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

I move, That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 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. In providing for these outcomes this bill reduces cost to Government and to industry, reduces barriers to innovation, and better protects the environment and the health and safety of people and communities.

No amendments were made to the bill during the Committee of the whole House, but I would like to address some of the concerns raised in the House during its passage. On the numbers of existing hazardous substances, let us put this to rest. The chair of the Education and Science Committee expressed concern that the committee may have been incorrectly advised as to the number of the existing hazardous substances. There are, I admit, a lot of numbers flying around, and I want to set the record straight once and for all. We have approximately 8,000 hazardous substances that were previously subject to regulatory control under explosives, dangerous goods, pesticides, and toxic substances Acts, which the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act replaced.

Then there are the notified toxic substances. In the years 1996 to 2001, when the hazardous substances part of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act commenced, the tally of notifications rose from 8,000 to a staggering 215,000. This happened because the chemical industry recognised that this was the only way to gain the status of an existing substance under the Act and therefore remained legally in use. If we take these 215,000 notifications and remove the multiple notifications and the notifications for substances that are not hazardous, we arrive at a figure of approximately 70,000 notified toxic substances. A more exact figure will not be known until the Environmental Risk Management Authority has further progressed its work with industry on these substances. If we add 8,000 substances that were subject to direct regulatory control to the approximately 70,000 notified toxic substances, we would find that we have approximately 80,000 existing hazardous substances.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: 78,000, actually.

“Approximately” was the word. I know these numbers do not add up exactly. As I said, the reason is that the 70,000 can be confirmed only when the Environmental Risk Management Authority has finalised its work with industry. These numbers match those in the select committee report, and I wish to assure the chair that the select committee was correctly advised.

I refer to select committee time frames. Concern has been expressed at the time frames in which the select committee was asked to report on this bill. I acknowledge that the time frames were tighter than the norm, and I thank the committee for its diligent work in grappling with this small but very technical bill. I would like to explain a little of why these time frames came about, and I acknowledge that perhaps I should have explained this in December. The current provisions governing transfer are woefully unworkable. It took until August 2003—and this question was raised last night—to successfully make the first transfers under the Act, the explosives. This was not due to a lack of effort; it was due to the roadblocks in the legislation. The process was unworkable. However, we needed actually to use the provisions in order to learn all their pitfalls—otherwise, we would be doing it in theory—to make sure we fixed the problems. So finalising the details of this very technical bill could not be done until after the explosives had been transferred, and that was in August 2003. That brings us to the point at which the legislation was introduced in November.

Perhaps most important, this bill must be in force to allow the dangerous goods transfer scheduled for April to happen. Businesses have long planned for these transfers. Delay means uncertainty and forcing people to change their plans, resulting in significant and avoidable business compliance costs. We must avoid these costs—and avoid them we will, with members’ help, which I appreciate.

This bill will result in a dramatic improvement in the functioning of the hazardous substances and new organisms regime. In addition to the costs associated with delays in the transfer dates, delay has other effects. Delay means adverse effects on the authority and wider government, in terms of efficiencies. Delay means businesses that wish to proactively take advantage of the flexibility the Act offers cannot free themselves of the old requirements. Delay means that businesses trying to import or manufacture newer, safer, or more specific substances are forced to use a more onerous process of application, and in some cases accept impractical controls. In practice, we think that many businesses are simply waiting until the bill is passed. This means the market availability in New Zealand of these generally safer substances is being delayed.

With so many substances to transfer and so few substances transferred to date, the progress in respect of transfer has been slow. Why? Because of the very problems that this bill fixes. The bill contains amendments that remove the need to give effect to transfer through making a regulation. We have given the Environmental Risk Management Authority the ability to design practical and cost-effective controls, rather than having to vary the default controls individually upon transfer if they are not suitable for the substance, like the approved-handler requirement for petrol, which could have been exciting. We have allowed—and this is terribly important—groups of substances to be transferred together. All these things are critical in enabling transfer to occur, to deal with the 80,000 existing hazardous substances by the deadline of July 2006. Much of the technical work required has been done. What is needed is the changes in this bill that remove the legislative roadblocks that hamper practical, effective, and efficient risk management.

