Lees-Galloway Iain: Food Bill — First Reading 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Food Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:12620] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It gives me a lot of pleasure to rise and speak this afternoon on the Food Bill. At first glance it looks like a fairly technical bill but nevertheless it has very important flow-on effects into other areas of legislation. It was very good to see the Minister for Food Safety get up and speak. She sounded so confident. I think she feels very secure in this area; it is a bit of a change from earlier in the week. It is nice to see the Minister looking so positive and secure on this Thursday afternoon after what has been it has to be said a bit of a rough week for her. 
It is also nice to speak following the previous speaker Mr Ardern. He is a good chair of a good select committee the Primary Production Committee. It was nice to hear that he was talking about an open and inclusive process—a bipartisan process I am sure. I know that one of the members opposite Sandra Goudie is on that committee. She could learn a thing or two from Mr Ardern. Lately she has had a few problems on the select committee she chairs the Law and Order Committee. There have been a few walk-outs by Opposition members due to the totally partisan unfair and opaque system that she has been running in that committee. Maybe those two members could sit down over a wine tonight and have a discussion about their relative positions. 
This bill provides a regulatory framework to enable businesses to take primary responsibility for the sale of safe and suitable food. Food businesses will be regulated relative to the degree of risk posed by the food-selling activity that they are engaged in. A number of risk management tools are included in this bill: food control plans for high-risk businesses such as restaurants; national programmes for medium to low-risk businesses such as horticulture producers; food-handling guidance and educational information for low-risk operators such as those engaged in fund-raising activities like cake stalls and sausage sizzles which probably every member in this House has been engaged in; and monitoring programmes set by regulation to impose measures in specific circumstances for determining the safety and suitability of food. 
The bill provides certainty for our food businesses in terms of their obligations under the law and how activities will be regulated. It introduces specific requirements for imported food. All persons importing food will have a duty to ensure that it meets the same standards as domestically produced food and every consignment of food imported into New Zealand requires a registered importer. Importantly this bill maintains the role of Government as the principal regulator. I think it is very important that we note that. It retains a local government role in the regulation of food premises. The bill has modernised the penalty provisions. The current provisions are out of date and inadequate for 2010 and beyond so that is an improvement. It sets out exactly what the base statutory requirements will be for each type of food and trading activity. 
Basically the bill takes a whole range of things that have been in different pieces of legislation tidies them up and brings them into one Act so that things are clear and understandable for the people who are operating within the framework of this bill. 
Labour is absolutely supportive of this bill as our previous speakers have indicated. Of course Labour initiated this process when it was in Government which is no doubt why the Minister feels so secure about it. It is a good robust and solid process that was started by the Labour Government unlike some of the dodgier more interesting things that the Minister has initiated under the National Government. I think Labour was proactive in recognising the shortfalls in the existing food regulations. Back in 2003 Labour initiated a domestic food review. That review revealed a number of shortfalls relating to the complexity of the regulations and the difficulty with enforcement. Although most food is controlled under the Food Act other food is regulated under the Animal Products Act 1999 the Wine Act 2003 and the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997. We have a whole host of regulations under those Acts as well so bringing everything into alignment under this one Act makes a lot of sense. 
A number of food premises are covered by the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974 and are inspected by territorial local authorities. Some businesses are exempt from this process because they have opted out and shifted into a voluntary food programme. These operators more often than not are supermarkets and manufacturers. They will probably be ahead of the game here; they will be prepared for this bill when it is enacted. These food safety programmes are administered by public health units and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. Again bringing everything into alignment under one Act makes a lot of sense. There has been a lot of inconsistency duplication and complexity. Many operators apparently have not been aware that the Food Act 1981 existed let alone known who administered it. 
I will just reflect on a news story that came out of Palmerston North in the last few days. One of those people who may have been struggling with the food regulations is a character known as the naked pie man. He is a well-known celebrity in Palmerston North. He owns the Central Pie and Smoke Shop which is just up the road from Bootleggers—a popular student establishment. The naked pie man has been in Palmerston North for a number of years. In fact it has been so long that I can remember him from my student days at Massey University. I have been a customer of the naked pie man. The 2 or 3 a.m. pie just before jumping into a taxi to head home is a nice alternative to a kebab. 
The naked pie man has come into a bit of strife in the past few days. He was the only operator in Palmerston North to receive a D grading for his food-handling service. Apparently it all came down to a few lost bits of paperwork and a few hiccups in the process which he did not quite understand. Hopefully this legislation will make things a little bit more streamlined for our naked pie man and he will be able to get his rating back up to something a little bit more respectable. To be fair he will have to display that D rating but to be honest I do not think the students will be put off very much. I do not think his business will suffer too much. But it is buyer beware and everyone who walks into his shop will know that he has a D rating. I am quite sure that good streamlined legislation like this will assist in getting him back on track. 
It is important that we have food safety and food-handling regulations because there is a massive number of cases of intestinal illness each year; it is estimated to be about 18000 cases every year. Of those cases 1000 require hospitalisation which is not bad out of 18000. I suspect that a few more cases than that probably require people to go to their general practitioner. We know that an awful lot of those cases cause people to need a few days off work. In fact workplace absenteeism due to illnesses relating to poor food hygiene is estimated to cost about $86 million a year. 
A lot of those people would have a couple of days off the boss would not mind too much and there would be no requirement for a medical certificate or anything like that. But thanks to the Minister in charge of this bill who happens to also be the Minister of Labour all those poor people who have caught a bit of a tummy bug will now be sent along to their doctor for a medical certificate. They will clog up that service for all the people with genuine problems that their doctor could fix. That will slow down the process but hopefully the Food Bill will stop so many people from needing so many days off work and stop them from having to go to the doctor for a medical certificate and clogging up our medical systems. 
I have a concern. What will happen if someone gets one of these illnesses in his or her first 90 days in a new job? Does that mean that people might be out on their ear without any recourse whatsoever just because they got a little bit sick and had to have a few days off? Does it mean that they will be out the door with no recourse whatsoever? 
Again I think this is a very important bill. It is so appropriate that Kate Wilkinson is in charge of this bill because if it achieves its outcome— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: In charge? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: It is a loose term to say that she is in charge. If the bill achieves its outcomes it may stop a lot of the problems that she has introduced to the New Zealand workforce through some of the other work she has been doing. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Talk about the Food Bill. Hello! 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I am talking about the Food Bill. I think it is an important bill that will hopefully stop people from getting ill which will be an important part of keeping people at work and productive. We will not lose $86 million a year in productivity. 
This is a good bill. It is an excellent bill because it was started under a Labour process. Labour is pleased to see it go to a select committee where people will have the chance to have their say on it. We look forward to its progress through the House.