Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be considered by the Education and Science Committee, and that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 3 June 2005. In June 2003 the Government announced its strategy to improve the workability of the hazardous substances provisions of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The strategy was developed in close consultation with industry leaders, and focused on improving workability to achieve the purpose of the Act—that is, to protect the environment and the health and safety of people and their communities, by preventing or managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances. The bill is the second of two legislative actions identified in the strategy. This bill, like the first one, deals only with hazardous substances. The first legislative change, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill, was passed in early 2004. It focused on removing immediate barriers to the transfer of hazardous substance management from the old regime to the new hazardous substances and new organisms regime. The main barrier then was the requirement to transfer substances by regulation. Transfer can now happen by Gazette notice.

At the time when that legislation passed last year I flagged the need for a further, more detailed amendment to the hazardous substances and new organisms regime, in order to improve the workability of the Act and remove barriers to innovation and sustainable economic growth. The key amendment in this current bill is the provision of a new approval mechanism, known as a “group standard”. When the Environmental Risk Management Authority is satisfied that a group standard is an efficient and effective way of managing the risks, it will be able to group substances based on similar type, use, or risks—for example, groups for paints, cosmetics, and animal vaccines—and to set user-friendly conditions for the group.

Because this bill will improve the workability of the Act, it will reduce costs to industry and to the Government, while continuing to protect the environment and the health and safety of people and their communities. The group standards mechanism will reduce costs to industry by reducing the number of applications that businesses need to make to the Environmental Risk Management Authority, and by providing simpler prescriptive alternatives to the technical controls in regulations, which small and medium enterprises have found very difficult to implement. Through this legislation a group standard could state what ought to be on a label and how that label should look. That will give businesses a lot more certainty. The group standards mechanisms will reduce costs to Government by providing the Environmental Risk Management Authority with an efficient way to transfer the vast majority of approximately 70,000 notified toxic substances to the full hazardous substances and new organisms regime by June 2006. Without group standards, it is anticipated that transfer would cost the Government in the order of an extra $2 million.

There is an additional aspect of the group standards mechanism that I believe is very important. Many wastes and some manufactured articles have hazardous characteristics that exceed hazardous substance and new organism thresholds. In other words, they really should be regulated under the hazardous substances and new organisms regime, as they are, for instance, corrosive, eco-toxic, or flammable. However, hazardous substance and new organism controls cannot be applied at present because those controls are linked to a hazardous substances and new organisms approval, and an approval is needed only if someone intends to manufacture or import a hazardous substance. Obviously, waste by-products such as toxic wastes from the pulp and paper and tannery industries are not manufactured or imported, so to date hazardous substance and new organism controls could not be applied to them. This bill changes that.

Waste by-products can be very dangerous, and should be controlled. The existing legislation goes only so far in doing that. The Resource Management Act controls the discharge of waste, but does not sufficiently manage the hazards posed by those wastes or articles, particularly during storage or transport. We have only to think of the examples that have occurred down the Kaikōura coastline, with rat poison going over into the sea. Nor does the Resource Management Act provide for the tracking of such materials. A new group standard on tanning waste, for instance, would be able to control the containment and labelling of that waste prior to transport, treatment, and disposal. Bringing such wastes into the ambit of the hazardous substances and new organisms regime is a significant advance in environmental risk management, and supports the initiatives of the New Zealand waste strategy.

Because hazardous wastes are not currently controlled by the hazardous substances and new organisms regime, a group standard for a hazardous waste may potentially increase costs to the businesses that produce the waste. However, the process of developing a group standard includes public consultation, so that businesses and industry will have the chance to have their say on whether the benefits of managing that waste outweigh the costs of doing so.

I would now like to turn to two other key proposals in this bill. Firstly, the Government has become aware that there are gaps in the enforcement of hazardous substance and new organism controls, particularly in the environmental area. The bill identifies regional councils as an agency that may enforce hazardous substance and new organism controls, thus gaining from the skills and experience regional councils have in environmental monitoring and enforcement, providing opportunities for efficiency gains, and promoting more comprehensive environmental protection regimes. This bill will also enable regional councils to cost recover their checking for compliance with the hazardous substances and new organisms regime.

Secondly, for hazardous substances such as pesticides, the Act currently provides exposure limits as a key method to ensure safe use. However, very few exposure limits have been set because the process of establishing such limits is prescriptive and overly onerous to undertake at the same time as the substance is being approved. This bill increases flexibility, so the Environmental Risk Management Authority can adopt an international value and we do not have to do each pesticide, for example, ourselves. The values the authority sets can be used by regional councils as guidelines, so they can then be adjusted for local conditions. Exposure limits will also be able to be set and applied for substances after the substance has been approved or transferred.

