Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister for Food Safety: I move, That the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I want to begin by thanking the chair, Miles Anderson, and the members of the Primary Production Committee. This bill came back to the House with bipartisan report, and that does not happen by accident. It happens when members are willing to sit down with a technical bill and do the work—and it is technical. The agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines (ACVM) framework is not a subject that fills the public gallery. But it decides what a vet can reach for, what a grower can put on a crop, and how long a good product sits waiting for permission. The committee treated that seriously, and I am grateful for that.

I also acknowledge the submitters, and I will come back to them, because there were a great many. I thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the officials at the Ministry for Primary Industries for their work on this bill.

This bill did not come out of nowhere. It comes out of the agricultural and horticultural products review carried out by the Ministry for Regulation in 2024. That review went and asked the regulated parties, “What is getting in your way?” The answer came back loud and clear: the cost and the delay of agrichemical and veterinary medicine products was holding this country back against our competitors.

The products we are talking about are not marginal. They are newer pesticides that are safer to use and that keep our produce at export quality. They are inhibitors that reduce environmental impact. They are the products that let a farmer do right by an animal or by a waterway—if they can get hold of them.

Broadly, the bill provides for streamlining approval pathways so that regulatory effort matches the level of risk and removing barriers that serve no purpose; strengthening the use of trusted overseas assessments so we can make proper use of international science instead of repeating work that has already been done well; modernising public notification methods and regulatory processes so that people can actually follow them; improving manufacturing oversight through a good manufacturing practice scheme, so that product quality stays high; and updating technical provisions to give applicants clarity and consistency.

Overall, these changes make the ACVM system clearer, more flexible, and easier to navigate while holding firm on what the system exists to protect: public health, animal welfare, trade and primary produce, and agricultural security.

Now to the submissions: the committee received 1,168 of them. I want to acknowledge every person who sat down and wrote one. A good many of those submissions raised matters that sit outside of what this bill does. I do not brush those views aside. People who take the time to write to a select committee about the products used on our farms and orchards are entitled to be heard, and there are other forums where those particular questions are properly dealt with. Of the submissions that went to what this bill actually does, there was broad support for its intent, along with sensible recommendations for minor and technical improvement. The committee took those up and made six changes.

First, submitters told us that the original wording on overseas regulators’ assessments did not make it clear enough how those assessments should be weighted. That was a fair point. The bill now requires that trusted assessments from recognised overseas regulators be taken into account alongside other criteria, including New Zealand - specific scientific information.

Second—and so that recognition keeps meaning something—recognised overseas regulators must now be reviewed at least every 10 years, with recognition withdrawn if one or more of the criteria are no longer met. A tick of approval that is never revisited is not worth a great deal. Let me be very clear on this point because it matters more than any other in the bill. Overseas assessments do not determine ACVM decisions. They are evidence and they sit alongside the rest of the evidence. New Zealand - specific risks must still be properly assessed. This bill is not about cutting corners; it is about not doing the same work twice.

Third, on transparency, the bill as introduced allowed more flexibility in how public notifications were made. Some submitters were concerned that removing mandatory Gazette publication would cost them visibility. They were right to raise it: public notifications will continue to be published in the New Zealand Gazette and they will now also be published on the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) website. That is a better outcome than the bill arrived with, and it came from submitters.

Fourth, some submitters asked how a decision on a good manufacturing practice certificate could be challenged. The bill now makes it clear that those decisions may be reviewed. A manufacturer is entitled to know that a decision affecting their operation is transparent and can be tested.

Fifth, I want to acknowledge the Regulations Review Committee, which spotted that the bill did not require reasons for granting exemptions to be published. The select committee has addressed that. Reasons for all exemption decisions will now be made public.

Sixth, the bill picks up minor consequential and technical amendments, including updated cross-references to reflect recent changes made by the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Act 2026.

I want to draw out what these changes have in common. Every one of them leaves the system more transparent, more accountable, and more durable than it was when the bill came into this House. This is what the select committee is for, and it is why I’m pleased to see this work reach this point. I thank everybody who contributed to it. I do note concern from some submitters about shifting approval time limits out of the primary Act and into the regulations. I want to make clear that moving those time limits into regulations means that they can be kept current and tailored to different kinds of applications.

The intent is to make Ministers and officials more accountable for their performance against these time frame targets. It should be a priority for the Government, when this bill is passed, to progress these regulations so that the applicants have certainty over those time frames. Any changes to time frames will not affect the level of scientific scrutiny applied to an ACVM application. I look forward to the bill going into more detail during the committee of the whole House, and on that note I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Tangi Utikere): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to rise and take a call on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. Labour is supporting the bill at second reading. We do, however, have some amendments that we have tabled that we will be speaking to in the committee of the whole House. We’ll go into more detail about those. We did hear some concerns about the lack of recognition of potential impacts on the environment, but those will be things that we do cover off in the committee of the whole House.

