Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Most of the tabled amendments relate to clause 40 and are around clause 40, but before we get there, I’ve got some questions on the way through. My first question is about the definitions. I love this—when you get to go to the lobby and get the principal Act. I have a copy of that, but it’s got all these little pages in it, which can be quite difficult to follow. I apologise in advance if I’ve missed something that’s in one of these little amendments that goes into these hard copies of the Act.

My first question, though, is about the interpretation. We’re at clause 4, and clause 4 amends section 2 of the Act that is in my hand here, and it includes “approved form” and “approved information”. What I’m interested in—and I’ll raise it probably in another minute—is why there is no definition of “registered trade name product”. Throughout the legislation, there is this term, “registered trade name product”. In fact, if you look across to clause 9, so just on page 7 of the amendment bill, at new section 8, you will see at (1)(a)(i), (2)(a)(i), (3)(a)(i), and at (4)(a)(i) this term “registered trade name product”. The Act defines both “trade name product” and it also defines “registered” product, but I’m wondering how the two interact.

This is important, because it’s an important term throughout the legislation, because it’s the main substantive approval, as I understand it, that you get. It’s also relevant because the wording is different at clause 5(2). It’s talking about “an assessment”, and then it says, “to decide whether it should be registered as a trade name product,”, which is then different from the term that’s later used, which is “registered trade name product”. It may be that it’s because, you know—are they meant to be two different things: you can be registered and not a trade name product or you can be a trade name product that’s not registered, or can you only ever be a registered trade name product?

It’s a question that goes to quite a lot of the legislation in terms of what we’re thinking about with this bigger application process that is undertaken, subject to—I think it’s around sections 20 and 21 of the principal Act that go to this registration. If she can make a comment on that, that would be very useful—where we’re going with these terms, how we should best think about them, and how it applies throughout the piece of legislation. That’s my first question. [TheHonBrooke van Velden raises hand to seek call] If you do your hand, then I’ll—

Committee of the whole House

I thank the member for the question; I will ask my officials for that technical piece of advice, but I thank the member for it.

Committee of the whole House

I will move on, then, and thank you to the Minister for asking officials for that advice. That’s useful. And thank you also to the Minister in the chair for raising her hand—that is helpful.

Now, then, I would go on to page 9. This is at clause 10, and clause 10 is the “Exemptions from registration”—that’s the subheading before the new sections or clauses. At new section 8AA, it is “Exemption from requirement to register for agricultural compound or class”, and it goes through how that happens. Then, at subsection (4), there’s “Preconditions to granting exemption”, and it’s that “The Director-General may grant an exemption under this section only if satisfied that—”, and so we have: “(a) the exemption is not inconsistent with the purpose of this Act”. I refer to my second reading speech just now, to the purpose of the Act, which goes to risks associated with agricultural compounds, those being: risk to trade, risk to animal welfare, risk to agricultural security, to domestic food residue, and consumer information. That purpose in the Act doesn’t change.

I am interested in this issue of the environment, and we’ll come to this later when we’re at clause 40. The reading of that purpose—the word “environment” is not there. However, if you are concerned about trade in primary produce, then presumably there is some relationship with the environment there. We do have trade agreements that talk about the environment, for instance, the ones with the European Union and the United Kingdom. So trade is there; environment is related to trade and, also, agricultural security. Is there a space for the environment within the purpose? That’s one question.

My next question is at (4)(b), which states that the exemption can be granted, but only if: “(i) the likely cost of assessing and registering the agricultural compound … outweighs the likely risks”. I’ve missed out a few words there, but—so this is 8AA(4)(b)(i). This seems to be an example of where cost can override risks, because it’s “outweighs the likely risks”. This is of course an interesting philosophical point—and I know that the Minister’s party is particularly interested in looking at costs. So my question is: who are the costs to? Is it the cost to society? Is it the cost to the individual applicant? Is it the cost to—going back to the purpose—other people who trade in primary produce? Is it the cost to animal welfare? Can she tell us more about the costs, and who they are to? I might leave those questions there and see if the Minister’s got any responses, then I can move on.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. Look, I think I can tuck away, hopefully, the new section 8AA(4)(b) question about where the likely cost is borne. It is in the wording at (i), where it says: “the likely cost of assessing and registering the agricultural compound … under this subpart outweighs the likely risks”. So that is a cost of assessing and registering.

