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

I want to make a few points in respect of the title, because this bill is one of a number of hazardous substances and new organisms bills that we have seen in the last couple of Parliaments. My real question I wish to put to the Minister for the Environment is whether we finally have it right. The truth is the Education and Science Committee was under pressure and had to rush the bill through. I am surprised that the Minister, having had so many difficulties with this particular Act, would not have wanted to be absolutely sure that, with such complex law, we had got it correct. I want some reassurance that before June 2006, when the transitional provisions are complete, we do not get another Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill because somehow we got something wrong this time, as we again rushed an amendment bill through. So my challenge to the Minister is to stake her reputation on finally having it right. Having put Parliament under pressure, having sent the bill to the wrong select committee, and having given a time constraint much tighter than is normal for the scrutiny of bills—let alone bills as complex as this one—is the Minister going to stake her reputation on her and her officials finally having got it correct?

💬 Hon David Carter: What reputation?

My colleague asks what reputation; I will be generous and say that we simply want assurances that, finally, with this amendment bill—No. 4, I understand, since 1996—we have it correct.

I also wish to have some reassurance that we have the resources and the other things in place to ensure that, by June 2006, we truly are going to be in business, and that we are not going to have another Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill that proposes to extend the transitional period beyond June 2006. I remind the House that June 2006 will mark 10 years of transition since the substantive Act was passed. On those points we want some reassurance.

In terms of the title, perhaps we should call the bill the “Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (This Goes on Forever) Bill”, or some other words could be added if we wanted, as a Parliament, to be more sarcastic about the frustration felt about the long transition that is being required to make this legislation work. So if the Minister would respond to those points, it would help in terms of a speedy transition of the title debate.

Just to respond to that, I think this is a particular piece of legislation that was designed for the transfer processes that were absolutely stymied. There will be, possibly, some further amendments to this bill because, if we look at the select committee record we will see that it talks about a draft discussion paper. A year ago we went out to industry and could see some of the problems facing the transfer process and this particularly complex legislation. The industry came back to us with some ideas. Part of that is in the discussion paper that it wanted, and that we will look to for some possible further legislation.

I want to make one other point. Yes, I think we are almost at the leading edge, but I am a bit nervous about getting too far ahead. We are part of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals and all that that means, but that is fairly new as well. There is some difficulty at the moment with the European Union wanting to begin some processes towards using chemical assessment that may act more as a trade barrier, so we have to be very careful.

In referring to the title of the bill, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill, we have to say that it probably is an accurate description of what the bill tries to do. But I would like to bring something to the attention of the Committee, in order to help answer the question asked by the previous speaker—will the bill enable the transfer of all existing hazardous substances by July 2006?

I am quoting from the departmental report, which states: “There are two groups of substances that warrant further explanation in answer to this question. These groups are: the notified toxic substances, or NOTS, and the non-hazardous compressed gases.” We have talked about the non-hazardous compressed gases, which are dealt with within the bill, but this is what the report has to say about the notified toxic substances, which I think is pertinent to what we have been talking about: “There are approximately 70,000 hazardous substances that are not presently controlled.” Therein lie some of the issues around the statements made in that select committee report back, and also in the speeches made during the second reading. “These are known as the NOTS. In order to achieve the completion of transfer by July 2006 the bill must enable transfer of the NOTS in groups. Groups are based on the controls needed to manage the risks of these substances, as it is the controls that enable achievement of the purpose of the Act.” In other words, section 160A and section 160B actually deal with some of the issues about whether the deadline will be met. I just rise to bring that to the attention of the Committee so that we clarify some of those issues around the numbers.

As I speak to the title of this bill, it does give my heart considerable quivers to hear the Minister say that there may be possible amendments to this bill in the future. I think that is absolutely right. Indeed, it does sort of back up the view of my colleague that this bill could be called the “Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Labour Government, This Will Go on Forever and Ever) Bill”, and that is a worry. [Interruption] No, the Labour Government will not; I am talking about the bill. I make that absolutely clear. The Government has got less than 18 months.

Indeed, the thing that was hugely concerning about this bill was the fact that the process was so rushed. I was quite surprised to hear the Minister say that this was costing the Government in New Zealand a fair amount of money every day. That is true. Why on earth did the Government not bring it in considerably earlier so that indeed it could have been deliberated on in an appropriate way? There was a conscientious chairman, Brian Donnelly, of the Education and Science Committee, ready to ensure that the deliberations would be appropriate, but, oh no, the Labour Government had to rush it in after 3 days of the House coming back from the break.

Perhaps the major reason that the National Party did support this bill was the fact that we certainly perceived and believe that it is business-friendly. So perhaps the name should be the “Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Labour Government’s Attempt at Long Last to Minimise Costs and Cut Down on Bureaucracy) Bill.” Undoubtedly, the major thrust is to minimise costs, and reduce barriers to innovation, which is so hugely important for New Zealand.

In fact, when one considers the previous hazardous substances and new organisms bills that this Labour Government has brought in, and the difficulties that the biotechnology research sector is having with them, then one considers that it will be, unfortunately, necessary to review the whole Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act that has eventuated, particularly from the amendments of the Labour Government. There was an opportunity after some years of the Act being in existence, to make it more effective and efficient, but so far the Government has not done that, apart from this bill, which we support.

So that is why my heart does go down with trepidation when I hear the Minister saying: “More amendments”, and I would urge the Minister to keep in mind, if she is going to put in amendments, to take advice from, or consideration of, the Biotechnology Taskforce, which said we should at least, in making those regulations, observe international best practice, and make them transparent, make them predictable, and ensure that there is cost-minimisation and that indeed the legislation reduces barriers to innovation.

I shall be very brief. On speaking to this substantial bill, titled the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill, I want to put on record that despite all the questions about the title, it is a reasonably good title. If members focused on one word in the title it would either alarm, or quell our suspicions. It is the word “transitional”: that could mean anything.

It is not in the past tense; it is in the present continuous tense, which allows for further amendments to take place. It also gives us the picture that this is really what it is all about. It is a transition issue, and if we took the other words “Provisions and Controls” as separate, we could take from this that the bill is reasonably well named, in light of the transition of all the substances that is yet to happen by June 2006. If there are others beyond that, I will not be surprised, as some people have already questioned. If it gets completed by then, I guess we will all be so happy that we might award the Minister some sort of prize.

I was totally confused by the speaker who has just resumed his seat, and I seek clarification from the Minister on this very important point. I thought I understood this bill, until the United Future member took a call, and his speech has thrown me into a mass of confusion. My clear understanding was that the substantive Act provides for a set transitional period through to 2006, and that this bill deals merely with transitional measures within that time, but listening to—I do not know quite how to describe it—the contribution, perhaps, from the member from United Future, the Government’s coalition partner, I am totally confused now. I think there is an onus on the Minister to clarify it for the House, as that confusion was introduced.

The member is correct.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.