I want to acknowledge my fellow colleagues on the Primary Production Committee. We are a select committee that does work well together. We try to come to agreement on most things, as much as is possible, and we recognise that this piece of legislation is going to be of benefit for our agriculture sector and farmers and growers.

We often hear from the agricultural sector that things take too long. When there are things that are available overseas that are not available here, the process tends to take an awful long time for it to become available here in New Zealand. There is a fear that with the length of time that these processes take, it can make us less competitive in the market if we don’t have access to a lot of the products, medicines, etc., that those overseas do have. An example of where that has been an issue is an insecticide—a vital insecticide, actually—for mealybugs in grapes that reportedly, as of November 2025, has been sitting in that approvals system since 2019; while potato and onion growers have been waiting for a new, more environmentally friendly product to deal with thrips and blight.

One of the benefits of this piece of legislation is where we might be currently using a chemical compound or a medicine—I’ll talk about a chemical compound, perhaps, more so than a veterinary medicine. There could be an alternative that is being used overseas that is a far more environmental option that we are missing out on here. If we wish to remain at the forefront and competitive, this is going to be a piece of legislation that will enable it to happen.

This piece of legislation came about as a result of the Ministry for Regulation doing an agricultural and horticultural products review. I do think that this has been a sensible thing that has been brought forward to the Primary Production Committee for us to review. It does implement policy changes arising from this particular review, and the bill does give effect to recommendations that relate to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act (ACVM Act). It was quite interesting because we looked at the ACVM Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act alongside each other, which made it quite confusing, I think, for a lot of submitters. They’re both quite technical bills, so it was a bit tricky.

It was a bit of a shame that it was a somewhat slightly shortened process as well, because I do think when we are dealing with pieces of legislation like this that could have quite profound impacts for us here in New Zealand, these sorts of pieces of legislation should go through the full-length time frame, not simply be shortened because the current Government wishes to get something through quickly. When we are dealing with our agricultural sector, whilst I acknowledge the need to have access in a timely manner to new products, our agriculture sector is what carries much of this country. So we do need to make sure that when we are dealing with legislation that we hope will have a positive impact, we need to be sure that what we’re doing does not in some way accidentally have a negative impact. I don’t believe that rushing through something like this is a good idea. However, here we are today.

One of the changes that we made to this piece of legislation, and I note that the Minister of Internal Affairs has covered off some of them but we did have quite a substantial amount of submitters too—over 1,000 submitters—and I do wonder if we might have had some more, should there have been a longer length of time. However, clause 10 of the bill, which would insert new section 8AA, is around the publication of the exemptions that have been granted. It would give the director-general discretionary power to exempt agricultural compounds from the registration requirement.

Now, the Regulations Review Committee are very helpful when we’re looking different pieces of legislation. They go through it and then they will forward in things that they put up through to select committees to take into consideration. So they wrote to us with concern that the bill wouldn’t require the director-general to publish the reasons for making exemptions.

Now, in order for the public to have transparency—and, I think, understanding of why something has been exempted—it’s very important because, again, it allows people to understand why that decision has been made. And as I said, there is a huge risk, if we get this wrong, to our primary sector. So we agreed with the Regulations Review Committee and their concerns that the reasons for an exemption should be published. So that was something that the select committee made changes to.

I want to turn to the recognition of the overseas regulators, because there was some concern that should we go down this path, it would just mean that we’ll just take into consideration what they were doing overseas, and if that looked good enough, then we would adopt that. So I want to give assurance to the public out there that that is certainly not the intention of this piece of legislation.

Some submitters wanted more clarity about how overseas regulators would be recognised and monitored. We also recognised as a select committee that recognition should be subject to an ongoing review, and we considered that periodic reviews and public notification of those reviews were important, and it’s actually appropriate to show that we keep up to date—which is what part of this legislation wants to do: to keep us up to date with new technologies and medicines, etc. But a review would also allow us to keep up to date with changes that were also happening overseas, whether something was no longer suitable or there were better options out there.

The other change that I would like to talk about—I think the Minister might have mentioned, in her contribution, the thinking about the overseas evidence that would be taken into consideration here in New Zealand. As I said, submitters were worried that would just mean that if someone overseas was doing it, then we would just base it on their situation, their circumstances, and their farming methods, and that it would automatically happen here. I note Minister did say that whilst the evidence that’s brought to us from overseas would simply be taken into consideration, it does not mean that it is instantly granted and that New Zealand - specific risks would have to be assessed and taken into account.

