Prosser Richard: Food Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Food Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18346. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to this third reading of the Food Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill. This bill has been a long time in the making—10 years or thereabouts—and even when it does finally become law it will not be completely up to date. This we know. But we know also that it is a necessary piece of legislation and that it is a very necessary update to what had become some very wide discrepancies between New Zealand’s food safety regulations and processes and the risks posed by various foodstuffs in various situations and also in the available science and best practice that may be brought to bear upon them. This is a very lengthy and detailed work of law—a veritable tome one could say. It is a tome but not a tomb. That is relevant because a tomb is where we will all wind up if we get it wrong with regards to food safety.Supplementary Order Paper 278 brought forward by the current Minister for Food Safety who has inherited this process and brought it to this point of fruition is larger still: 400 pages or thereabouts. It is a significant and overarching work and we congratulate the Minister on the very comprehensive reworking that she has undertaken of the bill as it was presented to her.There are many aspects of the law as it relates to food safety that we could focus on. Colleagues from across the House I am sure will touch on most of them. It is important to note I believe that this bill moves the focus on food safety for foods for consumption from one centred on the premises in which food is prepared to one centred on the level of risk associated with the food itself. There is sound reasoning behind this we believe and we are happy to support this change in mind-set. The inspection traceability and recall provisions contained in the bill provide a sound mechanism by which incidents such as the Fonterra botulism scare may be addressed in the future. These two considerations—the risk associated with food and the ability to trace and recall potentially dangerous foodstuffs and produce potentially carrying risk and intended either for domestic consumption or for export—are of very great importance in our opinion.In addition there is the issue of food sovereignty which was and is a very genuine concern held by a great many of the submitters. I want to address some of these considerations. Risk-based food assessment with regards to food safety covers many aspects of life in New Zealand. Some of the potential implications of it were a source of angst expressed by numerous submitters and indeed shared by many if not most of the Primary Production Committee. One of the defining features of our easygoing egalitarian Kiwi lifestyle is the ability for people to swap share sell and otherwise trade food and produce for fund-raising pocket money and indeed just for fun. The cake stall at the school gala the Lions club sausage sizzle out the front of the supermarket on a Saturday morning the beach barbecue and the jam raffle so that the volunteer fire brigade can buy a new inflatable boat for the surf lifesaving club—these things are dear to us as a people and although the select committee fully understood theneed to ensure that food for consumption is made to be as safe as possible the committee also understood very keenly the need to preserve those things that go to the heart of this country as a nation and as a people.Submitters impressed this view upon the committee and the committee in turn impressed it upon the officials from the Ministry for Primary Industries. To their credit the officials took that information on board and delivered what I believe is a good workable compromise that upholds and respects the rights of all concerned. They have done sterling service and they along with the select committee and the Minister deserve our recognition and appreciation. The bill they have delivered does not spell the end for the farmers markets sausage sizzles homemade jam or cake stalls. We can rest easy in our beds as far as that is concerned.Food sovereignty was at least as pressing a concern for many people as was the issue of small producers and fund-raisers. Many people held the fear that this bill would open the door to overseas standards and foreign companies to trade treaties taking priority over the need for food safety and to New Zealand facing the wrath of the World Trade Organization for having the temerity to require imported food to adhere to the standard that we deem acceptable in our own land. This bill does not require that that be so. It does not sell our collective national soul for a mess of pottage—whatever that is. Pottage—what is it? I confess I do not really know. It is genetically modified porridge perhaps. I am sure my erstwhile colleague from the Greens will be only too happy to enlighten me. But I digress perhaps just a little.I believe that this is somewhat justified. This has been a lengthy and mentally taxing process—this shepherding and this assisting to shepherd this weighty and truly voluminous text of law through the process of the Primary Production Committee on which I am privileged to sit as an observer. A more fine and august body of men and women it would be a challenge to find even from amongst such a splendid assemblage as we find ourselves in the presence of here in this House. But shepherded it has been and here we now find ourselves. The sovereignty of New Zealanders’ daily bread is not at risk from this bill. It may well be that some other insidious legation—perhaps one being crafted behind the closed doors of the Trans-Pacific Partnership—may come to threaten our right to self-determination in that particular manner. Time will tell but it is not this bill that is of concern in this regard.The bill is not perfect. There are some things that it could have done but will not be doing. Of greatest concern of course is the omission of country-of-origin labelling on all imported foodstuffs. It is a shame that the Government chose not to address this issue of its own volition. It could—and indeed should—have been an integral part of a bill intended primarily to address the safety of the food that we eat. Knowing where that food comes from is a fundamental part of that question I would contend. It is a shame the Government further chose to disregard the very fine Supplementary Order Paper 440 on the matter in the name of the Hon Damien O’Connor and the also very fine Supplementary Order Paper 449 in the name of Steffan Browning. It is a shame that the Government instead chose to put the issue of country-of-origin labelling in the too-hard basket. Other countries have it. Australia has it. It does not appear to be too hard for the Aussies. Perhaps Australians are a brighter bunch than this National Government.I am partially encouraged by some indications from the Minister that she may be thinking of looking at smart applications for the listing of origin labelling information. This would be a logical step. There is some truth in the argument that many food products contain ingredients from a number of different source countries and further that processing itself may take place in more than one jurisdiction. There will undeniably be a very great deal of information pertaining to the origins of some foods but that is not in our view a sufficient reason for effectively withholding thatinformation from the consumer. Technology exists now that can make the paper trail available and we would contend that such technology could and should be being used now.We would very much hope there is no truth in the suggestion that the Government may have caved into pressure from some quarters that tacitly implied that country-of-origin labelling could be perceived by some countries as a non-tariff barrier to trade. I would suggest in response that any such positioning from another country would serve only to reinforce the need for such labelling. There are some places in this world that I personally seek quite deliberately to avoid when choosing the sources for the food that I eat. I would like to know from the labels on the stuff that I buy whether or not those places are included in the list of ingredients.However it is not the end of the world and a future Government can always revisit this particular aspect of what is otherwise a fairly sound and reasonable piece of legislation. I will flag right now that this is something that a Government in which New Zealand First has influence will indeed be revisiting. All in all this is fundamentally a good and necessary bill and one that is certainly very overdue. New Zealand First supports this bill and having voiced such concerns as we do have I commend it to the House. Thank you.