Browning Steffan: Food Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrowning Steffan: Food Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 14 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17851. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I am pleased to be able to speak in the Committee of the whole House stage of the Food Bill. Part 1 is pretty broad and I think we need to visit a few aspects of it. I will just reflect on the broad level of agreement that has been arrived at in terms of this bill across Parliament. But in saying that that does not mean that the Green Party is happy with all aspects of the bill—not just this issue of country-of-origin labelling but other aspects as well. But we think there has been a reasonable move to accept some of our concerns and to address them. In time I would like to see further change to this bill. I referred to it last night that we actually do need a truly independent New Zealand Food Safety Authority—not just the one that we did have but something much more genuinely independent. This bill goes a long way and it has been mentioned about the new part in the purpose clause inserted by newclause 4 (ba) which is that the legislation will help “maintain confidence in New Zealand’s food safety regime;”. That is all about external trade and that is obviously important with agriculture being 54 percent of our export value. It is absolutely critical.However New Zealanders are being fed some very very poor food. This bill could deal with that but will not necessarily. The bill is full of mays and possibilities—the Minister may do this or the Ministry for Primary Industries may do that. But what we actually need is some serious compliance. We need to be looking at what is in our food who is measuring it and how they are measuring it. I have been involved in this issue for many years—more than a decade—looking at issues around pesticides in food genetically modified foods and how they are coming into the country and antibiotic resistance and that. The bill can address them all but so could the Food Act and successive Governments have failed New Zealanders in the application of legislation and regulation to ensure the best food is going to them their children and in fact their unborn children as well. So I am looking forward to seeing very good and appropriate application to ensure that this bill works well once it is passed.There has been a fair bit of talk on country-of-origin labelling and I am sure we are going to address that several more times. I was just taking some notes when the Minister for Food Safety was talking. We have had some of these discussions before. I do not think it is right that we rely on the joint partnership Minister. I have just been reflecting on it a little bit over the last hour or so. The joint partnership with Australia has some sense. We are a small country Australia is a much bigger country so let us work together on food standards. But what we are getting from them and what the Minister is unfortunately being advised about are not necessarily good outcomes for New Zealanders. I know that through and through on genetic engineering. I am not sure when I will do a speech on that through the course of what we are doing now but I will.Ian McKelvie: Oh dear!STEFFAN BROWNING: And Ian McKelvie is waiting for that. I promise you Ian I will give it to you.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member must use the member’s full name and title.STEFFAN BROWNING: OK—Ian McKelvie I look forward to it. I aim to have that very very much clarified—not his name but the issues around genetic modification and how the Minister almost has her arm being held up her back to rubber-stamp it because of the advice she has been given and these trade imperatives that seem to overrule food safety for New Zealand consumers.Country-of-origin labelling comes into that turf to a degree too and people want that. People want country-of-origin labelling for a range of reasons. Some of them are for food safety and their assumptions and ideas around the food safety that is achieved in various countries. But others will be for a range of reasons about how that food is produced. Is it produced by a big agrichemical company? It could be because a big rainforest has been slashed down and they do not want to get food that was produced in that sort of area. It could even be the parochial thing and that they want to look after New Zealand producers and make sure that their food is consumed first.Reflecting on the pork industry 45 percent of pork—and I think it is more than that now—consumed in New Zealand comes from overseas. But the voluntary scheme that the Minister has referred to is not dealing with that. What pork does anyone in this Chamber any member anyone who works in these buildings or anyone in our communities see that is labelled with its country of origin saying that it comes from Canada or maybe China or Australia or countries in fact that even have diseases which we should not be importing from? There are a number of consumers who would say they do not want to contribute to that but who do not get the choice because as it iscountry-of-origin labelling is voluntary. There is nothing mandatory. What is the backstop to that? There is no enforcement because it is voluntary. The only thing is that if a consumer can be absolutely sure that something is misrepresented then they can go to the Commerce Commission through one of the trade Acts.We do need mandatory country-of-origin labelling. I agree that the stuff through the trans-Tasman joint partnership stuff is maybe not the clearest or the best method or form of that country-of-origin labelling. The reason for that—and I agree with the Minister—is the level of complexity. That is why I think Supplementary Order Paper 449 in my name is slightly superior to Labour’s Supplementary Order Paper 440 in the name of Damien O’Connor because that one is relying on that system. This has got three parts to it. Firstly if it is imported you actually label it with the country that it comes from. But then it has got this word “or”: or if you put a little bit of local stuff in there you say “local and imported goods” and it tells you nothing at that point. Or it goes on again and you get a mix of imported products but I might want to know the difference between Canada and Argentina for a range of reasons and perceptions. It is a bit messy that way. So the Supplementary Order Paper I have put up is talking about single ingredients and very very clear country-of-origin labelling there.My Supplementary Order Paper goes further to also suggest a change in clause 4(e) to require regular monitoring and enforcement of food labelling requirements. There is a very good reason for that. The food labelling requirements that we have now—and GE is the one that I know so well—are not being enforced. The bill does have—and discussions with the Minister support this—some provisions that would suggest that there is a certain liability on the regulators to do that job. Maybe my Supplementary Order Paper is not needed. We certainly see it as pretty needed because that labelling that I was just talking about has not been enforced or even monitored since 2003. We are talking about 11 years since a certain labelling requirement which is legally applicable has even been monitored and enforced. Even if the Hon Damien O’Connor’s Supplementary Order Paper or my Supplementary Order Paper were to be agreed to—and I would really like the Minister to reconsider—