The New Zealand Law Society noted that the bill wouldn’t provide a right of review for some decisions that were made. So the select committee thought that this is something that we needed to take into consideration as well.

I am pleased to stand and say that we do support this piece of legislation. We do have some changes that we would like to make through amendment proposals at the committee of the whole House. But, ultimately, we want to ensure that our agriculture sector does have access in a timely way to the chemicals and the veterinary medicines that it needs. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasant surprise that the Government side have flipped the Order Paper and brought through this Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill.

Now, this is a fascinating example of where industry lobbies. We’ve had some proud elucidations from a senior Minister in this Government’s Cabinet, Christopher Bishop, yesterday, that he’s very proud to be the recipient of industry lobbying.

This is an instance where those corporations in the world who manufacture agrichemicals, some of which are amongst the very biggest companies on our planet—huge agrichemical companies; the likes of Syngenta and BASF and Bayer—have very effectively lobbied through front groups that greenwash their intentions by having innocuous names like “Animal and Plant Health New Zealand”, which sounds great, until you find out that it’s Bayer and Syngenta and BASF.

What they want is what all agrichemical companies have always wanted since the Second World War, when we massively increased our production of novel synthetic chemicals, including those very most-toxic substances known to biology: human-invented toxic substances that were initially used, actually, in the wars—first of all, mustard gas in the First World War—and then they got banned through the Geneva Convention as chemicals for use against humans.

Those same companies started thinking, “Well how can we use these really effective toxic synthetic chemicals and make some money out of it? We’ll use them in agriculture to kill bugs that we don’t like and to kill plants that we don’t like.” So these companies make their billions from producing and marketing and selling these highly toxic substances. One example in New Zealand is a company called Syngenta, who are the global producer of a chemical called atrazine. Atrazine is a highly persistent chemical. It’s widely found to exist in ground water. It is banned in 40 countries around the world. It’s not banned in New Zealand.

These same companies want to have a means to more readily deregulate the use of agricultural chemical compounds and veterinary medicines. Now, some of those agricultural compounds seem innocuous and seem bland. But, in fact, what they really are seeking and what this bill does is it deregulates. It deregulates the scrutiny that the public are allowed to bring through our regulatory frameworks on these compounds and these chemicals.

Some of those include “novel biologicals”, as they’re called, some of which include genetically modified biologicals. Those need to supposedly go through the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 Act as well, which is one of the reasons the select committee dealt with both the amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill at the same time. It seems obvious—well, it at least seems obvious to me and perhaps others on the committee—that it would be logical at some point in time for us to combine both these pieces of legislation because there’s so much crossover. But that’s not what this bill does today.

We have come away from that whole process at the select committee—when I say “we”, I mean the Greens—with some concern about the actual underlying motives behind this deregulation. It is no accident that it’s come through David Seymour’s Ministry for Regulation, the proposal that we reduce the regulatory oversight. One of the more extraordinary experiences that I’ve had in my time at Parliament was attending a public event over this bill where David Seymour was asked at the end of his introductory speech to one of the organisations there advocating for this deregulation if he’d done a sufficiently good job, and he said, “This is a good example of industry lobbying.” I really appreciated him saying the quiet bit out loud, because this is a good example of agrichemical industry lobbying. There’s a very intimate relationship between the agrichemical industry and the genetically modified plant and crop and microbe industry, because those companies—the likes of Syngenta and BASF and Bayer—see the opportunity in producing novel compounds that are not just chemical but also biological and also potentially self-replicating. There has been drawn to our attention an issue with the release of a double-stranded RNA compound in field-trial form that has already occurred since 2018 in this country, in 114 field trials. It may be that that was done without the appropriate scrutiny of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act through the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act.

That was not brought to our attention at the select committee. We scrutinised heavily at the select committee about whether this legislation or the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act involved a lowering of the bar on public scrutiny and regulatory oversight of these chemicals and substances and were repeatedly assured that they did not. I have not come, I’m sad to say, away from that process convinced that that is actually correct.

So, for that reason, we think that it’s inappropriate to bring this bill under urgency. This bill deserves more scrutiny and should have had more scrutiny, and we will be voting against this bill. In the committee of the whole House stage, we intend to bring some amendments that we think could improve the bill and we would seek the support of the House for those amendments. I also want to recognise that it is not unreasonable for those who are genuinely seeking to find less toxic options and genuinely safe biological and new chemicals and substances to move away from current dependencies on more toxic chemicals. We don’t disagree with that principle. That is correct. I do seriously question whether the problem is the actual law itself or whether it’s the systems we have in place to deal with appropriate vetting and assessments on these new chemicals and substances so that they can get to market more quickly.