The transfers will begin to flow in April, with dangerous goods and scheduled toxic substances. July will see the transfer of pesticides. By the end of this year, 80 percent of the hazardous substances previously subject to direct regulatory controls will have been transferred to this bill. Over the following 18 months, the 70,000 notified toxic substances will be transferred in groups. These substances are less hazardous than the explosives, the pesticides, the vertebrate poisons, the dangerous goods, and the scheduled toxic substances that properly precede them in transfer.

Contrary to some concerns that have been raised, this bill enhances the protection of the environment and the health and safety of people and communities. It does this because it removes the barriers to transfer, bringing existing hazardous substances under hazardous substances and new organisms control sooner. This supports business in a variety of ways, as I have described, but it also allows New Zealand to reap the environmental and safety benefits of the hazardous substances and new organisms regime. These benefits are considerable. Firstly, in contrast to earlier regimes, the hazardous substances and new organisms regime includes controls to manage all the hazardous properties of a substance. This means that petrol, for instance, will have controls to manage not only the fact that it is flammable, as it did under dangerous goods, but also its toxicity and eco-toxicity. Secondly, the notified toxic substances will come under direct regulatory control when transferred. This bill is necessary in order to get the job done safely and in a timely manner. Thirdly, completing transfer means that transferred substances can be used as reference substances for rapid assessment of new substances. That enables faster and more cost-effective approvals for safer new-generation substances, thereby helping to reduce the overall level of risk from hazardous substances.

Enactment of the bill is a key milestone in the Government implementing its plan to make the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act more workable for hazardous substances—in other words, the hazardous substances strategy. This debate marks the completion of a crucial step in making the hazardous substances and new organisms regime workable, thereby providing for cost-effective management of hazardous substances. That protects people, the community, and the environment. The changes in this bill will ensure that the processes of the hazardous substances and new organisms regime work better.

This is not a divisive case of business versus environment. The very same features of this legislation are good for both business and the environment. This legislation is a snapshot of the future of New Zealand, one in which sustainable development is an achievable goal that is enabled by New Zealand’s legislative framework. I commend the bill to the House.

I am always somewhat wary when a Labour Government Minister says something like: “I’m going to set the record straight, once and for all.” Although there was an adjustment from yesterday, I say to the Minister that some of the figures were not quite right.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: No, I object.

I have the ministry’s figures regarding the number of toxic substances, which I think the Minister said was 215,000.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: No, “notified”. Please get it right for the record.

We have the strategy for improving the workability of hazardous substances. The Environmental Risk Management Authority currently has about 217,000 notified toxic substances on its books, but estimates there are only about 70,000. I accept the Minister’s point. She is quite right, once we account for the duplications and the non-hazardous substances. Just to make sure that we get the record absolutely straight, I think the Minister said there were 215,000 but in actual fact the record suggests 217,000. I suggest to the Minister, as I think she herself said at the end of her “getting the record straight, once and for all” statement, that the real figures will be ascertained only at the end of the day once the Environmental Risk Management Authority has reported exactly what the situation is. So I think it is quite appropriate that I am wary of a Labour Government Minister who says she will put the record straight, once and for all.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: “I’m from the Government. I’m here to help you.”

That is excellent. The other point the Minister made was that the time frames were tighter than normal. Indeed, that was a wonderful exercise of licence, given the fact that the Act for hazardous substances came into force in July 2001. If one looks at the legislative history of this bill, one sees that it was introduced on 6 November 2003, and its first reading was on 18 November 2003. The time frame was somewhat tight—to use the Minister’s terminology—to suggest that report back could occur 3 days after Parliament resumed. As I understand it, the process was poor, because Brian Donnelly, the very good chairman whom the Minister acknowledged yesterday, was not consulted until Parliament resumed. Nevertheless, National is supporting this bill, because its intent is to minimise business costs and to reduce barriers to innovation. Certainly, those causes are extremely worthy.

I am interested in knowing the situation of the strategy that requires several things to be done once the bill becomes an Act. The advice from the ministry was that short-term, easy gains can be made by two non-regulatory steps: firstly, to make controls on hazardous substances and new organisms easier to understand, and, secondly, to reduce compliance costs for applicants. The ministry recommended that user-friendly guidance be developed to interpret the controls on hazardous substances and new organisms for businesses. I would really like to know from the Minister—and I would suggest that she does comment on this—whether those user-friendly guidelines will be put in place. The officials did not seem to know but went on to say that it was a high priority, because the risk that hazardous substances pose to the environment and people increases significantly if people cannot understand and follow those controls. So I tell the Minister that the challenge is to ensure that those user-friendly guidelines are put in place.

