she asked on behalf of her colleagues, that we are as a Government moving to reduce the compliance on small innovative food producers and to ease the pathway for them to develop the new products that might take New Zealand into the future. This Government will assist us to move from being a country that produces lambs and logs and produces meat and the best bulls, to producing the finest-quality food for the world’s most discerning customers. That’s what we want to do.

A lot of that innovation and creativity comes from small operators around the country, and we are doing a number of things. We are progressing a range of initiatives that will help reduce the time, the effort, and the cost required for small food-business owners to meet the food safety regulations. We make no apology for those regulations being stringent, because we need to produce the safest food in the world. But we have to acknowledge that for small operators around the country, who might be incurring the cost of long travel distance to far-flung-out places—and they’re just producing a small amount of food, but it’s great food—they have to incur the cost of flights, of travel, and of verification. We are looking to bring a lot of that online and to reduce, I guess, the ongoing compliance costs. But we must ensure that they continue to produce safe food. That’s paramount. So an assurance for the Minister there, on behalf of her colleagues, and, of course, the rest of Parliament, which wants to ensure that we have a good food safety regime.

I’ll speak briefly to a couple of—oh well, before I’ll go to that, I guess, just in answer to a few other questions that have come from my colleagues. To my associate, Minister Nash, he’s asking about what “practicable” means. I could turn the table on him and say, well, it’s a bit like what “precautionary” means in fishing. There’s a lot of variation in it, and can I say that we have to trust the people who implement this to do it in the right way. It’s up to Ministers in Government to keep an eye on them, and I’m sure we’ll do that.

Can I come back to the Supplementary Order Papers, and there are two of them, doing a couple of things. It was raised, again by New Zealand First—who have concerns about allowing people to eat hemp seed. I have to say it’s a low THC. Actually, THC in itself doesn’t do a lot to give you a buzz, and so I’d have to say—well, actually I apologise. That’s not quite true. The THC will, but the cannabidiol won’t—and so a slight mistake there on my part. There’s no way that we’re promoting the consumption of high THC hemp seed, or will allow that. But the reality is that we’re going to have to change, through the Supplementary Order Paper, the definition of “food” because, as we know, people are eating lots of things safely as food.

I have to say I can remember the first time they put a flower on my plate. I looked down with horror, wondering what to do with it, but I was assured that you could eat the flower safely. I’m more familiar with tutu, which is actually the flower down in my patch that if you ate it, you wouldn’t do too well.

The point is that we have to ensure the systems in place protect us. This change in definition will allow people to consume hemp seed, but it’s not going to give them a buzz or make them sick—other than huge amounts of consumption of seed, which may do strange things to your body, but not to your mind. So it’s a sensible progression.

The other Supplementary Order Paper, which was brought in at the last minute, is one to ensure that the Dietary Supplements Regulations won’t expire, as they are deemed to do in 2019 under current legislation. We’re taking the opportunity in this piece of legislation to extend out to 1 March 2021 those regulations, to give us plenty of time to have a review of them and to go through and make the tweaks that we may need.

Can I just say that I appreciate, as I say, the introduction of this bill by the previous National Government. The fact that we supported it through—it’s had unanimous support in the House all the way through, and we’ll pass this as quickly as we can.

It’s been a long and sorry saga around the WPC80 dilemma, but we’ve used the opportunity—made the best of a good crisis, I suppose—to improve the legislation and to hook on a couple of other changes that will improve the regime around food safety in this country, so that we can rightfully stand up and say that we produce the best food, the safest food. We’ve got legislation in place that can be implemented, and any of our trading partners can come here and check the legislation and check the practices carried out by the officials. On top of that, of course, it will provide pathways for young, often, but small innovative food producers—people with new ideas to create new food that will take this country into the future.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to take a call on the Food Safety Law Reform Bill. Just by way of opening remarks, I thank the Minister for taking a call to remind us all of the purpose of this bill. Can I also acknowledge the Hon David Bennett and, obviously, the former Government, from which the bill originated as a result of the botulism scare in 2013, and, obviously, the decision by Cabinet in 2014 to limit the scope of this bill. So thank you to the Minister for explaining that.

The bill, as he’s quite rightly indicated, is another measure to ensure food safety production in this industry, which is very important to many of the folk around the country. While the Minister was explaining and answering some of the former questions, it reminded me that where I come from, the Hawke’s Bay, I enjoy frequently, every Sunday morning, the Hawke’s Bay Farmers’ Market. They seem to have become a regular feature in many of our electorates.

