Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill

The National Party will be supporting the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill. The dairy industry is worth nearly $6 billion in export earnings per year to New Zealand. It is essential that there is confidence, worldwide and in New Zealand, in New Zealand dairy food products. The safety of those products is a matter of concern for all of us. This bill sets in place standards and risk-based management practices that ensure that is the case. The bill was developed after the release of two discussion documents, one from the previous National Government in 1999 and one from the Labour Government in 2001. The bill has had the support of all parties up to this point, and I believe that tonight it continues to have the support of all members.

The title of the bill basically covers what the bill intends. The risks that milk products can contain are pathogens and residues. Back in the very early days of New Zealand’s history, unpasteurised milk was very common. But the risk of TB and other pathogens was recognised, and pasteurisation became standard from the 1900s. The sort of pathogens that milk can contain are retroviruses, which are killed by pasteurisation and processing, zoonotic diseases, and residues of veterinary medicines and antibiotics. We see that antibiotic resistance is increasing throughout the world and is a considerable problem. We must have a risk management programme, as stated in Part 1.

Luckily the dairy industry has actually taken a responsible approach to the use of antibiotics, and they are not used routinely. In some other countries they are, which causes problems with animals and with the increasing resistance to antibiotics. The routine use of antibiotics in animals can lead to increased antibiotic resistance amongst humans, and that is of major concern in terms of serious diseases. Tuberculosis is a good example of that, because worldwide TB resistance to antibiotics is proving to be an increasing problem. I remember, many years ago, working at the old chest hospital here in Wellington, because before I was a doctor I trained as a nurse. I remember the antibiotics we had to give to people for months on end to try to cure TB. TB continues to be a problem, and antibiotic resistance is an increasing problem.

Safety and quality assurance programmes for milk and dairy products from the farm to the table are being developed under this legislation, and that is welcomed. Milk products are a great growth medium, and it is vital that milk is collected in ideal conditions and transported to the milk company for processing within 24 hours, before there can be any deterioration. The Act that is to be repealed, the Dairy Industry Act, is over 50 years old. That Act is specifically for milk products. Now we will have the dairy industry brought under the Animal Products Act. Rather than end-product testing, we will have a process of certification for the whole collection, treatment, and manufacture of milk products. That approach is needed to facilitate the entry of New Zealand dairy products into more overseas markets.

New Zealand cheeses, ice cream, and chocolate have to be amongst the best in the world. [Interruption] Absolutely and undoubtedly. When I travel overseas New Zealand chocolate is one thing that everybody asks me to bring.

New Zealand First supports the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill. All that I really want to do is to use the bill’s commentary to illustrate the key points and the reason why New Zealand First wants to support the bill, because they are contained in it. As the commentary states, “The Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill provides for the regulation of the dairy industry by the Animal Products Act 1999 and repeals the Dairy Industry Act 1952. The Dairy Industry Act 1952, which currently regulates the dairy industry, is outdated and imposes significant constraints on the dairy industry’s ability to facilitate trade in dairy products and to counter risks to food safety.”, as we have heard from our colleague in the National Party.

The commentary continues: “Further, the Act does not adequately facilitate the application of a risk management approach to the regulation of the dairy industry. Food safety administration in New Zealand is moving towards an environment based on the principles of food-safety risk management in line with international trends. The bill’s requirement that the dairy industry operate in a risk management environment will provide consistency with the rest of the food industry. A further aim of the bill is to facilitate the entry of dairy products to overseas markets by providing the controls and mechanisms needed for market access and the giving of official assurances.” As I have said in previous speeches in debates on this issue, in terms of cheese alone, the dairy industry provides $5.8 billion just from the cheese industry itself.

Under the heading “Export requirements and consultation with the industry”, the commentary states: “We do not recommend any change to clause 13 allowing the Director-General of Agriculture and Forestry to issue notices specifying requirements to be met in relation to animal material or animal products intended for export.” The Primary Production Committee made that decision.

I now move to another part of the commentary about provisions in the bill that are important, under the heading “Cost recovery in transition”. But before I do that, I want to say to the Committee that the select committee on this bill comprised the Hon David Carter as chairperson, Janet Mackey as the deputy chairperson, Clayton Cosgrove, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, Gerrard Eckhoff, Ian Ewen-Street, Phil Heatley, the Hon Dover Samuels, Tariana Turia, and R Doug Woolerton. Doug Woolerton’s approach and input into the bill, and his common-sense view, would have been no different from that of Gerry Eckhoff from ACT, and of the Hon David Carter. They are farmers in their own right, who approached this bill with reasonable common sense.

The provisions concerning cost recovery in transition are, I think, an important part of the legislation. The commentary states: “The New Zealand Cold Storage Association considers that any fee paid for registration under the dairy regulations should automatically constitute registration under the Animal Products Act 1999. The association also considers that where this fee has been paid to cover a period beyond the date of the passing of the bill and a fee has also been paid to register under the Animal Products Act 1999, the fee relating to registration under the dairy regulations should be refunded. We”—the committee—“have some sympathy with the submitter but understand that costs associated with the previous registration have already been incurred; money should not be refunded for services that have been provided.As section 121 of the Animal Products Act 1999 allows for the waiver of fees and could be used to avoid duplication of cost-recovery, we see no need to legislate further.”

The Bills Digest No. 1116 gives a clear overview of this bill. It needs to be passed without any fuss. I think it is a common-sense approach to the industry, which is one that provides this country with overseas funds, and also the income from primary industry that is very important for the economy of this country. The Labour Party has benefited from that rural income.