The second requirement was that the Environmental Risk Management Authority take steps to reduce the information provision costs for applicants. In that case, the costs of getting information together for an application are much higher than the fees the authority charges to process the application, and are a significant cost to industry. Once again, it is hugely important that the Minister does ensure that those steps are put into place. She has outlined the fact that by 2006 the transfer and controls should all be in place. I hope that will be the case, but what we do want to see from this Labour Government is that those two very important non-regulatory steps are also put into place. They, too, will add to helping minimise the cost to business and reducing the barriers to innovation, which are clearly so hugely important for this legislation to be successful.

I commented earlier that it is refreshing to see the Labour Government at last bringing in some legislation that will reduce obstacles. Unfortunately, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is complicated. It has all sorts of regulatory controls that have been made worse by the Labour Government over the last 2 years, particularly in relation to new organisms. That has been commented on extensively by the Biotechnology Taskforce, which has asked for best-practice guidelines, predictability, and clarity in terms of regulations. It is hugely important that those are monitored. I understand that one of the tasks the Environmental Risk Management Authority will be required to do, 2 years after the Act comes into place, is review the situation. That is hugely important. In fact, there is every chance a National Government will be in by then. Indeed, we will wish to look at a review of the whole Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act so that it can be made much more sensible and appropriate to minimise business costs than it is at present. However, it certainly is refreshing that this bill, which is so necessary, will be in place.

One of the things I was concerned about was the fact the Minister had said that every day the passage of the bill was delayed would cost businesses throughout New Zealand. She had the gall to say that, given the fact that the need for this bill has been around since 2001. The Government had plenty of time to pass this legislation much earlier, but then had this extraordinary rush at the beginning of this year. The Government must put in context its wish to ensure that business wishes really are achieved.

The very last thing I want to say about this legislation concerns the area of transfers relating to transitional matters. Before issuing a notice, one thing the authority must do is consider best international practices and standards for safe management. It is hugely important that New Zealand is in the international loop in that respect, and that it does everything reasonably practicable to advise all relevant people involved with the process. Again, that is where the monitoring requirements are hugely important. The Environmental Risk Management Authority has a great deal to do with the transfers, but it is also important that it monitors the practical way the legislation pans out in industry, because the legislation covers such a wide variety of dangerous goods.

National is supporting this bill. Its basic thesis, in terms of minimising costs to business and reducing barriers to innovation, is worthy of our support.

I, too, commend this bill to the House, and I thank the chairman of the Education and Science Committee, Mr Donnelly, and other members who were on it for the work that they did on the bill. It will improve the legislation relating to the control of hazardous substances. It is important that legislation like that works as cost effectively as possible, so that it maintains New Zealand’s position as a nation with one of the lowest rates of compliance costs in the OECD. I commend this legislation to the House.

So that we do not get to the awkward situation again whereby we come to the third reading of a bill before we are given an adequate understanding of what the figures mean, I need to point out to both the Minister and to her officials that under mathematical convention the sum of approximately 70,000 and approximately 8,000 is approximately 78,000, not approximately 80,000 as has been said to us all the way through the debate on this bill. Confusion has arisen from the Minister’s approximately 2,000 ghost hazardous substances. I hope that the Minister and her officials will take that convention on board in future.

Enough has been said about the process by which this legislation has been moved forward. Let it just be said that a lesson should have been learnt by the Government that, when an action strategy is established, it needs to take into consideration the parliamentary calendar. In this particular case, it did not. This legislation is simply part of a strategy established last year—the strategy paper was published in June last year—when it had been realised that the legal framework established all the way back in 1996 under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to deal with hazardous substances simply was not working, in the sense of the transfer of substances. More particularly, it was not working with regard to the transfer of substances from the various pieces of legislation because of some of the restrictions set out in the legislation itself. The strategy that was put in place in June of last year determined that the Environmental Risk Management Authority would transfer 500 substances by 1 April 2004. However, in order to do so it needed this piece of legislation to be passed. Thus the legislation had to be progressed within a certain time constraint, but, unfortunately, that time constraint did not take into consideration the parliamentary calendar.

However, the bigger issue is whether the requirement for all hazardous substance transfers to be completed by June 2006 will be able to be met within that legislated time constraint. Certainly, without the changes to the transfer process that this bill envisages, meeting the June 2006 deadline would be impossible. Moreover, the cost to business, if the present regime is maintained, is estimated to be in excess of $2 million per annum in terms of compliance costs. This legislation goes a considerable way towards overcoming some of those problems.

