Prosser Richard; Tisch LindsayRICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a reasonably short call in the first reading of the Food Safety Law Reform Bill. New Zealand First will support this bill's referral to the select committee and I stress that we support the bill only that far at this stage. We supported the Food Act which this bill obviously will amend along with of course the Wine Act 2003 and the Animal Products Act 1999. I agree wholeheartedly with the comments from the chair of the Primary Production Committee Mr McKelvie on the importance of this sector to the economy overall in terms of the percentage of GDP that it creates and in terms of the number of people who are employed there. We are fully cognisant of the importance of that sector. We support the stated aim of the bill giving life as it does to the recommendations of the independent Government Inquiry into the Whey Protein Concentrate Contamination Incident. This inquiry of course did not report in time for its recommendations to be digested as such and included in the Food Bill as it was then. We accept that some of those recommendations will require statutory changes—changes to legislation—in order to be implemented. But we are mindful of the possibility of fish-hooks being included in the fine print of changes that are made to laws that in other regards are honest enough in intent and construction.Hon Damien O'Connor: More like gaffes with the National Party.RICHARD PROSSER: Quite possibly Mr O'Connor. The explanatory note of the bill states that The fundamental model of the current system is not being changed." Well we hope not and it is the select committee process that will show us whether in fact that remains the case. Reading from the debate pack that has been put together by the Parliamentary Library—and I have to say it is a very valuable and much-appreciated resource—we see that one of the key features of the bill is new requirements for risk-based plans and programmes. Well as I recall it was these requirements that were at the heart of many of the submissions on the Food Bill and there was a good deal of debate around the detail at that time. We certainly hope that there will not be any great deviation from the consensus that was arrived at with regard to that position. Another key feature of the bill is that it provides for traceability and recall regulations. This rather vaguely suggests that new regulations will set new traceability and recall requirements. Well that could cover a very wide range of parameters and again we will want to be certain that in fact the spirit of the Act as it exists will remain intact. There is to be stronger verification. This seems unlikely to present any gnarly issues but again our continued support will be dependent on that being the case. There will be stronger enforcement—that is the fourth point. Stronger enforcement is generally something that New Zealand First is wholeheartedly in support of—as you will know from our stand on law and order—provided of course that the stronger enforcement is not of laws and regulations that should not exist in the first place. So once again we will be examining the detail behind this with quite some close scrutiny at the select committee. It is not that we do not trust the Government; rather we are somewhat gun-shy when we read comforting phrases such as—again from the bill's explanatory note—"The Bill also improves the statutory powers available for responses to food safety incidents by enhancing the Director-General's ability to when there is a serious risk to public health require relevant information from persons who hold it." It improves statutory powers and enhances the director-general's ability—that could cover again a fairly wide range of activities. Also from the regulatory impact statement is this: "Provide a regulation-making power in the three food safety Acts to set requirements for operators to undertake mock traceability and recall exercises." When we hear those comforting noises couched in the terms that they are in again we are not cynical but we naturally wonder whether such provisions may contain the potential for a Draconian approach to be taken by regulators in the absence or the failure of any suitably resourced and committed regulatory watchdog. So we will once again be very interested in examining in detail these provisions in the proper environment of the select committee and of course in reading and listening to with great interest the submissions of stakeholders from within the industry and of course the wider general public. Then of course as my colleague from the Greens touched on there is the matter of country-of-origin labelling which does not fall under the purview of this reform bill but it could be argued could and should be very much within its scope. We will argue that point as I am sure other parties from this side of the House will be doing because country-of-origin labelling is certainly very much a food safety issue. In spite of the protestations to the contrary and howls of outrage from the Government benches this view is not about xenophobia or prejudice or any other supposed crimes against political correctness. It is about caution it is about due diligence and it is about the simple common-sense acceptance that there are some countries in this world where standards are not what we would demand or expect and where practices are less stringent and less safety-oriented and where life is perhaps cheaper than the value that we ascribe to it here. Food from some parts of the world is not as safe as we would prefer and labelling food that comes from those places as being identifiably from those places is something that a great many people in this country regard as being very important. Indeed many people from within the primary sector and the food production sector do share those concerns. There is a—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m."