Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:5033] 
1. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: Did New Zealand support mandatory country-of-origin labelling for food at this week’s Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council meeting and will she be implementing this policy direction in New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 The Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council did not vote on the implementation of a mandatory country-of-origin labelling regime for food. The council agreed on the development of policy guidelines for Australia and from that policy a standard may be developed in the future. New Zealand does not support mandatory country-of-origin labelling for food as we already have policies in place to address that issue. 
Sue Kedgley 
: When the Government has meekly gone along with more than 59 joint Australia - New Zealand food standards including ones that allow more than 20 genetically engineered commodities and irradiated tropical fruit into our food chain why is it vehemently opposing a simple standard that will enable consumers to know where their food has come from—even to the point of threatening to pull out or to opt out of any joint standard that might be developed? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: New Zealand does not support mandatory country-of-origin labelling because we have in place other legislation that covers that issue. I have to say to the member that New Zealand has not gone “meekly” along in agreeing with other food standards. We are an active part of the organisation and it is interesting to note that it was New Zealand that led the initiative for food labelling for genetically modified food. That member opposed it at the time; I gather she supports it now. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What recent reports has the Minister received regarding New Zealand producers’ view of country-of-origin labelling? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have received a letter from Meat New Zealand in which it states that mandatory country-of-origin labelling is unnecessary difficult to implement and police and costly to administer and that it will make food for New Zealand consumers more expensive. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why did the ministerial council then issue a joint communique stating: “The council’s support for country-of-origin labelling is on the grounds of enabling consumers to make informed choices.” if she is not going to follow through on that statement? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It was the view of Ministers that for them for Australia they wanted mandatory country-of-origin labelling. This country has not supported that. We believe voluntary country-of-origin labelling is better and I understand that has been the position of the National Party for many years. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why does the Government support mandatory country-of-origin labelling for wine and cheese but not for any other food; does that mean that consumers’ right to know what is in the food we eat is entirely subordinate to trade interests? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There has been a requirement for wine in particular to be labelled. That has come from overseas requirements not from New Zealand’s view on whether we should have mandatory or voluntary labelling. 
Judy Turner 
: Could the Minister let us know of any advice she has received on the cost to New Zealand business if we were to go that way? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is the view of those who manufacture food that the cost of compliance is very heavy indeed in that the labelling of food in a mandatory way requires that everything in the food that is from another country be labelled. Maybe a food could be made up of many different elements. That is difficult to identify so it becomes very costly and it is much better to ensure that food is safe by using good food regulations. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why does New Zealand oppose this country-of-origin labelling when Australians such as the Queensland Premier argue that it protects public health and safety makes it easier to recall potentially contaminated food helps to prevent bioterrorism helps consumers to make informed choices about the foods they purchase and promotes trade and when even the Americans are introducing mandatory country-of-origin labelling for fruit fish vegetables and so forth? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As I have told that member we do not support it because we have other mechanisms for ensuring that people know where their food comes from. The member believes in what we already have in place because I have a copy of her letter in which she is already using the mechanisms that are in place—that is the Fair Trading Act—because she believes a manufacturer has not labelled correctly. She is using the very mechanisms that are in place to get some recourse for that.