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: But to whom?

Well, that would be to the person assisting and registering, because somebody is not doing the assessing and registering if they’re not doing the assessing and registering. So I think it seems relatively straightforward. In terms of the other questions that Rachel Brooking has had, in regards to whether or not there is space for the environmental considerations: the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act regulates environmental considerations.

In regards to her earlier contribution, regarding the registration of trade name products and the term “registered”: the terms “registered” and “trade name product” can be read together and should be read together. Only “TNP” can be registered.

Committee of the whole House

Sorry, just that last one: was it “TNP”, and does that stand for “trade name product”? She’s saying that only trade name products can be registered, nothing else can be registered, and that is why they are read together? The officials are nodding.

Hon Brooke van Velden: Yes, then that would be correct.

Thank you. Better to use the words, even if I am guilty of acronyms—so no shade on anybody.

Just going back to that cost question then, the cost of assessing and registering, that it’s still the cost to who—is that the cost to the regulator or is it the cost to the applicant? So: broader or narrower? That’s the question there.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m also on Part 1, and in the “Main amendments”—clause 4, section 2 amendments—the current wording has: “approved form means a form that is approved by the Director-General”. We’re on page 6, here. The Minister just pointed out that the definition of “environment” relates to that in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill, which is a non-helpful point to make, because there is a close relationship between these two bills—which is one of the reasons they both came to the select committee at the same time. It is certainly my view that, in due course, it would be a good idea for us as a Parliament to work out how to combine these two pieces of legislation. That would certainly assist with the large amount of overlap and complexity. Part of that overlap is between—and that will be drawn out through the course of this committee stage, I hope—where an agricultural compound is also a genetically modified organism. The process by which it gets approved through the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act before it can then be approved by the agricultural compounds Act.

For clarifying the definition of “environment”, I have an Amendment Paper tabled for clause 4. That after clause 4(1), we insert the words—simply—“environment has the same meaning as in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996”. That would go to the exact point the Minister just made, but it is not actually articulated in the legislation. So I’d appreciate, given that she’s made the point herself, that we could actually put it in black and white. That would not be a particularly controversial thing to do, but it would certainly clarify what the definition of “environment” is.

My second question is on clause 5, where, under (2)(aa)(a), there is now inserted “an assessment of the compound and consent for its use in research or for obtaining further information to decide whether it should be registered as a trade name product, subject to specifically imposed conditions:”. I wonder, because this question of research may come up in other parts of the bill, but it is pertinent because one of the things—that has only just been revealed to us through an Official Information Act request that landed this weekend just gone—is that, indeed, through a combination of this Act in its existing form, not in this amended form, obviously, there has been the release of an agricultural compound in the form of a field trial of a substance that had a double-stranded RNA component, which is being trialled as a solution to varroa mites—an admirable cause, let’s not question that. But there are questions around whether that should have been more properly classified as a genetically modified organism and gone through the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act before it got approved through the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act.

My question is to ask the Minister to expand on the intention and the reason for this amendment in clause 5(2), and the other component of that is whether it should be registered as a trade name product. Could she please explain what the circumstances are around which products are or are not registered as trade name products and why that might be an important thing to do?

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just ticking off the last question from Rachel Brooking in terms of who the costs are in relation to the risks: the costs are directly related to the assessment applicant. Thank you very much.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start with a question on clause 5, noting that clauses 9 and 10 are the more substantial bits. Clause 5, “Section 4A amended”, basically introduces a new scheme of the Act, and it’s specifically around the research element. What isn’t clear is with clause 5, subclause (2), when we’re talking about research: could the Minister clarify if the research restricts to in vitro or also includes in vivo? As in, when we’re looking at research, is it purely within a laboratory environment or would that research of that compound and testing be able to be done in, I guess, living organisms, which also means in public spaces, on plants, on animals, etc.? That is important from the perspective that if it’s done in vivo, you are potentially looking at like a more stringent requirement around risks of cross-contamination. I do want to check with the Minister on that particular clarification.

