Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill

In rising to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on this bill, I note how amazingly responsibilities seem to grow around this place. When the royal commission reported back and New Zealand First had only five members, I put up my hand and volunteered that I would go through the issues and report back to our caucus about the position we should take on GE vis-à-vis the royal commission report. Now, every time we get a bill that has anything to do with hazardous substances, I get: “That’s yours, Brian. You’ve got to look after that, Brian.”

Nevertheless, this is the other side of the hazardous substances and new organisms equation. It is not to do with GE, but to do with hazardous substances. It is about protecting our environment and our people, so it really is worthwhile getting one’s mind around the issues. They are far too important to get wrong, because they will affect our lives, our people, and our country. That is why I am somewhat concerned about the report-back date being 13 February 2004. The Education and Science Committee certainly took the attitude towards the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill that we wanted to do our very, very best to get it right, and sometimes it takes some time to hear all the submissions. I raise that in relation to this particular issue at this point in time.

Whilst we are talking about the very important issues of the future, the safety, and the health of our nation, I say that it is possible to have paralysis by fear. In other words, we do nothing because we are too scared of making some mistakes that might affect our environment, or anything else. That is certainly what Dr Hutchison was alluding to in his speech concerning the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill. I think we had the balance right in that case, and we have to make sure we have the balance right with this bill.

There is a simple way to ensure there is no danger from hazardous substances. All we have to do is ban them completely from our borders, and not have anything to do with any substances that have hazards attached to them. But the stupidity of that proposal is obvious. We have some 80,000 hazardous substances in New Zealand at this time, and while most of them—in fact, all of them—bring benefits to the nation, they also bring risks. The answer, therefore, has to be to establish a system that will manage the risk. One way of doing that is to have the Government set all the rules and regulations. It can look at each hazardous substance, and decide whether we can have it and under what conditions. Once again, such a bureaucratic system would atrophy the country, and its operation.

Or we can set up a process, a system, to ensure that we progress the benefits and, also, that we manage the risks as best as possible. It is the latter course that New Zealand is pursuing, and has been pursuing since the establishment of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. This bill is really a further step down the track. Previously, existing hazardous substances were subject to controls under separate Acts, and some transitional approaches had to be made. What this bill does is streamline the approach, to move from the transitional period into a permanent new period for the future.

There have been complaints that risk management processes have set up artificial barriers, artificial hurdles, that cost but do not actually make the system safer. The purported intention of this bill is to reduce those particular barriers, and to reduce some of the costs involved. It unashamedly sets out to minimise costs to business and to Government. That objective is to be applauded, but it should not be gained at the cost of safety. It really is necessary that the Environmental Risk Management Authority is able to ensure that the appropriate controls are imposed.

The bill will provide the authority with greater flexibility. That is also fine, as long as the authority has a robust methodology to assess risk. It removes the need to effect transfers of previous provisions from the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to the new regime, through continual Orders in Council, so it is a “be good to the Governor-General” sort of bill. It moves matters from transitional controls, to the principal Act. In doing so, it empowers the authority to impose its own controls. It delegates many of those decisions to the body that is supposed to be the risk-management expert in such matters, and is supposed to have the expertise. It will be successful, depending on the quality of both the authority and the agency, Environmental Risk Management Authority 1 and Environmental Risk Management Authority 2, because if we do not have those bodies working with real quality, then mistakes will be made.

One of the interesting things about legislation around hazardous substances and new organisms is the quaint terminology that seems to be attached to it. Our select committee visited the Australian gene technology regulator earlier this year. There was a quaint expression, which they continued to refer to, called “a dealing” and that was in the Australian legislation. We did not quite know what this “dealing” was, but it referred to any activity related to GE. That was the generic term used for it in their legislation and in their processes.

There is also some quaint language in this bill. For example, there is the term “a permission”. The authority will be able to give a permission to a particular body. A permission in this particular case is defined in this legislation as an authorisation to allow a general or a particular use of a substance. So if the authority says that such and such a body has a permission to use a particular substance, it can establish certain conditions around that, but it will be part of the authorisation or, as referred to here, the permission.

