Organic Products Bill

The last time we were debating the Organic Products Bill second reading, we were at call number six. The next call is an ACT Party call. I call on Anna Lorck.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as the proud member for the Tukituki electorate, where growing organic produce is strong. From apples to chickens, we grow the great things in Hastings. We grow organics, and I’m so proud to say that and speak on the Organic Products Bill, which has been established for the mandatory organic standards of New Zealand.

The bill will set out a framework for the organics system and associated regulations, and it is so important that we support this bill. New Zealand’s organic industry is growing, and consumer demand for genuine and certified organic products across the world.

Currently, organic certification isn’t standardised, and questionable and confusing organic product claims threaten to muddy the waters for consumers and hinder our ability to compete on the international markets. This bill aims to increase consumer confidence when purchasing organic products and allow businesses to assert certified organic production domestically and internationally.

This bill brings New Zealand practices in line with the way that our major trading partners already regulate organic products, and this will assist us to grow our organic industry exports by half a billion dollars a year.

💬 Rachel Brooking: How much?

Fantastic. Half a billion dollars a year. Demand for a great organic product has grown markedly in recent years.

In 2019, organics were estimated to be worth €106 billion worldwide; approximately about $184 billion. With an annual increase of 9 percent on the year prior, industries estimate to put the value of New Zealand organic sector in 2020 at $723 million, a 20 percent increase on the—

Anahila Kanongata‘a-Suisuiki: How much?

A 20 percent increase.

💬 Rachel Brooking: How much?

Rachel Brooking, a 20 percent increase. And I tell you it’s going to keep on growing. Because in New Zealand, we’ve got the best farmers and growers in the world. We are world leaders, and that’s why this Government is so committed to supporting our primary sector to not only be the best in the world but to grow the best for the world.

And on that, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

I will now go back to the ACT Party. I call on Simon Court.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Look, this bill is intended to create organic standards to ensure that claims that products are organic have integrity. But, as one organics producer wrote to the select committee, the current system, while it may not be perfect, still works well. Organic producers can choose which market they want to supply, and, therefore, they can meet the standards of the consumers in that market.

Domestic and overseas customers have diverse requirements when it comes to the standards for organics. Setting a standard to meet the highest commercial market will drive most organics producers in New Zealand out of the market. Setting the standard too low means that a standard becomes pointless. It may undermine the credibility of other regulatory systems. So, many other small organic producers who did not want a single, centralised regulatory system came before the select committee; they did not want to bear the costs of being in that system.

Many of these organics producers are small scale in the domestic market, and they will be forced into a Government regulatory regime that they don’t agree with and that they said they didn’t need. I am talking about those people who might have beehives and who’ve chosen not to use pesticides in the manufacture of their honey and other products derived from bees, people who grow fruit and vegetables and who are on a pathway to an organic endpoint which actually has many stops. If their customers are confident in the product that they’re buying, then we believe, actually, that they should continue to be allowed to define their products as “organic” to the market that they are selling into.

Now, there’s no definition of “organics” in this bill, except an organic product “is produced in compliance with [a] standard”. Defining what the standards are is simply left to Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) in Part 6 of the bill. There are no principles of what organics are. It simply gives MPI the power to define what “organic” means.

But now we see that the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) introduced by the Minister has even removed that inadequate definition. Without warning during the second reading, the Minister dropped a massive Supplementary Order Paper on the House—about 85 pages—without giving submitters or the Opposition the opportunity to consider it. There’s been no consultation on this, essentially, redrafting of the bill. Now, my colleague Mark Cameron, a dairy farmer from Northland who sits on the Primary Production Committee, tells me that the committee sat and considered this bill for two years. At any point, the Government could have brought in amendments, it could have offered those amendments to the public and the committee for consideration, but they didn’t do it—the Minister didn’t do it.

The ACT Party believes that the House has, in fact, been ambushed with this Supplementary Order Paper, and, at this stage of the bill’s progress, that’s an extremely bad process. That’s an abuse of the democratic process. We’ve had a look at the Supplementary Order Paper, and while I’m quite happy to buy organic honey and to buy organic vegetables and organic meat from my butcher, without the need for any standard as proposed under this bill, this bill actually raised fundamental issues. There are a host of technical amendments. MPI could have proposed these in the past two years when it was before select committee, but they didn’t.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just remind the member that discussing an SOP in detail is not for a second reading. The opportunity will come for that. You can refer to it, but it’s not the opportunity to go into detail in the SOP at this stage, in the second reading.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. However, I would like to point out that the bill that we are debating—the bill we are debating—has 85 pages of changes to the bill which was introduced to the House, so I feel it is important to draw this to the attention of the House and to all of those people watching at home who will want to know that their organic products are going to continue to be available and that they’ll be able to continue to manufacture them into the markets that they’ve sold.