A number of problems are encountered within the current regime. The first problem is that when a transfer is completed under the present situation the very next day individuals and organisations must comply. For example, if one has a whole pile of turpentine under one piece of legislation and the new controls state that it has to be labelled in certain ways, all the bottles of turpentine throughout New Zealand have to be re-labelled overnight. This legislation will enable exemptions in certain cases, to allow for change over time. It also allows for individuals and organisations to be able to move into the new regulatory framework in anticipation of those changes. That is far, far more sensible than the here today, gone tomorrow type of regime that currently exists. The second problem is the cumbersome system that requires an Order in Council in order to fulfil a transfer. Under the bill a transfer is to be effected by notice of transfer—a far more logical and sensible process than Orders in Council.

The bill widens the powers of the Environmental Risk Management Authority to vary controls, so that appropriate controls can be assigned to all hazardous substances. It provides greater flexibility, whilst also ensuring that there is adequate risk management. But instead of creating of hammer to crack a nut, it allows the appropriate implements for the particular items to be applied. The bill creates a couple of new forms of authorisation that do not currently exist. The first is called a permission, which permits the general or particular use of a substance. A permission is required if the authority makes it a condition of the authority’s approval of a substance. In considering an application under that new form of authorisation, the authority must consider any adverse effects involved in the use or uses of the substance to which the application relates, and also the conditions, if any, that it thinks should be imposed as part of the permission. The permission is then given, and the individuals or organisations can proceed with the particular use of that hazardous substance.

The other new authority that the bill creates is a licence that authorises the possession of a hazardous substance. A licence under that new section is required if the authority makes it a condition of the authority’s approval of a substance. So the authority can approve a substance as long as one has a licence to be able to use it or to maintain it. But the authority must grant a licence under that section if it is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to possess the substance concerned and meets the relevant test certification requirements under section 82 of the principal Act. The bill states that if Bernie Ogilvy is a fit and proper person to have explosives and has been properly trained to have them, he can get a licence to have them—albeit one would hope that he would not apply in the first place. The fit and proper person test will be prescribed by regulations made under the Act. But, once again, that is a sensible approach, rather than having everything controlled and prescribed by regulation and by Orders in Council. Therefore, the bill certainly allows for an improved regime now.

There is also a provision—and this is the fall-back and, I guess, the quid pro quo of it—to contest a decision by the authority in the District Court, by appealing against a decision about the terms and conditions of a permission or a licence held by a person, or about the declining or revoking of a permission. The legislation also provides greater flexibility for the authority to grant exemptions.

During the select committee process we did come across one area of concern, and that was what was described as “onerous” materials in the select committee report, but as “arduous” materials in the departmental briefing. If a company goes into receivership or bankruptcy, there is the issue of what happens to any leftover materials, or to sites if they have become contaminated, when there is no person to assign responsibility to. The bill does not address that concern. We know at this stage that the Government is very much aware of the circumstances, that there is a work programme, and that it may well mean the Companies Act will have to be amended to accommodate that. However, at this stage we have to alert the House that there is one area of concern not covered by this particular bill or by the principal Act.

There is also a strong body of opinion that this legislation should not be necessary, and would not be necessary if the regulations that flowed from the principal Act had been put in place appropriately in the first place. As I say, it is a strong body of opinion. New Zealand First has considered that particular issue, and has concluded that whilst we agree that the regulations need careful and immediate scrutiny, we also require this legislation to go through. So it is not a matter of either/or; it is a matter of both/and. We will be keeping a close eye on the Government to ensure that the important work around the regulations is done. I mentioned compressed gases in my speech in the Committee stage. We think that matter has been covered as a result of the work carried out by the select committee.

I want to finish up by saying that the very nature of New Zealand First is to look after the health and well-being of our nation. There is no way that we would frustrate necessary legislation to ensure that neither our citizens nor our environment are to be put at risk through hazardous substances. Neither, however, do we want a regime that paralyses economic activity. We believe that this bill goes in the right direction, and therefore New Zealand First will be supporting it.