The other somewhat new concept, although it has been used in other parts of the law, is the creation of a “fit and proper person” test. The decisions that the authority makes will have to be around some form or some concept of a “fit and proper person”.

R Doug Woolerton: Does Helen Clark still make the decision?

I do not know. Certainly, we would have some difficulty with her signing off certain things, but other than that, maybe she would—I am not too certain.

R Doug Woolerton: What about Dr Don Brash?

We will come to that one later on. But the issue around the “fit and proper person” test is that there will be regulations to prescribe the criteria to define who a “fit and proper person” actually is. It will be interesting to see what this particular minority Labour Government comes up with, in terms of its criteria of a “fit and proper person”.

The other aspect of this bill that New Zealand First would like to note at this time is that the explanatory note has a list of the bodies and agencies that were consulted in the preparation of the bill, and it is very extensive. It covers all sides of the argument, from private companies to Government agencies, to agencies involved in the environment, to the New Zealand Chemical Industry Council, to the Ministry of Justice, and to the Ministry of Health. It is a wide-ranging group. I believe it is a very constructive approach, to put within the text of the explanatory note those bodies that have been formally consulted on the preparation of a bill, because it certainly gives us some insight into how extensively it has been done.

As far as New Zealand First is concerned—as we did with the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill—we will be voting for this bill to proceed to the select committee. We believe it is timely. Certain processes have to be achieved by July 2006, so we have to move the process on its way. However, we will be scrutinising the bill very carefully when it is at the select committee. We will finalise our position once we have heard the submissions and looked through all the issues. We will make our decision, as we always do, in the best interests of New Zealand and its people.

No one could possibly disagree with the purpose of this bill. It is clearly in everybody’s interests to facilitate the smooth transfer of hazardous substances from the transitional controls to the new regime, and it is clearly beneficial to enable the authority to assign cost-effective controls to hazardous substances. So the Greens will be supporting this bill going to the Education and Science Committee. We believe there are a number of technical issues about the bill that need careful scrutiny at the select committee, but at this stage we are supporting it.

We are not, however, supporting the February reporting date. That, given the summer break—even given a very modest summer break—gives us less than 2 months to get the bill back to the House. That means that either the phase of public consultation will be severely truncated or the select committee will have to work overtime at the end of January in order to do a decent job, and it seems to me that neither of those are entirely reasonable things to expect. With a bill like this, there are a great many users out there, and a great many safety authorities and councils—all of which have an interest in the management of hazardous substances. We believe that they ought to have an appropriate time in which to make their submissions and have them properly considered by the committee. We do not believe that allowing committees to sit all week when the House is sitting, and when it is not, makes up for the lack of elapsed time from the closing of submissions until the reporting back.

We support a case by case consideration of hazardous substances, and the imposition of controls on a case by case basis. It is interesting to draw a comparison between hazardous substances and new organisms—where we do not support a case by case assessment of release—because there is an underlying unpredictability and risk running through all genetically engineered organisms that means they should not be let out of the laboratory at all. With hazardous substances, however, there is no such underlying risk. They are all subject to quite different risk assessments, and we support those being done on a case by case basis.

It is sensible to allow controls to be put on the use of hazardous substances. I understand that the reconsideration of 1080 poison has been deferred until that tool is available, because there may well be some places where it should not be used and other places where it is perfectly appropriate. It is good if the Environmental Risk Management Authority has the flexibility to consider it carefully.

There are five issues I think the select committee needs to look at in relation to this bill. The first one is cost-effective controls. Nobody could object to the idea that controls must be as cost effective as possible for both the authority and for industry, but I do not believe that the bill at the moment makes it clear enough that cost effectiveness is still subject to the overall goal of the legislation, which is the protection of health and the environment. If it is not all that cost effective to protect health and the environment, it does not mean we should throw away the primary goal.

Secondly, there needs, I think, to be some limit now on the transitional period, which is still totally open-ended. I think everyone is very keen to see us get through the transitional period for hazardous substances and fully into the new regime. The transitional period should not be allowed to go on for ever.

