A decision on the compulsory labelling of products containing palm oil, linked to mass deforestation, has been delayed until next year.
A minister from each state, territory and federal government of Australasia, (NZ and Australia) met today to decide whether palm oil labelling legislation would be developed.
In a month, the New Zealand Food Safety Minister will join a trans-Tasman vote on mandatory disclosure of palm oil products in supermarkets.
Palm oil labelling is currently not required on products sold in New Zealand and Food Safety Minister Jo Goodhew was among nine others from Australia at today's meeting in Brisbane.
Ms Goodhew said the forum decided that Food Standards Australia New Zealand and the Food Regulation Standing Committee will prepare a "programme of work" which will be presented at the next meeting in April.
"This programme of work will further investigate labelling approaches, for providing information on sugars and added fats/vegetables oils, as separate issues," she said in a statement.
Anti palm oil campaigners said they were disappointed there was no decision, but were pleased the issue was still being considered.
Organiser of the Australasian campaign pushing for labelling, Ben Dowdle, earlier told 1 NEWS "we have had over 30,000 postcards presented to Parliament, including 9000 emails".
There have also been 50,000 emails sent to Ministers in Australia, organised by Zoos Victoria, Mr Dowdle said.
He said 92 per cent of Kiwis support the change, according to independent polling.
Campaigners pushing for a change say New Zealand is lagging behind the US and Europe where palm oil is clearly outlined on food.
The Victorian Government has committed to supporting palm oil labelling.
An Auckland city councillor has told a meeting on welfare reform his blind mother-in-law was humiliated when asked to prove her disability at a Work and Income appointment.
Efeso Collins, a councillor for the Manukau ward, made his comments at a meeting in Wellington organised by Child Poverty Action.
It was held to give input into ways the government could reform the welfare system.
The government's Welfare Panel, an 11-strong advisory body appointed to advise on a welfare system overhaul, is due to report back to government in February.
Mr Collin's contribution was one of many by people who had experienced bad treatment when dealing with Work and Income.
Mr Collin said his wife Fia took her mother to Work and Income a number of years ago, because she was claiming an invalidity benefit and was required to prove she was blind.
Having medical certificates from her GP and an eye specialist, the pair were eventually called in to see a Work and Income case worker.
"The woman says to her 'I can tell you can see because you walked to my office'," Mr Collins said.
"She pulls open her draw, throws a booklet in front of her and says 'prove to me that you can't read that'.
"I tell you that story because this is what the people that you're producing policy for, that you're thinking about the policy for, that you're working out the economics for, that you're out there in the community serving, this is our reality."
Last year artist Sam Orchard launched a social media campaign called, We Are Beneficiaries.
There were hundreds of responses, with people telling their own stories of hurt, frustration and desperation.
"The stories of the treatment of single mums, of people of colour, Māori and Pacific specifically, of people with disabilities, just kept coming through," he told the meeting.
"The things that these individuals and communities are told everyday is just atrocious and outrageous."
Ministry of Social Development deputy chief executive, Nic Blakeley, told the meeting the department had adopted a new approach to treat people better, but that it could do better.
"We want to make sure we're treating people with respect, that we're being personalised to what's going to work best for them and that also means that we're proactive in the support that we're providing," he said.
"That may also mean that after people leave the benefit, what the sort of ongoing support that we might be able to provide."
Honorary Associate Professor in the economics department at the University of Auckland, Susan St John, said she was worried the welfare state was collapsing.
"There's the homelessness - not just in Queen Street - on a scale not seen since The Depression," she said.
"The working poor, who can't feed their children after devastating housing costs, if they are lucky enough to have a house. Food banks and social services, and private charities such as KidsCan are being overwhelmed," she said.
"And then there's the stories of the harsh treatment by Work and Income that have echoes of that wonderful film, I Daniel Blake.
Green co-leader Marama Davidson explained how beneficiaries were worse off since benefit cuts in 1991.
The politician, who entered Parliament three years ago owing money to Work and Income after having her power was cut off when a single mum, said demeaning institutional attitudes to the poor had to change.
"We have a job to do in terms of rejecting an insistence that it is just people who are not educated, who are not working enough, who do not know enough, who are making bad decisions, who do not love their children as much as others," she said.
New Zealand's biggest company, dairy giant Fonterra, has posted a loss of $196 million - the first annual loss in its 17-year history.
Last year the cooperative - best known for its Mainland and Western Star brands - posted a $734 million profit.
But in March it reported its first half-year loss on the back of a major write- down on a Chinese investment and a compensation payment over a 2013 botulism scare.
Fonterra today announced a full-year loss for the 2018 financial year, with underlying earnings before interest and taxes also down 22 per cent (to $902 million on slightly increased revenue ($20.4 billion), but lower margins.
It's left shareholders and farmers "extremely" disappointed.
"There's no two ways about it, these results don't meet the standards we need to live up to," Fonterra interim chief Miles Hurrell said.
"We expected our performance to be weighted to the second half of the year. We needed to deliver an outstanding third and fourth quarter, after an extremely strong second quarter for sales and earnings - but that didn't happen."
The company this year wrote down $439 million off a troubled $750 million investment into Chinese food company Beingmate. It also paid out $232 million to French food giant Danone after arbitration over the recall of products in a botulism scare in 2013.