This bill also contains amendments to make the hazardous substances and new organisms regime work better in specific cases for enforcement agencies, for businesses, for research institutes, and for the New Zealand Defence Force. I was going to list those for the information of the House, but with the aim of getting this first reading through I will not.

In conclusion, this bill includes a number of provisions, some of which represent a significant innovation in the hazardous substances and new organisms regime, and some of which are targeted to address very specific barriers. Overall, these provisions will greatly increase the workability of the Act, providing meaningful reductions in costs to industry and the Government, while not compromising the level of protection provided to the environment and the health and safety of people and their communities. Further, for the first time there will be provision to manage the effects of hazardous wastes and articles. This bill will ensure that the hazardous substances provisions of the Act work better to deliver the key outcome the Act was intended to contribute to: a healthy environment for all New Zealanders.

I have asked that the bill be reported by 3 June. The Environmental Risk Management Authority needs a year to organise and consult with people with regard to the group standards, in order for the transfer to be completed by July 2006. If the House could pass this bill by August, we would be helping businesses in New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.

National will support the referral of this bill to a select committee because we are of the view that the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation is in need of substantive change, if it is going to work practically for the large number of New Zealand industries that use the whole wide range of pesticides, hazardous substances, and new organisms. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is one of New Zealand’s key environmental statutes, alongside the Resource Management Act. It is vitally important, not just to the protection of New Zealand’s environment but to the efficiency of our primary industries, which remain the backbone of our country. We are disappointed that this bill is the fourth hazardous substances and new organisms amendment introduced into the House by the Hon Marian Hobbs. When she introduced the previous amending bill, we said she did not have a bolter’s hope of registering the 70,000 chemicals and substances that were required to be registered by the deadline. We still remain disappointed that, 5 years after she was appointed as Minister, the Act is still not in force. That is another failure by Marian Hobbs, Minister for the Environment.

I express some scepticism that this legislation will result in a reduction in costs. I remember that only a few months ago her Associate Minister, David Benson-Pope, introduced a resource management bill that he had promised would reduce costs—the enormous costs associated with applications under the Resource Management Act. We have out there in New Zealand right now a universal condemnation, whether it is by the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, by councils, or by business groups, of that Government bill. People are saying that it will treble costs. So we had that Minister introduce a bill just prior to Christmas, and already it is discredited. Already all the sector groups are saying it will not reduce costs but will treble them. That is the reason that National has some scepticism about whether this bill also will live up to that claim.

The part of this bill that is seriously missing is this. If New Zealand is to be competitive, and if we are to be able to provide a cost-effective way of registering chemicals—and it is a huge number that our industry is involved with—common sense points to our moving to a trans-Tasman arrangement. In respect of food the previous National Government set up the Australia New Zealand Food Authority. The organisation was successful in providing a line of effective regulation for food to ensure that it is safe, while at the same time minimising the compliance costs. We have to recognise that in areas like the key industries that are affected by this legislation, we are increasingly part of a trans-Tasman environment. The notion, for instance, that if one is going to import Sellotape to New Zealand one has to go separately to the Australian authorities and get approval for it, and then go to New Zealand and do it all over again—and not just for Sellotape but for the tens of thousands of chemicals—does not make sense. It is common sense for New Zealand to do those approvals in a consistent way with Australia. There is absolutely nothing in this bill that takes us down that path, yet the call of industry and of common-sense New Zealanders is to have a common trans-Tasman arrangement in that regard.

I also note that the Minister wants to send this bill to the education select committee. Well, I have looked all the way through the bill, and I have to ask what on earth it has to do with education. We know that right now we have a crisis in education. We have the worst situation in 50 years in respect of the botch-up that this Government has made of school qualifications. Tens of thousands of teachers and students want the education select committee to be focused in its efforts on making sure that we do not get a repeat next year of the botched 2004 examinations. And what is the Government going to do? It will refer to that select committee a very detailed, complex environmental bill, so as to distract the committee from that essential task. I ask why the Government would want to refer this hazardous substances and new organisms bill to the Education and Science Committee, and not to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

All the way through this bill it refers to the interrelationship with the Resource Management Act. That makes good sense: hazardous substances and resource management need to be closely knitted together. In fact, this bill makes a number of changes to the Resource Management Act. The Local Government and Environment Committee has before it right now a resource management amendment bill. Would it not make sense for the same committee that has been dealing with that bill to deal with this environmental law? Why does this Government want to bury it in the education select committee, which should rightly be focusing its energies and efforts on fixing up Trevor Mallard’s mess with regard to the National Certificate of Educational Achievement? Or is it that the Government wants to distract the committee from the role of assuring some accountability for that mess, and is simply using an environmental bill for its latest lot of political skulduggery? Is that what the Government’s agenda is? National will be moving an amendment that states this bill should go where the main bill went. Of course, the original hazardous substances and new organisms legislation was dealt with by the Local Government and Environment Committee. So why would amendments to that Act not also be dealt with by that select committee?

