Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill

I move, That the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill be now read a second time.

Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. As a vegetarian of 18 years, I’ve recently found myself in an odd situation of standing in supermarket chillers, going through piles of bacon, looking at the labels, using my phone to try to work out where the bacon has come from, and, frankly, it’s impossible for any New Zealander. I was recently on a television show, preparing for an interview to talk about our labelling laws in New Zealand. So I went to the supermarket and bought a bunch of bacon to try and illustrate the inadequacies of our labelling laws. But there I was: walking out of a TV studio with an arm full of bacon, a vegetarian literally bringing home the bacon, but I couldn’t touch it. Luckily my dog had a bit of a treat.

Now, I was looking at the labels to try and work out where the food was coming from, and any consumer in New Zealand would be hard-pressed to know where that bacon had come from. Most of the packs said, “Made in New Zealand from local and imported ingredients”. But given that 85 percent of New Zealand’s bacon and ham comes from countries other than New Zealand—imported meat—consumers are none the wiser from existing labels. It’s not just a problem with the bacon; it’s a problem with our total labelling laws, and that’s what we’re here tonight to fix.

Many people care about their food and where it comes from for environmental reasons, like maybe they are avoiding genetically engineered ingredients, pesticides, or antibiotics; maybe they are ethical consumers and they’re wanting to avoid food from countries with poor working or animal welfare practices; or maybe they just want to know. No matter the reason, Kiwis should be able to find out where their food comes from. You can’t have a choice if you don’t have the information. Fifty-five other countries already have country-of-origin labelling laws, including the US, the UK, and Canada. Australia has a comprehensive labelling regime that actually even indicates the percentage of Australian-grown products within it. New Zealand has required country-of-origin labelling for footwear and for clothing since 1992, but not for our food. Opinion polls show an overwhelming majority of Kiwis want to know where their food comes from.

The Green Party has long been the champion of country-of-origin food labelling, because we believe Kiwis have the right, and deserve the right, to know where their food comes from. I want to acknowledge the advocacy over many, many years of Sue Kedgley, who originally drafted this bill, and Steffan Browning, who shepherded this bill through a unanimous first reading vote.

The bill went to the Primary Production Committee, and it has gone through two tranches of public submissions. I’d like to thank everyone who made a submission, and the members of the committee, as part of their deliberation and constructive engagement. Going through the submission and consideration process, it was clear that the bill needed some amendments to make it more effective and workable—for example, rather than a stand-alone Act, as originally envisioned, the committee has recommended food labelling be achieved through the existing Fair Trading Act. This is to avoid the confusion of having legal requirements spread across several Acts, and it also gives access to the existing enforcement regime under the Fair Trading Act. Going down this Fair Trading Act path also allows the existing regulation-making powers for consumer labelling to allow other foods to be an included or excluded.

The committee also made some clarifications that food sold by restaurants, cafes, takeaway shops, or in fundraisers would not be included. The bill is designed to cover food sold in supermarkets, shops, or online.

A red herring raised by some large corporate submitters was that it risked breaching international trade obligations. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade advised the committee that it would be possible to implement the proposed regime in a way that is consistent with our international obligations. The key here is having a fair, uniform system that doesn’t discriminate against imported products. At this point, can I please thank the officials who advised the committee and supported us. So that’s some of the details, but I’d imagine most people are interested in what is actually in the bill.

What is food? The original bill covered all single-component foods, but this has been amended by the Primary Production Committee to only include single-ingredient minimally processed foods. The rationale for this is that the committee wanted a scheme that was the simplest to implement with the least cost, and, to avoid confusion around definition, they recommended the regime should apply only to single-ingredient foods that are fresh, frozen, unprocessed, or minimally processed—for example, cut, filleted, or minced. It’s a quirk of Parliament that while this was a Green Party member’s bill, there was no Green member on the committee, or a Green Party vote, and it was a tied select committee, which meant every single party on the committee had to agree on the bill and the amendments to make progress.