But Mr Hurrell said even without those one-offs, there were other areas of difficulty, including overly optimistic forecasting, high butter prices, increased farmgate milk prices paid to its farmers and increasing expenses in parts of the businesses.
The company issued a four-point plan to lift its performance along with the results, saying it would start with a review of its Beingmate investment.
"Financial year 2019 is about lifting the performance of our co-operative," Mr Hurrell said.
Fonterra - which accounts for about 30 per cent of the world's dairy exports - has been searching for a replacement for chief executive
Theo Spierings, who announced in May he would be stepping down. Chair John Wilson quit in July following a health scare.
The Federated Farmers lobby group on Thursday said it hoped their replacements would do better job after a "very disappointing" result.
"I hope those two have a new broom for the shop floor," chairman Chris Lewis said.
"That's a big drop and they simply must do better. But I'm confident they'll turn things around."
Fonterra's Shareholders' Council - which represents farmers who hold shares in the co-op - said it was also extremely disappointed.
"The underlying result and its impact on earnings, dividend and carrying value is totally unacceptable and one that our farming families will not want to see repeated," chairman Duncan Coull said.
"Moving forward, it is imperative that our business builds confidence through achievable targets."
The dairy giant today revealed a near-$200 million annual loss, the first in its 17-year history.
Source: 1 NEWS
Don’t listen to those who dismiss the current muscle-flexing by Winston Peters as nothing more than the standard fare of MMP politics.
It is anything but.
Were there a handbook covering the mechanics of forming and running a coalition government, the New Zealand First leader would currently be writing a new chapter—one which would be without a happy ending for Jacinda Ardern, her coalition managers and the rest of the Labour Party.
The latter should be worried — very worried.
It is the ongoing conundrum of multi-party governments that minor parties which behave themselves and keep their heads down have almost without exception have had their heads lopped off come election-time.
Peters seems to be experimenting with the notion that minor parties which are far less polite get noticed by voters rather than being suffocated.
Source: 1 NEWS
If that is not enough to give Labour grief, Peters appears to be engaged in trying to pull off what would amount to a massive shift in power within the coalition.
Forget cracks about cracks appearing in the coalition’s facade.
Peters, for one, will not be going anywhere.
The perception of him as some kind of human coalition wrecking ball does not quite fit the facts.
While Peters and some of his then MPs stormed out of their formal coalition with National back in 1998, that occurred as the result of severe provocation on the part of Jenny Shipley, the then National prime minister.
Peters now has the dream job of foreign minister. Yet, he also remains an absolutely pivotal figure in domestic politics.
With regard to the latter, it is obvious there been a major shift in New Zealand First strategy.
What began as an isolated case of New Zealand First thwarting Labour’s desire to eradicate a hardline law and order statute — namely the three-strikes law — has become what looks suspiciously like a carefully orchestrated campaign which has the junior partner in the coalition making ever more frequent raids deep into territory where Labour would insist it has the right to call the shots.
Labour can tolerate having to keep living with the three-strikes law. It can tolerate not being able to raise the annual refugee quota.
After all, prior to a National government-instigated rise in the quota which took effect this year, the quota had been held at 750 for the previous 30 years, believe it or not.
What Labour cannot accept is its coalition partner blocking its long-promised legislation rolling back some of National’s so-called “reforms” in the industrial relations arena.
If Labour is not seething over that, it should be. The dominant partner has to bite its tongue, however.
To react too strongly to New Zealand First’s intention to put up amendments to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill would be to pour petrol on a bonfire called “Coalition Tensions”.
Few things excite the media than the words “splits” and “divisions”.
Peters hardly needs to be told that.
Labour has been outsmarted and outmanoeuvred by him, however.
He has decreed that anything which is not included in the two parties’ coalition agreement, the Speech from the Throne, which sets out a government’s legislative programme, the Budget or Labour’s 100-day Action Plan is not Government policy.
It is —to use Peters’ term — a “work in progress’’.
New Zealand First is using these criteria, either as a means of blocking or amending Labour initiatives or as a bargaining chip at the Cabinet table.
The moot question is how long Labour can afford to put up with a partner causing such high levels of aggravation.
It is bizarre and not a little ridiculous that those who are giving Ardern the most grief are part of the governing arrangement.
Labour will regard Peters' injection of friction into his party’s relations with the former as him testing the limits of Labour’s patience.
National’s leader is having a field day labelling the Prime Minister as weak and indecisive in failing to rein in New Zealand First. - John Armstrong
While it will not please them, Labour’s coalition managers will also likely view New Zealand First’s sudden discovery of reasons to block Labour-initiated policies and legislation as a case of Peters engaging in a complicated coalition choreography.
There are two bottom-lines, however, which Labour cannot accept being breached.
First, Labour’s concern is that the winner in this power tussle will turn out not to be Peters or Arden, but Simon Bridges.
National’s leader is having a field day labelling the Prime Minister as weak and indecisive in failing to rein in New Zealand First.
Any harm done by Peters to Labour’s biggest electoral asset will be deemed as totally unacceptable.
Second, Labour will take a very dim view of New Zealand First if that party’s attack on what Labour calls its socially “progressive” policies sees Labour voters decamping to the Greens.
For those reasons alone, the Doomsday Clock gauging the likely longevity of the current governing arrangement is now ticking much closer to midnight.
The influence of Winston Peters is also believed to be putting the Prime Minister under pressure from rival MPs.
Source: 1 NEWS