Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon TODD McCLAY: I move, That the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Primary Production Committee to consider the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill.

It’s a pleasure to rise this evening to bring this bill to the House. This is a bill all about good regulatory practice and reducing regulatory burden, cutting red tape. Each change in the bill is small by itself, but collectively they will provide benefits across the primary sector.

This is an omnibus bill introduced with the agreement of the Business Committee to make minor technical and uncontentious changes to a range of legislation affecting the primary industries. There’s a very broad range, from the Animal Welfare Act to the Wine Act—not quite the A to Z, but very close. The bill amends 19 Acts, as well as a handful of associated regulations and other instruments that affects legislation across five ministerial portfolios—from agriculture, biosecurity, food safety, forestry, and oceans and fisheries—held by three Ministers: myself, Minister Jones, and Minister Hoggard.

The bill will improve the quality of regulation affecting the primary industries. It will reduce costs and inefficiencies to benefit businesses and the wider economy. Updating the legislation will reduce regulatory burden for businesses, enabling them to focus on their work rather than outdated regulatory requirements. Part of the good regulatory practice is adopting settings, as needed, and avoiding future problems. That’s what this bill is about: making those minor technical adaptations so that the legislations serve New Zealand better, not waiting for a big reform to try and fix everything all at once.

Improvements are being identified all the time, and I’m keen to make full use of this opportunity that the bill represents for repairs and maintenance to primary industries’ legislation. I will invite the Primary Production Committee to consider and seek public submissions on proposed additional amendments to the bill, at the same time as they consider the bill as a whole. This allows for public and select committee input, making the bill as effective and efficient as it can be.

I’d like to give the House a few examples of the kinds of changes this bill will make. The bill will repeal five Acts that no longer serve any useful purpose. From time to time, Parliament passes legislation that has a one-time use; it might be to regulate an industry or make a suite of changes to existing legislation. But some of those Acts still hang around long after their provisions have expired, cluttering the statute book. This bill will repeal five such Acts. These are Acts to disestablish the Hop Marketing Board, a process that was completed by the House in 2004; or to transition from the old Meat Act to the Animal Products Act, a process that was completed in 2006. This legislation is no longer doing anything and it can and should be repealed.

The bill will amend the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act (ACVM) to include references to inhibitors. Inhibitors are compounds used in agricultural production to modify certain biological or chemical processes to mitigate environmental or climate change impacts, as an example. The ACVM Act currently deals with these indirectly, so we’re making sure they are squarely included in the Act. Inhibitors are important all through our primary producers to improve environmental sustainability, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving water quality.

It will make changes to the Animal Products Act. If an individual is travelling overseas and they want to take some animal product with them as gifts or for personal use—say, a jar of mānuka honey—they don’t have to register as an exporter to do so, provided, of course, that the honey they are taking meets all of the requirements for the country that they’re going to. But if that same person wants to send that same jar of honey overseas, whether as a gift or some other non-commercial purpose, they do have to register as an exporter. This bill will enable an exemption so that whether you’re travelling overseas or sending goods overseas as a gift, you won’t have to register as an exporter in order to do so, as long as you’re not doing so for commercial purposes.

Through this bill, we’re also going to simplify the job of biosecurity inspectors and the New Zealand Police. Currently, the Biosecurity Act requires an inspector executing a search warrant to be accompanied by a constable. The Ministry for Primary Industries trains its inspectors in executing search warrants. So there’s often nothing for a constable to do, but they have to be there because the law currently says so. Removing that requirement for an inspector to be accompanied by a constable will the reduce time and effort required for a relatively simple task. The option will remain—and I want to stress—for an inspector to request a constable to accompany them should they deem it necessary. The point now is that it can be an option, rather than a requirement.

Staying with the Biosecurity Act, the Act sets out the procedure for giving directions or making requirements for any number of things via a written notice. However, the notice, if not physically delivered, can only be sent by fax or email. We recognise that the world has moved on and we don’t use faxes anywhere near as often as we used to.

Hon Peeni Henare: Except in Northland!

