Prosser Richard: Food Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Food Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17759. 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 the second reading of the Food Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. This is an enormous bill and it is perhaps somewhat ironic that it has taken Parliament a very long time to digest it. Four years ago almost to the day the first version was introduced to the House and referred to the Primary Production Committee. The committee reported back in December of that year and in July of last year the bill was again referred back to the committee for further examination. The bill has altered greatly over that time and as it stands there are now nearly 400 pages of Supplementary Order Papers.The Primary Production Committee on which I am privileged to sit as an observer has dedicated a great deal of time and effort into the bill we now have before us. Under the very able chairmanship of Mr Ardern the committee has listened to countless submissions and wrestled with the vagaries of law and life that they have thrown up. As such I am doubly privileged to be able to make New Zealand First’s first contribution to this bill coming through as it has from the 49th Parliament from which New Zealand First took a short sabbatical thanks to the misunderstandings of 2008. But enough of that. We are back now we are here now and we are supporting this bill through the House.The bill provides a regulatory framework to enable businesses to take primary responsibility for the sale of safe and suitable food. Food businesses will be regulated relative to the degree of risk posed by the food selling activity that they are engaged in. A number of risk management tools are included in this bill. They include food control plans for high-risk businesses such as restaurants; national programmes for medium to low risk businesses such as horticulture producers; food handling guidance and the educational information for low-risk operators such as those engaged in fund-raising activities like cake stalls and sausage sizzles which probably every member of this House has been engaged in; and monitoring programmes set by regulation to impose measures in specific circumstances for determining the safety and suitability of food.One of the issues that comes up all the time is that very issue of the school barbecue the fund-raising event the cake stall and that kind of thing. The committee members endeavoured to ensure that they were thorough around food safety and the marketing and sale of food both domestically and internationally but without putting in place a whole lot of costly compliance and regulation and unintended consequences for those who want to be involved in community activities such as the school barbecue or in the rural electorates the school calf day.Unfortunately the State has a bit of a reputation for being heavy handed and over the top you might say and sometimes ridiculous in the compliance requirements that it places on those people. Putting in place a framework that can accommodate both that and also imported and exported food so that we absolutely guarantee our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand which is so valuable to us is an essential piece of work for Parliament and the select committee to carry out. I am confident that the committee hasgot it right on this one that it has found the middle ground between the absolute need to make our food safe in every regard and the need to preserve the traditions that make our Kiwi way of life special. Under the auspices of the law that this will bill become the Rotary Club will still be able to sell sausages for a dollar each outside the supermarket on a Saturday morning the primary school will still be allowed to run a cake stall to pay for new volleyball nets and Biddy from Manawatū will still be able to milk her four cows and make her cheese—her famous cheese I should add well known to more than one of the honourable and erstwhile members of the committee.The committee is very much driven by consensus and I think that is a good thing because food safety—the safety of the food that we eat and the safety of the food we export—is of paramount importance to everyone in New Zealand. So much of our economy is based on the export of food as part of our primary production sector that the economic impact of a failing in export food safety standards would impact on everyone in this country. This is a reality not lost on any party in this House and I am gladdened that all parties are on board with this bill and that we are all on the same side. There has been criticism of elements of the bill as presented to the committee by submitters. I do believe that the very great majority of these concerns have been satisfied by the changes that the committee has recommended and by the substantial Supplementary Order Paper 278 which the Minister for Food Safety has proposed. In particular there was criticism of the perceived focus of the bill which in the minds of some gave a priority to commercial concerns over and above those of absolute food safety. In clause 4 of the preliminary provisions of the bill the purpose of it is stated as to restate and reform the law relating to how persons trade in food and achieve the safety and suitability of food for sale provide for risk-based measures that minimise and manage risks to public health and protect and promote public health and provide certainty for food businesses in relation to how the requirements of this Act will affect their activities and to require persons who trade in food to take responsibility for the safety and suitability of that food.With reference to this purpose the report of the select committee states: “Primacy of food safety. The bill as introduced does not in our view give enough weight to the principle of food safety. To maintain the primacy of food safety as the overriding principle of the bill we recommend adding subclause 14(2) to ensure that in the event of conflict in the decision-making process between the principles in clause 14 the Minister or chief executive must give the greatest priority to that of food safety and the protection of public health. We also note that the risk factors referred to in clause 14(e) are not specified and we recommend that the clause be amended to include a list of all the risk factors to be considered.”The changes to clause 14 also address concerns raised by some submitters that the introduction of international agreements and treaties could put at risk the primacy of food safety in this legislation and could undermine New Zealand’s ability to set its own food standards. New Zealand First is confident that this recommendation will satisfy the concerns the quite legitimate concerns of those submitters who raised this possibility.It is not possible to comment on all aspects of this bill. It is simply too large and too comprehensive and there are simply too many of them. Suffice it to say that there will be plenty of opportunities to expand on what we have examined individually as members and collectively as a Parliament through the remaining stages of this bill. For now New Zealand First is glad that this bill has reached the stage that it is at after 4 years of gestation. We are glad to be in a position to contribute to it. We will support it and we will also be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 440 in the name of Damien O’Connor regarding country-of-origin labelling and I commend it to the House. Thank you.