van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm happy to take a call on the Organic Products Bill.Interested to note the Minister's comments there; I just want to pick up on a few of those. Obviously the key one being the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has now just been delivered to the House. This bill has been years in the making—2012 I believe: a decade-odd now in the pipeline. And yet at the very last minute the Minister drops a substantial SOP—90-something pages—right as we are having the second reading without there being any opportunity to have read through that prior to having this reading.So on that basis we will be reserving our comments on that until we've had the opportunity to discuss it or look at it more fully. But noting the Minister's comments around allowing specific consideration for Treaty aspects within the SOP my expectation would be that everyone has an equal opportunity in terms of the organic sector and indeed that should be based on their particular sector needs rather than the ethnicity of any particular group. So it's interesting to see that—and we saw that with the fair pay agreements as well—where there's the risk of distorting or creating uneven opportunities for different groups.So we will consider that as we go through the committee of the whole House stage as that comes up. I don't know how many years we might wait before we get to the committee stage. Perhaps it will be less than that now that we've finally seen it shocked back into life for its second reading here in this Parliament. But indeed it may be the next Parliament before we see the committee of the whole House stage. Who knows?Look I did just want to touch on a few of the amendments that were reported back from the select committee as well because ultimately what we're looking to achieve here is standardising a system for organic products in New Zealand. On the face of it we support that intent. It is a mechanism that will help I think add some confidence to the system domestically. But also for our trade partners internationally: if they can look at our standard system set at a Government level with clear regulations outlining how participants can or cannot operate within that—depending on their sector and depending on the products and the broader supply chain—then that helps to give confidence to those international markets.We heard the Minister say we've just had an increase now—I think $723 million worth of organic products in New Zealand with some 58 percent of that exported. So that is a significant value add for our food and fibre sector and that's the sort of opportunity that we can continue to exploit here in New Zealand. We have a fantastic reputation internationally and anything we can do to further enhance that—to add value to our economy here—is well worth pursuing.So that intent of standardising the system creating the regulatory framework around the production processing labelling of organic products all make sense. We support that intent. As I said it helps to I think give that confidence internationally but particularly also when it comes to having future discussions or potential discussions around additional trade opportunities which I hope we will see. Again we would like to see more focus on expanding our trade access—our market access—globally. Hopefully this will help to broaden some of that discussion; we may need a change in Government to see a strong focus on trade but nevertheless 12 months to go we shall see.But on that basis you know one concern I do have though is around the risk of added compliance. And there's a couple of the clauses that I do just want to pick up on in relation to that because we have seen changes through the select committee process here—amending clause 13(1) for example allowing for a time frame to be placed on an organic approval. So in some instances that may be appropriate; in others that may just be unnecessary compliance having to continually renew that certification. Presumably if we have an appropriate offences and penalties regime in place that can have a regular ongoing audit process in place then there shouldn't necessarily be a need to continually renew if that adherence—or not—with the standard can be measured through that auditing process. So interested in exploring that one a little bit more.One of the changes that I am comfortable with—clauses 33 and 34 being amended allowing for suspension not just of an entity but of a class. And I think this is a worthwhile distinction in that it enables for a particular issue if it's been identified across sectors for example at the same point in the supply chain rather than impacting the individual entities—of which there may be many—that are flowing through that system it can actually identify that cog in the chain and say This is not currently fit for purpose; we need to withdraw recognition for that until it is amended appropriately."In terms of the use of personal information that's one that I just want to highlight as well. Because we've seen obviously a lot of concerns over the last few years—data breaches—that personal information in particular is a really important area that we need to protect as much as possible. Obviously it's important in the process of providing information around their adherence to the regulatory regime for compliance with organic products. That information is provided but of course it should only be used for that purpose and the amendment specifies that under new clause 44A as well.I think just a nice common-sense—which is not particularly common over the last few years it seems—change inserting the word "intentionally" into clause 84(1) which basically talks to the offence of resisting obstructing or delaying an organic products officer. So obviously having some level of intent behind that obstruction is an important consideration that previously wasn't there which could have ended up with someone being in breach of it. For example by being late to a meeting with that officer—which may have been caused by some issue on farm; things that can pop up from time to time that need to be dealt with immediately—that could lead to some inadvertent non-compliance and therefore being subject to the offences regime. So bringing in the ability to have some common sense with the intentionality aspect is an appropriate change there.Also around the standardisation in terms of making sense—standardisation giving effect to the legislative intent of the conversion period. And that I think is an important one to note as well being able to set in regulation the time to convert a property depending on what sort of industry it may be in from its current practices through to achieving the organic status as defined under the regulations flowing from this legislation. So being able to determine what time frame that might look like as well I think is an appropriate step in acknowledging that transition and again giving confidence to our trade partners in that regard as well.But I am concerned that the regulation setting and notices for organic standards may be somewhat restrictive in that it says the standard that we're looking to set up here could include specifics on what products would be covered; how the production processing and preparation of organic goods must be carried out; and the correct practices for the packing storage and handling of those goods would also be included in the standard. On the face of it that sounds appropriate. My concern with that aspect is around the potential for innovation to come into the industry. And we have a very proud history in New Zealand—in our food and fibre sector—of continuing to innovate over time. How we operate now is not how we did 10 20 or 50 years ago and it won't be how we operate 10 20 or 50 years into the future. It's important that we allow scope for that sort of innovation to come through and in particular some of these products—they may be smaller niche categories—if a particular operator in that space can come up with an innovative new way of doing business whilst of course maintaining quality throughout that then that should be their competitive advantage. And I would just be concerned that there is a risk where you could potentially be stymieing some of that innovation by being so prescriptive with that particular aspect around the regulation setting.The high-level guidance I think is an important consideration as well. Because obviously setting the regulations here is done in confidence—it's legally privileged—but it is now allowing for the insertion of subclause 3(b) to ensure that high-level guidance is provided to help guide those standards. And again we're seeing a lot of examples over the last few years where legislation coming through just isn't fit for purpose. So it's really important to be able to connect with the sector understand exactly what their needs are and ensure that we are providing the right outcome here.So look on that basis we are supporting it at the second reading—noting of course my concerns around the very late tabling of the SOP the Minister has just done—and we'll be considering the details of that over the course of this passage through until the committee of the whole House stage. But some good changes made at the select committee commend their work on it and we look forward to supporting this bill hopefully through the remaining stages subject to that SOP. Thank you."