Hon TODD McCLAY: I did say “as we used to”. There are likely to be future ways of sending information that we haven’t—it says “thought of yet”, but—been told of yet. So this amendment allows for a notice to be sent by any electronic means, including email. This is futureproofing the Biosecurity Act.

So, to round off, there are a couple of very minor proposed changes that are worth mentioning. The Commodity Levies Act requires a levy body to table their annual report in this House. But we don’t table annual reports in the House anymore; they’re presented to the House. So we’re updating the terminology to reflect that the times have changed and the procedures have also changed with them and moved on. For example, there is a bracket in the wrong place in the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act (NAIT). At the moment, a literal reading of the Act implies that wild cattle are part of the NAIT scheme, so we’re going to fix that. I think everybody agrees that wild cattle should not be part of the NAIT scheme, but it’s a drafting error that needs to be tidied up, to take away any uncertainty.

This bill will make a measurable difference to New Zealanders across the primary sector. It will make legislation more effective and more efficient. Taken in its totality, it does much more than any one small part. I overwhelmingly commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on this piece of legislation. Can I acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Todd McClay, for bringing this piece of legislation to the House and actually sending it to the select committee where it will have its full process, which is something that we haven’t really seen a lot of from this current Government. I’d also like to acknowledge the Hon Damien O’Connor for the introduction of this bill, which was a Labour bill, and that is why we are supporting this piece of legislation.

This piece of legislation is pretty much what I would refer to as a housekeeping bill. It’s tidying up. As the Minister mentioned, it makes minor amendments to existing Acts that are administered by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). It is difficult to find time within the parliamentary calendar to bring pieces of legislation like this to the House in order for them to be processed and moved through, because we have things such as annual reviews, which we are just going through now, and then we’ve got Estimates, etc., etc. So this is a really good opportunity to have this as an omnibus bill which deals with a lot of those housekeeping issues, as I referred to.

Some of the reason that we have this bill coming to the House for this housekeeping tidy-up is because, currently, agencies are having to work with legislation that is perhaps out of date or not quite fit for purpose. As the Minister mentioned, there are several amendments to this piece of legislation, and each one in isolation perhaps doesn’t mean a lot, but the collective changes of this piece of legislation will provide significant benefits across the primary sector, which will reduce the administrative burden and make it easier for businesses to operate in the regulatory system. It does improve the regulatory framework for the primary sector by increasing efficiency, and it removes the complexity, which means our farmers can actually get on with the job of what it is that they want to do, which is farming.

Grant McCallum: My, you’ve learnt! Geez.

Hon JO LUXTON: There’s a couple of things that I wish to—yes, that is correct and that is what I believe.

Grant McCallum: Good—can you educate your colleagues?

Hon JO LUXTON: There’s a couple of points which I wish to highlight, Mr McCallum, thank you very much, with regard to the biosecurity changes. So, for example, clause 88, amended section 35: the amendment will enable inspectors in biosecurity control areas to request documentation relating to imported goods, which, under section 35, officers can only require and make copies of a passport or other evidence of identity, but no other documentation. Inspectors can ask for goods to be made available for inspection but cannot request or copy documentation that relates to those goods, and the absence of this power makes it more difficult to make a risk assessment. Another point in another clause, and another change in the biosecurity space, clause 101: it enables the seizure of risk goods at the border to include seizure of evidence of offending. So, currently, MPI can seize risk goods but cannot seize evidence of offending, which creates both evidential and potential biosecurity risks when evidence of offending cannot be obtained at the border. These are really crucial to protecting our border. We are susceptible to incursions—biosecurity incursions, in particular—at our border, and so I think this piece of legislation will strengthen that. I only hope that the cuts that we are seeing to MPI do not further risk this.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, I mean, there’s not much more to say about this bill, except that it simply serves the purpose—as well described by the Minister, and my colleague Jo Luxton from Labour—of fixing and making minor amendments to multiple Acts, therefore lifting administrative burden and reducing the risk of legislative failure. I particularly have been troubled for many years—as the Minister pointed out—by that comma, and I’m glad to see it going, along with a lot of other minor things that are important for making functional legislation. This is a thing that we will support—that is, the Green Party, obviously—and we hope that the Minister finds it a productive process to be sending this legislation to the select committee and that that is what is done with future legislation by this Government to the relevant select committees. We support the legislation. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I am pleased to take a call on this bill today. This bill is going to improve the quality of regulation in biosecurity, food safety, and animal welfare portfolios. These small amendments will reduce regulatory burden and cut red tape across the primary sector, ensuring that our legislation does what it needs to do without unnecessary cost, duplication, or effort—and that is essential.

