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

, on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: I move, That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The bill was referred to the Education and Science Committee on 18 November 2003. The committee received submissions and undertook a thorough consideration of the bill. The committee reported back to the House on 27 February, and recommended that the bill be passed with amendments shown. I thank the chairman and the committee for its timely work on those rather technical matters.

Generally, submitters expressed support for the intent of the bill, and several cited examples of substances for which the bill is necessary to provide practical and cost-effective controls. Other submitters raised issues outside the scope of the bill. Those issues are being addressed under the Government’s hazardous substances strategy. The strategy was developed in close consultation with industry leaders and focused on improving workability to enable the Act to serve its purposes better—that is, to protect the environment and the health and safety of people and communities by preventing or managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances.

The strategy identified a number of prioritised actions, with the most critical actions delivered first. Enactment of the bill will complete the delivery of those critical actions. The bill’s primary objectives are to enable the practical application of controls to all hazardous substances, and to provide for practical management of the transitional period. The bill, in providing for those outcomes, reduces costs to the Government and industry, reduces barriers to innovation, and better protects the environment and health and safety of people in communities.

The select committee made changes to clauses 4, 5, 10, and 11 as a result of submissions received. It has also inserted new clauses 6A and 6B. The changes to clause 4 include hazardous substances and new organisms enforcement officers among the potential delegates who may decide any application for a licence or permission applied for under the new sections 95A and 95B introduced by clause 6. The changes the committee made to clause 5 clarify that the authority must find that control variations made using the clause result in better risk management outcomes. New clauses 6A and 6B make it explicit that a breach of a condition imposed by a licence or permission, introduced under new sections 95A and 95B, is an offence subject to enforcement action.

Clause 10 has been changed to clarify that when transferring substances in groups the authority may assign and vary controls to the groups of substances. That will be vital in assigning effective risk management controls to the 70,000 notified toxic substances. Several minor and technical changes have been made to clause 11. The select committee members are to be commended for their efforts. The amendments they have made improve the bill—there is no doubt about that.

In conclusion, the bill includes a number of provisions that, though individually modest, collectively will provide meaningful reductions in costs to industry and the Government, and will reduce barriers to innovation. Importantly, the provisions will do so without compromising the level of environmental and health protection afforded by the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The changes in the bill will ensure that the processes of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act work better without compromising what the Act originally set out to achieve, which is a healthy environment for all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill—a bill that National supports and that certainly has a good intent. The bill amends the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. It is important to realise that the purpose of it is to protect communities and the environment from the adverse effects of hazardous substances. There are in the order of 80,000 existing hazardous substances present in New Zealand, and only about 8,000 of them have previously been regulated. Because of that, this bill is necessary.

I was quite fascinated, when we heard the submission made by the Ministry of Health, to look at the extent of the hazardous substances that are present in everyday life in New Zealand. By definition they are dangerous substances, and they must be manufactured, used, stored, transported, and disposed of properly. Hazardous substances can, obviously, cause harm to people in the environment. They may be explosive, flammable, oxidising, corrosive, toxic, or eco-toxic, and they can generate a hazardous substance on contact with air or water. Many hazardous substances are used in everyday life. They include everything from solvents to printing inks and dyes, paints, adhesives, and cleaners, and, of course, they go on to the more obviously hazardous ones, which include explosives, poisons, pesticides, and industrial chemicals. Given that in the order of 70,000 hazardous substances need to be regulated, it is, indeed, appropriate to do that.

The reason we support this bill is that its intent is to minimise the cost to business and the Government and to reduce the barriers to innovation, by a variety of mechanisms. It is refreshing that the Government has a bill here with the intent of minimising the cost to business. We have seen bills time and time again from this Labour Government that have done the very opposite of that. We only have to think of the Resource Management Act and the absolutely incredible situation that has arisen in New Zealand under it. Beca Carter Hollings and Ferner tells us that organising the planning of a road in New Zealand can take up to 7 years under this Government’s legislation, whereas for a similar road in Singapore it takes only in the order of 3 months to get the bulldozers in. That Act is just one example of the many pieces of legislation this Labour Government has imposed on New Zealand that have been very inefficient and very bad for business—the Local Government Act, the Climate Change Act, and the earlier hazardous substances and new organisms legislation.

