Kaye Nikki: Food Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKaye Nikki: Food Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 14 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17870. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for Food Safety): I am very pleased to take a call on Part 5 of the Food Bill. I want to first acknowledge the Hon Kate Wilkinson who is in the Chamber. She did a significant amount of the heavy lifting on this bill and I want to acknowledge the contribution that she has made. Look this part is quite wide in terms of the regulations and exemptions but I want to make a number of points that have actually been made in the debate already that tie up with this part.The first thing that we heard from the Labour members was that if they were in office they would get rid of the role of the Ministry for Primary Industries in this areaand they would have an independent food safety authority. The point that I would like to make there is that we have just had an independent inquiry. We have had experts internationally say in the independent inquiry that the typical comments that came from submitters across New Zealand were that biosecurity and food safety are two sides of the same coin and that the ministry and industry both benefit from the synergies between food safety and facilitating trade. There was a very common theme there. People do not want to go back. That is the first point that I would make. It is important to acknowledge though that we must ensure the role of the regulator is quite separate from what we are doing in terms of facilitating trade but I want to acknowledge what the independent inquiry said. We want the merger to work in terms of the Ministry for Primary Industries and food safety roles.The second point that I want to make which is tied to our miscellaneous provisions in this area is around compliance and enforcement. You cannot have a good food safety system without having not only good legislation but also good authority like what the Ministry for Primary Industries is currently doing in terms of its role and having the dial turned appropriately in terms of compliance and enforcement. I think some of the provisions in this bill are going to be incredibly important in terms of people’s confidence in our food safety system. I want to acknowledge Steffan Browning in terms of his Supplementary Order Paper 449. The point that I would make around his amendment is that actually the law currently puts requirements on the chief executive of the ministry to ensure there is adequate compliance so we do think that the amendment is redundant.The other point I would like to make following the conversations that we have had Steffan around ensuring that enforcement is there is that I completely agree with you. That is why one of the powers in this bill that is so important in terms of ensuring that compliance is fines for things like labelling. At the moment the issue is not that we do not investigate these incidents; the issue is that the Food Act is so outdated that we cannot actually punish these people unless we take them to court. So these fines are going to be incredibly important in terms of the integrity of our labelling system.The next point I want to make is that there have been a number of comments in terms of the balance. Damien O’Connor has made a number of comments around the cost versus ensuring that we have appropriate regulations in this area. Let me be very clear: the whole point of this bill is that there actually will be businesses in New Zealand that will have more compliance costs out of this because they will have higher-risk food. They will be the people who will be at the forefront. If they get it wrong people will actually die. So we need to acknowledge that the whole point of this bill is that yes there will be less regulation for some people but for some people who are producing higher-risk food the compliance will be stronger. So I just regret any assertion that this bill has not got the balance right in terms of compliance versus the risks of food.The next comment is very relevant in terms of this part and also the whey protein concentrate inquiry. I want to say to Mr O’Connor and let me be really clear that the recall provisions that came to the Primary Production Committee have been at the heart of the whey protein concentrate incident. It is about understanding that we have to have an appropriate threshold here when there is an uncertain situation. With whey protein concentrate there was some uncertainty. Obviously there have been a number of investigations in that area but people have died in other countries in areas of food like brussels sprouts because there has been uncertainty but not the ability to act. I think this Parliament has absolutely got those recall provisions right. We have changed the test basically lowering the test to enable officers to act.That brings me on to the next point which David Shearer raised that is effectively around food safety officers. This bill absolutely acknowledges that there has to be abalance there to make sure that for those small businesses in New Zealand there is not a heavy-handed approach where it is not proper to have that approach unless people are at risk. But I want to make this point and I want to acknowledge the situation that Damien O’Connor referred to. There are two things. One is that in terms of food safety officers for 30 years we have had powers in terms of entry. So the point that David Shearer raises has actually been in the law for 30 years. The difference here is that because we are actually enabling less regulation for certain people who may have home-based businesses if there is an outbreak of listeria tomorrow and we have mums at risk of losing their babies we absolutely need to go in. That is the only change that has been made. It is about food safety.The second point I would make is in terms of the situation Damien O’Connor raised around a particular company. I do not want to go into the detail of that but what I want to say is that that member knows very well that actually the point we made to him is that we would be ignoring the law and breaking the law if we had enabled people to put something into food that had not been agreed to by the code. The point that I make to him is that I agree with him generally that it is very important that when we are thinking through this legislation we have that appropriate balance of the powers in terms of the law versus officers and versus the Ministry for Primary Industries. But there are certain situations where you just do not let people add stuff to wine if it has not actually been agreed to in the code. That was the situation we both dealt with.Overall can I just say again that there has been amazing support across the Committee and huge work from the Opposition to really improve this bill. Finally in terms of country-of-origin labelling the points that I made before are that this side of the Chamber is not convinced of comprehensive country-of-origin food labelling because you have got an inquiry just being initiated in Australia—our closest trading partner—that has said that this is confusing and that it is adding complexity and costs to business. The other point that I would make to Mr O’Connor and to members of this Committee who want to vote for Mr O’Connor’s amendment—and I understand the good intentions there—is that they need to know that the way that his amendment is worded it would actually tie New Zealand for eternity to whatever Australia does in country-of-origin labelling. And for the Green Party here which constantly raises issues of sovereignty to be voting for Mr O’Connor’s amendment which ties us for eternity to Australia’s position I think is wrong.The second point that I would make is that I do understand Mr Browning’s amendment and although we are not going to vote for that amendment we have made the point that we do support voluntary country-of-origin labelling. I am doing more work in this area. I do support as much as possible getting more of that country-of-origin labelling in terms of single ingredient foods. It is actually pretty meaningless complex and costly when you take the Labour Party’s position of comprehensive country-of-origin labelling. The point is that to pass that in a primary statute would breach we believe the treaty between Australia and New Zealand. The whole point is that we have a flexible code that can be amended and that does not require Parliament to keep coming back every time we want to change labelling. That is the point. It is not at all that I do not support your intention Mr Browning of having consumers know as much as possible about the source of single ingredient foods. The point is about what the appropriate vehicle is.So can I say that I want to acknowledge all members across the Committee for their outstanding contributions and their support for passing this bill. We may disagree on certain aspects that have been put up but I commend this bill to the Committee.