Then we come to the Minister’s motion to have the bill fast-tracked. The Minister, having held her ministerial warrant for over 5 years and having made a mess of this area of legislation, now wants Parliament to rush this bill through so it can be reported back, as she said, by 3 June. I say to the Government that the reason it keeps getting into trouble and botching up New Zealanders’ lives is that it does not allow its legislation to be properly scrutinised. It is little wonder that this is the fourth hazardous substances and new organisms amendment bill—the fourth go that this Minister has had at getting that legislation right. And she wants to rush it again! I say to the Minister that she is mistaken. I say to Parliament that it is far better to do the job once and do it right than to have another rushed bill that will result in getting things wrong again in this very complex area of law. I will bet any Government member that if this bill is rushed through, within a period of 12 months we will have another hazardous substances amendment bill to fix up another batch of the Minister’s mistakes.

I say, let us do it right. Let us not rush. Let us have the right select committee—the Local Government and Environment Committee—deal with this bill, so that we can indeed ensure that New Zealanders have a hazardous substances law that works for our key industries and export industries, and that also protects the environment of New Zealand, which is so special.

The member for Nelson always gets into a high state of excitement whenever he is doing the numbers for Bill English, and I thought the anger that was demonstrated in that speech was a classic example of that. I support the first reading of this bill. The previous speaker asked why it is going to the education committee. He did not call it by its full title, which is the Education and Science Committee. That committee, chaired by the Hon Brian Donnelly, has previously done work in the hazardous substances and new organisms area. It has the expertise to consider a bill like this, and the best thing our Parliament could do would be to give the bill its first reading, send it to that committee, and debate it more fully at the second reading.

I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First, but particularly on behalf of the Hon Brian Donnelly, the New Zealand First MP who is the chair of the Education and Science Committee. New Zealand First will be taking only brief calls on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill.

This bill is one of a raft of bills that have their genesis in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, drawn up by the National administration of that time. It was an Act that created a new framework for how we deal with hazardous substances in New Zealand. This bill continues the process of bringing the regulation of all hazardous substances under the hazardous substances and new organisms regulatory framework. For example, the Ministry of Defence portfolio, which I watch over on behalf of New Zealand First, has responsibility for quite a few hazardous substances. This bill attempts to harmonise the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence and the Environmental Risk Management Authority, and that seems entirely sensible.

The interesting point to note, though, is that the Government is sending the bill to the Education and Science Committee rather than the more obvious select committee, the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is to be noted that this Government has made a practice this parliamentary session of sending hazardous substances and new organisms legislation, including the GE legislation, to the Education and Science Committee. The reason is simple from where we sit, and it is this: the chairman of the Education and Science Committee, the Hon Brian Donnelly from New Zealand First, is a very competent MP, a former Associate Minister, a man whom the Government knows is a safe and sensible pair of hands, a man who will not allow the legislation to progress without careful scrutiny, and a man who will not play any silly games.

I guess the other thing that cannot be avoided is the observation that the Government clearly does not have the same view as that of the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. That is something that must annoy the Green Party intensely, given the amount of support those members gave the Labour Government—that is, the supplying of confidence during its first term of governance. But that is clearly a relationship issue that the Government must sort out. New Zealand First’s Brian Donnelly, if the bill finally ends up there, will do his duty, as the Government knows he will and as New Zealand First knows he will.

So New Zealand First will support this bill’s referral to the select committee. As usual, we promise that we will examine it very carefully at that stage, so that the outcomes will ensure citizens that all New Zealanders are kept as safe as possible, without unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles to the safe use of hazardous substances.

I am in the rather unusual position of standing here and saying that I will be supporting the referral of two Government bills to select committees. I do so, of course, because this bill does hold some small hope and some small promise for the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, which has become a nightmare for anybody wanting to get an organism or a product through the Environmental Risk Management Authority process, which is hugely costly and time consuming. So anything, even this amendment bill, that holds some promise that there may be changes that will speed those processes—which we must do—will receive the support of the ACT party.

I say again that we support the objectives, but I flag now the fact that we do have some concerns over the outcome, because the Government has shown that it is exceedingly timorous in its approach to these matters. Some would say that that approach is absolutely crucial. Well, I would ask members of this House to reflect on possibly the most important and deleterious effect that some of those substances and organisms have had in this country—and many of them are Government-induced.

As far as environmental matters are concerned, we have had things like gorse and broom, which of course, have had a huge impact on our environment. Rabbits and opossums, which were okayed by the Government of the time, have had an enormous and destructive impact on our environment. I struggle to understand why a few seeds, possibly even those genetically modified, will have some enormous impact that will destroy this country. That is absolute nonsense.

