O'Connor Damien: Food Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Damien: Food Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 14 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17869. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I can see the Food Bill is so big that it is falling apart in my hands here. I hope it does not once it has been passed. This is actually at the heart of the amendment brought to the Primary Production Committee by the Minister for Food Safety. The issue here sparked by the botulism debacle was that the Ministry for Primary Industries the Minister and the National Government got caught with their pants down to some extent because they did not know whether they had the ability to recall the infant formula or whether they would be subject to a legal challenge by Nutricia or Danone as it is now of course. So the uncertainty around the recall provisions by the Minister gave rise to the amendment that is effectively addressed in this Part 4 of the bill here now.The select committee looked very very carefully at this and the consideration rested on one word. It is a word that is spoken of but not often implemented in Parliament—that is “reasonable”. There is I think judicial precedent around the word “reasonable” and the committee asked whether there was a requirement for officials to be reasonably convinced I guess in summary that there was good cause for recall. You could take either side of the debate. Some could say “Well of course officials are always reasonable and we have to provide them with the powers to recall because the risks are great.” That is indeed what many of us would think.However I personally was able to bring to the table an example of when officials were not reasonable. They had demanded the recall of a product—a wine-based product—and almost put a small innovative wine producer out of business. It was quite ironic really because the Government has just handed out money through the Primary Growth Partnership to the wine industry for innovation and yet a few months prior to that it had stamped down and clamped down on an innovative wine producer. I am notgoing to use the name of the wine but I will say that resveratrol was the component. It is a by-product of the wine-making process the filtration process. It was added back into the wine and it could be said it added a slight health component to the wine to be consumed.The point is that officials because it was a small producer demanded the recall take place. That was a huge cost and impost on that person. Of course the officials did not exert the same authority—or were not sure whether they had the authority to do it—over someone like Nutricia or Fonterra. So the Minister quite rightly I guess wanted the matter clarified. The amendment brought the matter to the select committee the committee considered it and I think we have arrived at the reasonable position that we trust the officials to initiate a recall only when necessary. I think on balance we should support the officials. If we have got the right Government and the right Minister in place I have every confidence. We have some concerns at the moment. No personal reference to the Minister—it is just that her regime leaves a bit to be desired. Under a Labour-led Government I would have every confidence that officials would make the right decision if a recall had to be made. As a cross-party Committee we have decided on I think a measure and a threshold that is fair and protects New Zealand’s reputation and position.Ian McKelvie: What’s the difference?Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: That member must have been asleep at the select committee. It is the silence of the lambs over there—or the sheep I should say. If they were allowed to speak out they would be able to explain and endorse the proposition I am putting forward but anyway the silence is deafening. Can I just say that this is a key part of the bill. The Minister put forward a proposition to clarify the recall provisions. We have I think tested it thoroughly and robustly. I think the position that we have arrived at is one that does allow officials—and under a Labour Government they will be food safety authority officials not officials from the Ministry for Primary Industries with all its multitude of obligations. It will allow the food safety authority—