6. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Trade
Can he confirm that the New Zealand Government has been lobbying the United States Department of Agriculture not to introduce country-of-origin labelling on meat, fish, and other perishable agricultural goods; if so, why?
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade) Link to this
Yes; the Government has been both consistent and open in opposing mandatory country-of-origin labelling, proposed by protectionist groups in the United States, which is designed to damage our exports. Such labelling imposes costs on New Zealand exporters of New Zealand food without providing any advantage at all to the United States consumer in terms of food standards or food safety.
Can he confirm that it is the Government’s position, then, that consumers in New Zealand and in the United States are not entitled to know where their food comes from because it could affect the profits of the meat and dairy industries; in other words, that it is the Government’s policy to put the interests of two large exporters ahead of the democratic rights of consumers to know where their food comes from?
This Government’s position is to support the exporters of very safe and high-standard New Zealand food against having big costs imposed on them for the purpose of making New Zealand produce uncompetitive with United States produce without, in any sense whatsoever, improving the safety or standard of food to the consumer.
Tim BarnettWhat is New Zealand’s key concern in relation to mandatory country-of-origin labelling on our food exports to the United States?
The key concerns are the costs that such labelling would impose on our beef exports as a result of labelling and record keeping. A report by the United States General Accounting Office found that such costs would be high, and would be particularly high where the goods had to be segregated. The fact is that two-thirds of our beef—our major export to the United States—is manufacturing beef, which is ground and mixed with beef from other countries and the United States. If we had to label that, that would impose compliance costs that would make our food exports more costly and less competitive than the United States product, which is, of course, what motivates many of those promoting country-of-origin labelling in the United States.
Can he explain what the huge compliance costs are in putting a label on fresh agricultural products such as meat, fish, cauliflower, and fruit, and what the expense is in putting a label next to a bunch of cauliflowers; and can he confirm that the meat he is complaining about—which is mixed together into hamburgers—is for the most part sold in take-away outlets, which are not the subject of the legislation? So can he confirm, in other words, that the Government is wildly exaggerating compliance costs to somehow try to protect two export industries—the dairy and the meat-exporting industries?
I cannot confirm that, at all. The protecting that is going on is the protecting of US producers against fair competition from New Zealand. As far as I know, we do not export cauliflowers to the United States, but we do export one hell of a load of beef, and two-thirds of that beef is mixed. As far as I understand it, the requirements that would be imposed by the regulations would require a labelling of that product, which would be very expensive, thus making our exports less competitive. The member may support making goods less competitive when they have no impact on food safety or standards, but I do not, and this Government does not.
Is he aware that the overwhelming majority of Americans—92 percent, according to one recent survey—want mandatory country-of-origin labelling, and does he think his department has a mandate from the people of New Zealand, who also overwhelmingly want country-of-origin labelling on single-ingredient foods, to seek to interfere in American domestic politics against the clear wishes of American citizens; if so, why?
What I do know is that this Government and this Parliament have a mandate from New Zealand to stand up for New Zealand agricultural exporters, whose produce constitutes two-thirds of all exports from this country. This Government also has a mandate to oppose such blatantly protectionist measures that various elements that have been lobbying Congress are seeking to impose. We will stand up for New Zealanders’ rights to export in a fair and competitive market. We will also stand up for needs of food safety and food standards, but food safety and food standards have nothing at all to do with country-of-origin labelling, though the member repeatedly tries to confuse those two things.
Do New Zealand submissions on country-of-origin labelling constitute interference in the domestic affairs of the United States, as alleged by Sue Kedgley?
The claim that Sue Kedgley has just made is absolutely bizarre. New Zealand made the submissions in response to the request of the United States Department of Agriculture for submissions on the proposed mandatory labelling from all World Trade Organization members. The invitation allows countries whose trade may be affected, such as New Zealand, to have an input into the regulation process. To claim that we are wrongly interfering in the domestic politics of the United States is absolutely wrong; we were invited to make the submissions by the Government of the United States. What is it about that that the member does not understand?
Why did the Government’s submission to the United States Department of Agriculture say: “New Zealand does not believe that mandatory country-of-origin labelling would benefit consumers.”, when a majority of New Zealand consumers have said in surveys that they want mandatory country-of-origin labelling and see it as basic information, like the ingredient panel or the nutrition label?
We said that because that is the position of the New Zealand Government and, I would say, three-quarters, if not a lot more than that, of the members of this House. The member cannot confuse, or try to have the public confuse, the question of food safety, which is legitimately regulated, with country-of-origin labelling, which has nothing to do with safety or standards but can be placed on the product by the retailer or by the producer, if they so wish. It is not something where there are grounds for the Government to step in with a heavy hand to impose.
How can he claim that country-of-origin labelling is not a food safety issue at a time when global food scandals—particularly over exports from China—have led to product withdrawals and food being held at the United States’ border until it is proven to be safe?
The member is doing it again: she is confusing country-of-origin labelling with food safety. The two things are absolutely separate. This country has very strong regulations to do with food safety and food standards. It does not mandatorily impose country-of-origin labelling on food products, because that has nothing to do with the issues that the member is constantly trying to confuse.
I seek leave to table a survey showing that 92 percent of American respondents said they want mandatory—
Madam SPEAKER