Imported Foodstuffs

SUBMISSIONS

of the

NEW ZEALAND RETAILERS ASSOCIATION

to the

NEW ZEALAND FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY

in respect of

THE STRATEGIC REVIEW OF REGULATORY ARRANGEMENTS FOR FOOD IMPORTS

September 2004

Introduction

These submissions are presented by the New Zealand Retailers Association.

Background

The Association is the largest trade association involved in the retail industry in New Zealand.  We represent an industry that has annual sales of $50b, and which employs some 325,000 people

(17% of the workforce) in some 49,000 outlets throughout New Zealand.  Our membership includes the major supermarket and general merchandise chains, specialised chains, traditional department stores and thousands of owner operators.  We also service a number of specialised trade groups of plumbing materials suppliers, metal fastener distributors, bicycle dealers, pet shop jewellers, and equestrian suppliers.

Within the food sector, a wide range of differing brands of imported foods would be sold by supermarkets, general merchandise stores as well as traditional department stores.  Supermarkets would on occasion import directly but also purchase significant lines of merchandise from import agents.  Smaller firms would tend to purchase food lines mainly from agents or commission representatives.

Overview of Submission

The Association has had very few inquiries over the regulatory regime for imported foodstuffs brought to its attention in recent years and, as a consequence, we conclude that the current regime generally works satisfactorily.  However, we wish to make some observations on some of the more general principles contained in the discussion paper rather than the technical details that more appropriately are the concern of the importer or commission agent.

As a statement of principle, we believe that it is necessary to continue to maintain a tight regulatory regime for imported foodstuffs that includes a list of prescribed foods that must be approved before they can be imported.  Retailers are quite open about their belief that they are in the business of selling 'safe' food to domestic consumers, and we consider such a regime for prescribed foods materially assists to demonstrate their credibility to New Zealand consumers.  However, we

suggest that aspects that warrant consideration that are not included within the scope of the discussion paper include how this regime is administered in respect of parallel imported foods that may not totally comply with the Food Standards code, and also foods that are imported by new entrepreneurial 'Asian' traders that similarly do not necessarily comply with the current Food Standards Code.

We note from the discussion paper that the processes used for New Zealand's imported food regime is similar to that used in a variety of similar developed economies, including Australia, Canada, Singapore, and Japan with tariff codes being used to target specific products for inspection, or to identify products from different combinations of counties and/or suppliers.  We believe such an approach is sensible in that the Customs Tariff is used widely internationally not only to determine the correct classification for imported merchandise for the payment of any applicable duties, but also for other purposes ranging from purely statistical purposes to the inspection and testing of imported foods.

We find it difficult to understand why tableware is included within the scope of the imported foods regime other than purely for historic reasons and agree with the conclusion in the paper that the regime seems to over-emphasise the risks associated with tableware.  We can furthermore see no reason why imported and domestic tableware should be treated differently.

We note that the NZ Food Safety Authority has commenced work with its Australian counterparts to establish a joint list of prescribed foods for both countries, to develop a process for the amendment of such a joint list as well as a short term mechanism to enact short term emergency restrictions pending the completion of a Trans-Tasman regime.  We believe a harmonised approach to this issue is clearly not only desirable, but is also totally consistent with the objectives of the CER Agreement with Australia.

We note the suggestion contained in the paper that an electronic based system could be introduced for imported foods.  As a statement of principle we believe this is desirable as all import and export entries are now required to be filed electronically with Customs New Zealand, and, we understand electronic clearance has also now been introduced in respect of quarantine certifications approved by the Ministry of Agriculture.

We note that the paper invites feedback on whether imported foods should be subject to more stringent measures to ensure compliance with labelling requirements but it adds that no checking of labelling compliance is in fact currently undertaken.  As a statement of principle we would argue that compliance is a much broader issue than just for imported foods and the general question has to be asked that if particular laws are not enforced then the need for the specific regulatory controls can be seriously questioned.

We note the suggestion for improved operating procedures between the Government agencies involved in the administration of the imported foods regime, and, as a statement of principle, tend to agree with the conclusion contained in the discussion paper that such relationships should all be governed by memoranda of understanding or contracts that can be clearly audited and reviewed.  This seems to be consistent with the policies currently undertaken within the public sector on a variety of issues and it seems a sensible suggestion to formalise the contacts between the administering departments on this issue.

We would be more than happy to discuss our views with members of the review team.

NZ Retailers Association

September 2004