It is well known that the ACT party is in favour of science. I can only reiterate the comments made earlier about the lack of science graduates coming through our educational process in this country, and the appalling debacles we have had just in recent times over the qualifications, the standards and, indeed, the treatment of science graduates—or those hoping to graduate in the future—who have studied, only to be whacked by this Government through its appalling management of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. So ACT issues the warning that we certainly need to increase the numbers of science students. We need to upskill them, make life more attractive for them in the school system, and ensure that they get through and into the universities.

We must also ensure that people in this country do not become frightened of science but actually welcome it. I regret to have to say that at this point in time that does not seem to be the case. We seem to be overcome by phobias, so that any new innovation or creation—whether from seed companies or whatever—that has shown huge advances in production overseas, is treated with absolute disdain in New Zealand and tossed to the side, in case something goes wrong. Well, I say that we take the precautionary principle in this country to an absolute extreme, and in doing so, we send our best science graduates overseas. I am sure that members of this House are well aware of the comments of such outstanding people as Professor Alan MacDiarmid. He made the point that we must ensure we do not create a climate of fear of science. Instead, we must welcome science, and we must encourage our young people to advance our society in the way science has certainly done for us over the last few hundred years. That is one issue that I think is very, very important.

As a farmer and a representative of the rural sector in this Parliament, I hear constant complaint from companies and individuals about the time frames, cost structures, and encumbrances that are placed in front of those who wish to progress the wealth of this nation. It is important that, although we can proceed with some haste, we can also recognise that caution is appropriate. Indeed, nobody is denying that we need to have some sort of body like the Environmental Risk Management Authority, to ensure that we look at things seriously and put them through a very rigorous process. But we do not need to impose the controls and cost structures on our productive sector that this Labour Government has imposed on a regular basis.

I also wish to flag another point that I think is seriously wrong with this bill. The Government is seeking to invoke regional councils in the role of administering or of doing some sort of policing in this business. I hope that means that the Government will fund regional councils in this role. I ask the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Marian Hobbs—but she is indicating that she is a bit floaty about this one. Well, if this role is to be imposed by central government—and I understand there does need to be some measure of control to ensure that standards are met—then I must ask why we are imposing yet another cost on regional councils, because that cost will be met by nobody other than the ratepayers of the particular region. I flag to the Minister our hope that the Government will recognise that a huge burden is already placed on regional councils, and that when Governments decide in their wisdom—or lack of it—that they actually need the role of the regional councils to be expanded, they should look at funding that role to a much greater degree in order to ensure that that cost does not fall back on the long-suffering ratepayers of Otago, where I come from, or indeed on the rest of the regional or unitary councils throughout New Zealand.

I close by saying that I do support the bill. I do, of course, support the lessening of control and cost structure. I hope that the Education and Science Committee will do a damn good job on this bill. I would hate the thought of this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee, with Jeanette Fitzsimons as chairperson. It would hit the wall and never move any further with the Green Party in charge. So I am delighted that the Minister has had the very good sense to send it to a different select committee. I think that the Primary Production Committee would have been an excellent choice of committee, as well, but I commend the Minister on the choice of the Education and Science Committee.

I look forward to the swift passage of this bill, and to the elimination of so many of the road blocks in front of our scientific communities and productive sectors. Those communities and sectors really just want to get on with the job, introduce new opportunities to our country, and make New Zealand stand proud as a country that is welcoming of science and scientists.

The Green Party has huge concerns about this bill, which we see as something of a regulatory facade. It is a way to fast track or make easier the transfer of 70,000 toxic substances—currently not registered or regulated—in an essentially meaningless way, through the mechanism of group standards. It clumps things like 20,000 cosmetics all together in one standard. Rather than grouping them on the basis of hazard or risk, it shoves them all together because they are “of a similar type”.

The intention of this bill is transparent; it is stated quite clearly. Its intention is to reduce the number of applications that businesses have to make, to gain efficiencies for business, to reduce business compliance costs, and to reduce costs to Government. There is nothing in the bill about protecting the consumer or the environment, and protecting our health and safety is only vaguely mentioned. Basically, the intention of the bill, as I said, is just to fast track those substances in a meaningless way.

Let us look, for example, at cosmetics. New Zealand is the most unregulated country in the Western World in the area of cosmetics. The European Union has legislation with regard to cosmetics, and there are regulations in Australia, Canada, and so forth. We have nothing. We do not even require the disclosure of the ingredients in cosmetics. We really have no standards, whatsoever. What we will be doing in the area of cosmetics is taking 20,000 cosmetics and ramming them into a group standard, thus ignoring the huge range of different risks. Looking at the European Union legislation, I see that cosmetics can contain arsenic and its compounds, benzene, antibiotics—I could go on and on. There is a huge range of difference in risk amongst the substances in cosmetics. By putting all those 20,000 different substances in cosmetics into a group, on the basis that they are simply of a similar type, and then by managing them through one set of conditions, we ignore the fact that very minor differences between substances can have huge effects on their properties.