We have heard that message from those in industry, who I believe are absolutely good faith actors and are genuinely trying to get alternatives to more toxic chemicals. We’ve heard that message, just to be clear, and we are sympathetic to that, but we do not believe that this legislation in its current form gets the balance right. We are not in support of a deregulation of what, in effect—alongside the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, the agricultural compounds bit of it and the veterinary medicines bit—can lead, potentially, to faster pathways to chemicals that have not been sufficiently scrutinised.

I just want to make a final note that there is very little contention around the question of veterinary medicines. We are very keen to see faster access to veterinary medicines. We support that component of the intention. Not unlike human medicines, there is already much more scrutiny of veterinary medicines. So if something is approved for use in another jurisdiction, for use on animals, we can be much more certain that it is safe to use on animals here. As there should not be barriers to use of approved human medicines in other jurisdictions, there should not be barriers to use of veterinary medicines in New Zealand. So that is a component of the bill that we support.

But, on balance, overall, we are not satisfied that this bill is in the public interest. We will be voting against it and we will be asking a number of questions at the committee of the whole House stage. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill in the second reading, and I’m very pleased to do so. The Primary Production Committee examined a lot of submissions over quite a while and came up with the finalised document that we see in front of us today.

Look, I just want to cover off a few things that have been said in the House today. In our own commentary, the select committee’s commentary, we said, “We note the bill does not amend the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO Act), nor alter New Zealand’s regulatory settings in relation to GMOs or GE. Any GMO or GE product would still be subject to approval under the HSNO Act. Additionally, any use of overseas regulators would still have to meet New Zealand’s legislative requirements as the approval of GMO- and GE-based agricultural compound products is already restricted through the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act and other legislation. We consider that no further changes are necessary.”

Now, I’d just also like to point out that both Labour and the Greens voted to shorten the report-back date, and Labour has never raised any concerns with this bill at the select committee stage and voted in favour of the changes made and voted in favour of the bill as it is now.

I am very thrilled to have this bill come to this stage. It’s been a real sticking point for farmers and growers that a number of products that are available in like jurisdictions around the world are not available to us. These products are generally ones that are far more effective, and in many, many cases they’re far safer than what is currently available. I commend this bill.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. This is a really important bill—$64 billion worth of primary exports to this country, so it’s absolutely critical that we have access to world-class, gold standard agrichemicals and veterinary medicines.

It had become clear through this process that the system was constipated. It has taken a very, very long time to get new agrichemicals particularly registered in New Zealand for use, which was holding back our farmers and growers. There were some very real world consequences here. There was a few aspersions cast about Bayer in Steve Abel’s speech, but Bayer actually withdrew from the New Zealand market. They sold their Hawke’s Bay research property, which is not a step forward for New Zealand. We need these chemicals to be able to be researched in New Zealand conditions. So the idea here is to get access to less toxic, more effective chemicals more quickly.

Having said that, the consequences of getting this wrong are really high. We’ve had the dicyandiamide (DCD) incident with the urea treatment that ended up showing traces in the milk that had significant consequences for our exports, particularly into China. So we do have to have really good regulations. This is fiendishly complex. The interface between the hazardous substances and new organisms (HSNO), the work we’re doing trying to upgrade gene technology and how that flows into the agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines (ACVM).

We were concerned to find out through an Official Information Act process at the end of last week, actually, that the double-stranded RNA treatment for varroa mite is being trialled in New Zealand. That wasn’t disclosed through the select committee. That had got through the HSNO process because it had been treated as a hazardous substance rather than the new organism. So that throws a light on how tight have we got our regulations. I think this probably sits more in the HSNO—New Zealand First has leaned towards that view. In our review of the HSNO Act, we have to make sure that anything flowing through into the ACVM is absolutely not in conflict with our gene technology legislation of the day.

In terms of what the select committee did, I mean, there was a huge amount of work getting through 1,100-odd submissions. Some key changes in there in terms of the overseas regulators—that’s one of the key things this bill looks to do: take more accountancy of work that’s already been done overseas. What tends to be happening now is we’re just starting from scratch and not putting enough weighting on to work that’s already been done overseas.