I’m going to move on to clause 9, knowing that others may have other questions. So clause 9 is the replacement for section 8, and I may have additional questions; I’m just trying to compare what some of the changes are. But I want to check in terms of a broader question—when we’re looking at agricultural compounds into New Zealand is when we’re looking at imports and exports. Can I just check whether the Ministry for Primary Industries or anyone else have had a conversation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade around whether a lot of the things and the changes we’re making is in line with our existing trade obligations under various trade agreements? And particularly when we’re looking at a trade-named product, how would then certain jurisdictions and intellectual property be involved as a part of that?

My final question just on this particular part is that for certain trade agreements, we have a specific requirement around place of origin, in terms of ingredients, in terms of compounds. I just want to check in terms of whether even the labelling standards and requirements are also met as a part of this with our various trade agreements. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to touch on clause 10, under the exemptions from registration section. With this new exemption from requirement to register for agricultural compound or class, I’m interested to know, because this is all new, just following on from this, the reasoning—obviously I can understand some reasons for this, but I’d be interested to know if there’s been any work done on how many exemptions the Minister might expect to be granted each year under this new exemption framework. Because it would be interesting to know how this thinking came about to make this framework part of the legislation.

The other part that I want to ask about is around new section 8AAB, “Requirements relating to records, returns, and information”. Now, one of the changes that were, I think, made in the legislation was that it had to be notified to make it a bit more open and transparent—perhaps why something was exempted or not. I’m interested to know, when that information is made publicly available about exemption decisions, is the Minister sure, or what precautions will be taken, to make sure that the information around the decision when it’s published is sufficiently transparent, but still protecting the commercially sensitive information that’s been supplied by the applicants? Because I think that’s really important to know.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I was just wanting to go back to trying to find the original legislation, actually, because I’m referring to clause 10, new section 8AA, and coming down to subclause (4)(a), and this is regarding exemptions that may be granted by the director-general. An exemption may be granted if “the exemption is not inconsistent with the purpose of this Act as set out in section 4;”. The Minister may be able to clarify that for me, because I’ve kind of gone back to section 4 in the bill here and can’t find it. As I’ve said in my earlier speech, I’m a little wary and I do want to make sure that the objectives of the bill are clearly laid out in front of the House now, so that we are assured that this is not the—and could the Minister say if this is for the efficient processing and registration of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines? Or is it for the growth and progress of the New Zealand agriculture and horticultural sectors? Or is it for the management of the medicines themselves? I think it is really important that the Minister take the opportunity to clarify what is the purpose of the Act and what will it be when this bill is passed.

I then go to another question that I have of subclause (b), and it’s been raised by my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking around cost. An exemption can be provided if “At least one of the following applies: (i) the likely cost of assessing and registering the agricultural compound, or agricultural compounds of the relevant class, under this subpart outweighs the likely risks from the use of the agricultural compound, or those … compounds,”. The question is of cost to who, and I know that was a question asked by my colleague. Does the cost extend out to the point I made earlier around the cost to the environment or to the wider community or to the sector and industry if something should get out of control and we have some residues picked up in some export? So it’s a question around the extent of the cost assessment, raised by my colleague, but, actually, I want to hear an explanation. And then you come back to clarity—absolute clarity—on the purpose of the Act and the purpose of the Act subsequent to the changes from this bill.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. Look, I’ll take the contribution by the Hon Damien O’Connor first in regards to what is the overall purpose of the bill. I mentioned this in passing in the second reading speech, which is that the products that we are talking about within this bill are newer pesticides and things that are safer to use in the country, and ultimately this will lead to a greater access to newer and safer products that can be used on farms or by people raising cattle, or even in domestic circumstances. However, it also has the additional purpose here of keeping our produce at export quality, and so there is, I guess, a double win-win here, where we are accessing newer and safer products, but in doing so, that actually helps us grow our export quality and have that at a higher and better standard. So that is that part of the contribution.

