Macindoe Tim: Motions — Food Standards—Folic Acid in Bread 
Macindoe Tim: Motions — Food Standards—Folic Acid in Bread 
[Volume:667;Page:14353] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 In light of the discussion about the points of order I too will return to a discussion of the process that the Regulations Review Committee of which I am the deputy chair undertook when considering this complaint. A few months ago the committee considered the complaint that had been lodged by the New Zealand Organisation for Rare Disorders about the New Zealand (Mandatory Fortification of Bread with Folic Acid) Amendment Food Standard 2009. We heard evidence relating to the complaint from members of the organisation and from the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. All submitters were well prepared and presented their evidence and appeals with clarity and conviction. I acknowledge them all and thank them for the care and sincerity they demonstrated. 
There is no question that the fortification of bread with folic acid has some health benefits for some women of childbearing age and their progeny who may be at risk of being born with a rare genetic disorder. That is why many countries have successfully introduced voluntary fortification of bread and it is why the New Zealand Government indicated last year that work would be undertaken on a voluntary standard that would allow some bread to be fortified. 
It was important for members of the Regulations Review Committee to restrict their focus during the hearing of the complaint and consideration of evidence to matters of process and not to stray into matters of policy in accordance with the purpose of our committee. The focus of the Regulations Review Committee is technical scrutiny not scrutiny of policy. Our role was therefore to consider the complaint against the grounds set out in the Standing Orders focusing on the technical aspects of the delegated legislation that were pertinent to the complaint. 
As a result of consideration of the issues raised in the complaint we concluded and reported to the House in August of this year that the 2009 amendment food standard is in accordance with the general objects and intentions of the Food Act 1981 does not appear to make unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Food Act and most important in the context of this debate was made in compliance with particular notice and consultation procedures prescribed by the Food Act. I provide those details to the House because they underline the point made earlier by the Minister for Food Safety that the consultation process that was undertaken in New Zealand leading to the adoption of the New Zealand (Mandatory Fortification of Bread with Folic Acid) Amendment Food Standard 2009 was comprehensive and robust. 
In seeking to have the standard disallowed by way of the motion that we are debating this afternoon Moana Mackey is urging the House to revert to a position adopted by the previous Labour Government that attracted widespread opposition throughout New Zealand. Notwithstanding the earnest representations of the New Zealand Organisation for Rare Disorders which we all understand and respect when the previous Government announced its plans for mandatory fortification of bread with folic acid there was strong evidence of stern resistance to the measure from New Zealanders. Labour intended to remove consumer choice. 
There was significant media coverage of the issue then and again when the new Government responded to that widespread public opposition by commencing an investigation of this country’s options given that the standard was a feature of our joint food treaty with Australia. The Government made a decision to ask New Zealanders whether they wanted mandatory fortification of their bread with folic acid. That was done by way of a discussion document being issued and public submissions being invited. Thanks to significant media interest and coverage members of the public were well aware of the issues under consideration and of their opportunity to influence the Government’s response. And they did so. 
Moana Mackey 
: They had 1 month! 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Contrary to what members opposite are asserting we were told at our inquiry that the level of responses at that time was entirely normal and as would be expected in the circumstances. 
Moana Mackey 
: How do you know? 
TIM MACINDOE 
: We were told that fact I say to Ms Mackey during the inquiry. It was a thorough and appropriate process. 
Those submissions resulted in an overwhelming indication from the public of New Zealand that they wanted to be able to choose whether they eat bread that is fortified with folic acid. Men in particular were concerned about some significant adverse health effects that they could experience from being subjected to the additive. Sue Kedgley earlier referred to those issues. Elderly New Zealanders were also strongly opposed to the measure. There is no evidence that anything has changed since they made their submissions. 
Although consumer choice was an important aspect it should be noted that it was not the only factor that the Government took into account. The Government’s statement on regulation sets out the expectation that voluntary measures should be used in preference to regulatory measures where possible. The Regulations Review Committee—far from being a rubber stamp and an insulting process as Moana Mackey suggested when she concluded her speech earlier—undertook its work thoroughly and the chairperson Mr Chauvel indicated earlier that we always do so. I acknowledge that he is a fair even-handed chairman and he does the job extraordinarily well. 
The committee undertook its work thoroughly and on the evidence found that the process followed was not only adequate but also thorough. It is for that reason that this resolution will and should be voted down this afternoon.