At that fair, I’m always impressed with the innovation in the food that’s been presented over the many years that I’ve been going to the Hawke’s Bay Farmers’ Market—food like olive oil, and recently we’ve been having ostrich meat on the menu. I do want to say, in relation to Part 1 of this bill, Minister, where you talked about the verification process, I did have the occasion to talk to a particular supplier who passed on his comments around the supply of ostrich meat and his determination to farm ostrich meat. But he did pass on the drawn-out verification process that he had to face. In fact, he talked about it taking more than 12 months to get verification.

So there is a part in Part 1 of this particular bill that addresses verification and, I guess, putting it in layman’s terms for this particular supplier, I’d be keen for you to give the House, if possible, a bit more detail on how you see the verification process actually being rolled out. You talked about website tools to make that possible. But I’m sure, for you as a West Coast MP and me as an East Coast MP—nothing beats the face-to-face engagement on the ground to help facilitate the ongoing innovation that a lot of our small providers in the food industry are keen to unveil.

I do know that you touched on this, Minister, but for the gentleman that I had the pleasure of not only tasting his ostrich meat but actually listening to some of his concerns in Hawke’s Bay around verification, I would ask if the Minister would just make it crystal clear how he sees it rolling out, both in terms of people on the ground where our small operators are, as well as the self-help tools that you addressed in terms of making the process a lot more seamless online. So, Minister, that’s an important question for some of our small providers in the Hawke’s Bay where I come from, and I’m hoping that you can give a bit more clarity and certainty to the question around verification and making it a lot more seamless for our very small but very innovative operators around the country. Thanks very much for that.

Thank you very much. I’m very excited to be able to rise and speak to this bill. My colleagues and I here on this side of the House take this issue seriously. I can’t help but note that in the list of speakers that have risen to speak on this bill, only one has come from the National Party. What message does that send to producers and, indeed, consumers—not just here domestically but internationally as well—when something as crucial as this is not getting the debate that it deserves?

I do note that the only speaker to rise from that side of the House, the Hon David Bennett, said this: “This bill will take some time to work through.” What that says to me is this deserves the debate that this issue warrants. This issue deserves to have the time and the scrutiny, for people to actually take it seriously and stand here and discuss it.

I would specifically like to touch on clause 23 and clause 112. I’ve just come from an event here in Parliament. The honourable Minister was there as guest speaker, and two groups of food producers from the Wairarapa and Hawke’s Bay regions, the shepherds and grasshoppers, a longstanding association of producers who’ve got together to advocate for their industries. I think they’d be concerned to see that the party that portrays itself as one that advocates for the rural sector has not even bothered to talk about this bill tonight. But we will, and we have, and we will continue to do so.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: Because we’ve got a good Minister.

We have a marvellous Minister; a universally acclaimed and admired and respected Minister—mainly by those that don’t know him.

Clause 23 inserts New Part 3A, and Subpart 1 of that brings together and clarifies some very important requirements. It is around the provisions for tracing and recall. We’ve heard tonight how important our image is to our export sector. How we are perceived as a country is directly linked to the demand that we see, particularly overseas. As consumers get more educated and more discerning, so it is more important that New Zealand lives up to international standards and lives up to how we portray ourselves overseas as a food producer.

Indeed, the requirements that this bill is proposing to make in the amendments to the Food Act, specifically around tracing and recall, give confidence to those consumers and give confidence to our producers and exporters that we can say, just like producers in the UK and just like some producers in the United States, that if there is an issue, we can have the measures in place to be able to recall it quickly and trace back to the source of the problem.

Of course, it was the false botulism scare that brought rise to this bill. We as a country, as an exporting nation, cannot afford to make those same mistakes again, and I’m pleased that clause 23 does bring in requirements so that producers do have to have provisions in place for adequate tracing and recall. Similarly, in the proposed amendments in Part 2—the amendments to the Animal Products Act—clause 112 inserts New Part 6A, with a similar subpart, and this is, as outlined, very similar to that in clause 23 in that it brings in requirements for tracing and recall.

Of course, all food that is produced here and exported needs to be able to be recalled if there is an issue. The fact that this wasn’t here before the botulism scare is a concern, and I do acknowledge the officials and the previous Minister—and, of course, our Minister here—for putting work into this so that we can put confidence back into our export sector and food producing sector. As this bill clearly outlines in the purpose, it’s not just animal products and it’s not just food either; it’s all products of the primary industries that we export as a nation so that we can live up to our clean, green, pure New Zealand brand.

Thank you, Madam Chair Tolley. It’s a pleasure to stand and take a call on this, the Food Safety Law Reform Bill. I would like to agree with the Hon David Bennett in what he said before, in that this bill is a very important bill. It is important to give people confidence, and it’s important for people’s health and well-being. He did mention that there will be compliance costs, etc. and things like that, but, in all honesty and in all fairness, if we don’t look to pass this bill the cost to this country could be far greater than some compliance costs. As a country, we pride ourselves that we supply food to consumers here at home and to other countries around the world, and that they can be assured it is safe and of high quality, and this particular piece of legislation is one that we should take note of.