For example, in the controversial area of milk, the difference between A2 milk and A1 milk is a single amino acid made up of a number of atoms, yet it is believed that the two types of milk have substantially different effects on some people’s health. The difference is one single amino acid.

I could give many other examples. Polychlorinated dibenzodioxin is 10 times more potent a toxin than hexachlorodibenzodioxin, even though the difference is just one chlorine atom. Even a tiny difference between chlorine acids can make a huge difference to the type of risk to which we will be exposed by that particular hazardous substance.

So surely it would be logical to regulate the 70,000 toxic substances according to risk. That, surely, is what a risk-based or hazard-based approach would mean. But, no, we are just clumping them all together in group standards, which will be essentially meaningless.

I am appalled to discover that the Minister is seeking to ram this legislation through by 3 June. This legislation should be very complex. It is really a regulatory facade, but it certainly deserves intense scrutiny.

Why are we sending it to the Education and Science Committee? There has been great speculation about that. Nick Smith says he thinks it is to divert the committee. I believe that it is because the Government is hoping that that committee will not have the expertise and knowledge to understand some of the complexities of this bill. It certainly does not have as much expertise as the Local Government and Environment Committee, which has examined a whole lot of similar legislation. It would be far more sensible to send the bill to that committee. I suggest to Ron Mark that the Government’s concern may be that Jeannette Fitzsimons is too effective a chair. She would subject the bill to real scrutiny rather than ram it through, after taking a very superficial look at it, and then pull it out of the committee by 3 June. In fact, I am quite sure that Jeannette Fitzsimons would not agree to try to ram this bill through by 3 June. No doubt that is why the Government has sought instead to have the bill go to the Education and Science Committee.

The Minister said that one of the main reasons for having the group standards by which we can ram everything through—like 20,000 cosmetics in one group standard—is that it would otherwise cost an extra $2 million. Is $2 million not worth it, to properly regulate 70,000 toxic substances that are presently unregulated?

When I first read that 70,000 toxic substances are not regulated, I really did not believe it; I thought it must have been some sort of joke written in the bill. But, in fact, it is absolutely true. Nick Smith made light of it, saying that Sellotape is amongst the 70,000 unregulated toxic substances. What he did not mention is that those substances also include pesticides, household cleaners, paints, fly sprays—all sorts of substances that pose a risk to human health.

Some Labour members might find it all very humorous and take a light-hearted view of the effect of these toxic substances on our health, but I assure them that many New Zealanders are extremely concerned about a number of toxic substances we are being exposed to that are basically unregulated. We had the Building Bill, and it turned out that virtually no building materials are registered in New Zealand; nor are the Sellotapes, the fly sprays, the household cleaners, and so forth.

It has been a very long time since the passage of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. One would have hoped that in the past 5 years we would have come up with some very rigorous legislation to ensure that those 70,000 substances are managed according to their risk—according to their hazard—and in a way that protects the health of New Zealanders, offers consumer protection, and protects the environment.

Regrettably, this is not the legislation to do that; this is what I call a regulatory facade—something that makes it look as though we are regulating those substances when we are really doing the absolute minimum possible. We are doing such a minimal job that we would almost be better off with no legislation at all.

So the Greens have huge concerns about this bill. We will be vigorously present in the select committee, trying to strengthen and amend this bill. We are extremely unhappy with it and we hope that somehow in the select committee—which we hope will be given some proper teeth—sense will prevail and we will come up with a risk-based system instead of these fast-tracked group standards.

I rise to support the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill at its introduction to the House, and to support its referral to the Education and Science Committee. In answer to the previous speaker, Sue Kedgley, I believe that the Education and Science Committee is well qualified, well able, and has the scientific expertise within it to make a great deal of sense out of the bill that is before us.

We support this bill for a number of good reasons and we have no concerns, as the previous speaker had, that 3 June is a rushed deadline. If she had followed what had happened in the previous amendment bill, she would know that 70,000 notified toxic substances were flagged in that bill to come forward in this bill, as I recall the situation. I have been taking quite a bit of interest in this issue. The fact that the previous speaker could say that we may as well operate with no legislation horrifies me, and I hope it horrifies other members in the House. How would we like to go into 2006 and beyond with nothing to control the 70,000 notified toxic substances? I think it is absurd that we would go on for any length of time into the future without this legislation. We have a good time line and the regime will be in place, as I understand it, by June 2006. We do need a year for all the regulatory and other matters to be put in place and for the ministries associated with these matters—and the Environmental Risk Management Authority, which is the organisation that will make it happen—to prepare.