There are a lot of amendments to a wide range of Acts in this bill, so I’d just like to touch on how they affect my portfolios and what effect they’re going to have. Firstly, in the biosecurity space, the amendments relating to biosecurity are about clarity, efficiency, and making sure that our people on the ground have the tools that they need to manage biosecurity risks. For example, at the border, biosecurity officers can often seize goods that people are trying to bring into New Zealand, but that’s all they can seize. If the risk goods are hidden in a suitcase, for example, biosecurity staff can’t seize the suitcase. That creates problems with evidence in the case of prosecution, and it obviously also creates biosecurity risks if the suitcase, or whatever it might be, is contaminated by contact with risk goods.

Some parts of the Biosecurity Act and other Acts require particular consultation methods. And when I say particular, I mean the Act says in section 114A that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has to use a specific local or specific metropolitan newspaper to inform the public about a whole range of things. This bill will update the way MPI informs the public so that consultation methods become a list to choose the most appropriate action from; rather than use a specific regional newspaper, MPI could use all the major newspapers or publish the information on their website or in the New Zealand Gazette.

I’d like to turn my attention to products that fall under my food safety portfolio, and echo the Minister of Agriculture’s comments around inhibitors. Inhibitors are agricultural products that claim to reduce nitrate or methane emissions. Obviously, this makes them a very important practical tool to ensure that our farmers and producers can reduce their greenhouse gas emissions on farm. Currently, they aren’t included in the Act, but this bill will capture inhibitors under the definition of an “agricultural compound” as part of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act.

This bill also sets the rules and registration requirements for a whole range of products, but it doesn’t allow for someone to renew their registration. When it expires, a person or company has to do a whole new application; even if nothing’s changed, they still have to start from scratch. So this bill will create two new sections that set a pathway to renew agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines registration, reducing the amount of paperwork that’s needed.

Also in the area of food safety, and as members are well aware, New Zealand has a joint food standards system with Australia. This system was established by a treaty back in 1995. A key objective of the food treaty is ensuring that the same food standards apply in both Australia and New Zealand. However, the treaty does not acknowledge that there will occasionally be exceptional circumstances that mean jurisdictions need to take their own individual steps. Temporary food standards are an example of these and can be used to address issues affecting public health or safety, or environmental concerns. These have never found their way into New Zealand law until now. This bill will create provisions relating to temporary food standards.

Finally, let me come to animal welfare. This bill makes a tweak to the matters that must be taken into account when considering an application for an animal welfare export certificate. This bill amends section 43 of the Animal Welfare Act to require any history of breaches of previous conditions to be taken into account when considering an application for a new certificate, helping to protect our reputation for high animal welfare standards.

I look forward to further opportunities to improve the quality of regulation. This is a start; there is more to go. I commend this bill to the House.

It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill, and as has been referenced by previous speakers, this is a tidy-up bill for the statutes and regulations, some of which have become redundant, and just fixing up some inaccuracies. Of course, this is absolutely critical as it underpins our primary sector—some 80 percent of our export earnings. And wasn’t it a pleasure, those of us tonight that attended the Zespri function and saw the primary sector at its finest, a market-led, an R & D - led company that’s taking a magnificent product to the world and on the verge of meeting our goal of doubling our exports in the next 10 years? I would like to congratulate the team over in the glass tower at the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). This is somewhat of a magnum opus of trainspotting of regulatory deformities, and they have done very well.