I’m deeply thankful to the committee, who allowed me to sit in and participate in the discussions. In some respects, the bill has been significantly improved, but by limiting the scope of foods covered I imagine it may disappoint some consumers and confuse them about why some products have labels and others don’t. This means, for example, that dried, cured, and pickled foods are out. Nuts, grains, seeds, and oils are out. I think people shopping will be wondering why tomatoes are in but canned tomatoes are out. Fruit is in but nuts are out. A cucumber is in but a pickle is out. The line had to be drawn somewhere, and the committee has drawn it here, but I hope that, over time, the list of foods can be expanded and we can get closer to the more comprehensive Australian regime.

Bacon was the most controversial issue and a glaring problem of the bill’s watering down of foods covered. The overwhelming majority of our ham and bacon comes from imported meat, and 95 percent of that comes from countries with lower animal welfare standards. As a vegetarian, it’s a little odd for me to be promoting New Zealand bacon products and a little bad for my vegetarian street cred to have NZ Pork put out a press release thanking my advocacy, but, look, if Kiwis want to buy New Zealand pork products because they aren’t raised in terrible conditions like cages under animal practices that would be illegal under New Zealand law, bacon had to be included.

I’m very grateful to the committee that they listened to the overwhelming call from submitters—from New Zealand Pork, Consumer New Zealand, and hundreds of individuals—for bacon to be included. I’m also grateful for the work of the committee.

I still think the bill, however, needs to be beefed up a little bit more and include more foods like nuts, grains, and seeds, and I’ll be canvassing other parties for their support. The bill, though, does act as a flexible first step, a foundation on which further foods can be added later through regulations. Passing this bill is a positive step, and it does give Kiwis increased consumer information power. It aligns us closer to other countries who have country-of-origin food labelling, and I believe the cost is likely to be minuscule for families in New Zealand, as labels are frequently changed already. It’s a great foundation for the Government to build on, adding foods through the Fair Trading Act.

I want to thank parties for their support tonight. I want to make sure that in the future Kiwis, whenever they’re in the supermarket investigating the labels and wondering where their food comes from, can actually get an answer. I want to make sure Kiwis actually have consumer power. We’ve got some of the best food in New Zealand, and we’ve got a great story behind it. Why on earth would we want to hide that away? So I’d like to thank parties for their support.

Can I just, on this 125th anniversary of suffrage, acknowledge the fantastic speeches in the House and the amazing contribution of women to our country in Aotearoa New Zealand. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to echo the last words of the last speaker, Gareth Hughes, that on Suffrage Day in New Zealand, we have the proud history as a country of being the first to enable women to vote. But it was quite bizarre when you actually hear that it took 40 years before a woman got to Parliament, and then only 10 percent of our parliamentarians have ever been women. So although we have near 40 percent now, we still have a lot of room to catch up on. So I’d like to congratulate those women in this House, especially the Deputy Speaker, as well. As a woman leader, who was in that first 100 women that had been in Parliament, you can be very proud of what you’ve done as a trailblazer for women in the National Party and also in Parliament and in general. So congratulations to you and to all the other women here tonight.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, but come to the bill.

Yes. Ha, ha! So now we come to the bill.

It’s unfortunate that there’s only one Green Party member here, Gareth Hughes. I’d just like to thank Gareth Hughes for the way that he conducted this bill through the Primary Production Committee. I think that it’s appropriate that we acknowledge Steffan Browning, as well, who had been an advocate for this issue for many years. I think the Green Party actually do need to be thanked and congratulated. This is something that they have been consistent on in all the time I’ve been in Parliament, and I think that they’ve always promoted this issue. It’s been a long road, but they’ve actually got there. I think that that is a genuine desire of the Green Party to actually have got this bill through, and I think that the Parliament itself has moved over that time to accommodate that. So a big congratulations to Gareth Hughes and your team, and I wish you all the best as it progresses through.