Undoubtedly, we want to see predictability, transparency, and best regulatory practice. Certainly, the intent of this bill is to minimise the cost to business, and there are three ways that it is being done. Firstly, this legislation enables the application of cost-effective controls to hazardous substances; secondly, it facilitates the transfer of hazardous substances from transitional controls to the controls under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act by changing the legal processes; and, thirdly, it broadens the way that exemptions work, in order to provide for a smooth transition to the controls under that Act.

I believe there were 11 submissions on the bill, and nine of those certainly supported the intent of the bill. There were some isolated concerns, and the Education and Science Committee has worked cooperatively to get most of the concerns sorted out and to make appropriate amendments to the bill. It is important to mention that the submitters included not only the Ministry of Health and various industrial companies, but also Federated Farmers. Farmers deal with a lot of hazardous substances in their everyday work. Federated Farmers believe that the current system generally results in a higher level of regulation for using hazardous substances, and that this bill is likely to lead to much less in the way of compliance costs for farming businesses. Hence they certainly supported the bill. Federated Farmers believe this bill focuses on assigning more cost-effective controls, and allows the Environmental Risk Management Authority much more flexibility to change or remove inappropriate controls. There is no doubt that one of the most difficult things in the situation that the Environmental Risk Management Authority faces is a lack of flexibility, so it is worthwhile that that flexibility is being incorporated within the bill. Federated Farmers are confident that the bill will improve the system, by enabling use-related controls to be applied when they are considered to be a cost-effective and practical way to manage the risk of using a hazardous substance.

For all those reasons National is firmly in support of this bill, particularly so when there has been an outstanding number of hazardous substances that clearly need regulation—in the order of 72,000 of them. In fact, in the future we expect there to be something like 100 new substances per year that will need sensible regulations requiring the most cost-efficient way of dealing with them that is appropriate to business.

There were three particular things that the select committee felt it was worthwhile to comment on.

💬 Darren Hughes: What were they?

I am glad that Mr Hughes is interested in that, because they are very important. It is very important that the Labour Government takes note of this bill, because, finally, it is doing a small thing to assist the business community rather than the usual thing of putting up obstacles for it. The three matters that the select committee particularly reported on were the assignment of cost-effective controls, enforcing permission and licensing controls and varying the controls for substances that are being transferred, and, finally, making some amendments in relation to the transfer of non-hazardous compressed gases. Certainly, substances that are not classified as intrinsically hazardous under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act regime can be hazardous in their compressed gas form.

This is a highly technical bill. It has as one of its aims the minimising of the cost to business; hence, National supports it. We look forward to discussing the bill further during the Committee stage.

I stand on behalf of my colleague the Hon Brian Donnelly, who chaired the Education and Science Committee, which processed the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill. I wish to make a number of points. This legislation was dumped on to the select committee in a most unsatisfactory way. The chair was informed on the very day of the first reading that the bill would be put to the Education and Science Committee. That, in itself, was not problematic, but the first reading was on 18 November last year, and it was not until the Minister, Rick Barker, gave a speech during that reading that it was announced that the report-back date was to be 14 February. I wish to say on my colleague’s behalf that that is not satisfactory; it treats Parliament with contempt. The closing date for submissions was only 16 January, and there was an expectation for a report back 4 sitting days into the new year. There was no consultation whatsoever about that; Parliament was simply told what to do. Everyone else has to consult—except, seemingly, the Ministers of this minority Labour Government. That is the sign of an arrogant Government, which treats this House as a rubber stamp, and it is a credit to my colleague the Hon Brian Donnelly that he would not tolerate such challenges to the sovereignty of the House.

The second point is that there are 80,000 hazardous substances. The legislation itself took effect in 2001, and has set a deadline of 2006 to transfer all those substances to the controls that apply under the principal Act. At this moment, only 10,000 of the 80,000 hazardous substances have been transferred. There were 80,000 hazardous substances to transfer, the legislation was enacted in 2001, and today, in 2004, only 10,000 of the 80,000 have been transferred. What has the Minister been doing? What needs to be done to jolt her out of her stupor? New Zealand First will be voting for this legislation, but we say to the Minister that, for heaven’s sake, she must get a move on.