As we know, it was the whey protein concentrate (WPC) contamination incident that brought our reputation into question. It caused significant damage to our reputation and damage to customer relationships. While this did turn out to be a false alarm, it was a very expensive one that cost in excess of well over $180 million, and that, ultimately, came directly out of farmers’ pockets. There were two inquiries after the incident, and this bill that we have before us is a result of the recommendations made from the inquiry.

Although the inquiry was originally based around the dairy sector, the purpose of this bill is to amend three Acts: the Food Act 2014, the Animal Products Act 1999, and the Wine Act 2003. This bill ensures that recommendations made from the WPC inquiry have been addressed. It is intended to better protect human health. We need to know our food is safe for consumption—don’t we; we don’t want to risk our health unnecessarily—and to ensure our international reputation as a supplier of food that is totally safe for consumption both here and internationally. Reputation is everything, especially for an economy like ours that relies heavily on export. More than 10 percent of New Zealand’s gross domestic product is from our food sector, and that is actually quite substantial.

In Part 1, amended section 43 set out in clause 7, is, ultimately, about managing risk and vulnerability; we simply can’t risk having issues such as the botulism scare. It is simply too costly, not only financially but also to our reputation. Operators will be required to submit food control plans for registration, and this allows the registration authority the ability to have full and clear information about what the operator’s risk management processes are. It is vital that there are robust plans and processes in place. It not only gives us assurance that there are actual risk management plans in place but also ensures that operators know what is required of them and how they will demonstrate competency—that is, in regard to how operators intend to demonstrate that staff have appropriate training in food production, processing, and handling.

This bill takes four tools that are currently in the Food Act and puts them into the Animal Products and Wine Acts. These tools will encourage compliance and incentivise behaviour, which is more favourable than immediate prosecution. These tools are improvement notices, infringement regime compliance orders, and court order penalty for commercial gain if found guilty. This bill is about managing risk and our vulnerability.

Just before I call the next speaker, I know the member’s a new member, but you really should not be reading a speech in the committee stage. Try and do it without reading it.

Thank you, Madam Chair Tolley. I’m delighted to take a call on the Food Safety Law Reform Bill. I want to focus on the design aspects around the regulation-making powers and notices—the delegated legislation, so to speak, which is a core aspect of this bill. A bouquet is owing to the officials who have drafted this bill, because, effectively, the actual, real guts of everything that this amendment bill is wanting to do will be found in regulations, and, potentially, in notices that will be made as well. This legislation clarifies the regulation-making power for all delegated legislation that sits under the three Acts that we’re amending.

I guess a best-practice model was followed around delegated legislation based around the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee guidelines, and I think that’s very important, because there needs to be consistency. Yes, we are having the power and authority of Parliament to pass primary legislation—you know, it gets proper scrutiny, as we’re doing through the House. For regulation-type powers, obviously, that goes only through Order in Council by the Governor-General, so it has less checks and balances, I guess. Then, further—I guess a step down from there—is the issuing of notices by the chief executive of the ministry. For instance, in the Food Act, it’s the Ministry for Primary Industries. So there is a hierarchy of delegated legislation, which is integral and central to this bill.

I believe that the officials have pitched it right, but what I would just like to have clarified—I guess an issue for me is that it is prescribed, the situations where, for instance, a chief executive must issue a notice, and it is prescribed around regulations, and practically every second or third provision is all around regulations and/or notices. But for me, I guess, the concern is around the thresholds of what a chief executive is responsible for, because, indeed, a chief executive can also delegate his or her powers to other officials within the ministry. So that’s also a part of it.

What we’re doing, though, is we’re taking away the scrutiny of Parliament, we’re taking away the ability to review and to give proper consideration, and we’re putting more power and authority into the hands of officials and bureaucrats. I think we must always be careful around how much power we are prepared to devolve to unelected bureaucrats who are discharging functions under the empowering legislation, but I guess it’s the subject matter that is crucial. So I would just urge Minister O’Connor, through his officials, to ensure that there is very thorough, comprehensive consultation that is to take place with the industry—with all participants, food companies who are impacted by this legislation—to ensure that those powers are set correctly, to ensure that powers that are delegated are appropriate. That will give confidence to the food sector in general and to the New Zealand public in general that there are appropriate decision-making delegated powers at the right level for the appropriate decisions that have to be made under this legislation.

But, apart from that, I do commend the officials for what they have done in drafting this legislation, and I’m looking forward to it being implemented fully through the enactment of those regulations that will come into force in due course. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 316 and 11 in the name of the Hon Damien O’Connor be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 to 4, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.