The key change there from “have regard to” to “take into account” does mean the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries does have to take more weighting on those overseas regulators’ findings. That’s not the be all and end all; we still need the checks and balances. And we will certainly, through the committee stage, be asking some more questions about that interface between HSNO and ACVM and how we’re not going to have a repeat of this double-stranded Resource Management Act (RMA) situation. But it does make sense not to start absolutely from scratch. We’ve been doing it now, which is really held up our process and is denying our farmers and growers access to world-class chemicals and medicines. New Zealand First continues to support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to start with the unfortunate point that the Green Party came in initially supporting this bill. But, like a lot of bills that have been through in this term of Government, it actually got worse at select committee. My colleague Steve Abel has already outlined that we will now be opposing this bill.

It’s really clear that the intent is generally sound—it’s to speed up approvals for agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines by reducing regulation. Again, my colleague Steve Abel has pointed out how we have no problem, particularly around the veterinary medicine aspects of that. Just generally—before this is interpreted as, “The Greens actually like bureaucracy or slowing things down”—we absolutely support making regulatory processes more efficient where this can really be done safely.

I think it’s been really clear in understanding the implications of this bill that the substances and the chemicals and the compounds which we are talking about are those that can be genuinely toxic and genuinely unsafe and persist in the environment and potentially cause huge harm, or certainly heightened risk, to community and ecosystem health. That is our real concern: that there is deregulation of the system when it has such serious implications.

But we also acknowledge that in certain circumstances, faster approval of products and compounds which are genuinely low risk could have benefits for the country. That’s where we wish this bill was actually going in terms of actual safeguards. Now, unfortunately, the changes that have happened at the Primary Production Committee have only strengthened our concerns around significant lobbying from the agricultural chemical industry. There’s been a lot said about lobbying recently, and I just want to make it clear as well: it’s not the lobbying itself. Anyone can lobby; anyone can try and talk and have dialogue, and that’s great—we support that. It’s the fact that then the changes are actually put into practice and some are listened to and some aren’t.

The problem with a lot of these bills that are going through is that those who are listened to are the big corporations, are the vested interests, rather than the public good. At least my perception of government, and what I’d love to see this Government and every Government afterwards actually prioritise, is that public good and those safeguards for our communities and our environment over private profit. Unfortunately, we’re not seeing that there. It’s entirely possible that faster approvals don’t have to mean fewer safeguards, particularly when we’re talking about some of the most toxic substances.

The point I also want to make is that this is really concerning when it comes to limiting Māori participation in these processes. We know that our agricultural approval system needs to take account of Aotearoa’s unique environment, but also the fact that our communities, and particularly iwi and hapū, need to have a real say. There’s a very clear lack of requirements when it comes to Māori engagement, and it doesn’t require the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries to partner with or even consult with iwi Māori before approving agricultural chemical products that could harm te taiao. This is completely inconsistent with the Green Party’s view that we would uphold Te Tiriti and tino rangatiratanga in every sphere, but particularly those that could impact and risk so clearly the health of our environment and the health of our communities. The Green Party will not be supporting this bill, but we will be proposing some very clear changes. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was expecting a National Party speech.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): So was I.

There we go. Here I am. I am not a National Party MP, to be clear. Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill (ACVM Bill).

I am privileged to be Labour’s spokesperson for food safety. Of course, most food safety issues go to the Primary Production Committee, which sits on Thursday morning. At that same time, the Environment Committee sits and I am also lucky to be the environment spokesperson and resource management reform spokesperson. There has been a bit going through that select committee, so I have not been involved in the deliberations of this ACVM Bill, nor the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Bill that’s been mentioned a wee bit in the discussions.

But before this term of Government, at the end of the last term of Government, I was the Minister for Food Safety. This came about in quite unusual circumstances when Meka Whaitiri crossed the floor, and voila! I became the Minister for Food Safety, which was of course a real privilege and very interesting—lots of things to learn about in that portfolio. In that portfolio, I did go to a conference very near the end of last term, so approximately three years ago now, where there was some real disquiet about this legislation. Of course, what we’re talking about today is an amendment bill and it is an amendment to the 1997 piece of legislation that I have here ready for our committee stage. Whilst the legislation has been amended for some time, clearly there has been some slowness in the process and some inefficiency.

Back then, three years ago, I did agree that it needed to be looked at, so it’s good that this Government has done this. It’s unfortunate that we’ve taken three years to get to this spot and that we didn’t have the full select committee process. That’s relevant because there has been some real concern that I know we will talk about in the committee stage of the bill about what is currently called a provisional registration that becomes a consent for research and other information or other purposes. There was a concern that this process is going to let some products through that might have negative consequences and that the tests around that aren’t strong enough.