Minister Jones has asked me, on behalf of the fisheries ministry, to make a couple of comments in terms of some reasonably substantive changes to the Fisheries Act 1963, in particular deemed values. They are charges imposed on commercial fishers for each kilogram of fish they take and are unable to balance their annual catch entitlement. Deemed value rates are currently set at the beginning of each fishing year. However, given that information on fishing activity is available much more quickly through electronic reporting, we can actually update these balances much more quickly and amend the values accordingly, in relation to the market. So this will be welcomed by the fishing industry.

There is also a technical amendment for the taiapure, which is a local fishery significant to iwi or hapū. They are managed by local communities, and before one can be established, a public consultation and a tribunal hearing in the Māori Land Court must be held. This bill would allow for that process, where there is general consensus by all parties for that to be agreed outside of that regulatory process, or outside that Land Court process, making it a much more efficient and cost-effective measure.

But you can imagine my excitement, Mr Speaker, as the Associate Minister for Agriculture with the delegation for wool, when I saw the demise of the Wool Industry Restructuring Act 2003. The wool industry has, like I’m sure Minister Hoggard could ascertain with the dairy industry and the meat industry—farmer politics makes this place look like the Mother Teresa Appreciation Society! Going back to the great wool acquisition debates of the early 1970s and the disestablishment of the Wool Board in the early 2000s—now, there was a dispute about this that got drawn out. Farmer money has been burnt. It ended up in the pockets of Auckland and Wellington lawyers, in a dispute over some merino marketing. But the farmers that were disaffected threw the Wool Board out, or got it merged with the Meat Board, to establish Meat and Wool New Zealand.

Then the farmers, of course—another group of grumpy farmers—decided to throw that out and get rid of the levy altogether, which I am now having to pick up the pieces with. But, in that process, there was a disestablishment process. That finished finally in 2014, after much money being burnt. But could I appeal, please, to the Primary Production Committee, if you can get to the bottom of the greatest mystery in agriculture: what happened to the Wool Board art collection? That is the burning question that sits at the base of every farmer meeting. If you can unlock that conundrum, I would thank you greatly.

So, for New Zealand First, this is a very sensible bill. I commend Minister McClay for bringing it to the House. I commend MPI for pulling it together, and we look forward to the select committee bringing it back. Thank you.

Grant McCallum: Mr Speaker, I rise to speak—

I am going to choose, because we have folks that are not here. I’ll call Arena Williams.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a short call on the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill. This bill, as we have heard from many speakers around the House, contains a number of sensible changes. You’ve heard it described by my colleague the Hon Jo Luxton as a housekeeping bill about improving our regulatory systems and ensuring that those decisions which appropriately sit in primary legislation do so and that this House has taken the time to make sure that we are working through the issues which are included in this bill.

May I acknowledge, also, the work of the former Minister of fisheries, the Hon Rachel Brooking, for her contribution to this bill. And, with that, I commend it to the House.

I’m very happy to rise in support of this bill, the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill. This bill covers a lot of territory, as we’ve already ascertained in the House, across 19 different Acts, with around 250 minor or technical changes, with the purpose of improving the quality of the regulation. Throughout the 2023 campaign and into Government, our message has been clear: needless red tape and bureaucracy holds New Zealand’s primary industries back, and any changes that can be made to stop duplication and streamline processes is a top priority for this Government, so the premise of this bill is something that I wholeheartedly support.

This bill will end up before the Primary Production Committee, which is the best select committee in the Parliament, and will be able to be looked over by myself and my friend Mark Cameron in ACT, Suze Redmayne from National, Catherine Wedd from National, the Hon Jo Luxton and Cushla from Labour, and Steve Abel from across the way there.

Hon Member: He’s got one job.

MILES ANDERSON: Yes; not wrong. So, many of the suggested amendments are simply common sense and, for example, people currently wanting to send goods overseas for personal use, as the Minister said, have to be registered exporters, which is just simply nonsense. So, by making a small amendment, we can free up an entire area to be more cost-effective and easy to navigate. The bill also addresses a number of drafting errors, so it makes sense to attend to these errors at the same time.