Second to that, there was also the question, once again, about costs, and I will just go back to the original contribution I made to the Hon Rachel Brooking, that in regards to the particular section the member was referring to, the costs are directly related to assessment applicants.

Going back to Steve Abel’s original contribution regarding his Amendment Paper and whether or not we should insert a definition for “environment” within this law, the Government won’t be doing that. We won’t be adopting that Amendment Paper. Inserting that definition into this Act, or bill as it is at the moment, would imply that the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act has some role in regulating environmental risk; whereas I mentioned before that there is a space for environmental considerations but that is in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act—that regulates environmental considerations.

Steve Abel also wished to go into a little bit more detail regarding the circumstances around trade name products. The definition of “trade name product” is within the Act. A product needs to meet the test for registration in section 21 to be considered for registration.

Lawrence Xu-Nan had a contribution in regard to whether or not research is restricted to in vitro or to living organisms, and the response to this is that the applicant themselves would decide on the scope for their trials for the particular product or agricultural compound. However, it is then up to the approval process, during the application process, as to how broad that scope would actually end up being.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also asked whether or not the Ministry for Primary Industries had talked to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade around alignment with trade agreements. Yes, I can confirm that that did happen in the same way it happens with laws that do pass through Government processes. That was a consideration that was made.

There was also a contribution by Damien O’Connor regarding, I believe, section 54 about whether or not it’s an efficient process or about growth of management of medicines. The purpose of the overall Act itself has not changed. But I did discuss the wider purpose, I believe, of the intent. Damien O’Connor also did talk about whether or not the costs extended to the environment, to the sector, or to the public. No—it is, once again, about the cost to the applicant.

Then we had a contribution—I think it may have been by Jo Luxton; I’m not exactly sure if I can remember—about how many exemptions are expected under the new regime. The numbers are very variable, so it’s not possible to provide numbers at this stage, but that was also the situation under the current regulations.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, I will go to the Minister’s answer where she said the wider purpose or intent is for safer products to be enabled. That doesn’t come through in the unchanged purpose of the Act, and I was wondering if she thinks there would be some room to specify that in fact that is the purpose—to enable safer products to be registered in New Zealand. I can’t see that anywhere in the legislation before us, and if that is the Government’s intent, then it would be good to have that in the law. So that’s one question.

My second question goes back to the cost issue, and she has answered that the word “cost” there is the cost to the applicant. So that means that if it’s going to be too expensive for an applicant, then they don’t have to bother. That’s what her answer means: “Oh, sorry. The applicant says this is going to cost lots of money.” so an exemption can be granted if that cost outweighs the likely risk. This seems to be an unusual way to make a law, and I’m wondering if the Minister can give any other examples in a regulatory process where because the applicant is going to have a cost burden, they can avoid the registration process. That is my second question.

My third question is, again, on clause 10, on new section 8AA about exemptions, and I’m talking about subsection (4)(b)(ii)—I was at subparagraph (i); now I’m at subparagraph (ii)—and it says that another reason for an exemption can be that the compounds are already adequately managed by restrictions that apply under another Act to that substance or those substances. Is the most likely of those other Acts the Hazardous Substance and New Organisms Act (HSNO Act)? That would be useful to know because we know that—but, then, if it is HSNO, why does it need to be specified there? Could it also be the Resource Management Act (RMA) or the other statutes that it is anticipated would meet that test of already adequately managing the restrictions, noting that the Minister has said that this Act, this amendment and the principal Act, are not about the environment?

So if the HSNO Act and the RMA are there to protect the environment, that doesn’t, under her logic, have anything to do with the Agricultural and Veterinary Medicines Act or this bill. So would that, then, mean that those Acts don’t adequately manage the restrictions because they don’t go to trade, animal welfare, agricultural security, domestic food residue, and sufficient consumer information? That’s my third question. I’ll keep going, Madam Chair. I see that the select committee has made a change—that the reasons for granting an exception must be published. That’s a good change.