Gareth Hughes gave a very good explanation of the bill, and I just want to touch on a few things that were part of the decision-making process of the select committee. First of all, we had three options in front of us in the initial stages. We chose the least onerous option, which is the single-ingredient option. You’ve got further degrees of options. You can look at it through the tomato as a great example of whether it’s just the tomato you would get or whether you get it in a can or whether you get it more processed with other products in a can. So there are a whole lot of options, and it becomes more and more difficult as you go through those options to actually identify the country of origin. Although the Greens are quite correct in that this will give an indication, the reality is that when you get to those multiple-ingredient foods, it’s very, very difficult to be able to identify the country of origin, and it becomes extremely difficult for consumers to be able to rely on that. That may seem something that’s not beyond the realms of possibility, because, as the Greens have said, this bill was only on that first option of the most basic situation of a single-ingredient food.

But the key thing to understand about this bill—and the part that we didn’t know in the select committee until the very end—is that the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, who is actually in the House here tonight, has the ultimate ability to include any food under this legislation. The advice we got initially was that it would have to go through the definition of the single-ingredient food, and that was the constraining definition that all parties agreed on within the select committee. However, at the last minute, we got advice that, in effect, the Minister has total ability to put any food into this through regulation.

I know the Minister’s there and he’s laughing, but he does have that power. That, effectively, means that this bill will achieve all the purposes that the Green Party had ever wanted it to achieve, because, effectively, it can cover every food. But it also means that we don’t have as robust a process around that as the Green Party or consumers would necessarily expect, because it is now only up to the Minister’s discretion as to what foods can come in or out. So you could have some foods in the third tier that are quite well processed—have multiple ingredients—which the Minister may determine that they want to include, and they could well be included, and there’s nothing that the consumer would be able to do in that case. That is something that many submitters will be unaware of as well.

So when we had submissions from, say, Fonterra, for example—they submitted in favour of the bill as the committee had determined, which was the single-ingredient, smallest option. That was because dairy is excluded from that single ingredient. Now, with the ability under regulation to include any food, dairy would be included. So their submission might be quite different with that further advice. Also, we had some submissions that were against having a mandatory country of origin. The Meat Industry Association was the main one that sought to have a voluntary programme. They felt that producers and manufacturers could make that definition and decision themselves, and determine that if the customers really wanted New Zealand country of origin on that food, that would force them, effectively, into doing it. That voluntary option didn’t find favour and isn’t how this legislation works. This is mandatory on that very single ingredient. But as I say, it will cover any food that the Minister deems should be included in there.

Another issue was around the pork industry, and the committee came to a conclusion that they were able to include that within the definition. That was partly because we knew the Minister was going to be doing that anyway, and, to save some time, we might as well just get it included now.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: He loves bacon. Ha, ha!

He does love his bacon. And to save a Supplementary Order Paper going through this House—there was the potential to get it through—but also it doesn’t make any difference, because the Minister, in effect, has that ability to put any food through at any time once they’ve got that regulation-making power.

There were some submitters that were also worried about the costs involved, and it was hard to get a really definitive answer around the costs of this. Some manufacturers were keen to engage with the committee and explain what they think their costs were, but many weren’t. So the committee didn’t really have full information around those costs. But, you know, some expected costs were $15 million for fresh over a 20-year period and $29.8 million for frozen over that period, so you’re looking at quite substantial amounts, but spread over 20 years. There wasn’t that much of a push by submitters around that to the committee, because there would always be rebranding and other such things going on over that period of time. So the committee didn’t have full and frank information, you could say, about the cost, but then, at the same time, we gave submitters many opportunities to provide that and we didn’t receive that information.

In a sense, this bill is one which, I think, there is general public support to have a country-of-origin approach. People want to know what’s in their food, and that’s a general perception around, I think, this Parliament and around in the general public. However, don’t be under any illusion that this bill will actually mean that the consumer will know everything about what that product is, because it is related to those single-ingredient foods, and that is easy to do and we’ve done that. But the Minister has the ability to add in any food under the regulation-making power. When you get into those much more complex - type foods, it becomes much more difficult to actually guarantee country of origin, and that will be the difficulty that consumers will find and they may feel that that might be an issue.

