Norman Russel: Urgent Debates — Dairy Products Whey Protein—Response to Contamination IncidentText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNorman Russel: Urgent Debates — Dairy Products Whey Protein—Response to Contamination Incident[Sitting date: 06 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12331. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green):I rise on behalf of the Green Party in this urgent debate about the contamination of whey and its processing into other products. This has been a very confused few days. I want to start by just running over the time line of what happened. We have certainly been trying to wade our way through the information some of which has been good and some of which has been a bit confusing.It looks like what happened is that in May 2012 some whey was processed by Fonterra and about 20 tonnes were shipped to six customers. At that stage the wheywas not tested forClostridium . That is because of the use that it was going to be put to it was not seen as necessary to test it forClostridium  but it appears that at this point it was contaminated as a result of a contaminated pipe we are told. That was in May 2012.Nothing happened until March this year. What happened in March 2013 was that the remaining 18 tonnes of the processed product were shipped to Darwin to make infant formula. At that point testing of the product forClostridium was done. This is the important point. The reason it was done was that obviouslyClostridium  particularly the harmful forms ofClostridium  is very dangerous to have in infant formula. So it was tested by Fonterra at that point and at that point Fonterra established that there was a contamination problem in this whey that was to be shipped off to Darwin. That was in March.The issue I have is what happened between March and July because it was only on 31 July that it was finally confirmed that it wasClostridiumbotulinum  which is the toxic kind ofClostridium —there are many non-toxic kinds. It was only at that point that it was confirmed that it wasC. botulinum . So there is a gap. I think we really need some answers as to what happened in that gap and why it was only after 5 months that we finally found out that it was the toxic kind ofClostridium C. botulinum . After 31 July when it was apparently confirmed that it was the toxic kind ofClostridium  things moved reasonably quickly. The Ministry for Primary Industries was apparently told on 2 August and then on 3 August the issue went public.After that there was also some further confusion. I think there are some issues here about supply chain traceability because it became a bit confusing to parents as to what kinds of infant formula they were meant to be avoiding. Many parents I suspect went out and bought the kinds of infant formula that they thought were safe and it turned out as advice evolved over the next few days that that was not necessarily so.The primary responsibility of Parliament this Government and Fonterra in this situation is to protect the health of those who are consuming these food products. Everything else is secondary to that. That has to be the primary purpose of all of the Government actions and all of the fine words that get said in Parliament. That has to be where we start.Locating the contaminated product is essential to that and making sure that we have in place supply chain traceability so that we can track that product down very quickly seems to me to be absolutely essential. I have been a little bit disturbed that we have had trouble locating some of that product. It would seem that part of the reason I am sure is the 5-month gap between when this was first identified and when it was finally confirmed that it was actuallyC. botulinum  which has created part of the problem for tracking the supply chain as the product has been distributed. We are still hopeful that the final remaining part of the product—we have been told that most of it 90 percent of it has been located—is located very quickly.The next part of our responsibility is about informing parents from an authoritative voice. That is where I think it is very important that the Ministry of Health is involved. Although the Ministry for Primary Industries is I am sure a fine department it necessarily has a different focus from the Ministry of Health which has a sole focus on the health of people. The Ministry for Primary Industries has a more diverse focus let us say. I believe it is important in terms of informing parents and making sure they have good information both that the source of that advice is one that has no complicated motives but has a simple straightforward motive which is health that is the Ministry of Health and that we make greater efforts to actually communicate that to people. Not everybody follows the media very closely every day and keeps track of exactly what is going on so I think it is important. That is not just for parents ofchildren in New Zealand but of course in other countries where the product has been distributed. I believe that should be one of our key priorities.In terms of where we go from here questions remain for us about the gap between the finding of the genusClostridium the identification of the speciesC. botulinum  the toxic species in particular and the questions we have about why notification took so long. Are there in place measures what we think would be standard notifications whereby if a company like Fonterra or any other company that produces food finds a potential contaminant like this? I would have assumed that there was in place an automatic process whereby Government agencies are notified whether it is the Ministry for Primary Industries or the Ministry of Health or both.We asked questions in the House today—and we will continue to follow that up—about whether there is in place a mechanism whereby there is some kind of automatic notification when these kinds of contaminants or potential contaminants are found so that the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry of Health are involved right from the beginning. That to us seems to be one of the critical issues because of the time lag involved between the two periods.We are also obviously very interested in looking at the exact relationship between the Ministry for Primary Industries and Fonterra. If you think of the Ministry for Primary Industries as the regulator and Fonterra and the other companies as the industry it is obviously essential that the regulator has if you like in some respects an arm’s length approach from Fonterra. That is it should be that the ministry is able to take an independent position and step in on the industry when it is necessary to act in the greater good. That is the role of the Government. The role of the Government is not just to be captured by business the role of the Government is not to be an arm of corporations or industry; the role of the Government is in this case to act as an arm’s length independent regulator that has both the ability and the motive to intervene if that is necessary. That will be I think one of the questions that we will be asking going forward.This issue and this episode have also raised broader questions about the diversification or lack thereof of the New Zealand economy. We have seen over previous years and it has been a strategy of this Government a kind of simplification of the New Zealand economy. That means that we have become more and more reliant on a single large industry. That is of course the dairy sector. It seems to us that relying on a single large industry has risks and I think those risks have been exposed during this period. It does not result in a highly resilient economy; it results in some respects in a more fragile economy.We would argue that this case should be a wake-up call for all of us that we need to diversify not only the New Zealand economy more broadly but also the primary sector. We should not have just a primary sector that is leaning so heavily on dairy and we should not have an export sector more generally and a tradable sector more generally that are leaning so heavily on dairy. We think it is very important that we develop the manufacturing sector and that we develop the other sectors of the economy such as the information and communications technology sector so that we do not simply rely on one large industry which if something goes awry and that industry gets into trouble has significant effects on the New Zealand economy.We think also that this case does bring home to us the significance and importance of “clean green and safe” as the branding of the New Zealandagrifood industry and of course of New Zealand as a whole. That branding of “clean green and safe” is incredibly valuable and if we push towards more and more quantity or volume through the sector and in the process compromise “clean green and safe” then I think that is a significant problem for our export sector. Obviously we do not know the details of howexactly this problem evolved but it certainly has brought to the fore how critical those reputational issues are and how it is very important that we protect them in order to protect not just the long-term interests of the dairy sector and theagrifood sector but the long-term interests of New Zealand more broadly.At the end of my contribution I will just return to the importance of staying focused on the food and those who consume it. That has to be our primary concern. That has to be the concern of the Government. All the other issues around the development of the dairy sector in terms of finding out what happened are all very important but in the first instance our focus needs to remain on making sure that we track down that food and that we notify those parents of the issues involved. That needs to be at this point in time our No. 1 focus and then in time we will be looking at exactly why this happened. Thank you.