I support this bill, as United Future does, because it underscores the fact that there will be beneficiaries from this regime. The business world will be a beneficiary. I think it is remarkably even-handed of the Minister and the Government to do this bit. The provisions will help businesses. The number of applications that businesses need to submit will be reduced. It takes a hard-hearted politician not to think that that is a good move. We do think it is good, and we also realise that the Government will benefit from it. I note that the bill deals with military matters—ammunition, no doubt, and all sorts of elements associated with the hazardous substances that are attached to the military. That issue will be sorted out at the same time. This legislation will put many user-friendly controls into place. The bill provides a very efficient pathway towards making the transition into the new regime in June 2006. It is with pleasure that United Future supports the referral of this bill to the Education and Science Committee.

I will take just a brief call to support the passage of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approval and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. This is a very good bill. I know that the Minister has worked very diligently, as she always does, on this legislation. To inject a little humour into the place, I will say that there are many people out there listening who possibly think that there is the odd hazardous substance or new organism in this place. I do not refer to the ACT party in any way. I support the bill. It is sound legislation. Uniquely, it has almost universal support in the House and that says a lot for the mana with which this bill and the Minister is held by the House.

I rise on behalf of the National Party to support the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill going to a select committee. But I hasten to add that I certainly will be supporting the motion moved by my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith that the bill should go to the appropriate select committee—the Local Government and Environment Committee—and not to the Education and Science Committee. I will come back to that shortly.

If the bill does indeed improve the workability of the original Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act of 1996, as it states it will, everybody would be prepared to support it. I was staggered to hear in Nick Smith’s contribution that this is the fourth amendment bill to the original Act that Minister Hobbs has brought into the House in 5 years. I would have thought that the main purpose of any of those bills would be to improve the fundamental workability of the original legislation, which was complex indeed. I acknowledge that. When I first came into this place I happened to sit on the smaller subcommittee that worked on the original legislation. The legislation is very, very complex.

It is interesting to note that that bill went to the Local Government and Environment Committee. Therefore, I think Nick Smith was absolutely right when he acknowledged in the House today the very reason that this bill has suddenly been rushed on to the Order Paper. The Government hopes to send it to the Education and Science Committee. Whether that motion survives the vote that will be held at the conclusion of this debate will be very interesting.

That vote will certainly put some focus on United Future, yet again. United Future will have to make a decision in the very near future as to whether it will support the Government. We know from the front page of the Independent this week that there is a lot of tension and dissension in United Future, as the various members realise that most of them are about to give their valedictory speeches. In fact, Bernie Ogilvy may already have done that, only 10 minutes ago. When that member comes to cast his vote as to where this legislation should go, he will need to think very cautiously about that. We know that National will, obviously, be voting for it to go to the appropriate select committee, and we know that ACT and the Greens will vote for it to go to the appropriate select committee. So I say to Bernie Ogilvy that if he wants to have one last stand in this place, he should think seriously about whether he will just automatically support the Government and send the bill to the Education and Science Committee.

I think Bernie Ogilvy also needs to realise that if he does support such a motion, he is giving the Government the chance to take that select committee’s eye off its real job. Its real job is to tidy up the debacle that Trevor Mallard has made out of school examinations. It is an absolute mess, and thousands of young New Zealanders who are in secondary school at the moment know that their whole school careers are at risk because of the debacle caused by the Hon Trevor Mallard and now supported by the Hon David Benson-Pope.

That is only one issue before that select committee. Very shortly we will have the issue regarding the wānanga to which Trevor Mallard has given half a billion dollars—Mr Mallard has overseen half a billion dollars being given to that wānanga—yet he had the audacity to say in the House yesterday that he was not too sure whether he had confidence in its spending.

So that is another issue that should be going to the Education and Science Committee. Marian Hobbs knows it, but she and her colleagues have made a very cunning move today. They have rushed this legislation on to the Order Paper. They will now send it to the Education and Science Committee. Members should note that they will move not to adhere to the Standing Order that gives the select committee 6 months to consider this complex legislation. No, no, they will force that select committee to take its eye off those other two extremely important issues and to get on to this, because they will give the committee members the guillotine treatment and tell them they have to report back before 4 June.

I say to Bernie Ogilvy that he should make sure when he stands to vote automatically with the Government—like United Future has done now for month after month, which is why it is polling at 1 percent; it has been subsumed by the Labour Party and no longer has any identity at all—and when the vote comes on Nick Smith’s amendment, that he thinks carefully. If he and the other United Future members vote for this legislation to go to the Education and Science Committee, they will be removing the ability of that select committee—which is chaired by the Hon Brian Donnelly, and I have no criticism of that, at all—to do its job of trying to help out the thousands of young New Zealanders in school at the moment who are about to face the National Certificate of Educational Achievement and the debacle that the Labour Government has created. So I ask Mr Bernie Ogilvy to think carefully.