The ACT party joins with every other party, I think, in this House in supporting the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill. I would like to comment on the legislative process, but before I do, I commend the chairman of the Education and Science Committee, the Hon Brian Donnelly, whom we have just heard from. He clearly has a very good grasp of this legislation and steered it through the committee under considerable duress. I think the House should note the tremendous job he has done, under what I would regard as unreasonable pressures that were put on the select committee by this Labour Government.

I was aghast to learn in this debate that the bill had its first reading on 18 November 2003—last year—and that the chairman of the select committee only learnt of the report-back date at the time of the referral motion. That referral motion set the report-back date to be 3 days after the recommencement of Parliament in 2004. Now, that was an outrage. There has been indecent haste. People have been forced to make submissions through the Christmas-January period. That is happening too often under this Government and, I may say, with this Minister, the Hon Marian Hobbs.

There is a parallel situation with regard to Project Aqua, in terms of the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee is meeting at 7 o’clock tonight to deliberate on that bill. The Government wants to ram the bill through next week, and that committee has faced a similar time constraint. I can speak with authority as a member of that select committee, and say there has been indecent haste. As a legislator, I am not satisfied or convinced that every submitter has had a reasonable hearing. Officials have been put under intolerable pressure, all because this Government cannot manage its affairs.

The point was well made in this debate that the hazardous substances legislation goes back to 1996. This Government has been in power now for—what, 4 years? It seems a lot longer, but—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It seems a lifetime.

It seems a lifetime of misery, but it is about 4 years. All of a sudden, late last year, the Minister had a rush of blood to the head. She rushed this bill into the House, and gave unreasonable instructions to the select committee. Brian Donnelly did his best—I think he did a good job in the circumstances—but it is not fair in terms of the legislative programme for Governments to behave in this way. This Labour Government is behaving like that consistently. Time and time again, it is treating select committees with contempt. I say to the Government that in doing so, it is treating the people of New Zealand with contempt. It is an arrogance that comes when a Government has been in power too long—far too long. We are seeing more and more of that arrogance and total disregard for due process—and disregard for the select committee process, in particular. I say to this Government that it should heed this advice, and be warned that the public of New Zealand will not accept that sort of behaviour.

The legislative process on this bill has been appalling. I think all parties—even the Government—must concede that. But in terms of the content of the bill, I think that has been very well explained by the chairman. I do not need to repeat the details. The bill is sensible in that this is a very complex, technical area, but the bill sets out to streamline some of the processes and to introduce some flexibility in the transitional measures—all aimed at reducing the compliance cost thresholds. The ACT party certainly supports that, and therefore we will be voting for this bill.

United Future supports the third reading of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill. Firstly, I thank the Minister for at least attempting to answer the questions that were posed to her yesterday and last night, and I certainly thank her for her explanations in trying to sort out the numbers game. As another member has pointed out, even those numbers do not quite add up, but at least the difference has shrunk considerably. At least I am grateful that I am informed to that extent. I certainly want to put on record my thanks for the great work the chairperson did in corralling us under these circumstances and listening intently to the submitters, who had a wide range of views, and keeping us as fellow committee members working steadily through the process.

As the Minister has pointed out, and as everybody should be aware, this bill is designed to get hold of the 70,000 or so notified toxic substances that remain outside the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act of 1996, include them, finally get them classified correctly, and therefore deal with health problems that possibly would occur if this did not happen, as well as environmental issues that could also get out of hand. The bill will also allow for a commercial balance and expansion at the same time.

The bill provides the mechanism for this to happen, and will help to do that. I am very pleased that the bill provides cost savings through various mechanisms. We realise it has to go through in super-quick time, and has to be fulfilled by June 2006. That is a pressure in itself. We also realise that the mechanisms explained in the bill are much more user-friendly, as opposed to the substantive Act.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House and the Minister that there are things that are still not complete. We have been told there will be further amendments. One of the areas that I find needs to have certainty about it is the international standards, and what other blocs of nations are going to require in the future. So on that note, I would like to reaffirm that United Future supports the third reading of this bill, and would love to see it enacted so that all the bodies involved can get on with business and achieve their goals.

I would like to speak very briefly on this third reading, to reiterate, like other parties, that we will be grudgingly supporting this bill. We support it grudgingly for a number of reasons. The first is because of the process that has been outlined and the fact that there was virtually no time to consider it. It has not had proper due process. There was not really time for proper consultation. The rushed, hasty manner in which the bill went through makes our support very grudging indeed. We hope this will not be a precedent for other bills of equal importance that are to come before this House.