I notice that when my colleague Lynda Scott spoke on this bill she said that the parties over the last two Parliaments, including with this one, were in agreement with this legislation. I have no argument with that, because that support is based on the dairy industry itself saying that this is the type of legislation it wants, though I think that the industry is giving that confirmation through gritted teeth. I notice that the argument has been mounted that this is a modernisation of the Dairy Industry Act, but although casual listeners to these proceedings could be excused for thinking that the dairy industry has not progressed at all under that Act, of course quite the contrary of that is the truth. The dairy industry, in fact, has managed itself and created an industry that is second to none in this country, and we should be standing up and applauding its efforts. Here is an industry now that, I think, on last count was trading in 42 different countries around the world. It is an industry that, by anyone’s standard, has done very well. In fact, I think its contribution to export earnings for this country is something like $5.5 billion—nearly as big as the surplus that Michael Cullen hoards; the surplus that he has taken from hard-working taxpayers in this country.

I do not buy the argument, though, that this measure is something that has to be done to the dairy industry for its own good. This industry has had the ability to self-regulate itself to such an extent that it is the envy of other primary producing organisations around this country. The health standards that the dairy industry, or Fonterra, imposes on its suppliers is something that members should make themselves aware of, if they do not already know about them. I notice my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison has a significant interest in the dairy industry, and when he takes a call he will be able to attest to that fact, as well.

Then we get into the talk about risk management programmes, as if we are putting them in place for our own good. Well, I have to say that the risk management programmes that the dairy industry already has in place are first class. This legislation is essentially a technical confirmation, to make the industry come up to what is supposedly an international standard. I say “supposedly” because when I look at some of the regulations, the bureaucracy, and the strangling of enterprise in some overseas economies, I cannot help but think that we are being brought back to the pack somehow by putting in place this type of legislation. That worries me; it worries me a lot. I think what is happening is that we are being told, particularly by European nations, that this is the type of standard they want. That comes from nations that, in terms of their primary production, are not even on the same page as the New Zealand dairy industry, or New Zealand dairy farmers, when it comes to actually being productive and in terms of the health standards that they impose. I cannot help but think that in some way, falling for their rhetoric and dancing to their tune is going to do us damage in the long term. What we will lose is our ability to set the standard, to be flexible, and to be nimble.

Then, of course, I look at who is driving this legislation, and I see those words “the Food Safety Authority”. Well, that organisation makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. It has the reputation across the primary industries of this country of being almost like the Gestapo. It is bureaucratic, it is all-powerful, it does not listen, and it has been driving business after business out of business. The Minister in the chair, Marian Hobbs, is shaking her head, but that is simply out of ignorance. If she were more in touch with what was happening around this country, she would know that what I am saying is quite right. We have set a standard now that is almost so impossible to reach that people are throwing up their hands and saying that it is just too hard.

I note the policy objectives of this important technical legislation known as the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill are, indeed, fundamental to the hugely important dairy industry of New Zealand. They include management of the risks to human and animal health from the consumption and use of dairy products, and the facilitation of the entry of dairy products to overseas markets by providing the controls and mechanisms needed for market access and the giving of official assurances.

Undoubtedly the National Party supports this bill.It is of a technical nature, and it is indeed, one of the very necessary safeguards to ensure that our vital dairy export industry is right at the forefront of the world, that it is able to carry out its business around the world in an effective, efficient manner, and that our magnificent dairy products are given the full opportunity to be exported in a highly effective way. As the member of Parliament for Port Waikato, proudly representing one of the finest dairy areas in New Zealand, I say that it is indeed right and proper that we in the National Party support this bill, which has been supported strongly by the industry.

I must mention that the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand consists of the major exporters in the country. It represents Fonterra, Mainland Products, New Zealand Dairy Foods, Tatua Cooperative Dairy Co., and Westland Cooperative Dairy Co., and has strongly supported this bill. The association is concerned, of course, about some of the aspects of ensuring that in this process the bureaucracy does not get out of hand. I must concur with my colleague Brian Connelly that it is a worry to see the reflex reactions of this socialist Labour Government. It is so intent on increasing bureaucracy in New Zealand and putting up hurdles for exporters that it is vital that those tendencies are kept in balance.

Clause 13 is one of the important measures in this bill; it deals with the area of export requirements and official assurances. New section 60 of the principal Act, inserted by clause 13, states: “(1) The Director-General may, by notice issued under this section, specify requirements in relation to all or any class or description of animal material or animal product intended for export, if the Director-General is satisfied that the setting of the requirements—(a) is necessary or desirable”, etc. I notice that the Primary Production Committee makes the point in its commentary on the bill that: “We do not recommend any change to clause 13 allowing the Director-General of Agriculture and Forestry to issue notices specifying requirements to be met in relation to animal material or animal products intended for export.” But the commentary does state: “While consultation would provide checks and balances,”—and I think it is referring to the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, which is well known for being bureaucratic and has the mark of the Hon Annette King on it, in terms of its bureaucracy—“we consider that it is not practical to consult on all market access requirement issues.” I absolutely concur with that.

The select committee points out in the commentary: “Some of the matters will be of an urgent nature requiring fast resolution in order to ensure access to the particular market, while other changes will be of a minor or technical nature, meaning the increased compliance cost of consulting would outweigh any potential benefits.” That is why it is so important that we do, indeed, have clause 13, which does mean that the Director-General of Agriculture and Forestry can give official assurances. The commentary also states: “Many negotiations are restricted and confidential and a consultation requirement would not be appropriate.” All that is about our exporters being able to be nimble on their feet, to do things efficiently and effectively, and not to have to wait for the sort of bureaucracy that this Labour Government is so intent on putting before New Zealand businesses.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Animal Products (Ancillary and Transitional Provisions) Act 1999