Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill

It is a pleasure to speak on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. This bill amends the Act of the same name, which currently protects confidential information made in support of an application for an innovative trade name registration for 5 years after the application is decided. The bill extends the period by 1 year for new uses or reformulations subsequently added to the registration, for up to a maximum of 8 years. The bill strikes a balance between incentivising the registration of products that meet the primary sector’s needs and encouraging competition.

I am going to give a couple of examples in a minute but I think that one of the underlying things we have to understand in New Zealand is that we have a very small market and we often have unique needs and uses required here for agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines. If we do not have an ability to incentivise that investment to get products registered for new uses or reformulations, then they simply will not happen. An example is Pinus contorta, or wandering pine, or wilding pine—depending on what school you went to.

This is a serious environmental weed and it affects 1.7 million hectares in New Zealand, which is estimated to cost $1.2 billion to the economy. Currently, the way that that weed is dealt with is by cutting and poisoning with glyphosate, which is a very labour-intensive exercise, whereas it is well known that 2,4-D is very effective on this weed, but it does not have a registration so it cannot be used.

The cost of getting that formulation registered for that particular use is quite high and no chemical company has been prepared to step up and do that because it will spend the money and other companies can use that particular formulation and benefit from its investment.

That is a very good example of one of the formulations that would be of great benefit or a beneficiary from this particular bill. There are others, in medicines and so on, but I believe that I have made my point. I think that the bill is an excellent bill, I am very happy to commend it to the House, and I am looking forward to hearing other people get in behind this bill. Thank you.

We were getting our numbers mixed up there. We thought that speech was No. four. It was all of about 4 seconds long. I am pleased to be getting up to speak to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill, particularly because I want to expose the issue that this bill and these amendments are not needed.

This bill is, effectively, one of the Trans-Pacific Partnership bills. [Interruption] Howl you may. This is another one, just like the biologics one, that has been leaked. The text has been leaked. That covers patents through to 8 years and so does this and there is no getting away from it, that it is all tied up. This is about hiding the truth about the parts, the compounds, inside agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines.

This is about putting more chemicals, more carcinogens, more endocrine disruptors, more neurotoxins into the environment and into the public’s food chain without their being able to look to see what is in there. It is already a problem. And I reflect on something I have talked about in this House before—the herbicide-tolerant swedes. If I want to find out, or try to find out, what that seed is treated with—it has got two fungicides and an insecticide—I cannot find out. I am pretty sure that the insecticide will be a neonicotinoid—they do not deny that, but they will not tell us either. Why should the public not be able to know that?

I will pull out some statistics—the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act came into force a good few years ago now. It basically started in 2001, and here we are in 2015. So we slice it down the middle and we can see when the Government came in. Before National came in there were 906 new products granted approval, through that time. Since National has come in there have been 1,100—there have been another couple of hundred over the 7 years. We will look at how many chemicals have been withdrawn. So in that first period, 687 chemicals were withdrawn as 906 came in. Of course, there were quite a few in there to start with—that were put into the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Register. Since 2008, once National got in, only 239 have been withdrawn—1,100 new ones, only 239 out.

Out of the total number of chemicals withdrawn since this Act came in 14 years ago, only a quarter of them have come out under National, and you are saying that you need more—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not saying anything.

Sorry, not the Deputy Speaker. The Government is saying, and I am looking over here at the Government members, that these companies—these traders of carcinogens, neurotoxins, endocrine disruptors, and others—need to have more protection, that we need more of them in this country. Too many of my friends are dying from cancer. Which one of you Government members over there has not had a relative or a friend come down with cancer in the last 12 months? It did not used to be like that—it did not used to be like that. It is time we got rid of a lot of these chemicals and went to genuinely sustainable methods of production.