We also find it odd when we look at the purpose of this bill, which deals with hazardous substances—70,000 notifiable toxic substances, which one would have thought was a major health and safety concern for New Zealanders—that there is no mention of health or safety, or concerns about the effects of the 70,000 notifiable toxic substances that are not currently controlled in New Zealand. The bill does not even mention health and safety. All it talks about is trying to minimise the cost to business and the Government of regulating these substances. So the entire purpose is simply to make it easy for business. It is not to protect ordinary New Zealanders, and not to protect consumers, but simply to make it easy for business. I find this quite astonishing in a bill of this importance.

The other extremely interesting thing is that the bill draws our attention to the fact that there are 70,000 notifiable toxic substances in New Zealand that are not currently controlled. Most of us are having some difficulty getting our heads around this. There are so many—70,000—that it is hard for us to work out how this could be, and what these substances are. So I have been asking some of my colleagues who were on the select committee whether they could try to help us resolve the mystery of these 70,000 notifiable toxic substances that are not even controlled in New Zealand. We can only assume that saying they are not controlled means there are no safety controls, no controls on how they are disposed of, and no controls on how they are used.

So what are these 70,000 notifiable toxic substances? None of my colleagues whom I have been asking, who have sat on the committee, can help me to resolve this mystery. They do not seem to know what these 70,000 notifiable toxic substances are. We are about to pass legislation in this House that relates to 70,000 notifiable toxic substances, and nobody in the House seems to know what we are dealing with or what this bill is all about. Maybe before we finally pass the bill the Minister can enlighten us as to what on earth we are talking about and voting on. It is quite astonishing, not only that there should be so many toxic substances that are not controlled or regulated in New Zealand, but that we do not even know what they are. Some have suggested they might be industrial chemicals. That is a bit of a punt. We are wondering whether this means flea powders and fly sprays. That is a punt; we simply do not know. Quite frankly, it is quite extraordinary that we are passing a bill when we do not even know what it is about.

It is also quite extraordinary that in New Zealand we have so many of these mysterious toxic substances that we do not control. The Government asked the Environmental Risk Management Authority to regulate them, and the authority has apparently been so busy doing whatever else it does, that it has not got round to it. I think the Hon Nick Smith said that the Environmental Risk Management Authority had managed to regulate something like 100 substances over the last 10 years. It is extraordinary.

I would like to make one further point. We have a Government that is seemingly unconcerned about 70,000 notifiable toxic substances that are not controlled or regulated, yet the same Government is trying to introduce what seem to be completely unnecessary, bureaucratic, and over-the-top draconian regulations for dietary supplements. Could this Government get its priorities right? To my knowledge, I do not think that anyone has died from taking dietary supplements. For the most part, dietary supplements are based on herbs, and so forth, that have been used by humans for millennia, and are of extraordinarily low risk. Yes, we need to make sure that they are safe, but we do not need some draconian regulation. So could somebody please explain why the Government is putting this huge effort into developing these draconian regulations for dietary supplements, which people take on a voluntary basis—they take them to improve their health—and which, as far as we know, no one in New Zealand has died from, yet it is doing absolutely nothing about 70,000 notifiable toxic substances? Could we get our priorities right here? Could we suggest that the Government focus, first of all, on trying to put some regulation on these 70,000 notifiable toxic substances—which, we assume, are toxic? The substances have known health effects, or they would not be considered toxic. Could the Government get its priorities right, and focus on getting proper regulation for these toxic substances?

What about building materials? I was at the hearing on the Building Bill today. We have all these building materials—thousands of them—and none of them are even accredited. They are not even assessed for their health effects. We know that particle boards and all sorts of things are off-gassing—as in the case of formaldehyde—and causing problems for those of us who spend 80 percent of our time in indoor environments, in our homes, but the Government is not bothered with regulations. It sees no need to worry about the health effects of the building materials that are in our homes, no need to worry about 70,000 notifiable toxic substances—we are not even sure what they are—and no need for urgency. The Government sees no need to worry about these things that we know are toxic and have significant health effects, but, at the same time, it is trying to rush through some draconian legislation on dietary supplements. I wonder whether the Government could get its priorities right, and explain to us why it is doing nothing about significant, serious toxic substances, and is going over the top with excessive draconian regulations on dietary supplements. I think it would be very helpful if somebody from the Government could think about those priorities, think about other things like building materials—which have no regulation—and leave dietary supplements to basic, simple New Zealand legislation that will ensure consumers are safe, but will not involve draconian and expensive bureaucracy that will decimate the dietary supplement industry in New Zealand.