Now, I’m going over the page to my fourth question, which is about clause 16. This is replacing the heading to section 12 of the Act with “Public notification under section 14: information involving trade secrets, etc, to be withheld”. Then there is some repeal of the sections there. I would like the Minister to comment on who the information is being withheld from. Is it simply that if there is an Official Information Act request—and that is what section 12 of the Act applies to, as I can see when I look at it here. Is it simply to say that under the Official Information Act, if there is a trade secret, then information can be withheld, or does it go wider than that? That is my fourth question.

My fifth and last question in this contribution is on clause 18. I’m referring to subclause (4), which says “After section 15(3), insert:”, and this is about new subsection (4) of section 15—in clause 18—and it says, “The Director-General may waive the requirement to publicly notify an application under section 14 if, in the Director-General’s opinion,—(a) an emergency has arisen that involves risks to public health, risks to trade in primary produce, risks to animal welfare, or risks to agricultural security; and (b) the trade name product that is the subject of the application is likely to be required for use in that emergency.”

My question here is about the use of the word “likely”. I understand that emergencies happen and it’s important to be able to respond to them. But does the Minister consider that “likely” is a strong enough protection against the risks of an unregistered product being used because there’s an emergency? I know it’s only to waive the notification but, presumably, there will be groups that know about these things and might have an opinion, so would she consider using a different term that is stronger than “likely to be required”? So, you know, it’s like, “We really, really need to use this stuff to fix the emergency, not that we just might not want to.”

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just say that we seem to have got stuck back at the beginning. This bill has been through a select committee process, so when we’re getting down to scrutinising semantics and wording, I think we’re getting too far into the weeds. So I do encourage members to keep moving forward.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to ask a question around clause 19, new section 16, the “Time limits relating to applications”. Now, I understand that we hear, quite often, that farmers and growers need access to, whether it be chemical compounds or veterinary medicines, in a timely manner. So I’m just interested to know, but I have a couple of questions with regard to this section here. What reduction, if any, in average approval times, does the Minister expect because of these reforms? I think that’s something that the wider public might be interested in knowing.

Then it talks about “The Director-General must decide the application within any period determined in accordance with the regulations.” This is the date for deciding the application. How is the Minister going to ensure that the pressure, if any, needed to meet certain time frames doesn’t compromise the quality and robustness of safety assessments? And what assurance can the Minister provide that faster approvals, if any, won’t come at the expense of maintaining strong domestic scientific expertise and toxicology, ecology, risk assessment, and regulatory science? And what benefits, on time frames, does the Minister expect to deliver for biological products specifically, and will the new framework provide a faster or more proportionate pathway for lower risk biologicals compared with conventional agrochemicals?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Mark Mitchell.

💬 Hon Mark Patterson: Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Oh, sorry, Mark Patterson—getting my Marks mixed up, apologies.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I know we’ve had a change with the Chair—the previous Chair talked about getting into the weeds, but that’s exactly what we have to do here. This is a very complex piece of legislation which has quite wide ramifications.

I’m just on clause 10, new section 8AA(2)—this issue around the exemptions. We’ve got a very real issue here, where we’ve had a double-stranded RNA treatment on varroa mite that, only through an Official Information Act request, have we found out about. We found out there’s something like 103 such trials of these, sort of, novel compounds that are going on, seemingly, without much oversight from the public.

Now, we’re convinced that that this is an issue with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO) primarily, but that’s where this exemption issue becomes quite critical. How deeply is this exemption going to be able to be applied? I’m keen to understand that in a real-world sense because, OK, we’re talking here about the ability to exempt classes of agricultural compounds. So that double-stranded RNA are used—in this case, for treatment for varroa mite on honey bees—if that becomes a class exemption, if a similar technology is used for a spray on to pastures to get rid of pests, what checks and balances are going to be used here? I just can’t see it. How are we going to capture that it’s going to be a case by case basis that takes into account—obviously, bees and cows and sheep are very different biological species—how that novel synthetic protein or whatever it is will interact? That’s how complex this stuff is; it it’s really complex: how they interact with each other will be totally different.

