Hague Kevin: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — First Reading 
Hague Kevin: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16434] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 Last week in a debate I spoke to my colleagues from the ACT Party about some of Adam Smith’s conditions for markets to operate correctly and for competition to deliver the best mix of price and quality. One of those conditions is information. For a market to deliver the best mix of price and quality all consumers need perfect information about each of the competing products. The National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill is about meeting that consumer need for greater information at least in part. There is more and more evidence that consumers around the world are seeking more information about the quality of the products that they consume. That is both quality in the conventional sense—whether this thing does what it says it does whether this particular piece of food tastes the way we want it to taste and whether it lasts as well as we want it to—and also aspects of quality like safety; animal welfare which is one of the qualities of the products that we sell overseas; and environmental considerations which include whether a product is free-range in the farming sector and its GE content or otherwise. 
Distance is increasingly an important consideration for many consumers. Consumers ask how far a product has had to travel to get to them and many consumers are choosing to consume only foods that are grown or produced within a certain distance of where they live. All of those aspects are important and the need for consumer quality is well served by the provisions of this bill that allow animals to be tracked back from paddock to plate if you like. 
In the regulatory impact statement for the bill we learnt quite a lot about the situation that the bill is addressing. I was particularly struck by the situation that occurred in February 2008 when the European Union banned Brazilian beef imports due to deficiencies in the Brazilian tracing systems. That came at a cost to Brazil of $430 million. This measure is really important for our economy. The bill has very important biosecurity implications and it should also be supported for that reason. 
We have a concern about the development of the bill—the process that was used—because it certainly appears from the discussion in the regulatory impact statement that there did not appear to be consultation with the organics sector in the broader agricultural sector. That is of concern to us. The organics sector is a very important part of the New Zealand agricultural scene. It is also a sector that particularly stands to benefit if the system is well developed because the organics sector has a good story to tell for those consumers overseas who are specifically seeking quality. Certainly in the consideration of the bill by the select committee the Green Party will be specifically encouraging and looking for submissions from the organics sector and from those farmers who perhaps are particularly pursuing that high-quality niche marketing for their products. 
I also raise a concern about one aspect of the bill and again we hope that this issue will be well considered by the select committee. It relates to the enforcement powers that will be given to those who are implementing this law. The legislation’s enforcement powers include search and surveillance powers and detention powers—a sweeping range of powers that represent a significant imposition on the human rights and liberties of people. We will certainly be looking hard during the select committee process to see that the imposition on people’s rights and freedoms is justified by the evil that the Government seeks to avert. There is a related concern which again we will be paying particular attention to. That is the fact that these sweeping powers are vested by this bill not in an arm of the State but in something else. I guess that the body that will be exercising these tasks is almost a quango. Again that is a major alarm bell for our party because we believe that substantive powers that impose on the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders ought to be exercised only by the State and under this bill they will not be. That creates a particular problem. 
Lastly I come to the flip side of this legislation and my colleague Damien O’Connor alluded to this point before the dinner break. What we are doing in this bill is creating a system by which consumers in other countries will be able to track back in some detail the history of the foods that are produced for them by New Zealand farmers and growers. I ask when it will be time for New Zealand consumers to have that same right—when it will be time for New Zealanders to know where their food comes from what it contains. When will they know whether it contains genetically engineered organisms or ingredients whether it is grown organically whether it is free-range and whether it contains trans fats or palm oil? When will New Zealand consumers have those same rights that this bill is intended to satisfy for overseas consumers? 
I was pleased to hear Damien O’Connor saying that it was his intention to develop a member’s bill on country-of-origin labelling. It does represent a very substantial shift from the position that he and Labour took in Government. But we recognise change and it is part of the Green mission if you like to export our ideas. So we will be very pleased to support that bill. We call on the Government having introduced this bill to introduce that companion bill if you like to give New Zealand consumers those same rights to know what is in their food and where it comes from.