Hughes GarethGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora ngā mihi nui kia koutou kia ora. I thank all members for their contributions in the Chamber. It's my birthday today so it's the best present I could get with all the kind words and more importantly the votes.If you'll indulge me I'll use a birthday cake analogy in terms of this legislation. When it came out of the oven—the original bill of Steffan Browning—it was kind of like the cakes that I bake for my kids. They need to be patched up a bit; they need a bit of icing to cover the cracks. And this is what we've done. I remember when David Bennett approached me when we'd agreed to work on this bill at his committee which he ably chaired it needed a bit of panel-beating and it kind of needed that icing and a bit of covering.So I think it has been improved. What we eventually got out of the committee was something more flexible more pragmatic and I think also more inclusive in terms of the ingredients. So in terms of the flexibility it's kind of like instead of building a whole new kitchen to bake a cake milling the grain yourself and growing all the ingredients we had an existing kitchen existing recipe existing regime under the Fair Trading Act. So instead of building a bespoke country of origin food-labelling regime the officials—whom I'd like to take this opportunity to commend—recommended that we use the existing section 27 of the Fair Trading Act 1986. Now this makes a lot of sense.I heard a question from a member around why the fines were set at that level: $10000 for an individual $50000 for an organisation. The benefit of incorporating the Fair Trading Act regime means that they can be consistent and use the existing enforcement and offences regime. It's more pragmatic the way that it's come out of the committee because takeaways for example are explicitly excluded. It deals with issues such as online retailing.In terms of the inclusion this is something the member Stuart Nash touched on and I really want to highlight the work of Mark Patterson on the committee. It has been panel-beaten; it has been improved. Why the line was drawn where it was and the line had to be drawn somewhere was that the committee—and I guess I'd like to acknowledge the fact that it was a committee which was a split committee between Government and Opposition members—had to reach consensus to progress it to improve it to panel-beat it. They wanted something which was the simplest to implement with the least cost to avoid confusion around definitions.This is why I was so glad to get pork in because here was a clear case of where there was a consumer expectation given the high-profile nature and the widespread confusion. I recall being on telly and taking a whole bunch of different pork brands into the studio and not being able to work out which pork brand actually came from New Zealand. And we know as Mark Patterson talked about the vast majority of pork that comes into New Zealand is from countries with lower animal welfare standards. So getting that at the eleventh-hour—that's where I'd like to acknowledge the National Party members. It was their support that was instrumental in getting pork back in.To Stuart Nash's point that he would have liked to have gone further I wish I'd had a chance to talk to him about that earlier because we wanted it to go further. Originally Steffan's bill dealt with all single-component foods. But I guess kind of like a recipe kind of like a soup what we do have is a great base. Those peanut butter examples for example: take Pic's in New Zealand a great high-quality brand that trades on the New Zealand nature of it. There's nothing stopping them from promoting the fact but the line had to be drawn somewhere. And what the committee wanted was something which was easily understandable.So sure questions might be asked about why tomatoes are in but tinned tomatoes out. Why is fruit in but nuts are out? Why are cucumbers in but pickles are out? It's because of the different ingredients that go into it. Take pickles: the oil and the spices. In the future I think New Zealand will get closer to the Australian regime which is a lot more comprehensive. There they literally have speedo indicator lines that indicate the percentage to 76 percent of Australian-grown ingredients. So I cede to the member Stuart Nash this is like a base recipe. It's the great foundation that empowers a robust system where the Minister in future Governments can make regulations and build upon it.Ultimately it's something which is more flexible more pragmatic more inclusive but most importantly Kiwi consumers are getting the same rights that 55 other nations have which Kiwis currently have when it comes to footwear under our footwear and clothing regulations of 1992. Kiwis will get the right to know where their food comes from so they can be informed consumers and actually exercise their consumer choice. I'd like to thank members for their support.