I also want to speak about the very aim of the bill. It aims to improve the workability of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, and is designed to reduce costs. If it was in anybody else’s name but that of the Hon Marian Hobbs, I might be inclined to accept it. But that Minister has had this portfolio for 5 long years, and, in the dying days of this decaying Labour Government, has put this amendment legislation before the House. I am not convinced that under the stewardship of Marian Hobbs this legislation will reduce costs, at all. So I say that the select committee has an important job to do.

I refer the Minister to a report that she has no doubt received that was prepared by Meat and Wool New Zealand, Dairy InSight, Deer Industry New Zealand, the Foundation for Arable Research, and Federated Farmers of New Zealand. It is a detailed report. It tries to examine the cost that the New Zealand farmer faces because of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. I say to Marian Hobbs that we have only to look at the first few paragraphs of the executive summary to know that there is a huge problem with this legislation. That report suggests that the direct costs alone to the farmers of New Zealand in order to obtain their approved handling certificates, test certification, storage, signage, and all the other things required by that legislation are $106 million. The report then suggests that a further $92 million can be added from indirect costs associated with the huge amount of record-keeping and documentation, and the labour associated with that.

Farmers are already under enough pressure with the compliance costs that are being heaped on them by the Labour Government. Now a report prepared by recognised organisations representing New Zealand and New Zealand agriculture states that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is about to impose, on each and every farmer in New Zealand, an additional compliance cost of $4,222. I accept that there are issues around the safe handling of hazardous organisms, but to establish legislation that imposes costs of $4,000 on each and every farmer in New Zealand is plainly ridiculous.

The farmers of this country have enough to cope with. They are coping with a silent Minister of Agriculture, Jim Sutton. The only way he gets his name in the paper now is when branches of Federated Farmers around this country move votes of no confidence in him. So I say to Marian Hobbs, Labour members, and United Future that as they move that this legislation be referred to the incorrect select committee they should think seriously about the costs being imposed now by the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act on New Zealand agriculture.

Having listened to the bombastic vanity of the last speaker I am convinced of just one thing. This bill is a matter of science and should be referred to the Education and Science Committee for consideration.

This is very important legislation, and both National speakers, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who has expertise in these matters, and the Hon David Carter, who is a practising farmer well versed with what hazardous substances and new organisms are about, have stated a very strong case—a very strong case, indeed—that because of its importance it should not be going to the Education and Science Committee. The reason for that is that there are precedents where such legislation has gone to other committees. My colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith is moving an amendment along those lines, and I think that this House should support that proposition.

This is no slight at all on the chair of the Education and Science Committee, Brian Donnelly. We know that he is a very competent chair. We know that his expertise in education is very, very strong—we acknowledge that. But he will have a major task ahead of him with regard to the National Certificate of Educational Achievement and what has been happening over the last few days. It is certainly our view that given the time frame for the report back date of this bill, which will be in June, the bill would be better served by a committee that does also have expertise in this particular field, and that would be able to be expedite and meet the deadlines that the Government wishes to see progressed. So with that in mind, it is certainly our view that the bill should go through to the other committee. I just want to make the point very clearly that this is not a reflection on the chair of the Education and Science Committee, but is because we know that he has a major task ahead of him—an important task that the whole of New Zealand knows about at this stage.

There are some major compliance costs associated with this legislation. I refer here to a compliance cost report on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. This is a draft presentation for Meat and Wool New Zealand, Dairy InSight, Deer Industry New Zealand, the Foundation for Arable Research, and Federated Farmers of New Zealand. So a very, very comprehensive report has been done. It is dated August 2004, and is a draft report on the challenges facing the sector at that time. I just want to quote from the executive summary of this report. “This project qualifies the on-farm costs of complying with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act of 1996 in respect to pesticides and dangerous goods commonly used in the arable, dairy, deer, sheep, beef and agricultural sectors.”

I was a farmer for many years in the area of arable farming. I used to grow large acreages of potatoes, onions, and soy beans, along with maize. In those areas we did use some of those products and chemicals. It is important in the agricultural sector that pests are controlled and diseases are kept out, but at the same time we acknowledge the risks that are associated with the handling of those products, not only to the people who may be selling them but also to the users. I know that Sue Kedgley mentioned that about 70,000-odd—I cannot remember the figure exactly—products are on the market that have no certification or registration, and she specifically mentioned cosmetics. I do not know much about cosmetics. However, I know that the member Sue Kedgley knows a lot about cosmetics, so I shall leave it there. I do not want to be outdone on that. I do not like to lose on these things, and I know that Sue Kedgley is right up with the play on cosmetics.

I shall get back to something that I do know about and that, of course, is the agricultural sector. The report states that the cost of compliance with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to the agricultural sector—and that is what it is related to—is $106 million.