This morning a number of us were at the global goals for sustainable development panel and goal No. 12 is responsible consumption and production. There is nothing responsible about bringing in more and more unsustainable pesticides—nothing. Yes, I will speak about glyphosate. Glyphosate probably causes cancer. It is a carcinogen. The World Health Organization (WHO) has come out saying that it is a probable carcinogen, but it is a carcinogen and Monsanto knew that from the start. Glyphosate is genotoxic at sublethal concentrations. It is a hormone-damaging endocrine disruptor at very low levels—causing infertility, birth defects: negative impacts on the reproductive system.

Be embarrassed, in the wine industry. If I fly over Marlborough at the moment, it will be a bit like 2007 when I measured, accurately, that 70 percent of the vineyard area including headlands was herbicided. Oh, and they call it “sustainable” winegrowing. I will carry on. What that herbicide does is it contributes to digestive illness, gut disruption, and nutrient deficiencies. It can exert worrying effects on antibiotics. It is neurotoxic at sublethal concentrations. Organ concerns—it damages kidneys; beneficial insect populations including honey bees get knocked around. The formulation, which of course is secret and is intended to be even more secret with this Act, is even more toxic than the principal ingredient glyphosate. The inerts are not inert.

And groundwater? When have we been testing the groundwater for glyphosate? When have we been testing the milk in a way that can actually measure glyphosate? It does not happen. Is there a need for more herbicides? Well, in that time, in the first 7 years of this Act until National got in, there were 194 new formulations granted—194. Since National has come in, 269, effectively 270, different formulations of herbicides have been granted. There is no need to be ramping this up or making this more secret. Insecticides—84 previously granted. There have been 125 since National has come in.

Oh, National needs to help its big mates in corporate agribusiness in the chemical industry. And then National will help its mates and it will cover up—you watch—when the bills comes through around the medicines and it will hide that information too. So on the one hand, the Government turns around and is helping to make people sick, and then it is going to protect the interests of a similar industry—quite often related—and make it a monopoly and difficult for consumers, for those needing health remedies, by covering up the information and giving them patents rights in terms of medicines.

It is time that this country that is so soaking in pesticides, one of the highest users per capita in the world, actually set some pesticide reduction targets; not carried on pouring in more and more formulations. Another one that we are looking at closely, of course, are the neo-nicotinoid pesticides—those insecticides that are so insidious, that are throughout the environment, which we know affect bees. We need these things re-assessed and we need them withdrawn and moved to really sustainable production methods.

We will be opposing this bill. There is a lot of concerning stuff. I am looking forward to dealing with it at the select committee and we will be bringing up some of these issues and I will be looking to the Government to actually back off on some of the things it is asking for. Thank you.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in this first reading of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill, certainly to the select committee and probably beyond, and I say “probably” because our position is likely to change only if on closer examination we discover that there are any fish-hooks in it.

I would like to make reference to my erstwhile colleague Mr Bayly there, who in his previous speech, in that wonderful gravelly baritone that he is blessed with, said that he was surprised that New Zealand First was supporting a Government bill. Well, Mr Bayly, when some more time has passed, you will be aware that New Zealand First actually does support probably about half-and-half of Government bills—about half we support and about half we oppose. It is probably the only real objective measure that the Government has for assessing whether or not its own bills are good bills or not, because if New Zealand First supports them they are good bills. So take that as a rule of thumb, Mr Bayly.

I am looking forward to examining this bill in the select committee and I am sure that in the committee, under the most able and, it has to be said, affable chairmanship of Mr McKelvie, we will discover any such faults or pitfalls as might be lurking within it. The bill itself is largely technical in nature, which is perhaps unsurprising, given that it is an amendment bill that changes some technical aspects of the principal Act and does not appear to do a great deal else other than perhaps bringing it up to date.

At face value, it seems that extending the period of protection of confidential information given in support of applications to register innovative trade name products—from 5 years to 8 years—is eminently sensible. In this day and age, where communication is instantaneous, where manufacturing is global, where competition is cutthroat, and where the vultures are circling, if you like, with regard to firms looking to profit from the advances made possible by the efforts and the research of others, it makes sense to extend the protections that are currently afforded to the owners and developers of intellectual property—for them to be allowed to benefit the most from the products and ingredients that they have developed and invented. Extending protection is also important in terms of further applications and uses that might not have been thought of, that might not have been technologically possible for other reasons at the time a particular product was developed, or in fact because the person or the firm that developed the unique or innovative compound might not have been in a financial position to further develop its uses. It makes sense for people in those cases to be allowed some further protection in terms of the confidentiality of the intellectual property that they bring in support of their applications.

