Coffey TamatiTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to continue where I left off just before. I was talking about the financial impacts of the bill about which I stated before that there would be no real immediate costs from the bill but there are a couple of points I wanted to make. One was that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) had identified the need to invest in its IT systems to store risk management programmes. As well as that businesses were set to incur some costs too and I was wondering if there was some talk about how we could quantify that just while we've got the opportunity to. There were some amendments to the Food Act that I wanted to also bring up and touch on and get some clarification on on top of that. As a small-business owner and as a hospitality provider myself I'm quite familiar with the Food Act and the amendments made to it. Now the Food Act—for those people that don't know it—overarches the whole food regulatory system here in New Zealand. The amendments made in this part were for the purpose of implementing the inquiry recommendations and also for imposing the new design for delegated legislation and clarifying the relationship between both of those and also to make other changes for overall improvement and consistency. I wanted to bring in clause 8 which has been removed and I just wanted to know a bit more about that area. That would have required operators to send full copies of their plans to their verifiers. Now this change was made apparently because of the likely compliance impact on businesses which would be greater than the food safety gains. Some select committee members have stated their discomfort with that being removed but despite all of that happening it did go through and the members of the committee supported the bill through to its second reading. So I would like to know just a wee bit more about that too. Also clause 24 in that particular part of the amendments to the Food Act—that was also removed. It stated that it would've required a verifying agency to hold and store copies of food control plans supplied by the operators. Now I guess from the outset it looks like quite a reasonable thing to expect so I'm just looking to find out why exactly it was removed—again just while we've got the opportunity. Clause 25 was also removed and that there would've required a verifier not working for an agency to hold and store copies of food control plans supplied by the operator. It seems that maybe the rationale was the same as the first one—clause 24—being removed but I'd just like to hear a bit more clarification around that. All in all I think that the bill is a very solid piece of work and I commend the committee and all of the work that's gone into it for that reason. There is one little pit that I did want to point out especially around giving the Director-General of MPI the permission to compel parties that provide services to a food business to provide information and then to also be able to inform the public as well which I think is a good move in terms of efficiency and time. I'd just like to hear a bit of the background behind that and also just say that MPI and their statutory role in contingency planning—all in all with those few modifications I think that it will lead to a better system all in all. Again I've got nothing else to specifically point out in this but there's just a few clarifications that I'm hoping we might be able to get on that piece. Thank you.