The Green Party reluctantly and grudgingly will vote for this bill, because it hopes that, somehow, the bill may galvanise the Environmental Risk Management Authority finally to do something about all these notifiable toxic substances. Green Party members are deeply disappointed that the bill focuses only on minimising the cost to business, and completely ignores the health and safety issues involved in all these unregulated toxic substances, but we will vote grudgingly for it, in the hope that we may finally begin to get some action from the Environmental Risk Management Authority on this serious issue.

National has indicated its support for this Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill. We want to make a number of points in its third reading, in terms of trying to come up with a regime that provides for the safe use of hazardous substances, but also ensures that the many sectors of our agricultural and industrial economies that depend on chemicals can do so at minimum cost.

First, I want to raise the issue of just how sloppy the process of the Government has been in advancing this bill. Let me set out the background: the new Act was passed back in 1996, yet, today, only 10 percent of the substances—8 years later—have been transitioned into the new Act. By anybody’s measurement, that is an appalling failure.

Then we look at the process by which this bill has been rushed through the House. The Minister, Marian Hobbs, has said that there is a real need in the business community for this issue to be resolved, but she has been the Minister for 4½ years. To expect Parliament to rush through complex legislation of this sort will result only in botch-ups, more amendments, and more problems in the administration of this important area of law.

Last night, during the Committee stage, when we challenged the Minister and asked: “Minister, have you finally got it right? Can we be sure that the provisions contained in this bill will end the amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act?”, not a member was surprised when she admitted that there would be another amendment bill before too long. That is not good enough.

Then we come to the issue of the transitions themselves. At the current pace, about 100 toxic chemicals or substances are taken per year through the system, yet we are to believe that we will be able to increase the rate from 100 per year to 35,000 per year. That is how many the Environmental Risk Management Authority will need to process over the next 2 years in order to meet its deadline of full implementation by July 2006.

I would be happy to bet any member of this House the best wine in Nelson—in fact, the best wine in New Zealand—that there will not be a hope in heck of meeting the deadline of all chemicals being transferred over into the new regulatory regime by July 2006. It will not happen. There will be another bill. There will be another list of excuses as to why this legislation has still not been implemented. Let us remember that in July 2006, this legislation will be 10 years old. Is it really acceptable that a new environmental law takes 10 years to be implemented—and that time period is only if that deadline is reached?

I do want to offer some positive alternatives, because there is some common sense that we should put into this legislation so that we do not have those sorts of expensive, time-consuming delays. The first of those is that we should move to recognise, as much as is possible, the international regimes for the labelling and regulation of hazardous chemicals. We are a wee country of 4,000,000 people that has—by the Minister’s own admission—70,000 toxic substances. Some of those toxic substances are probably used by only one or two small businesses. The sensible thing for us to do is to gang up with similar nations and provide for a common regulatory regime. That work began back in National’s time and was raised at a number of international conferences, and the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) has been set up. We would like to see New Zealand adopting that system, so that we do not need to go through the bureaucracy of registering every single chemical.

In fact, we would go one step further. Members will be aware of the debates we have had in the House about the former Australia New Zealand Food Authority, in which we said that it makes good sense for New Zealand and Australia to regulate food for both New Zealand and Australia in that sort of way. It is the view of the National Party that we should go down the same road in relation to chemical regulation—we should do it in a united way.

💬 Sue Kedgley: One vote out of 10.

I know that Sue Kedgley, as a member of the Green Party, would rather that we be some isolated, North Korea - type island at the bottom of the Pacific. We in the National Party take a very global perspective on these issues. We think it makes good sense to have a greater degree of international cooperation, and we would want to move to an Australian - New Zealand—at the very least—regime, in which, we believe, we could provide for better public safety, better environmental protection, and less cost for business in dealing with those sorts of regulations.

A further point that National would make is that the thresholds we have set for substances being hazardous are way too low. I remember a wonderful petition that was launched by some people with a good sense of humour in my electorate of Nelson. It was about the fact that dihydrogen monoxide was a very dangerous chemical that should be banned.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: Exactly right!