It may be that submitters to the select committee might suggest that in fact a 3-year extension is insufficient. In fact, submitters might suggest all manner of things, and that alone would be reason enough for any party to support this bill to the select committee, through its first reading. I do note, however, from the regulatory impact statement, that the Ministry for Primary Industries does not appear to necessarily share that particular sentiment. In fact, it states: “There is no compelling reason to increase the basic length of the data protection term for innovative compounds, principally due to the interface with the patent system.” It does go on to say: “However, the ability to extend the length of the data protection period for the original product if extra uses are added may provide an incentive to add ‘minor’ uses to labels, which is a particular issue for New Zealand.”

It might be, but I might venture to suggest that perhaps the inability to find a compelling reason for extending the protection of someone’s hard-earned intellectual property is perhaps the hallmark of a department that has never created such intellectual property. I wonder whether, perhaps, we have the Minister to thank for the fact that this provision has made it this far at all. It would certainly do the Minister credit if that were the case. If that is indeed the case, then I do hold great hope for the success of the select committee process, because it would appear to indicate that the Government certainly desires to be on the side of the angels with regard to this particular matter. If it is, then New Zealand First will be only too pleased to be there, alongside it.

This is the first reading of a bill that does not appear to show signs of being particularly controversial, notwithstanding the comments from my erstwhile colleague from the Greens. As I have indicated, New Zealand First will support the bill to the select committee and, in all probability, beyond. I will sit on the committee—that fine, august body of men and women—as we examine the bill. For those reasons I do not intend to take too much of the House’s time at this stage.

If we have any questions at this stage, it is probably these. They come from the departmental disclosure statement. The first is in Part 3, “Testing of Legislative Content”. At subsection 3.2 the department asks itself “What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by this Bill is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?”, to which the department answered with the following “MPI has assessed the proposals against the principles of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi and consulted Te Puni Kōkiri. MPI’s assessment is that the policy does not appear to be inconsistent with the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”, which is all well and good, and very probably is as it should be. But I do have to ask—and maybe this is not the best forum to ask it in, but opportunities for doing so are few and far between and the department obviously considers it pertinent to the bill—so I have to ask: if the department has come to the conclusion that this bill does not appear to be inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty, then one could be forgiven, I believe, for presuming that the department has some understanding as to what those principles actually are, and, if it does, perhaps you could share those with the House because nobody else seems to know.

The second is in Part 4, under the heading “Significant Legislative Features”. At subsection 4.4(a) the question as to whether the bill creates or amends a strict liability offence is answered with a resounding “No”. I have to ask “Why not?”. Surely if we are enacting a piece of legislation that is intended to protect someone’s rights or property, then we must, I would have thought, also be intending that a breach of those rights would constitute an offence of some sort. Maybe the Minister would care to comment on that.

The only other question I have at this stage is a query that was raised by a colleague earlier in the process, and it relates to whether or not the provisions in this bill are to extend to products or substances coming into New Zealand as well as those that are developed here. The reason behind the question is a concern as to whether this bill might, in fact, mean that innovative products developed by overseas companies or persons may remain unnecessarily expensive to New Zealand companies or consumers, relative to their cost in other jurisdictions. Perhaps the Minister might like to make some comment on that.

But in closing, I say again that New Zealand First will support this bill at least to the select committee and very probably beyond. The stated intention appears to be eminently sensible and well-intentioned, and I look forward to examining the bill in further detail through the select committee process. Thank you.

It is an honour to speak in support of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill at its first reading. I would just like to acknowledge the Associate Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon Jo Goodhew, for putting this bill before the House and, hopefully, shepherding it the full way through the process. I would like to acknowledge those parties that have already offered their support.