Another section of changes empowers our authorities to have the correct tools within legislation to perform their duties. Currently, the Ministry for Primary Industries, as we have heard from Minister Hoggard, can seize risky goods but cannot seize evidence of the offending, something that you would think is common sense. This creates both evidential and biosecurity risks. Closer to home, drafting errors in the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act have unintentionally applied to wild animals on a farmer’s property. It was never meant to, but due to the punctuation error, the bill could be read to include wild cattle.

In New Zealand, there is an issue with feral cattle in some places. Several years ago, when I was the meat and wool chair of Federated Farmers, I had a number of landowners contact me about this specific issue. One case I remember in particular was a couple who had bought a block of land bordered by forest. From this forestry block, feral cattle had moved on to their land. Due to the anomaly in the law, they were deemed to be responsible for these animals and were also in breach of the law because the animals were not National Animal Identification and Tracing tagged. This is one example of the 250 changes that this omnibus bill seeks to address.

So, in summary, this bill is going to reduce regulatory burden and also each amendment is going to be assessed to ensure that they are consistent with the Government’s policies. This bill will allow for small fixes to be made in a timely and cost-effective way. This will deliver flow-on benefits to businesses in our primary industries and the wider economy. The changes are small, uncontentious, and are anticipated by industry. The fact that this one bill contains as many changes as it does highlights the importance of this House looking back at regulation and making sensible amendments, further working to make it more functional, to provide a more efficient environment, and, overall, remove red tape and unnecessary regulations. I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. That man, the member for Waitaki, I believe, should have a job in the Parliamentary Counsel Office, because his obsession with punctuation, giving us a steer on wandering cattle—I thought it was an outstanding speech—

Miles Anderson: We’re all about detail over here.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: You are all about detail. You know, here we are. It’s getting a wee bit late; you’re getting a bit fractious over there. This is a classic tidy-up bill. I do admire the Parliamentary Counsel Office for going through such an insidious task and repealing the Hop Industry Restructuring Act 2003, which, did you know, doesn’t have a portfolio? There you go. And as for the Wool Board art collection, I think it’s been fleeced!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Well done.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: And that is where we’ve got to tonight, with the Government filibustering its own bill because they haven’t got enough work up their sleeve. So I’ll leave them to it. Good bill—we’ll support it. Good legislative stewardship—let’s get on with some proper law.

As a Government, we are laser-focused on increasing productivity and growing the economy. We’ve proven over the last 119 days that, as a Government, we are relentlessly focused on outcomes. Over-regulation is a burden on our economy and a barrier to productivity. Reducing regulatory burden and cutting red tape is a priority for this Government, and this bill delivers just that. Getting Wellington out of farming, and allowing our farmers to get back to doing what they do best—farm—is a priority too.

I am a proud farmer from Turakina in the mighty Rangitīkei, and I can tell you that farming today is very much about being effective and efficient, in accordance with best practice. The objective of this omnibus bill is to improve our regulatory systems so they too are effective, efficient, in accordance with best practice. This bill will benefit farms and businesses in our primary industries and in the wider economy. Industry wants these changes, and they are waiting. This bill simply serves to update and repair legislation in line with its original intent and function. And I had another bit of paper!

Let me give you an example: ”In Biosecurity Control Areas”—[Interruption]. You need to listen to this: “In Biosecurity Control Areas”—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I’m all ears!

SUZE REDMAYNE: —“outer clothing is regularly inspected for biosecurity goods”, and I quote, “([like] observing for fruit-shaped bulges)”—you can’t make this stuff up. “[T]his is [currently] done under … implied powers in section 35(7)” of the Biosecurity Act 1993. “The power for inspectors to check outer clothing … is implied rather than explicit.”, which creates uncertainty around the legality of this practice. “MPI considers that the practice needs to continue without legal uncertainty.”

Like all of the other changes detailed in this bill, the power to check outer clothing at the border was assumed in the original policy intent. This change simply makes the original policy intent explicit in legislation. It’s a simple change that will provide greater protection for passengers and inspectors, and it will reduce biosecurity risk.