So I’m just concerned, here, that we’ve opened this to class exemptions where we need to have very careful checks and balances to make sure it’s case by case. I’d like some assurances, please, that this is, in fact, exactly what it’s going to deliver and we’re not going to open a door slightly, you know, and have a lot of stuff come through that, perhaps, has not—there might be some unintended consequences to that. So I’d like some assurances there, please.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. I’ll start with the latest contribution by Mark Patterson regarding his concerns around clause 10, new section 8AA, relating to the exemptions and whether or not that would enable the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO) to be bypassed, especially when it comes to different forms of treatment. Look, the research trials are not unrestricted commercial use. They’re not for unrestricted commercial use. An approval is required under HSNO before the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) regime has any say. And so, therefore, I can give the member a form of comfort that the exemption clauses do not open up the risk that he has been referring to.

In regards to some of the earlier contributions by Rachel Brooking, she had a number of questions. Firstly, in regards to clause 10, new section 8AA(4)(b)(ii) For the reasons for exemption if the risk is adequately managed: this is the same test as currently applied for exemptions set out in regulations, and it is rare that there would be another Act adequately managing those risks.

Her second contribution was in regards to the term “likely” in exemptions for trade name products that were likely to be needed for an emergency. The term “likely” is a term that is well-understood within law and the Government is satisfied that the wording here is appropriate.

Her third question and contribution was in regards to whether or not we had examples where the cost burden can be exempt from registration. There are other examples of legislation where costs of complying do exceed benefits and then this, therefore, leads to exemptions under law. A clear example of this is the Organic Products and Production Act.

The fourth contribution is “would there be room to specify the purpose is safer products?” Look, the ACVM and the HSNO are complementary Acts and bills, and they ensure that all products on the market will have their risks managed appropriately. Therefore, we don’t believe, as a Government, that there is any need to be specifying the purpose for safer products.

The fifth contribution was in regards to the trade secrets, which was in regards to clause 11B—not exactly sure at this stage—oh, sorry, clause 16. And that was: trade secrets are the primary reason for this clause.

In regards to the contribution by Jo Luxton around shorter time frames and does that mean, potentially, less complete assessments—no, moving time frames does not change the statutory requirement to assess and manage the relevant risks.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister, for your responses there. One of your early responses I want to pick up on is that you did actually mention, in one of your answers, that pesticides are an example—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just the use of the word “you” and “your”.

Pardon me, Mr. Chair. I apologise for that.

The Minister did mention, in one of her answers, that pesticides were an example of an agricultural compound. Now, this, I think, is part of the challenge for the public and certainly part of the challenge for us, as a Parliament, getting our heads around what is captured in this Act and what is not captured by this Act. So going to the actual definition, in the original Act, of agricultural compounds—and I certainly will not suffer the committee to have to hear the entire thing read out—does start by saying “any substance, mixture of substances, or biological compound, used or intended for use in the direct management of plants and animals, or to be applied to the land, place, or water on or in which the plants and animals are managed, for the purposes of—managing or eradicating pests, including vertebrate pests;”—and it goes on with a whole bunch of other things. That seems, to me, a very significant catch-all of just about every blimmin thing you could do on the land with a chemical or a substance or a compound. You said pesticides would be captured by that. That seems an obvious interpretation of the idea that it’s going to be used for the management or eradication of pests, including vertebrate pests. My question is: are there any herbicides captured by this legislation, or do herbicides sit exclusively in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act? I just would love to have some clarity on that.

Then my next question is around Subpart 2, where there are restrictions on importation manufacture, and that includes this question of exemptions. I’m in Subpart 2, section 8(3) amended by clause 9. “A person may sell an agricultural compound within New Zealand only if the agricultural compound is a registered trade name product; or is exempt from registration under section 8AA”.