It is unfortunate and disappointing that the Greens are not going to support this; however, it is not unsurprising. I would just like to point out that this is not one of the many conspiracies that the Greens seem to think exist within this Government. We are a Government that is trying to make tangible legislative benefits for regional New Zealand, and here is a perfect example of that.

With regard to the innovative chemicals that are being produced, we have heard, through extensive consultation on both sides of the industry, that both the suppliers and the users of these products are concerned that the current data protection levels are insufficient and that that is inhibiting the registration of the latest technologies. We feel as a Government that our industries in provincial New Zealand and our farmers and all those who benefit from the agricultural sector would be heavily disadvantaged if we did not take a move to act in support of these issues that are concerning to the members of the industry.

The Government review found that evidence of current protection levels in the fact that they may not be incentivising registration of these products here in New Zealand. We feel that puts our producers and our farmers at a disadvantage. That is why we wanted to put this bill before the House.

So in the interests of ensuring that this piece of legislation gets shepherded through as quickly as possible, I will end my contribution there. I would just like to reiterate one more time my support for this bill on behalf of the producers in Southland, South Otago, and North Otago, who will benefit greatly from this. Thank you.

The next call is a split call—Eugenie Sage, 5 minutes.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a short call on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. The Green Party will be opposing this bill.

As others have noted, the substances used in pesticides, herbicides, and veterinary medicines have to be registered before they can be manufactured, used, or sold, and new uses for the compounds also have to be registered. As part of that whole regulatory approval process, applicants have to supply information about the product’s safety, its efficacy, and the likelihood of residues after use. Often, quite considerable information and research are needed to provide that information. Information that is provided to the regulator by one manufacturer obviously has value to competitors because they can use it to formulate a similar generic knock-off product, without the upfront costs of having to do the same research for the regulator.

The Green Party certainly wants the primary sector to have access to the latest technology, both for animal health and for plant protection. But we also want to reduce our use of pesticides and herbicides, and we want to move much more towards integrated pest management. We want to see more chemicals with reduced impacts in use, and certainly new products can help here. But we are opposing the bill because the balance in the legislation is far too heavily weighted to meeting industry wants, rather than public needs for good information on the chemicals that we broadcast so freely across our landscape to control plant and animal pests in our farming systems.

I would like to note that around a third of the 3,000 different products that are currently registered for sale in New Zealand under the principal Act are agricultural chemicals. The public has an absolute right to know what is in these pesticides and herbicides, what the toxic compounds are, what their effects are, and what the residues are. Although industry wants to see new uses and new formulations have data protection, we do not, because it means that the information remains secret and it is not in the public domain. Extending the data protection or the secrecy provisions in this bill around those active chemical ingredients in herbicides, pesticides, and veterinary medicines will certainly benefit the companies that manufacture and sell them, because it does reduce the ability of competitors to piggyback on their research. But it does not meet the public’s need for information.

We are not convinced that there is in fact a real need for this bill. This demand for law changes to extend the data protection period has come primarily from industry players. It certainly has not come from regulators like the Environmental Protection Authority or the Ministry for Primary Industries. The bill, in effect, actually ignores the advice from the Ministry for Primary Industries—

💬 Hon Jo Goodhew: What?

—and appears very much to be based on the demands of the chemical industry. The Associate Minister for Primary Industries is saying “What?”, but if she reads the regulatory impact statement, the Ministry for Primary Industries says “there is no compelling reason to increase the … data protection term for innovative compounds”, because, as the regulatory impact statement notes, manufacturers can patent those compounds for a 20-year term. So they do not have to worry about competitors developing copycat, knock-off products. So why is it needed to increase the data protection period from 5 to 8 years, when the Minister for Primary Industries is saying there is no compelling reason to do this?

