Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:3985] 
7.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: When she recommended to the Cabinet business committee that New Zealand opt out of the proposed Australia - New Zealand country-of-origin food labelling standard following a review why did she indicate “that consultation is not required with the government caucuses or other parties represented in Parliament”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 As it is longstanding Government policy not to support mandatory country-of-origin labelling and as the Australian-only standard does not change the current situation in New Zealand no consultation was necessary with parties in Parliament with which the Government had entered coalition confidence and supply or cooperation agreements. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does she agree that a decision not to introduce country-of-origin labelling of food is of vital interest to New Zealanders and that as the representatives of New Zealanders MPs and political parties have not only the right but the duty to engage with this issue; and is she concerned that by making this decision in secret—without any consultation—she has undermined the democratic process? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No because the Government has made it clear for many years—as had previous Governments—that it does not favour mandatory country-of-origin labelling. We have not changed our mind. The member is able to use the democratic process. She has a member’s bill in this House and that allows her to speak on the issue and allows members of the public to give submissions on her bill. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is this Minister the same Minister for Food Safety who is quoted in today’s  
New Zealand Herald  
as saying that if the trans-Tasman therapeutic products agency fails to go ahead there would be “transtasman ramifications” and why on the one hand does she criticise parliamentary parties for not supporting her unilateral decision to harmonise with Australia yet on the other hand behind our backs and without any consultation she made a highly unusual and unilateral decision with obvious trans-Tasman ramifications to opt out of a joint food standard with Australia for the first time? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I honestly do not know where the member lives. It is not unilateral secret hidden unknown; the Government’s position—as was the previous Government’s position—which is a sensible position has been well known for years. I could ask that member why she is so in favour of strong regulations on food but does not want any regulations on complementary medicine. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister made an incorrect statement and I ask her to withdraw and apologise. She said I was not in favour of any regulations. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes it is a debating point. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why does the Government support mandatory country-of-origin labelling for clothing and footwear but not for food? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Mandatory country-of-origin labelling on footwear and clothing is a hangover from the phase-out of tariffs. That is why it is there. It is something of the past and obviously is being reviewed—as is the country-of-origin labelling on wine. I think we have had a very sensible position in New Zealand with cross-party support. It is not possible to argue against mandatory country-of-origin labelling by the rest of the world against New Zealand and then want to impose it in New Zealand. That is a hypocritical position. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Minister saying she does not support country-of-origin labelling for clothing footwear and wine as well and why is her Government denying New Zealand consumers something as basic and democratic as their right to know where their food comes from which is a right that consumers in most Western countries already have and which 81 percent of New Zealanders said in a recent independent survey they want? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Most New Zealanders want to know whether the product is a New Zealand product. They want to buy New Zealand - made products. I think the Buy Kiwi Made programme that is being worked out with my colleague Trevor Mallard is a start in that direction. That I think is what most New Zealanders want to know. But if the member were to put to New Zealanders that they could have mandatory country-of-origin labelling and then were to ask them to pay extra for it on top of the price of their food I wonder whether the answer might be different. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table documentation from the Cabinet business committee where the Minister advised her Cabinet colleagues that consultation was not required with the Government caucuses or other parties in Parliament on what is a fundamentally important issue of concern to all New Zealanders. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.