That has meant that there has been a flurry of tabled amendments, and I do note that some of these tabled amendments came from the New Zealand First Party, which was interesting, and were in the name of an associate agricultural Minister, Mark Patterson. They were to very much strengthen the provisions of this consent that used to be called a provisional registration. That’s always interesting, when you have one Government party and one Associate Minister of Agriculture making tabled amendments on a bill in the name of another Associate Minister of Agriculture. But it appears that they are no longer upon the Table.

However, in response to those concerns of New Zealand First, I have also drafted some amendment papers that didn’t go nearly as far as New Zealand First’s papers but did try to add in some additional comfort to those submitters who are concerned that this new consent process is just a little bit too wide and that some things that might be risky and might harm us and might harm the environment could get through. So that is what I will be focusing on in the committee of whole House stage, which, of course, we’re not yet at.

But I did want to respond to this point that was made by Miles Anderson that he seemed to be surprised that Labour would be offering up any amendments or criticising a process in any form at all. So that is the history of this process and why we are—of course, we were also surprised that we suddenly had a change up of which bill we’re speaking about. All of sudden—we thought there were three Treaty bills to get through before we got to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. Yet, they have somehow disappeared, so that is interesting as well. So something—something—appears to be going on with the coalition, which is very interesting to watch and is not surprising that they can’t make up their mind on anything or work together.

As I was saying, we have this 1997 legislation. “The purpose of the Act is to (a) prevent or manage risks associated with the use of agricultural compounds, being … (i) risks to trade and primary produce; and (ii) risks to animal welfare; and (iii) risks to agricultural security: (b) ensure that the use of agricultural compounds does not result in breaches of domestic food residue standards: (c) ensure the provision of sufficient consumer information about agricultural compounds.”

So my reading of the legislation is that that purpose does not change. That is important because some of the amendments refer back to that purpose. That purpose is also relevant to the amendments that are on—and off—the Table about the considerations to things like the environment and the relationship with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO). There is a separate piece of legislation going through that amends that piece of legislation. I’m not talking to that except—full stop. I’m not talking to that.

But—however. No, these are all the wrong words.

💬 Miles Anderson: As it turns out, you are.

No, I am not talking about them because I am talking about this piece of legislation, which refers to that other piece of legislation. Why that is important is because before you can get this consent to import, which is currently called provisional registration, you are blocked from getting that permission if you need a permission under the HSNO legislation. The Government parties and other people say well, the HSNO legislation—the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act that does a risk assessment on environmental issues. So if HSNO applies, then that will consider the environment, so then the argument is that then this piece of legislation, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill, does not need to consider the environment because it’s already been considered under that other Act.

I understand that logic of that argument. What though, if you do not require a consent under the HSNO legislation—under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act—should there be some provision for the consideration of the environment under the agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines process and how does that relate back to the purpose that I just talked about, which is managing these risks to trade, to animal welfare, to agricultural security, food residue standards, and consumer information. These are questions that we will pursue in the next debate—to give some context there.

There are also some concerns over what these consents to import, etc. and use agricultural compounds for research and other purposes—how wide they can be. Because the way that it’s been described to me, these things are not for sale. If they’re something that comes in, it will be for a short term on the consent condition, and it’s to work out if they’re going to work in New Zealand or not. Why then would they be sold for commercial gain if they’re simply for research? So these are some questions that I will raise that go to my amendments. I want to assure the members opposite that those amendments have been written in good faith and they’re very much about just trying to give some comfort to those people who are concerned that this might be going just a step too far.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a practical bill for practical people. It streamlines regulatory processes, reduces red tape. It backs our local vets and rural suppliers who support our farmers who feed New Zealand and the world. It’s about fixing the basics and building the future. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m very pleased to speak on this special day, the Miles Anderson appreciation day. It’s always good to be appreciated from time to time.

Anyway, this amendment bill is another bill that allows our agricultural and horticultural farmers to continue to advance themselves and be the world-class producers that they are. Most importantly, it does that while maintaining strong protections for public health, food safety, biosecurity, environmental outcomes, and international trade obligations. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s certainly been an interesting 24 hours, in terms of discussion around this bill. As my colleague Rachel Brooking pointed out in her contribution just now, there were some tabled amendments from one of the Government parties, the New Zealand First Party, in the name of Associate Minister Hon Mark Patterson that we did take some time considering, again, in good faith, and now they’ve mysteriously been removed. So we’re not quite sure—I guess when we get to committee of the whole House stage, they may reappear. We’ll find out, potentially, exactly what’s going on amongst the Government parties, although from the Associate Minister’s speech, it would sound like he wasn’t foreshadowing any amendments, so we’re a little bit confused on this side of the House about what the coalition Government is doing, although I think they’re quite confused as well. They’ve been a bit confused around who was taking a call before. And I think the country’s confused around what they’re trying to achieve also. So an interesting day, in terms of what is actually quite an important bill, Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill.