We have got the Government here interfering in the market to benefit the big multinationals like Monsanto, instead of providing more transparency about what active ingredients are being used and their impacts and residues. As another speaker had noted, the Ministry for Primary Industries had also said that the extended “length of data protection may”—note, “may”—“provide an incentive to add ‘minor’ ”—note, “minor”—“uses to labels,”. In that regulatory impact statement the Ministry for Primary Industries is making it very clear that there is not a strong case for this bill.

I call Poto Williams—5 minutes.

It has been an interesting exercise in discovering what the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill is about. It is not an area that I am generally familiar with, so I have valued the opportunity to broaden my understanding and experience. From what I understand, in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights of 1995 the regime for data protection was first set up—so the implementation of the 5-year protection around the registration of innovative agricultural compounds. As I understand, innovative ones are the ones with active ingredients that are new to the market, as opposed to non-innovative ones where you may use those compounds in formulations that may be for a species for which they were not originally intended. I note that a lot of the information that came out at the time noted that the industry was saying there was a potential for inhibiting the supply of products to the market around this protection issue. I think it is kind of central to where this bill is wanting to head.

The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act currently provides for innovative compounds and medicines, but there is a balance, I guess, that it is trying to achieve between encouraging competition but weighting that against what may be discouraging the registration of those compounds. I think, in terms of intellectual property and what is noted here as “data protection”, it is a useful correlation to think about protecting the rights of owners of this data or this innovation or this information if you look at the wider context of intellectual property and extending the period of, in effect, having a monopoly in the market. So the arguments may be that it is possible that that may cause higher costs. Also, effectively, you could, potentially, be taking away competition, which may naturally force costs down and it could, potentially, even remove the incentive for innovation. Those are the arguments that I think need to be further explored, and this is why we are supporting the bill to the select committee, because there are some questions that need to be asked of it.

I think one of the criticisms about intellectual property and about the length of protection and the extension of that protection period is one of the arguments that has come up in the Trans-Pacific Partnership discussions. It is one of the things that people critical of the Trans-Pacific Partnership discussion, particularly around the pharmaceuticals, are concerned about. It is that lengthening the time for patents, for example, to be in place potentially drives out people who are wanting to innovate, it drives out competition, and it potentially could add cost to the end consumer. Just around the uses for non-innovative compounds, as I have said, where we are looking at increasing protection, there is a possibility to use those non-innovative compounds in new ways for new species.

Finally, I just want to make some comments about what I read that the Federated Farmers and those manufacturers of generic products were saying around seeking shorter production periods. I think that is a really interesting thing to look at, and I am hoping at the select committee that submissions will be made on behalf of those groups to really tease out what would be the appropriate length of time to have a data protection period in place. Just in conclusion, I just want to say we are supporting this to the select committee and there are one or two issues that we believe do need to be thrashed out. Thank you very much.

It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill in its first reading. This is a Government that understands and appreciates the value of innovation to help to make us more successful, particularly on the world stage. We are a food-producing nation. Our primary sector needs access to the latest innovations and the latest chemical herbicides and other innovations to help manage pests, to increase productivity, and to improve the health of our farm animals if we wish to retain our place on the world stage and even grow our share of feeding the world.

I am sure it has not escaped the attention of members of this House that only just very recently we concluded negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. It is an agreement that, once fully implemented, will unlock 800 million customers—800 million customers across 11 nations—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

—to our food producers. What Government would want to open up world markets of that scale to our producers only to hobble them by not giving them the extent of access to the latest innovations, particularly in the areas we are looking at here, in things such as herbicides, to make sure that we can maximise our productivity and be the best food producers we can be?

This is a debate that, before it reached the House, has been had between both sides of the industry—suppliers and users. They both agree that something needs to be done to ensure that our farms can gain access to the latest innovation. They support our doing this. It is a very, very sensible measure. I am pleased that it has got broad support across the House, and I commend this bill to the House.