So we recommend this bill to the House. It is a start in this area, but I think that there is one recommendation that I would make to the current Minister and future Ministers and that is just to be careful with their power under that regulation making, because there is a difficulty there. If we had a full Government bill that had gone through full advice, then we, maybe, could have come to some positions in that area. It’s a big power now in the Minister’s hands, and that should be exercised with care and done in a manner which doesn’t detract from the idea of country of origin which consumers can rely on. If it is used too broadly, that power, then that will detract from that intention, which is a very genuine intention, and something that most consumers would like to see. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker, can I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to the second reading of the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill. Before I respond to some of the comments from the chair of the Primary Production Committee, can I ask for similar leniency that other members have had to note the significance of today, the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage here in New Zealand. Other members have highlighted particular people of importance to them, and I would like to highlight the importance of my predecessor, the Hon Luamanuvao Dame Winnie Laban, who I think is someone who people all around this House will understand paved the way in terms of Pacific women being represented in this House, especially in ministerial roles. So on this special day for women I’d like to pay tribute to her, a very important person in my political career, too.

Can I thank the Hon David Bennett for his contribution, a quite enlightening contribution around the select committee process for this piece of legislation, and also I thank him for his message around the duty of care with the discretion that section 27 of the Fair Trading Act allows the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs now. To a degree there is a carte blanche ability for the Minister who holds this responsibility to add foods to the regime. I also want to thank the select committee for putting in clauses within this piece of legislation to specifically exclude foods as well. I think that is one of the things that the select committee has done which I think will be a bit of a safeguard. As the member will know—he’s held a ministerial delegation with a fair bit of discretion in the past—I think a little bit of public scrutiny is also going to be one of the checks and balances to make sure that anyone who holds this responsibility doesn’t go too far.

What I would say—and I want to pay tribute to the Green Party, Gareth Hughes, and Steffan Browning—is that I think this is probably just the first step in a journey in terms of consumers getting more information about the provenance of their food. As a number of members have already mentioned, and I’m sure will mention through the continuation of this debate in this reading, it’s becoming increasingly important for consumers not only to know the country in which their food has been produced but it is becoming a selling point for many of our primary industries now: a particular area in New Zealand where their food may be produced. I think that is useful not only for the information for New Zealand consumers but for us in telling New Zealand’s story in terms of where our food has come from and exactly how that food has become produced and that it can add value. So I think in terms of this particular type of information it is also very important.

Just also, one other note that the chair of the select committee raised around costs. I guess I share—I’m not sure it was frustration—probably some scepticism about some of the figures that were put in front of the select committee so that those members on that committee could get a fair idea of where the costs would lie for food producers. Some figures which were, kind of, pretty primary were put in front of the select committee, and I think they probably struggled to get a handle on exactly what the costs would be for producers.

And as they were getting that information as members of the select committee, I was getting that information too as the Minister responsible for the officials who were giving the select committee advice, and I found it difficult to get a good handle on that. So I think that’s probably another reason as to why the Minister who has these responsibilities should be very careful about how they go about exercising their duties here and being very careful about what that may mean to the entities who are producing the food.

Can I just also come back and acknowledge the Green Party. As the chairman mentioned at the very outset, I think, of his speech, this is an issue that the Green Party has pushed for some time. This bill was originally introduced in the previous Parliament, under Steffan Browning, and I’d like to commend Gareth Hughes for taking the bill and for his tenacity for making sure that it got through the select committee process. I did wonder if it was ever going to come out of the select committee, with the to-ing and fro-ing that was going on within the select committee, especially towards the end, when there was the on-again off-again saga around bacon. And the Hon Nathan Guy is right: who doesn’t like a bacon sandwich in the morning?

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Plenty of pork!

Ha, ha! There was plenty of pork on that side of the House for the last nine years. So what I would say about that, moving on to the substance of the bill, is that I thank the chair for his concern for me, as the Minister concerned, by putting the cured pork products within the remit of the bill as it stands, saving me the effort of putting it within a Supplementary Order Paper. I do know that there is continued debate about what is in and what is not in this piece of legislation, but I understand that that may be dealt with at the committee of the whole House stage, potentially, with a Supplementary Order Paper, but we shall see.