I noticed on the Ministry for Primary Industries website, where it sets out to define in layperson’s terms what is captured as an agricultural compound, that it says “Substances that could be used as agricultural compounds”, for example—I should read the whole thing; it’s not that long. “They can be used as they are without further manufacture or modification, and they have a stated purpose fitting the ACVM definition. For example, if you bought a bag [of] ‘zinc sulphate’ without a stated use, it would not be an agricultural compound. If the same bag”—I insert in brackets for clarity: of the same substance, zinc sulphate—“had a label stating it is ‘for use on farm animals to treat foot-rot’, it would be an agricultural compound.”

Now, that seems very surprising to me, Minister, because you’re saying the very same substance without a label is not captured by the bill. But if it’s got a label that says you’re going to use it for foot-rot, it is captured. Can you please clarify if that definition remains correct in these amendments, or whether these amendments are actually tightening up so that you can’t just have an unlabelled substance in a package? And so long as it remains unlabelled, it can avoid the scrutiny of the regulation, which obviously would be concerning to us. Thank you.

💬 Rachel Boyack: Madam Chair!

Committee of the whole House

Mr Chair—

💬 Rachel Boyack: Oh, Mr Chair. Sorry.

I want to move to clause 20, section 20 on amending “have regard to” to “take into account”, and I’m interested to hear the Minister in the chair’s reasoning for changing that wording specifically. I imagine the public will be as well, because I would have thought that “having regard to” would have been sufficient enough rather than having to “take into account”.

Can the Minister provide examples of circumstances where a recognised overseas regulator has approved a product, but the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries would have declined registration in New Zealand due to the previous clause that says “have regard to” rather than “take into account”? Because I think it’s important for us to understand why the Minister for Food Safety felt it so essential to change that.

Can the Minister also provide an example of a circumstance where a recognised overseas regulator has approved a product, but the director-general would have declined registration in New Zealand because of New Zealand - specific risks or concerns? Submitters raised concerns—and we did talk about this in our speeches—about the reliance on overseas assessments, that they might weaken New Zealand - specific scrutiny of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines. I wonder if the Minister could tell us what safeguards exist within clause 20 to ensure that local ecological primary production and biosecurity considerations continue to take precedence where overseas assessments do not well reflect different climatic conditions or farming systems.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Apologies for misgendering you earlier—I hadn’t clocked the change in Chair. Just on Part 1, I have a couple of questions for the Minister in the chair on clause 21, so this is the new section 20A inserted, “Recognition of overseas regulators for purposes of section 20(aa)”. Slightly different questions to my colleague Jo Luxton.

My first question is in new section 20A(1) it says that “The Director-General may declare that a person in another jurisdiction is a recognised overseas regulator for the purposes of section 20(aa).” I’m interested in this use of the word “person”, and I’d be grateful if the Minister could put on the Hansard for us what the definition of a person is. What this this clause does—for those watching at home—is it allows New Zealand to recognise that another jurisdiction has approved a compound or a medicine and therefore make the same application in New Zealand. But I am interested in that use of the word “person” as opposed to an agency or an organisation or Government organisation. Or is it a broader use of the word “person”, so the word “person” as opposed to a named individual or a named role? So it could be the name of someone who is the senior person in a regulator similar to what is in this law, which is the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries is the person making the decisions. Or is it a broader use of the word “person”, as in a legal personhood type situation? I just would like to get some clarity on that particular part.

Then I just had some questions around (3A), which is the new piece added in by the Primary Production Committee, which states that “The Director-General must review the declaration at intervals not exceeding 10 years.” I’m just interested in why 10 years was chosen as the time frame, not a shorter time frame of, say, five years. Ten years does seem like a lengthy time frame for that review of a declaration to be determined. I’d just be interested in some explanations from the Minister about whether other time frames were considered and why 10, because it does seem to be quite a lengthy period of time. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I just want to move on to new section 8AA(5), added by clause 10: “The Director-General may grant an exemption under this section only if (a) the Director-General has done everything reasonably practicable to consult the organisations that the Director-General considers represent the persons who will or may be affected by the exemption;”.