Thirdly, we need to look at the concept of rapid assessment. It is already well established under the Act for other matters. Certainly, I would like to hear how “similar” will be defined. Two chemical substances with only one atom’s difference in their chemical formulation can be vastly different. I do not think that that is what “similar” is meant to indicate, but I would be very interested to hear what definition the authority intends to use in interpreting it, so that we do not, inadvertently, allow things through the net that should not get through.

Fourthly, the Minister of Defence and defence activities are exempt from the Act. I think we need to look at whether that is an historical anachronism we need to fix. There may be some good reasons in a few cases, but I think a general exemption for the Minister of Defence is surely no longer warranted. That exemption needs to be reviewed—if not in this bill, then at some stage soon.

Finally, I think the select committee will need to look carefully at the delegation powers, and restrictions on the delegation powers, so that decisions are made by people who are properly qualified, in a properly accountable way, with public scrutiny. Having said that, I say to the House that the Greens support the bill at this stage.

I rise with some trepidation to speak about the bill. It has some perfectly sound and valid points, and, by the sound of things, is likely to go to the Education and Science Committee. My great concern surrounds the huge amount of restriction and control that, it seems to me, will almost become some sort of Clayton’s system. So when organisations, companies, individuals, or whatever, apply for consents to use a so-called hazardous substance, the controls, and especially the cost structures, will be so great that in a small country like New Zealand, where the market is relatively limited, the individuals or companies concerned will say that it is not worth the effort. They could make some money in particular areas by ensuring their products are better than those they were using in the past, but, to spend what essentially could well run into millions of dollars, will not be worth the effort.

The impact of that will be that young—and perhaps not so young—members of our science community will decide there are better opportunities beckoning. They beckon almost daily from Australia, from America, and from the European Union. Those countries, of course, have hazardous substances—or what are determined by our society to be hazardous substances. As the Green Party pointed out, this bill is not just about genetically modified product; it is also about the use of products like 1080 poison, which Mrs Fitzsimons mentioned before. That is a substance the world says we should ban, and New Zealand says we should not.

R Doug Woolerton: Great stuff.

Well, we need to keep 1080 poison in New Zealand because it is the most sensible, logical way of controlling the possum and rat populations, etc. that are decimating our environment. On the one hand, the world is saying to us it does not like the use of this hazardous substance in New Zealand, and on the other hand, many in New Zealand are saying we should ban the use of technology, or biotechnology, surrounding the genetically modified product the world, by and large, accepts. Despite the rhetoric we hear from the anti-GM lobby, the world accepts it. Gracious me, there are so many products coming out of South America that are genetically modified—fed to cattle in Europe, for example—and then put on the European market, and nobody complains. It is a perfectly understandable and acceptable commercial practice, but it is not occurring—it is not even on the radar screen—in New Zealand.

As a farmer, I know of no people in this country who are breaking their necks to grow GM crops. Just recently a group of onion growers said that, until they see relevance around the situation, they do not want to grow GM crops. Everybody else in this country, it seems to me, seems to be an expert on the subject of what farmers should grow, and the poor old agrarian is left down at the bottom of the heap, being told by everybody else. I know that people out on the land, who will or will not decide to grow whatever crops they wish, will make decisions based on science, on sound common sense, on reasons of practicality, and also on the price they will receive for those products. If producers have been shown that genetically modified products will not reach the sorts of levels required to enable producers to sustain their properties, themselves, and their families, then they will not grow those products. It is as simple as that. Yet, the farming community seems to have been pushed aside in this whole debate because “politicians know best”. Pardon? Since when has that been the case on anything?