It is interesting timing that this bill comes to the House when, as Brett Hudson, the previous speaker, said, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement—well, we do not know what is quite in the agreement, but it currently lies before the corporations in the US and all of those people over there, but not before the members of Parliament in this House. But we are told that there will be issues in there related to intellectual property protection.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

There have been—and that is becoming very narrow, Mr Assistant Speaker. That intellectual property protection is at the core of this piece of legislation, and it works both ways. I guess if the members over the other side were to admit that, actually, the market does not always work, you actually have to intervene to offer protection to people from both sides of the debate, whether it be the suppliers or the users of, in this case, intellectual property related to chemical use. We are—or we have been in the past, and we will struggle to remain there—some of the most efficient producers of safe food in the world, and we are going to have to work really hard to maintain that reputation.

I do acknowledge some of the issues that the Greens raise here, because I do not think it is smart for any country or any producer of food to use more chemicals than are absolutely necessary to produce the amount of food that we need. But it is not smart to produce more food and sell it at less value, which is also the mandate that the Government seems to have taken on board. So the objective of this country must always be to produce the best-quality food, using the least inputs and the least amount of chemicals, to go to the highest-value customers. We should never forget that clear objective.

What this bill does is provide a little bit of protection for companies that, in the true Kiwi way, innovate with products or chemicals that are currently in use. This is not at the heart of new chemicals; it is what you do with those chemicals. We have in this country a number of chemicals that have been approved for use in certain crops or on certain weeds. What Kiwis do, as is our inclination, is we say: “Oh, maybe we could use that on something else.” because if it bowls over Californian thistles, it might do Scotch thistles, or it might knock out black-seed grass or something else that this Government seems to have let into the country because of its poor biosecurity systems. Kiwis tend to innovate. But there are, and there should always be, strict criteria over how chemicals are used. So when companies bring chemicals into this country, they have to go through an extensive process—through the Agcarm legislation and process—and then, of course, the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation, which says that we are not going to allow the use of any chemical that might in any way endanger the health of anyone who consumes the products from the things that may be sprayed or affected by this. We must uphold those standards.

When it comes to, as I say, new weeds that we might be trying to eliminate because of poor biosecurity standards—and there is an alarming number of new weeds and pests that come into this country every year because the National Government has not got a strict and robust biosecurity system. When farmers or horticulturalists want to address this, they will want to do so in a way that maintains the safety and integrity of the core product they are growing, be it apricots or apples or any kind of barley crop or whatever—you name it. So if a company that has a chemical that it uses on barley and someone or—no, let me go to actually a case in point that has been raised here, and it is with regard to fodder beet.

We have seen a rapid expansion in the use of fodder beet in the dairy industry, and we have got many chemicals that are registered for fodder brassicas but that are not, strictly speaking, registered for fodder beet. So when the farmers who are growing this rapidly expanding crop to feed their dairy cows want to control some of the weeds, they say: “Well, maybe we can just go and grab the chemical that we used on fodder brassica.” It might be all right on fodder beet, but it has been approved for fodder brassica, so you have got it a bit mixed up here. What companies could do is spend the money to get certification and approval to use it on the fodder beet. But what happened was that, having gained approval, the information was then available through the process. Someone who just came along with a new chemical with the key active ingredient could say: “Well, we want to register our chemical as well.”, and the company that has done the research and done the certification process then receives no protection.

I think it is reasonable that we offer some protection for the investment that those companies make in ensuring that we have the wise and safe use of those chemicals on a similar crop. So that is the reason that Labour will be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee. But we are not going to give carte blanche approval to companies that are just going to come in and prevent innovation or other generic utilisation of chemicals in this country. We need to ensure there is a balance between innovation and protection of intellectual property.

Federated Farmers of New Zealand came along, as they often do. I think it is a rather naive approach to say: “We just want open competition. We want to drive down our costs and it is all going to be good.” I think that is a very naive approach. I think they must accept that the companies that bring in these chemicals—and as a part-time boysenberry grower, or probably a fairly poor boysenberry grower, myself, I am very aware of application rates of the different active ingredients in many fungicides, in particular, that there can be. In fact, boysenberries is a classic case where, for a small crop, companies have had to get approval to use fungicides used on apples or other things to be then used on boysenberries. There is a process they must go through to ensure that the consumers of boysenberries and boysenberry products are consuming safe products.