One of the things that this bill does that I want to talk to a little bit is—it streamlines the process for what was called provisional registration. That has now had a terminology change to be called a consent. And what that is is when a compound or a medicine is not being put forward by a company or a supplier or whoever may be putting it forward for that full registration process but it’s coming through for a temporary approval process but for a very defined purpose, usually around research and sometimes the research that’s being performed during that short time frame is actually being used to build a body research to go on to the full registration process.

One of the things I do want to point out is this is an amendment bill and so what it is doing is amending the existing Act. Actually, that process is not changing per se. There have always been two processes, one for a temporary provisional registration, which has now been called a consent, and one for that fulsome registration.

What I do want to point out is that having a consent and reaching the ending point of that consent doesn’t automatically lead to registration becoming automatic. They are actually two separate processes, so there have been some concerns raised around that but actually you still—just because you’ve received that initial consent does not mean there is an automatic registration process or that fulsome registration will necessary be granted.

In light of my comments earlier about amendments from New Zealand First and also some commentary from the Greens raising some concerns around the bill, I would note that this bill has been considered by the Primary Production Committee at the same time as the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill, which has not reappeared yet, and there is some interaction between those two bills. That’s interesting, again, in terms of what might be happening around the coalition Government discussions.

I did want to point out just a couple of changes that my colleague Hon Rachel Brooking has proposed which I think are very good. The second amendment that she’s made is that initial consent could have a maximum duration of less than five years, so I think that’s a good safeguard to ensure it doesn’t go on and on forever. She’s got a third amendment here—[Bell rings]just keeping an eye on the clock—around ensuring there are some strengthened provisions around the impact of any compound or medicine on the environment. A further one which I thought was a very good amendment, again, following some discussions with officials: the fifth amendment which is when we’re talking about a consent, and selling something for consent, to note that it’s for commercial gain, so that consent is not to be for gain by selling a product, and that makes sense. It’s a sensible amendment because most of those provisional registrations, now consents, are done for the purposes of research, so we actually couldn’t find a decent rationale for why there might be a sale of such a product.

Finally, a note around research on the final amendment—and I have run out of time; I could have spoken for a lot longer. Labour is supporting this bill. We will have many, many questions at the committee of the whole House. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill is intended to improve approval pathways for agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines; and reduce unnecessary costs, complexity, and delays for applicants seeking approval for agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines. Just because of some of the comments that were made in the House, I note that the Primary Production Committee was at pains to point out that the bill did not amend the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act of New Zealand’s regulatory settings in relation to GMOs.

Just the last thing: I do sit on the Regulations Review Committee and I’m pleased to see that the Primary Production Committee noted our recommendation that the director-general published reasons for exemptions decisions and has recommended changes accordingly. I recommend this to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Damien O’Connor. Sorry—the Hon Damien O’Connor.

It’s fine with you, Maureen—sorry, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Touché.

Look, thank you, Madam Speaker. The Opposition has every right to be wary of this piece of legislation. On the face of it, it sounds OK. There have been calls for many, many years—probably going back a decade or so—to actually have this process streamlined. Indeed, it is a cautious approach that the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and Government agencies over time have taken to the approval of the ongoing evolution of veterinary medicines and agricultural products into this country. We, more than pretty much any other country in the world, are reliant on our primary production sector—agriculture, horticulture, and other areas—so it is really critical that we look at this very, very carefully.

We have every right to be suspicious of what has been a stupid Government that has rushed through legislation time and time again that has proved to be faulty. We cannot afford to do the same thing with this piece of legislation and indeed the fact that it’s been rushed to under urgency is a risk. I’m pleased to say that some of the amendments that my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking is going to table, I think—

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: She has tabled.

—tabled—are necessary. They are necessary because, in one particular area, the omission—elimination—of any environmental consideration is just stupid. Absolutely outrageous.

I’m not unfamiliar with the kind of goods we that we’re talking about here. I’ve been a dairy farmer, grown a few boysenberries, and so understand that the chemicals that we use are critical to good, efficient production. But they’ve got to be used in the way that they are meant to be used. Kiwi growers and farmers are very, very innovative and have been over the century, which has kind of served us reasonably well, but it’s also actually meant that people cut corners. As we see the evolution of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines, there will be new innovative ways of creating them—not just GE or GMOs, but actually incorporating chemicals that may be banned in some countries but not in others, so ensuring that what we have through our borders is safe for use, and then is used according to instructions, is absolutely critical.