Now, new clause 3A creates something that only this Government could come up with: an obligation for an undefined and ever-mutating principle of the Treaty of Waitangi to be observed. Why is this needed—why is this needed? The ACT Party would challenge the Government members to stand up and explain why a Treaty of Waitangi clause is required in a bill which proposes to set standards for organic products or food—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has been warned once. We’re not here to discuss what is in the Supplementary Order Paper. You’re discussing the second reading for what actually went on at the select committee. The member has now been told twice, so please stick to what the second reading requires, which is a discussion, essentially, of what happened at select committee.

Well, Mr Speaker, thank you for your guidance and clarity. I will complete the ACT Party’s perspective on this bill without reflecting on this SOP, which is to come. We’ll assume that we’ll get to debate that at another time.

But, look, this bill, as proposed, had ACT’s support at first reading. Currently, based on the direction that the Government has set, we cannot support the bill. We support people who manufacture products that consumers want to eat, that they want to put on their skin—organic products that are manufactured to the standards that the market that they’re selling into wants to buy. But that’s not what this bill will do, so ACT will oppose this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want it to be known that I was one of the people who was at the Primary Production Committee, who went through this process. It was actually in the last Parliament and, back in the day, I was chairing that committee, and the Hon Kiritapu Allan was the deputy chair before she was the Hon Kiritapu Allan. And so we worked with that committee on this piece of legislation, so it’s been a long time coming to the House. And I will commend the Hon James Shaw for his persistence in getting up every Thursday afternoon and asking, just before question time, when this bill is coming back to the House.

There has been a huge amount of work that has gone on and it has taken a long time. And one thing I was going to note today is that, in our family, two farms have been converted to organic, which is a three-year process, and that was completed three years ago. So the actual process of converting a dairy farm to organic has been far quicker than my eight years in Parliament, when the organic people have been asking for us to have a standard from which they can live by.

This is actually standards and regulations that the industry has asked for—not many industries are asking for standards and regulations—because what I can tell you is: right now, currently those people that are exporting can have anything up to seven audits. So you might get a US audit, an EU audit, a Korean audit, a Canadian audit—I can’t remember exactly, in terms of all of the places that New Zealanders are exporting to. But, actually, it would be much easier to have a baseline New Zealand standard and then, from there, just put any extra additions that might be needed that don’t quite fit with the country where the product is being sent to. I must note that fresh fruit and vegetables are the largest, and then it goes to dairy, meat, and wool.

💬 Anna Lorck: Chickens.

Then, you get to processed food—yes, definitely chickens, I’m very familiar with the chickens that come from the Hawke’s Bay.

So, look, there are quite a range of products—and they’re not just food products; there are actually quite a lot of fibre products that are going into organic as well. And the biggest discussion that we’ve had, when we were at the select committee, was that there’s a big difference between those people that have built a reasonably sizable business and are able to export to the world, complying with the world standards; and the smaller organic producers who are the people who grow broccoli, potatoes—small amounts of food and take them to the farmers markets. And there was quite a bit of contention, at the time, as to how much regulation was needed for the scale. Then, you look at these people who have a very small business and are making a few dollars at farmers market, and thinking about the level of complexity and compliance that would need to fall on those people—that’s where a huge amount of discussion has gone on.

Now, I’m yet to read in detail the Supplementary Order Paper that has been put out for the committee of the whole House stage, but what I do know—I have been speaking to people from Organics Aotearoa New Zealand this afternoon—is the amount of work that’s gone on to try and actually iron out some of that regulatory process around how much the Ministry of Primary Industries would do compared to how much some of these smaller producers may be able to regulate themselves. And I’m not totally up to speed right now on exactly where that’s ended up, but we will be by the time we get to the committee of the whole House stage.

So I just really see a huge possibility with organics, and it is a growing market.

💬 Rachel Brooking: Get it?

And it is—yeah—something that, I think, if we look—we often look at Fit for a Better World and we think, “How do we add more value; how do we actually portray ourselves as New Zealanders?” And, you know, I can see there’s going to be some huge benefit going forward, but there’s a few constraints here, just at the moment, as to how we measure, manage, and portray it to the world. I really hope that, with just a short time left to speak this afternoon, it doesn’t take too long for the committee of the whole House stage and the third reading of this bill to go through so we can get on and earn the value. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to talk on the newly named, I believe, Organic Products and Production Bill, as recommended from the Primary Production Committee.

This bill—why is it here before us? Well, it addresses the call from the industry, as we’ve just heard from the previous speaker, Barbara Kuriger, to provide consumer confidence about what is organic. It’s going to be good for exporters. We heard from Anna Lorck about the huge size of the industry—

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: Apples.