💬 Hon David Carter: Direct costs.

Those are direct costs. On top of that—and this is the point—there is another $321 million of indirect costs for approved handling certificates, test certification services, storage, signage, and safety equipment requirements. So a huge compliance cost will be put on the wealth creators of New Zealand, the primary industries. As my colleague the Hon David Carter mentioned earlier on during the debate on the Veterinarians Bill—and members may recall that I took a call on that bill—the agricultural sector is the heart and soul of New Zealand and the backbone of the country. I am sure that Gerard Eckhoff from ACT would support that, as he sits there and acknowledges my words. He is a farmer, so he knows those things. When we look at the direct costs of $106 million and the indirect costs of $321 million, we see that significant costs have been identified in the report.

I think that we need to break those costs down further and ask what they mean on a per farm basis. At the end of the day we need to know what it will cost the individual operator, the person who will have to fund this regime off the bottom line, as it were, in his or her budget. The figure is absolutely staggering; it equates to $4,222 per farm. People may think that the economic viability of farming is so great that farmers could just write out a cheque for that sort of compliance cost. However, they cannot do that. Those who are practitioners in that field—and Mr Eckhoff is nodding at me—know that I am right. I know that the Hon David Carter, who has his sheep farm on Banks Peninsula, certainly understands what those costs are. It has been identified in the executive summary—and I shall quote from it—that: “Costs can be divided into different sectors. Dairy, sheep, and beef are identified by the Environmental Risk Management Authority as commonly using a similar combination of agrochemicals.”, and I can understand that.

When we are dealing with livestock farmers, that includes dairy and beef farmers. The summary does not mention deer, but I know that livestock farmers have even goats. The Waikato area I represent has a large number of goat farmers, producing fibre and milk from goats. We also have huge numbers of deer farms. Deer farming is a significant contributor to the economy in my particular area. I know that Landcorp is New Zealand’s biggest farmer. I was a director of Landcorp for 6 years. In my days as a director with Landcorp we moved into deer farming in a big way, as, of course, we see here with regard to the dairy, sheep, and beef sector. The products and chemicals used in that sector are different from what arable farmers would be using. In my experience in the arable farming sector, especially in relation to horticultural crops—

💬 Hon David Carter: Potatoes!

Yes, and potato growers. Potatoes are grown in the Matamata area because of the soil type, and other agricultural crops are being grown: potatoes, onions, pumpkins for export, buttercup squash, and the sorts of crops that we export. That is what is important here. This is where the economy of the country is. These are the wealth creators of New Zealand. These are the people who are generating the money for the country.

Finally, I say this is important legislation. National will support this bill, although as I indicated earlier, not its referral to the select committee that the Government wants it to be referred to.

I rise to support the bill. It is good legislation, and I commend the Minister for bringing it before the House.

I move, That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill be referred to the Education and Science Committee for consideration and that the committee finally report the bill to the House by 3 June 2005.

Just before I put that motion, I tell members I have an amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It is an amendment to omit the words: “Education and Science Committee” and substitute the words: “Local Government and Environment Committee”, and to omit the words: “and that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 3 June 2005.”

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Those are actually two distinct issues. The first issue is in terms of the select committee that will consider the bill, and the second one is in respect of the timing. I appreciate the help from the Clerk’s Office, but it seems to me that the House should be able to consider those two issues separately. In terms of the issue of which is the appropriate select committee for the bill to go to, of course the original hazardous substances bill was dealt with by that select committee, and of course the scrutiny of the Environmental Risk Management Authority is with that select committee. That is one issue, but the issue of the timing is a separate issue. I seek your guidance on the amendments being placed as I originally tabled them with the Chair as two separate motions of amendment. They are, indeed, separate issues, and parties may have different views about the rushed timetable, compounded by the issue of which is the appropriate committee to deal with this important bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I do not see any problem with that. I have the wording as it is, but if there is no objection there is no reason why I cannot put the two motions. The first, then, is that the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am aware that members are very keen to see the progress of this very important legislation, as they have all said so. I seek leave for the House to complete the votes on this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. According to Speaker’s ruling 60/1, once a vote has commenced it has to be completed. We have commenced voting on Marian Hobbs’ motion, which has been amended. We are voting on the motion to refer the bill to a select committee, and fact that it has been amended by Nick Smith in an attempt to try to delay the House from rising, does not, I think, bear any relation to the matter. The Speaker’s ruling is quite clear.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I understand that we can complete the vote on the amendment, but not the vote. So we can complete the closure but we cannot complete the vote. [Interruption] I am sorry—we can complete the vote that we are on.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The vote we have just completed—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): There were two votes. We have completed one of them. The second one is that the bill finally be reported to the House by 3 June. We have completed the vote. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Debate Interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6.02 p.m.