The next point is that the select committee heard two very potent submissions that this legislation would not be necessary if the regulations were fixed up. The suggestion that we should shelve the legislation and work on getting the regulations right is not viable. That would simply take too long, and certain deadlines would not be met. This legislation and serious remediation of the regulations are both needed. The committee was informed that the work is under way, but we in New Zealand First will monitor that work very, very closely to make sure it happens. On the basis of present work efforts by this minority Labour Government, we have grave doubts as to whether it will be able to complete that work in time.

One situation that was uncovered during the select committee process was to do with compressed gases. Many gases—for example, nitrogen and oxygen—are not in themselves hazardous. However, every compressed gas is hazardous, because of its compressed state. The committee has recommended amendments to the bill in order to accommodate compressed gases.

Finally, my colleague the Hon Brian Donnelly wishes to thank members of the select committee for going beyond the call of duty and not dancing to the Minister’s tune, in order to ensure that this bill has been able to be progressed in a speedy fashion. New Zealand First will be voting for this bill, because it is the only sensible thing to do. To frustrate this process would compromise the safety of New Zealanders and put them at risk while using hazardous substances, and that is not in the nature of our party. We support this stage of the bill.

I rise to speak on behalf of my colleague Metiria Turei, who is not able to be here in the House this afternoon. The Green Party shares the very serious concerns expressed by the member for New Zealand First. Frankly, it is an affront to this House to drop legislation in at the eleventh hour, just before Parliament rises for the Christmas adjournment, and, basically, to have no consultation. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill can only be described as one of those bills that are rammed through this House. We consider that to be totally unsatisfactory, and we say there is really no way that one can pretend there has been consultation on the bill.

We have other misgivings about this bill. The intention of the bill is all about minimising the costs to business and to the Government. We are talking here, as others have mentioned, about 70,000 notified toxic substances. One would have thought, given we are talking about 70,000 notified toxic substances, there would be something in the purpose clause about the health and safety of New Zealanders, but no, it is all about minimising costs. I suspect that if we had the time to examine the bill more carefully, we may find it is all about minimising costs to businesses that are busily using toxic substances without having had them properly evaluated, and without disposing of them properly. We may very well find that this bill provides loopholes for them to continue doing so, merrily.

When we think about the fact that 70,000 toxic substances are not currently controlled, we should really pause for a moment and just contemplate that. We should let New Zealanders think about the fact that that is so, and that many or most of the 70,000 toxic substances not currently controlled are in use. They are in our homes, our environment, our workplaces, and there is no regulation of them. Frankly, that is scandalous, and one would have thought that there would be some urgency about dealing with the situation. But we just heard that even though the Environmental Risk Management Authority has had the power to transfer these substances to the controls that apply under the principal Act for many years now, it has managed to transfer only 10,000 of the 80,000 toxic hazardous substances. Frankly, we have to ask ourselves what the Environmental Risk Management Authority has been up to. What priority does it give to the exposure of New Zealanders to 70,000 toxic substances that do not even have any controls on them and that are in use in our everyday lives? Is it any wonder that our cancer rates in New Zealand are so high, given that we have so many unregulated toxic substances in our midst?

I have the privilege to sit on the committee that is considering the Building Bill and looking at various aspects of the building code. One of the things that have emerged during the course of the hearings is that none of the building materials that we use in our homes are assessed for their health effects. We know we have flame retardants that are known to be cancer-causing, and materials that give off gas and cause a range of health effects. But nobody is bothering to assess the health effects of those toxic substances, and most of them have—as far as we can see—very little or no regulation.

Once can only speculate as to what the 70,000 notified toxic substances are that are not currently controlled, and one can only speculate, too, as to where they end up—how they are being disposed of in our land. Are they all ending up in our landfills? We suppose that that is the case. Obviously, nobody is bothering to regulate those substances. I presume that many of them are pesticides sprayed on our foods, fly sprays, and household products, as well as building materials. It is extremely disturbing that so many of those substances are not controlled or regulated in New Zealand, and that the Government has been so tardy in doing anything about it. Obviously, the issue is not regarded as being of any priority. The Government’s only real priority is to minimise the cost to businesses of finally having to have some sort of regulation of those 70,000 toxic substances.

