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

Some people are finding the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill somewhat droll. Indeed, it is a very technical bill. New clause 8A, “Prohibition of storage of persistent organic pollutants”, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 5 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope, reads: “Section 25B(2)(a) of the principal Act is amended by omitting the words ‘(other than polychlorinated biphenyls)’.” I have no doubt that it is wise and appropriate that those substances are included on the list, because they indeed pose both environmental and personal hazards. That is the sort of thing we have to listen to; it is typical of the detail of the bill.

National has reservations about the bill for certain reasons, which are particularly associated with the compliance costs. But when we looked at issues such as clause 12, which inserts new section 49L, “Rapid assessment and approval of other hazardous substances in special emergencies”, we saw that, like most of the submitters, we were in absolute agreement that that is appropriate in a variety of situations, particularly when the biosecurity of our country is threatened. There have been a variety of examples where that has been a major problem. The other night I commented on the bee varroa mite, which is endemic in New Zealand and which was not detected by anyone until it had become thoroughly entrenched in New Zealand. The Labour Government decided to abandon any eradication programme, and the beekeepers then realised that they were absolutely dependent on the availability of a miticide to protect their hives. Unfortunately, due to the existing legislation, it was impossible for them to bring anything in, so, in the words of Federated Farmers, they had to “eyeball the Minister” very hard and solidly before special agreements were made to bring in the appropriate miticide.

The other point about new section 49L is that if we were to have a major outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease or have a similar biological catastrophe, it is absolutely vital that we in New Zealand have access to the world’s best available treatment for such conditions, and this provision would make that possible. That sort of thing is relevant to the reason why we in the National Party support this bill.

Of course, the bill does have considerable limitations, and for once I am in agreement with Jeanette Fitzsimons that there are some worries about the fact that the transferral will mean that something like 110,000 toxic substances are registered in perpetuity, without any provision for a review—as there would be, for instance, under the Resource Management Act after 35 years. What happens when the substances are transferred in groups is that many of them have never undergone any risk assessment whatsoever. Although a clause in the bill allows for the revocation of the registration of a substance, I understand that the Environmental Risk Management Authority has pointed out that it simply does not have the resources to undertake a full risk assessment of some of the more complicated toxic compounds. In fact, it has said that to do a thorough risk assessment would cost in the order of $1 million, given that there are 110,000 toxic substances. Even if only 40 or 50 of those substances required an appropriate risk assessment, the authority simply does not have the resources to do that.

I rise to talk about Part 1 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the issue of hazardous substances is of utmost national importance. It is important to the economy of our country, and it is important for our farming and primary production industries. We must be proud, too, of the clean, green image that we currently have in New Zealand, and we certainly must jealously guard that image. But we must also be sensible. We must be sensible in our approaches to legislating, and we must be sensible in our approaches to restricting certain substances. Many substances, as we all know, are harmless, but they are hazardous in the wrong hands. Are we legislating for those wrong hands, or are we legislating for the substances that are, indeed, harmful? How does one legislate for that without unnecessarily restricting the industries on which our economy so much depends?

Part 1 refers to substances in containment. Again, we must be very mindful of our biosecurity issues. We must protect our borders, not only from biosecurity incursions but also in terms of immigration. I am concerned and appalled at some of the very slow, delayed reactions of the Government to incursions in relation to biosecurity issues. We have only to look at the fiasco in relation to didymo and “rock snot”. To know that all our South Island waters have now been classified as ridden with didymo is, I think, an appalling state for our country to be in, and as a South Islander I am absolutely appalled. It is totally negligent of the Government to have delayed for so long in relation to that incursion. I am concerned that the same will happen with this bill. Although we must protect against incursions, we also must be sensible. I am concerned that the bill has the impact of perhaps regulating against Sellotape, against Mr Muscle, and against window cleaner, and I think that is a ridiculous state of affairs. To say that those things are hazardous is absolutely absurd and ridiculous.

But even more than that, we have to look at the compliance costs to our agricultural and other industries. The transportation of certain hazardous substances, which cannot be transported in the same vehicle as non-hazardous substances, only adds to the compliance costs for our farming industry. If we are trying to transport goods from Invercargill to Canterbury, and there has to be separate trucks and separate transports, then I think we have to be very sensible and balance the compliance cost against the safety issue. That is where the National Party and I have reservations in relation to the bill. We must be very careful to ensure that this is sensible law-making, and that it is balanced and responsible, and not reckless.

I thank Kate Wilkinson for that excellent insight, and I also thank Nathan Guy, who gave a very good address this morning in relation to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill.

💬 Darren Hughes: They’re all greasing each other up! It’s the mutual appreciation society!

The soon to be relieved member for Otaki needs to listen to his esteemed colleague from that region in order to learn something about the practical implications of farming. As a farmer with a farming business, I point out that it is important to see that a bill like this can be very PC and very appropriate for a Government to put in place, but the reality is that small-business people and the people who actually make the money that makes this place tick will have to pay for it in compliance costs and in meeting the obligations of the legislation.