I do note that, across the Tasman, Australia has put in a multi-ingredient mandatory country-of-origin labelling regime, and while this bill, as the chair said, is only dealing with single-ingredient foods, we will be monitoring the implementation of Australia’s regime to see what we can learn from that experience. And we’ve said publicly that our aspiration is to get to that stage, and, as I mentioned earlier, this is, I think, the first step towards New Zealand going to that multi-ingredient regime in the future.

As the Minister responsible for including foods under the Fair Trading Act, I’ll be consulting further during the process of making regulations, and this bill provides 18 months in order to make those regulations. During this time, I’ll be considering whether there is any need to include additional foods if it is important for consumers to know where certain types of food come from. I’ll also be consulting with the food industry to make sure that the requirements of any regulations that may be coming into force are workable. I guess that goes to the caution that Mr Bennett did speak about, I guess.

In a pure sense, there is the ability just to make the recommendations without any consultation at all, but I think there is a responsibility—whether it be someone on this side of the House or the other side of the House—to make sure there is full consultation not just with those people who would like to see certain foods or ingredients included within the regime. Also, I guess, with so much uncertainty around the costs—and I think, hopefully, over time we’ll get more of an idea of exactly where those costs might lie—for the consultation to get to the point where the regulations might be needed will be very important.

As I said, also this bill will allow the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to exempt certain foods from the scope of the foods covered if it were to be unduly onerous or if it would not help consumers to make informed decisions.

I don’t think I need to take much more time of the House, but can I again just congratulate Gareth Hughes for his shepherding of this piece of legislation through the House. I am hoping that the committee of the whole House stage of this bill doesn’t take as long as the select committee stage of the bill, because it did take some time, but, again, I would hope that any issues that might not have been able to be dealt with at the select committee—bacon not being one of them—might be able to be dealt with at the committee of the whole House stage. So we commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I acknowledge you in the Chair this evening and, importantly, on Suffrage Day. I note with interest that we have the largest number of female MPs in any Parliament ever, here in New Zealand, over the 125-year history, which I think really is significant in moving with the times. Importantly, I just want to make a short contribution on this bill this evening.

The genesis, indeed, was Steffan Browning. We had a big debate when we were in Government, the National Party, whether to support it or not. On balance, we felt that we should support it. Looking at it intently through the select committee process, it was pretty much a dog, the way it was drafted and designed, and Gareth Hughes came into the select committee process after the election and had to, in effect, pick up the pieces and work constructively with the Primary Production Committee.

The select committee had an option of pushing back and saying, really, it should be a Government bill, but Gareth Hughes was very determined to ensure that he got something through the select committee. So, in effect, the select committee worked the way it should do, and the bill was, indeed, panel - beaten to the point where there were some in society thinking that it was watered down too far, but I think we have the balance about right.

I thought it was interesting that we got 401 submissions—we heard from 22 in person in front of the select committee—and a wide array of concerns and views. But, fundamentally, those that submitted thought it was a good idea. There were those that were concerned about the cost, as we’ve heard from previous speakers this evening. I personally was quite concerned about our international trading obligations, and we had representatives in from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade on two occasions. We asked them to go and do some work with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to try and understand if this would become what is commonly known as a non-tariff barrier. There are hundreds of these that come to the New Zealand Government in international markets every year, and, indeed, there’s been quite a rise. They are costly when you try and negotiate market access or free-trade agreements. The advice that we had from officials was that, indeed, it’s consistent with our international obligations. So that meant that I had some comfort, and I know the select committee members had some comfort, in supporting it.

One thing I thought was a good process that we went through once we’d done the changes was that Gareth Hughes agreed to the fact that we put out an exposure draft. So once we’d made the changes that were necessary, it was important just to do a head check—check with industry, check with consumers, what they thought of the redraft. Once again, there were those that thought it didn’t go far enough, but, importantly, those that were involved in food processing or importing food here into New Zealand felt that they could live with what the select committee came up with.