While the impact of each amendment is small in isolation, collectively, they will remove administrative burden, reduce the risk of localised legislative failure, and make it easier for businesses to operate right across the systems that the Ministry for Primary Industries is responsible for. This Government is focused on growing the economy and getting rid of red tape, and backing our farmers and our primary industry businesses to succeed and to get ahead is a huge part of that. I am proud to commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill, and I’ve got it here. I just want to show everyone Damien O’Connor’s name on it, because, of course, it is a fine piece of work that the previous Government did to do all of this laser-focused stuff that everybody’s been talking about today, and I commend all those members for their deep interest in these pieces of legislation. I also note the importance of food safety, and we’ve heard from the Minister for Food Safety about the importance of our treaty with Australia. So it’s good that we’re honouring the treaty there, Minister Hoggard!

So, with that, I’m very pleased that this bill is going to the select committee. It’s going to the select committee, and it’s going to have a good discussion at the select committee, and I know that many of the new members in this House won’t actually know what it’s like to be speaking on a bill that’s going to select committee in its first reading. And then they’re going to have the benefit of hearing submissions from the public. Such a good thing to do. And so, on that happy note, I’m going to commend this bill to the House.

Well, it is time to be aspirational for our food producers here in New Zealand. Our farmers and growers are the backbone of our economy and they drive productivity in this country. But for the past six years, there has been a war on our primary sector, with red tape, compliance, regulation—it’s been an avalanche. The brakes have been put on and ripped the heart out of rural New Zealand.

I come from Hastings, Heretaunga, the fruit bowl of New Zealand, which I like to actually call the Tuscany of Europe—the engine of horticulture in our country. At the moment, we’re in the thick of our harvest season, where we’re harvesting apples, onions, grapes, maize, and that produce is going off to the port and off to markets all around the world, where we see produce sold on the global stage at a premium. Ordinary apples from Hawke’s Bay coming to life on the red carpets around Asia, adding value to the premium produce that we grow here as a small trading nation at the bottom of the world.

But, on this side of the House, we know how to harness opportunities by removing red tape, compliance, and making it easier for our growers to grow, our farmers to farm, and our exporters to export. Look, I have worked in the Hawke’s Bay horticulture industry for many, many years, and I have seen the bureaucratic red tape put in place here in Wellington, and it’s very restrictive. And this bill is all about taking away that regulation; practical, common sense, which helps grow our export industry.

Let me just give you a few examples. In 2008, we were exporting 12,000 apple containers from Hawke’s Bay. Under a National Government, we doubled the number of apple containers by 2017, exporting a record crop and on target to be a billion-dollar industry by 2022. Our apple industry was booming, and it was the envy of the world. In fact, in 2016, the New Zealand apple industry was rated as the world’s most competitive performer. But, in the past six years, the brakes were put on, the industry was strangled, and we haven’t seen the growth since, because our growers have been restricted by red tape, regulation, and compliance.

In the latest situation and outlook document, it says, “Horticulture export revenue is forecast to decrease”—decrease—“1 percent to $7.0 billion in the year to 30 June 2024.” We shouldn’t be going backwards; we should be going forwards. We need to grow our exports. On this side of the House, we are aiming to double our exports in value in the next 10 years, and the way to do this is by enabling our food producers and stop strangling them with unnecessary rules and regulations. Look, tonight I’ve been at the Zespri kiwifruit launch, and it’s just wonderful to see these innovative companies out there exporting to the world, growing our economy, providing jobs and opportunities for provincial New Zealand. And that innovation and investment is going into provincial New Zealand.

Look, this bill that we’re debating tonight is all about reducing red tape, and common-sense, practical solutions around less regulations and enabling us to grow as an economy, as a country, as New Zealand, and harnessing “New Zealand Inc.” and making sure that we are harnessing those opportunities here in New Zealand.

Look, I will just take one little amendment here, because I think it’s quite interesting—interesting for Hawke’s Bay, actually, because it’s the Wine Act 2003. It aims to clarify the definition of fruit wine. It will remove ambiguity on the status of certain grape-based alcoholic—

The member’s time has expired. Oh, the applause!

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The question is, That the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.

Members, it is time for me to have a cup of cocoa and a lie down. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.