—and about apples, of course. There will be environmental benefits as well from the system, because, of course, with more farmers being incentivised because of that premium to go organic, less synthetic fertilisers are going into our environment, and that’s got consequential health and environmental benefits. We’ve heard also from the past speaker, the member for Taranaki-King Country, about the time that this bill has been progressing through the House. I want to say that I have a recollection, from a hui at Rātana Pā in about 2001, about Māori organics. So this conversation about organics and standardising it and what’s good for export, what’s good for our economy, and what’s good for our environment has been going on for a long time.

So what does this bill do? Well, it sets up a regulatory system to standardise what is organic, and this will provide the international confidence that our export market wants. We’ve heard that from Tim van de Molen’s speech, and also the Minister’s speech outlined that very clearly. The regulations set the standards, and this is where the detail will be. Just reflecting on the conversations we’ve just had, Part 6 of the bill addresses organic standards, and at what will be section 105 it says what organic standards those regulations are to include. The select committee added in there that an organic standard must contain high-level guidance for notices that may be given in relation to the organic standard. So that was one of the changes that the select committee thought was important. The bill introduces a whole lot of new terms, like “recognised entity”, “approved operator”, “organic products officer”, and “advisory council”. That advisory council is via the select committee recommendation.

So I commend this bill. I commend the work of the Minister that we’ve heard about, the select committee, and, of course, the officials for really bringing us a piece of legislation that’s going to have both economic and environmental benefits.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Well, back in 2019, the organics industry worldwide was estimated to be worth $184 billion—quite a lot of money, really.

💬 Rachel Brooking: Lot of money.

Lot of money. And, of course, that is growing. I know the pun has been dropped a few times, accidentally or on purpose, but that is growing and we need to grow with it. And here in Aotearoa New Zealand, we need to be on that waka, ensuring for our organic products that there is process in place so people know what they’re buying. But also, as my colleague and friend from across the floor said—the MP for Taranaki - King Country, Barbara Kuriger—that, for example, her whānau in Taranaki has an organic farm and the process they’ve gone through. And there are lots of examples, as I look around the region of Taranaki, where organics is just becoming the norm. So we need to ensure that we have policies and we have legislation that’s fit for the 21st century as we continue to grow this industry.

On the weekend, I was having a coffee with friends and caught up with someone who, in the last four years, has established this asparagus farm just on the outskirts of New Plymouth. And they’re working towards certifying it as an organic asparagus farm, and the complexities and the challenges that come with it. But, yes, she’ll probably get it done, well, hopefully we’ll be done before this—we’ll get this bill done anyway; that’s what I’m trying to say.

💬 Barbara Kuriger: We hope so.

Very shortly—hope so.

The select committee process, as was carried out by the Primary Production Committee, saw 350 submissions come across the table, with around 60 oral submissions made; both in support and also critiquing this legislation.

As I said, we need to get on with it, so I’m going to sit down and commend this bill to the House.

Oh, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak on the Organic Products Bill at its second reading. In short, National supports this bill. The bill has a dual goal of increasing the confidence of consumers wishing to purchase organic goods and giving increased certainty to businesses producing and selling organic products in New Zealand. The bill also aims to facilitate more international trade of organic products.

I’m proud to say that there is a great example in Southland that I visited with my colleague Barbara Kuriger: Aquila Farms. They’re the largest organic milk suppliers in the Southern Hemisphere, and they are a Southland operation. They have some 2,970 hectares of organic dairy units across six different farms, and they have 871 supporting blocks for that, and they do quite an impressive job. It’s been a big piece of work over quite a few years, but they have done a really good job, and, as I said, they’re now actually the largest organic milk suppliers in the Southern Hemisphere.

This is the second reading of this bill, so this is about some of the processes that happened in select committee. Now, I didn’t have the pleasure of being in the Primary Production Committee in the last Parliament, which I understand is when this was considered, but I have had a look at the commentary and what happened there. So “The bill as introduced would enable ministries, through regulations, to set standards for organic production and products [called] (the organic standard). [Those] regulations would set out the standard and include most of the technical detail about how organic approval and recognition would be granted. The relevant ministry would be responsible for administering the organic standard for its sector. For example, the Ministry for Primary Industries could develop organic standards for food and beverages, and would then be responsible for regulating businesses that made organic claims under those standards.”

There have been a few changes in this, and some of the recommendations, which I’ll go through. The proposed title: the select committee thought that “the title of the bill could better describe what it would regulate.” They said, “The legislation would go beyond products, regulating production and logistical matters such as the handling, packaging, labelling, processing, storage, and preparation of organic products.” They recommended changing the title of the bill to the “Organic Products and Production Bill”.