“Exactly right!”, says Mr Swain. In fact, dihydrogen monoxide is in acid rain and nuclear power plants. It is a very, very dangerous substance. At a high temperature, thousands of people get burnt with it, and there are many people who would seek to ban dihydrogen monoxide, despite the fact that it is on the table here as water for us as members to drink. The truth is that water does kill a lot of people. People drown in it, and are scalded and burnt by it. The point I am trying to make—

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: They also drink it.

Yes, they do, as Mr Duynhoven correctly points out. My point is that every chemical or substance, if used incorrectly, can result in death or hurt. With this bill we have legislation that sets the thresholds way too low, so that we throw an incredibly wide net out for all sorts of very minor substances. For instance, under this regime, Sellotape is deemed to be a hazardous substance.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Is that right?

The glue in Sellotape is one of the substances that is caught under those regulations, so the poor old makers of Sellotape have to go off to the Environmental Risk Management Authority and satisfy it that their product is safe.

We need to focus on those substances that really are hazardous, which need to have a good regulatory regime around them in terms of their handling, storage, and those sorts of things—rather than the regime in this legislation, where we throw the net so wide that we pick up a whole lot of things that, with an ounce of common sense, pose no real risk to the general public.

Yes, this bill is a step forward. It is far too late coming. The Minister has been negligent in not bringing it to the House earlier. We have no confidence that she will meet her own deadline of all those substances being brought in by July 2006. We think it is inevitable that there will be another hazardous substances amendment bill before we get too far down the track, and we believe that there is a common-sense approach around focusing on a narrower range of substances and taking a more international view on regulation of hazardous substances, which would mean a far better outcome for the environment, for people’s safety, and for the economy.

It is always good to follow Dr Smith and Dr Hutchison, because they are experts in this field. I want to make a couple of comments as to the process that has gone on, because it has concerned National that the genesis of the bill goes back to 2001, yet when we look at the last page of the bill, we see that it says its introduction was on 6 November 2003 and the first reading was on 18 November 2003. Then, lo and behold, submissions were to be called and had to be in by 14 January 2004. Well, the chairman of the Education and Science Committee, the Hon Brian Donnelly, is nodding his head in acknowledgment that that was the case. This is such important legislation, but submissions were to be heard in January when everybody was away. Not only that, but the report back was to be 3 days after Parliament had resumed.

💬 Brent Catchpole: Disgraceful!

Yes, disgraceful! On such important legislation, one would say, the consultative process should be exactly that, and we should have a pretty good feel about what people are saying. It is so important that National is going to support it. We are supporting it, but we really have to question why we have had such delays. Of course, when the Hon Brian Donnelly and the committee asked for an extra 4 weeks, and got it, we then had the Minister coming and saying: “Oh, but it’s going to be costly to business.” Well, we had had a bill sitting around since 2001, so we said: “Too bad! We want to get the best out of this legislation. We want to make it work.”

The intentions of the bill are honourable. When we look at the introduction, where it talks about minimising the costs to businesses, we see that that is a worthy objective. National has no problem with that. In fact, we are the party that is out there saying that the compliance costs and regulatory regimes this Government has put in place need to be curbed back and taken under control. That is one of the positive initiatives where there has been an attempt made to minimise the costs to business.

As I said, the intent of the bill is to minimise the costs to business and to the Government, and to reduce barriers to innovation. We are happy with that, and prepared to support those objectives, because anything that allows for innovation, and that allows for the reduction of obstacles to progress, are worthy objectives. We will support them. There are too many regulatory controls, and this bill rationalises that regulatory approach.

When I read the legislation and the reports that have been done, I see that 80,000-odd hazardous substances will come under the control of the new Act, and that is significant. Of those, 8,000 will be transferred, and the balance of the remaining 72,000—I think Dr Smith said—will come under the new Act by July 2006.

When we looked at the summary of the strategy that needed to be implemented, we saw areas that we want to hold the Government to account on—I want to quote, because this does not appear in the bill and will not be in the Act—“We propose that short-term easy gains can be made by two non-regulatory steps: one, to make the HASNO controls easier to understand, and, two, to reduce compliance costs for applicants.” Those two non-regulatory steps that are mentioned in the summary of the strategy relate to areas where we will be keeping a very close eye on this Government, to make sure they are in fact implemented.

All in all, this is important legislation. We were not happy with the process and way it was handled, but we support the bill and will be once again making sure that over the period of time ahead of us, that process is expedited and that those two non-regulatory steps I have just mentioned actually come into force.

Bill read a third time.