Most of the laws or many of the laws we make—most, in fact—in this House are for a minority of people who don’t want to do the right thing, and so, once again, that’s what we are talking about here. There’s great enthusiasm from the chemical companies around the world to sell a bit of stuff into New Zealand. We’re not a huge market but, from an agricultural perspective, it’s reasonably solid, so they have been coming to us on numerous occasions over the years with new products, and they’ve been frustrated by the process through the EPA and other Government agencies. This bill aims to streamline; it creates a new consent regime for research and information gathering. That’s OK as long as it’s robustly implemented. It allows recognition of overseas regulators, as long as that is ensuring that the advice that is brought to New Zealand from research and, I guess, oversight in other countries is legitimate, is credible, and is honest; that is absolutely critical and important.

I think the concern that I have through this bill is that we will rely on the director-general to make all those judgments. A lot of that occurs at the moment but what we’ve seen over the last almost three years, now, is a growing political influence over public servants, and that concerns me. The lobbying and the amount of money that has been paid into political parties that are governing, for fast track and for other projects—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Be very careful about making assumptions about that.

No, these are facts, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): It’s inappropriate to make those comments.

Madam Speaker, there has been a growing amount of donations to political parties that currently serve in the Government and all of those amounts and the people who have donated are publicly available. I’m referring to that.

💬 Suze Redmayne: We’re talking about veterinary compounds—

What concerns me is the influence over fast track that we have, then: the political—or the potential for there to be influence over processes like this. That is why the Opposition has to be absolutely robust in our scrutiny of this critical piece of legislation, because the members over there—one of them, a well-known and respected farmer; she knows the importance of the misuse of things like dicyandiamide, where we hadn’t done our homework, we hadn’t done an maximum residue limit, and in fact what could have been a very good emissions mitigation tool in the agricultural sector has now been eliminated because the homework wasn’t done.

My concern is that this change in legislation might allow shortcutting and influence over the director-general that might lead to another terrible outcome for our primary sectors. So we need to be cautious; we need to have in place obligations around the potential environmental impacts of bringing these chemicals into our country and having them tipped out or wasted—so what happens on farm. Now, although there’s veterinary oversight, large volumes of veterinary medicines can be dispensed to a farmer, with a vet signing it off. If there’s a change in a farming system or something goes wrong, they could be left with a large volume of unused veterinary medicines or chemicals. Indeed, I had some myself on a farm. The process of disposal is really, really messy and difficult, so the potential for those things to be tipped into a stream is real—is real. Some of that might be insignificant in terms of environmental impact, but some of it not so. Consideration of the potential for that to be wasted into the environment should be part of the consideration when it comes to approval. That’s one issue that my colleague is going to pursue as we move through this.

Low-risk products to be exempted from registration by the director-general—again, the assessment of what is low or high risk is actually really, really important. We need to ensure that that is followed through in the way that is intended, not in the way that could come under possible commercial pressure.

Modernise notification, manufacturing compliance provisions, statutory time frames—a lot in this bill is really sensible progress, as was said by members of the Government. But I come back to the point about our obligation to put in place legislation and regulations that protect us from the potential misuse or abuse of something in this system that is so critical to our country.

If we end up with a maximum residue level—take for example, another thing that the Government has done under the guise of efficiency. They’ve allowed farmers to go out and use drones for spraying. Agricultural operators are strictly controlled because these chemicals are really important. If they get in the wrong place at the wrong time, they can get into our food chain. The point being, the Government’s enthusiasm to deregulate everything means that there are growing risks to our international reputation and to our food systems that might jump up and bite us big time into the future.

As any responsible Government should, or, in this case, the responsible Opposition, we have to scrutinise and look with some cynicism at the possible outcomes of the passage of this legislation—accepting, of course, there can be some improvements. There always can be. But the ideology of the Government, which is to deregulate and leave it to the market, leaves us exposed if the provisions in this bill are not followed through.

My concern—and the Primary Production Committee has had a look at it, I know, and made some adjustments. I’m not saying this is irresponsible, but I’m saying if we don’t close the gaps and put back in an obligation around the environment by the Government supporting my colleagues’ amendments, we have left open a door that could bite us into the future. This can be a useful piece of legislation, but we have to be mindful that it needs to be improved through a few amendments that will be tabled by the Labour Party.

We listened to the sector, we did our homework, and we are now delivering. We are cutting the red tape and getting things moving. We are fixing the basics and building the future.

I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 98

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 31; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 18

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for committee stage immediately.

Committee of the whole House

Part 1 Main amendments

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. Members, we come to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 76, “Main amendments”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.