The bill as introduced also did not define the term “organic product”, which the select committee felt could lead to confusion over what is organic. The select committee recommended inserting a definition into clause 5 that “organic product means a product in relation to which an organic standard is in force and that is produced in compliance with the standard by an operator.” The select committee also felt that there needed to be some definition of what a “marae” is. The term “marae” is used in Part 5 of the bill, which is about enforcement of the organic standard. The select committee recommended inserting a definition of “marae” into clause 5 to make it clear what it covered. The definition recommended by the select committee was that a marae is “an area of land on which all buildings such as wharenui (meeting house), wharekai (dining room), ablution blocks, and any other associated buildings are situated.”

The select committee also had a look at the grant of the organic approval and recommended amending one of the clauses, clause 13(1), “to enable the chief executive of the relevant ministry to set out how long an organic approval would last. As introduced, the bill would commit all ministries to implementing a one-time approval, instead of approval for a specified length of time.” The select committee considered that one-time approval may not be appropriate in all circumstances, so they recommended amending that clause so that a time frame could be placed on an organic approval and it would insert a paragraph to require the expiration date of an organic approval to be specified if the approval was of fixed duration.

The select committee also had a look at the public register of operators and recognised entities and recommended amending clause 39(2)(a) “to make it clear that the organic register could be reproduced in electronic form.” The bill as introduced implied, at least, that they felt that the register would be reproducible only in hard-copy form. Obviously, in the modern era—in 2022—hard-copy forms are not necessarily always the best thing. Most of us are used to using other devices to access information, and that certainly seems a sensible recommendation from the committee recognising the era that we live in today.

The select committee also had a look—and this is, I think, indicative of the level of attention the committee had to this and I think that’s quite appropriate and very good work by the Primary Production Committee—at the records of organic practice and recommended amending clause 44 to ensure all organic operators keep records related to their organic practice. The bill as introduced would not require exempt persons to keep records; in fact, clause 108 provides for exemptions to be granted from the requirements or obligations of the legislation—for example, some operators could state that their products are organic without having to complete the organic approval application process. The select committee considered that they, and other exempt persons, should still be required to keep records, and that is obviously to underpin the certainty and the confidence that people have in this process.

Quite an important point—considering that this bill is specifically trying to facilitate the international trade of organic products—is ensuring the assurance of organic status for international markets. Although we in New Zealand certainly think we are the centre of the universe, that’s not always the case and we need to prove to international markets the relevance of our place in the world and the importance we place on providing certainty and certification of the products that we provide to international markets.

The bill as introduced provided for the chief executive to specify export requirements or restrictions on products described as organic. However, it was unclear what could be required or restricted. So the select committee recommended amending it to make it clear that notices made under this clause may include requirements or restrictions about production inputs, processing, and preparation of organic products, including requirements about sampling and testing.

They also felt that it should be made clear that the chief executive of the relevant ministry must be satisfied that an organic product meets the organic standard, and they note that clause 49 empowered the relevant chief executive to give a statement of compliance to organic operators and entities. However, the bill as introduced did not provide for the chief executive to check that the specified processes had been completed to ensure the products meet the organic standard.

The issue of converting to organic production was also considered by the select committee and they recommend amending clause 105 to allow the organic standards to specify how long it could be taken for conversion from non-organic to organic production. The bill as introduced did not provide for a time frame to be set by regulation, and they recommended that paragraph (ca) be inserted into clause 105(2) to allow the length of the conversion period to be set by regulation.

I can certainly say, having spoken to organic farmers, that the period of time for a conversion can be quite significant and quite costly, in fact. There is certainly a transition period that is required and there is a drop in production and, therefore, a drop in income that has been experienced by some folks who have made that transition. Although having spoken to, for example, Aquila Farms, they have seen their production rates actually increase and their financial viability. So it’s actually become a very good going concern.

There’s attention also by this select committee to regulating organic inputs. This is definitely one of those challenging issues, because the inputs that come into an organic farm are not necessarily always going to compliant, especially when, for example, feed becomes an issue during a drought. So there needs to be some consideration around that issue. The select committee had a look at this and they felt that during the production of organic products, different inputs—things that are used to assist organic production—may be used to improve the quality of the products. Common organic inputs include compost, manure, slurry, and certain pesticides.

They recommended inserting clause 111A(b) to make it clear that the type of input should be specified in a notice. The bill as introduced did not provide a mechanism to specify which types of inputs could be used during organic production processing. Currently, different organic certifiers provide lists of allowed inputs. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought that was going to go on for ever! A real pleasure to talk on the Organic Products Bill. There is some real uncertainty. We’ve heard that the sector has asked for this. We have delivered, but it’s taken quite some time. I think the bill is fit for purpose, it’s going to support our overseas market to have more surety about our systems, and it’s going to increase and add value to what we do here, where we have $723 million value in the organics sector currently.

My dear friend Linley grows organic kiwifruit under the BioGro kiwifruit industry in the Bay of Plenty. I know she’s keen and is watching this bill progress through the House as many in the sector are. I commend this bill to the House.