In the explanatory note of this bill, it seems to me that the salient words used are the words about managing risk—not having open slather—and the word “practical”. That is hugely important. “Practical application” and “practical use” are hopefully what this bill will be about, especially once it has gone to the select committee. This bill is about the practical and common-sense use of technologies and biotechnologies, and that is all this country seeks. It is not about some sort of pie-in-the-sky requirement of the Green Party; it is about the sound, practical management of hazardous substances. We manage that extremely well with products like 1080 poison, and our products of wool, meat, beef, or whatever, are not banned by European communities because they find that 1080 poison is an outdated or impractical solution to our environmental problems.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the great concerns I have is with regard to the biotechnology that surrounds a whole host of products, but that especially relates to the genetic modification debate. There is a huge amount of hysteria—and that is the only word that can be used—surrounding that technology. One could be forgiven for believing that this country of ours is the first to try that new technology. Absolute rubbish! It has been around in the world for 15 years, and virtually every First World country utilises the benefits of genetic modification or GM technology. For example, our near neighbour Australia has very substantial areas planted in genetically modified cotton, and I have no doubt that most members—including, probably, the Greens—are wearing genetically modified cotton right now. GM is a reality. It is part of our world, and we will not change that, regardless of what New Zealand does.

I have heard Ian Ewen-Street and the Greens talk about their great concern over the problem of what they call “contamination”, or what I would call “cross-pollination”. Well, we cannot stop it. It is a mere 1,200 miles across the ditch—a couple of thousand kilometres across to Australia. Pollen gets into the atmosphere and comes to New Zealand anyway. We will not stop that—

💬 Jeanette Fitzsimons: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. No clause in this bill has anything whatsoever to do with genetic modification. Could you ask the speaker to stick to the bill he is debating?

Speaking to the point of order, I say that this bill is all about supposedly hazardous substances. There is no question that many people in New Zealand today see GM technology as being concerned with a hazardous substance.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thought that what Mr Eckhoff was saying was both interesting and relevant.

Thank you very much for your endorsement, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Utilising the experience of scientists is surely the way New Zealand should proceed. Science has developed to a level in First World countries where we do not rely on hocus-pocus or the technology of the Middle Ages. Indeed, some believe in organic concepts, and they believe that if we all went back to them our environment would be so much the better. But we know that science has moved us forward, and has done so with great caution. Yes, there have always been problems with new concepts and new technologies. We recognise that, and we have heard about the problems we had in the past with things like DDT. Although those products were of great benefit to our society, many today say they are hazardous substances and we should move to ban them from New Zealand. The reality today is that our society has moved on from the Middle Ages, where witchcraft and hocus-pocus were problems. We now understand, through the benefit of science, just how our society can progress. Science can advance our causes, whether in the field of crops or in the field of medicines. It seems to me we have great opportunities in the field of medicines especially, even though in inappropriate doses some substances may be hugely hazardous. But the opportunities that are advanced to our society are huge.

The member who spoke before me gave us a very interesting and eloquent speech. I think it would have been more appropriate on the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill, which we have passed, as although the title of this bill is the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill, it really does deal with hazardous substances, not new organisms. I think it is stretching it a little to suggest that genetically modified organisms are hazardous substances.

The bill deals with the hazardous substances component of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, and it is largely technical in nature. It amends the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act in order to facilitate the transfer of hazardous substances from a transitional control regime to the official Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act control regime.

The bill includes amendments that will implement recommendations from the hazardous substances strategy to address areas where the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, as enacted, was not working efficiently. This will provide for a smooth transition between the two regimes and enable cost-effective controls to be assigned to all hazardous substances. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act was passed in 1996, but a long transition period has been needed due to the large number and complexity of hazardous substances registered in New Zealand. It is important for the new regime to be sufficiently robust to keep track of all hazardous substances used in New Zealand, because of the very real risk they pose to the environment if used improperly.

The cost-effectiveness of the controls is also important because many of these substances are used in manufacturing and agriculture and could therefore result in significant extra compliance costs and barriers to innovation for New Zealand businesses if the regulatory regime is unnecessarily cumbersome. The controls the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act places on hazardous substances include labelling, packaging, and storage requirements, as well as requirements for licensing regimes, and because of its very common-sense and practical nature, United Future is pleased to support its first reading and see it go to a select committee.

, on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: I move, That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill be referred to the Education and Science Committee for consideration, that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 13 February 2004, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during questions for oral answer, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c).

I understand that my colleague has had discussion with the other whips. The House has made good progress, and I seek leave for the House to rise at this time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.