O'Connor Damien: Food Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Damien: Food Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17751. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): It is with much pleasure that I rise to speak on the Food Bill. It has been around for some time and I think the Minister for Food Safety rightly points to approximately 10 years I guess. It arises from the good work of my colleague who will speak after me who initiated a review of the pieces of legislation that govern food production sale and exporting in this country. As a country we are entirely dependent upon our ability to do this and to produce safe reliable high-quality food for consumers all around the world as well as for people who buy and consume or are given food here in this country. So it is indeed a very very important piece of legislation and it did take some time to develop. In fact it was almost there prior to the election in 2008 and then it sat around for a while. The National Government then did introduce the bill on 26 May 2010. It sat around for a wee while and the Government was a bit unsure as to whether it should take on the bill. Again it took some time until we now have a piece of legislation that I believe is real progress.The Minister did of course raise what has been the primary driver of the National Government of course and that is reducing costs. Everyone thinks that is a great objective because the Government knows the cost of everything but it does not realise the value of some of these pieces of legislation. In fact the integrity and reputation of New Zealand as a producer of food is probably the most valuable and most important thing that we as a country can uphold. So this piece of legislation has to firstly uphold that reputation.In fact the Primary Production Committee in looking at Supplementary Order Paper 278 realised that we actually needed to emphasise even more the primary purpose of the bill in that Supplementary Order Paper. So we stated or had put into the commentary of the bill the words: “to maintain New Zealand’s reputation as a producer and exporter of safe and suitable food.” I think it was absolutely essential that we did that because the Minister as she said could imply that it was about reducing costs for industry. Well no Government wants to add costs. But we do not want to deregulate as the National Government did in housing mining banking and electricity because the results of that were disastrous. Alongside this bill the National Government is deregulating meat inspection. So although we are moving to incorporate a robust system here in fact alongside it we are creating some risks—but more about that later.As I say this bill does amend not just one piece of legislation but a number of them that go back some time. They are certainly due for a once-over. I would like to work through I guess as the commentary does and just outline some of the focus points of the legislation. The sale of food by small producers was a very topical political issue both with the previous Government—and I can remember having a discussion in Cabinet about it—and the incoming Government where people involved primarily in fund-raising activities sausage sizzles and such like I guess you could say were concerned that they were going to be regulated out of existence or have to meet such costs and compliance that they would not be able to do that activity. The previous Labour Government and the National Government now supported by all members of the select committee realised that that is not what we want to do. We cannot have that happen and I believe this Supplementary Order Paper clarifies that. I acknowledge the Minister’s efforts in this area.The second area of scrutiny for probably about the third time I guess was that of food recall. Where there is a suspected problem with food the ability of the director-general to step in and recall food is essential if we are to prevent any further reputational damage to our country or indeed to that of public health or anyone who might consume unsafe food. We have clarified that and I guess the onus of proof was the point of debate. We believe that if there is a reasonable belief that the food is unsafe or unsuitable or contaminated then that should mean that the director-general should be able to recall the food and I think that that is a fair threshold. I have spoken about the purpose of the bill. We must keep that in mind as we move through there with food safety being the greatest priority along with public health.One of the other issues raised was the clearance of imported food. With the high dollar in more recent years we have been bombarded and some might say flooded with imported food products and the issue of how that should be cleared was one of some debate at the select committee. We have a biosecurity system that in my view is not entirely up to scratch. We have a system that allows products to come into the country to be then cleared in most part by biosecurity officials and then to be distributed through the country. With that imported product comes some risk. With food there is an additional risk. The pork industry is having to face up and try to manage that risk as we speak because of an adjusted import health standard which I will not go into at the moment.On the clearance of imported food because we have the new electronic Joint Border Management System there are some issues and some questions that I think still need to be asked as we move forward from this legislation. The bill as amended will now allow food to be cleared through electronic assessment and approval. That is I guess part of the streamlining process but it does raise questions through the whole area of biosecurity as to whether that is sufficient. The Opposition puts on the table our commitment to scrutinise this and follow very carefully the issues of biosecurity because I personally am not convinced that we might have this absolutely right. There were issues around search warrants and the ability to move in and seize product that might be contaminated and I think the select committee across parties has attempted to get that right.If I can go on to an amendment that I will put before the House in the Committee stage on this bill—tomorrow I believe—and that is the one of country-of-origin labelling. There has been a huge amount of work to progress as I say the integrity of our food safety systems and often to put more burden on the growers and the processors of our food to ensure that if we export we can say to our consumers: “This food is safe. It is high quality and you can be guaranteed of that. We have certified this food and there is no harm possible from this.” In doing so we have the contradictorysituation where we share most standards across the Tasman through the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code but New Zealand has sought an exemption to the country-of-origin labelling provisions.There will be people who might stand up and say that it is complex because we have mixed products and ingredients in food. I accept that but most of the countries throughout the world have a standard mandatory country-of-origin labelling regime and it is time that we implemented that for ourselves. If countries like Argentina Brazil Greece Hungary Japan Mexico and the list goes on can have country-of-origin labelling of their food and consumers know where their food is coming from then why not New Zealanders? Why not New Zealanders? So I am asking all parties across the House—and we have had positive indications from some thus far that they will be supporting the amendment that I will bring to the House tomorrow. I ask the Government to reconsider its position because it is not a trade barrier at all. It is not giving huge advantage to our producers. It is saying that if you grow and produce this food in our country then you should be able to label it and anyone else who is not doing so should have to say where their product came from. It is a fair proposition and I hope that the House will pick that up.Can I say before I finish that there is an overarching concern that the Opposition lays on the table and it is that this National Government removed the Food Safety Authority as an entity and merged all our expertise into the Ministry for Primary Industries. Labour puts on the table now that we will set up an independent food safety authority once again with the expertise with the focus and with the ability to implement this piece of legislation when it passes through.