So I can understand, as both a producer and as a legislator, I suppose, the need to have a sound balance in this approach. I am not sure that the Government has got the balance right. It very rarely gets the balance right in legislation, I have to say. But we do trust the Primary Production Committee to actually investigate all these things and to make sure that we do get it right.

Labour will support this piece of legislation going to the select committee, to ensure that we get the balance right. But the objective, as spoken about by the Greens, of having safe food products from this country is absolute, and we will not allow the contamination in any way of those food products by chemicals that are not designed to be used at the rates recommended and under strict conditions on the crops that they are registered for. That is a core objective of this piece of legislation, I hope.

We say that leaving this open to the market forces, as the National Government does in most of its thinking in legislation, would not be appropriate here, and I acknowledge that National, for once, is accepting the need for proper legislation for a balance between the property rights of the chemical companies and the farmers and the protection of the safety of the consumers at the end. That is what we must ensure. We in Labour here understand full well the need to get that balance right. The select committee will investigate that balance. Therefore, Labour supports this legislation.

Well, I am delighted to stand at the end of this first reading of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill having been unable to introduce the bill with the first speech. I do so having had the benefit of listening to the members present. I want to thank my colleagues for the examples that they have given of why this bill is important to the businesses in our agricultural sector.

I want to acknowledge some of the concerns that have been raised and to say that some of them have just been plain ridiculous—I will deal with that in a minute—some of them have clearly, perhaps, needed more reassurance and so I will give some of that reassurance. In terms of consultation on this bill, it has been with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, the Environmental Protection Authority—it has been consulted—Treasury, Te Puni Kōkiri, and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and this also has the support of the Ministry for the Environment, including those proposed in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act administered by that ministry. So there has been considerable consultation.

This is not a fly-by-night bill. This has been awaited eagerly by those in this sector. By that I do not mean the hateful big businesses that the Green Party keep telling us about nor those dreadful farmers who would seek to put compounds on their plants. They are not all herbicides. Let me also say that this is about the welfare of animals—something I thought the Green Party cared about, but clearly not. The assurance that I want to give is that both sides of the industry, the suppliers and the users, want this. They have been waiting for it for a long time.

I want to thank our colleague Hon Damien O’Connor for his contribution because he comes with some experience in this field and he used that experience tonight to give a good example. The Government review found evidence that current protection levels may not be incentivising registration of these products here in New Zealand. It is important that we remember to use the word “registration”. We are not giving them carte blanche. Following that consultation the Government decided the best move was to make modest extensions to the data protections provisions.

So we need the agricultural industry to remain competitive. Why do we need that to happen? Why do we need the businesses in New Zealand to remain competitive? So they earn more revenue and so they pay more tax so there are more hip replacements, and better provisions for health, education, law and order, and the rest. The primary sector needs these chemicals to manage pests, to increase productivity, and ensure the health of farm animals. We need the right level of data protection, but it is a very small market so we need to encourage the overseas suppliers to invest in registering the new products and uses in New Zealand.

So this is about striking a balance between incentivising the registration of those products that the primary sector needs and encouraging competition in the agricultural market place as well.

This has not been dreamt up overnight. I am glad that the select committee will have a really good look at it and any of the issues that have been raised in this debate will be attended to. I look forward to hearing back from the Primary Production Committee as it makes its way through. I encourage all New Zealanders who have a view about these sorts of things—and, in particular, those who have been eagerly awaiting it—to get involved in the select committee process. I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it.

💬 Steffan Browning: Party vote called for.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Are you calling for a party vote?

💬 Steffan Browning: Yes, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Did you vote against it? You need to call out that you are voting against it, because I did not hear that. A party vote has been called for. I will ask the Clerk to conduct a party vote.

Sorry, there was a mistake on my part. We are in favour of it going to the select committee.

Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.