We have huge misgivings about this bill. We will support the second reading, but we look forward to some amendments being made at the Committee stage, and we will consider our final position based on those amendments. We are concerned that it looks as though the main issue in the bill is the flexibility to business—reducing business costs—and we are worried that sufficient protections and safeguards are not in place to protect ordinary New Zealanders. We are worried about the potential trade-offs between cost-effectiveness and protecting the health and safety of ordinary New Zealanders. We have huge misgivings about this bill—about the way it has been parachuted into Parliament, the lack of consultation, the foot-dragging way that the Environmental Risk Management Authority has dealt with the issue, and the shocking and, frankly, scandalous situation in New Zealand whereby we have 70,000 notified toxic substances that are in use in our everyday lives but that are not currently controlled. That is a scandal. We hope that this bill will do something about it, but we worry that all it will do is to reduce the cost to businesses, by providing loopholes for businesses in dealing with the many toxic substances that are imported and in use here in New Zealand.

I rise on behalf of United Future to support the second reading of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill. The bill has a number of features, and I will speak briefly on a couple of them.

The Education and Science Committee, when it considered the bill, answered many of the questions and objections that the previous speaker raised. It would have been of greater use to the Greens if they had had somebody participating at, and contributing to, that committee process. Ms Kedgley would have then received answers to her questions, which are legitimate. I am happy that the Greens will support the second reading.

One of the ways that cost reductions are planned in this bill is simply for the Environmental Risk Management Authority to delegate its powers so that—as has been so rightly pointed out—it will be possible for those 70,000 notifiable toxic substances to be reclassified by June 2006, and stored and labelled correctly. The provisions to ensure proper labelling and definition of each of those substances are a major part of this bill.

There are technical amendments, which others have brought out and I do not want to go into. There is a matter associated with the disposing of onerous property that relates to matters of insolvency and bankruptcy, and I am really thrilled that was highlighted in the considerations of the select committee.

United Future will support the second reading of the bill.

This bill reflects a scandalous level of implementation of the 1996 hazardous substances legislation. I emphasise to the House just how far behind the eightball we are in terms of implementation of the principal Act. Eight years after the Act was passed, of the 80,000 toxic substances that are used in New Zealand, only one-eighth—10,000 of them—have been registered. If we maintain the pace that has been set over recent years, I have worked out that we will meet the transitional requirements of this legislation in the year 2066. I do not know whether Mr Hunt will still be here—the Speaker has advised me that he thinks he will be considering retirement by that stage. I simply point out that after 8 years of transition, we are only one-eighth of the way in terms of the registration of hazardous substances, and this bill has to be seen within that context.

So many areas of government are so far behind the eightball. This is an inefficient Government that is making no progress on these sorts of basic issues. We cannot say it is moving at a snail’s pace, because a snail would be supersonic compared with the rate at which this bill is being implemented. We were advised back in 1996 that the legislation could be fully implemented by 2002. It is now 2004, this bill provides for full implementation by 2006, and I think that one would have to be an extreme optimist to believe that we could meet its requirements by that year.

I endorse the comments made by MP Dail Jones, on behalf of Brian Donnelly, about the shonky process this bill has gone through. It has been rushed, it has been truncated, and it has not been a thorough process. My concern is that when complex, technical bills of this sort are rushed through in this sort of process, it is inevitable that there will be mistakes and errors. I bet any member of this House that we will be back with another hazardous substances amendment bill before the end of this year, to pick up the latest mistakes.

I want also to express some concern about the lack of international integration. A range of hazardous substances are used in New Zealand, in every nook and cranny in industry, and some chemicals may be used by only one individual business—and constituents have come to me with examples of an individual chemical of which they are the only user in New Zealand. In my view, with the expensive process that is required, it would be far better to integrate our hazardous substances regime with that of Australia. To have a completely separate process for a little country of 4 million people does not do us justice. I know that the Green Party is all upset about Food Standards Australia New Zealand but, in my view, the authority is doing a more thorough job of ensuring the safety of food. In my view, the same sort of approach is required to this area of hazardous substances, and to expect that New Zealand would have, on its own, the sort of high-level skills to make assessments on the 80,000 different substances used in New Zealand industry is somewhat naive. We need to look to an international forum—in my view, Australia—to get a greater degree of integration in this area. I hope that is where we might head in future.

Yes, there are some provisions in this bill, which is being rushed through, that do make good sense, but we are a long way behind the pace in implementation of this new Act. I encourage the Government to look to integration with Australia, because I do not think it is possible for New Zealand alone to provide a proper regime for the regulation of hazardous substances and new organisms.

Bill read a second time.