As a practical farming element, a key thing is that people will now find they have to get authorisation to travel with chemicals in their vehicles. So if they go into an RD1 store, for example, and buy chemicals, they will have to get a form saying they can transport them back to their farms. Those kinds of compliance issues are very difficult for individual property owners, and farmers in particular, to comply with, especially if they have staff who may go in to pick up such requirements, and other issues such as that. Also, farmers have to sign certain forms all the time.

Federated Farmers have made a number of submissions on the compliance costs of the bill, and it is important to look at those. They have calculated $100 million in direct costs, and over $3 million in record-keeping and documentation costs. So we are talking about substantial compliance costs that have been identified. That will impact on all sectors, especially the arable sector. That is especially because larger farms are more prominent these days, and more chemicals are stored on those farms. Compliance costs for arable farmers were estimated at over $3,000, and for pastoral farmers at over $2,000. So we are putting substantial costs on to small businesses that are struggling under a very high dollar, which is a result of the Government’s policies in respect of such things as interest rates and student loans.

Federated Farmers also identified some potential problems from this kind of legislation. They include things like: costs falling on industry or representative organisations; additional certification costs, if employees are required to buy these products; increased agrichemical product prices; risks associated with any public access to farms—and if the Government goes ahead with its proposals in this regard, it could create another risk for people going on to properties, and also for farmers—the complexity and cost of applications to the Environmental Risk Management Authority; the cost of resource applications to regional authorities; and compliance with regional plans. So the compliance costs are not just limited to the individual farmers; they actually go through the whole community. They are taken up in our regional and local government, and therefore those compliance costs will be passed on to individuals through their rates bills. So we have to be mindful that this measure is not just about the farming community; it will be a compliance cost on all New Zealanders.

A point raised by the Green Party was quite interesting. It is in relation to the cost of existing chemicals as against new ones. Although we do not want to put a lot of costs on to existing chemicals that have been proved to be effective, the Green Party raised the very good point that we need to be proactive in looking for future opportunities in any chemical or biosecurity field. To put additional costs on the new, latest technology can be detrimental to our undertaking those kinds of technological developments, and that is not in the best interests of New Zealand agriculture, which has been a leader over many years.

So, in essence, the problem with the bill is that it significantly increases costs and controls on the farming sector—both arable and pastoral farmers—and will require stringent controls. There could be significant ongoing and potential costs, and there will be increasing bureaucracy and red tape. That is a serious burden on New Zealand businesses that are trying to get ahead.

I am grateful for the opportunity to take another call on Part 1 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. As I said earlier on, this is indeed a very technical amendment bill.

I must congratulate my colleague David Bennett, who is a farmer of considerable experience—not only a farmer but also a lawyer and an accountant. He has pointed out the hugely important concerns that Federated Farmers have in respect of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. That Act, in itself, has a total set-up cost for compliance, as estimated by the Federated Farmers, of about $105 million. That leads to about $3,000 per average arable farm, and, I believe, about $2,230 per average farm. The claim, however, is that this bill will save, in terms of the transfer of the 70,000-odd notifiable toxic substances, about $2 million.

It is good to see the Minister, the Hon David Benson-Pope, is in the chair. He will be able to explain to us whether he agrees that this amendment bill will actually achieve the savings that the Labour Government purports it will. There is absolutely no mechanism anywhere in this bill to suggest that the Government is interested in monitoring the outcomes of its efficacy. That is typical of the Labour Government’s lack of consideration of costs that affect New Zealand’s small, medium, and large businesses. The Government goes in, makes an amendment, thinks the amendment is wonderful and talks about it in glowing terms, comes up with a very superficial impact report, and then fails to ensure that the amendment is monitored for its efficacy. I hope that Minister Benson-Pope will take a call to tell us what mechanisms this Government has in place to ensure that the transfer of substances is done successfully and in a cost-effective way that will in future save businesses, farmers, and manufacturers throughout the country an appropriate amount of money.

We received Supplementary Order Paper 5 just yesterday—as always, the Labour Government brings in important legislation at the last minute. The Minister is shaking his head. This legislation has been an issue for the last 2 to 3 years, and here we are, in the last 48 hours of the parliamentary calendar for this year, suddenly bringing through a very important bill of a highly technical nature that has huge implications for the environmental sustainability of New Zealand. The Minister has come up with a Supplementary Order Paper that, for example, proposes new clause 8A, “Prohibition of storage of persistent organic pollutants”, which states: “Section 25B(2)(a) of the principal Act is amended by omitting the words ‘(other than polychlorinated biphenyls)’.” I ask the Minister whether he can describe to me in detail the concerns around polychlorinated biphenyls. It certainly sounds to me as though it is sensible that those substances are on the register, but does the Minister know the details of this legislation?

I think that the Minister probably does not know those details, because with this transfer he is placing all those toxic substances—110,000 of them—on a register in perpetuity. There is, certainly, a clause that provides for the revocation of registration, but we understand that it would cost in the order of $1 million to carry out an appropriate risk management assessment. The Environmental Risk Management Authority just does not have that $1 million. I challenge the Minister to tell us whether the authority is worried about ensuring, when some of those toxic substances prove to be of concern and it thinks a risk management assessment should take place, the resources for that will be available from the Government.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 5 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to to insert new clauses 8A and 12A be agreed to.