It’s interesting to hear from Minister Faafoi, who holds the responsibility for consumer affairs and oversees the Fair Trading Act. He, indeed, has quite a bit of power, through regulations, under this legislation. Probably the excellent chairmanship of David Bennett, who commented earlier—probably, if we’d realised that sooner, we may have addressed that early on, or, indeed, if it had been a Government bill, it would have been spelt out sooner in the process. But it’s heartening to hear from the Minister that these wide-ranging regulatory powers aren’t going to be misused or, indeed, abused.

So, in summary, we support this bill. I want to acknowledge the good work of the select committee. I want to acknowledge Gareth Hughes, too, because he picked up a bill that wasn’t going to deliver everything that we all thought it was going to, and he worked constructively with the select committee. I think credit is deserved to him, because often the public don’t get to see what happens in a select committee process. Because of the way that he approached the committee, we now have a bill that’s in a state that, I’m sure, this evening will get widespread support. Thank you.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to also support this bill. I would also like to endorse the comments of Gareth Hughes and his tenacity in bringing this bill through. Of course, it’s a longstanding effort from the Green Party. Steffan Browning, of course, and Sue Kedgley, I believe, well before that, have championed this concept. New Zealand First, actually, has also been a longstanding supporter of this legislation. But it has been around the traps a little bit, and the advice I got, certainly from our caucus, was to keep this as simple as possible. I was soon to find out through the select committee process how wise those words were, because as soon as you start adding one exception in, it soon spirals out of control. The tin of tomatoes was often used—you know, if it’s got spice in it, is it still a single component or single ingredient? And we realised quite early on that if we we’re going to get this through in any sort of form at all, we would have to keep it very, very simple.

But we are doing this for the right reasons. The public are demanding this. The poll that was done said 71 percent of New Zealanders wanted to know where their food originated from. Only 9 percent were against. So this is a widely supported concept that New Zealand First are absolutely delighted to get behind.

It does, of course, amend section 27 of the Fair Trading Act 1986, and it does give the commerce Minister some wide-ranging powers to change the scope of the regulations. As has been mentioned before, I think he will have to use those wisely. But it was the correct way to bring this through so we at least got some foundation legislation in place that we could build upon later, and build upon that public support and appetite for this particular concept.

Of course, it incorporates fruit, vegetables, meat, fish, and seafood—fresh or frozen. That was a debate that came quite late in the piece, actually. Someone said, “What about frozen?” and we sort of threw it around a little bit and said, “Well, why not frozen?” It wasn’t in there initially in our deliberations, so we managed to bring that inside the scope of the bill. Packaged or unpackaged, and, of course, retail outlets only—so cafes or restaurants or whatever are not necessarily brought into this.

But what I think will happen is it will become such a popular concept and demanded by consumers that it will become just standard practice that the food components of a meal will be proudly demonstrated to be New Zealand made. And, of course, as New Zealand First, if we stand for anything, it is New Zealand made, so we’re absolutely behind this. Of course, there is quite a lot of time to bring this in. We haven’t rushed this. I think we’ve got the 18-month lead time and, of course, the time beyond that to bring in frozen.

I would just like to touch on the bacon and the pork, and Gareth Hughes has touched on the irony that a vegetarian has become the great champion of the pork industry. But we did realise that that was an important food group, because 60 percent of the pork products—bacon and pork, cured pork products—in our supermarkets are imported now, and that would not be apparent just through looking along the shelves. As was said earlier, 85 percent of those imported products originate from areas or countries, jurisdictions, that do not have animal welfare regulations that would meet our own, and I think we need to acknowledge that, actually. We are very tough on our farming community, and we expect high standards, and we are getting higher standards all the time. On an international comparison, we are right up there, and I think we often do not acknowledge the quality of the work that our farmers do. So it’s good that this bill actually helps to come in behind them so that we can absolutely showcase the good work that our pig and pork industry is doing.

Of course, as the former Minister Nathan Guy just said earlier, one of the real fish-hooks in this was the non-tariff barriers. As a country that exports 90 percent of its food, we had to be absolutely mindful that we weren’t creating a problem for our exporters with these non-tariff barriers, so we had to be absolutely consistent—

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

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.