We’ve got a little bit of subjectivity into the piece of legislation. I guess a clear explanation, given that the cost estimate—as the Minister in the chair said before—is one based on the cost to the applicant, not the cost to anyone else, so that’s a somewhat subjective judgement. Then we move on to practicability—that’s one—and then the persons who may be affected. There are three critical areas of assessment that this bill will allow as making change on the basis that it makes more efficient the process of application, but in my view opens the door to further risk. “Everything reasonably practicable” in a changing role of communication is something that maybe the Minister can give us an answer to what she considers as “practicable”.

Then “the persons who will or may be affected”: is that just the present farmers or horticulturalists, is it just the company that has made the application, or is it the distribution system that will, I guess, sell this? Or is it indeed future farmers who may be affected by some impact on the country’s reputation because we’ve made a mistake, or that there’s an MRL—maximum residue level—assessment that needs to be undertaken.

So my questions for the Minister are around “practicable” as a term and then the definition or who should decide “the persons who will be affected” that would allow an exemption.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I will start with the contributions from Steve Abel regarding whether or not the definition of herbicides are captured within the definitions of “agricultural compounds”. I can confirm that, yes, herbicides are captured as they are a subset of pesticides.

The second contribution from Steve Abel was in regards to substances being registered versus non-registered for specific purposes, and if a label doesn’t capture a specific use, would it not be covered by the Act? The note that I have from my officials is that salt is a great example to be used here. So salt is a known risk. However, the bill does not change that, but it would manage that, I guess, if it was registered for that particular use. But we don’t need to register salt or everything.

So the next contribution, then, was from Rachel Boyack, and she asked for the definition of “person”. Look, this is a well understood legal term. It applies to legal persons. I’d refer the member to the Legislation Act, where she’ll find the specific mention there. Rachel Boyack also referred to safeguards for biosecurity. The safeguards for biosecurity remain unchanged by this bill.

Jo Luxton then had a contribution in regards to “have regard to” versus “take into account”. I’m advised that this was actually a response that came through by the Primary Production Committee rather than the Government. My understanding is that this was changed through responding to submitters’ concerns, and in part recommendation 2 of the departmental report, where “take into account” puts beyond doubt that the director-general must actively consider all relevant information, including assessments of recognised overseas regulators when evaluating the risks and benefits of a product. It does not require the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to accept the overseas regulator’s conclusions, but this change clarifies that applicable overseas assessments must be considered alongside all other relevant statutory matters.

The subsequent question was: can MPI reach a different decision from an overseas regulator? Yes, I can confirm that is the case. MPI may reach a different conclusion where New Zealand law, evidence, or local conditions support a different decision.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I’m trying to share it around.

Just for clarity, I only have the opportunity now to also respond to some of the questions by the Minister in the chair, in terms of my previous question. So I am going back just slightly.

Minister, you mentioned that it is up to the person or anyone who is doing the research in assessing, for obtaining further information regarding a particular scheme. Sorry, I am going to cause 5. It’s up to them, but can I just check that that also then includes that any assessment will have a risk assessment around cross contamination.

I’m going to just go forward a little bit. Now, picking up on what the Minister said before, I do want to check that when the Minister says “salt”, the Minister specifically refers to sodium chloride, because “salt”, as a basic ionic compound, could also potentially be toxic, right? We could have heavy metal salt. So I just want to double-check that the Minister means sodium chloride.

We are asking a lot of questions here because there’s no regulatory impact statement for this bill. So a lot of the things and the risks that we are asking kind of manifested through the committee stage and this is the only chance we have to really engage with the Minister on this.

I really want to kind of tease out a particular example with the Minister regarding the exemption of class of agricultural compounds. This is new section 8AA(1), inserted by clause 10. Now, I want to acknowledge what the Hon Mark Patterson has said regarding some of the risks around this.

The example I want to give is, let’s say, for example, organochlorines. Although it’s a little bit outdated, it’s probably an area that most people are familiar with. This is something that we have seen reports here in New Zealand on, around the persistent organochlorines in our soil and air and water systems. They are considered a class of compound or agricultural compound. But each of them—so whether you’re looking at dioxins, whether you’re looking at PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, or whether you’re looking at the more commonly known dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, or DDT, they interact differently. Again, their risk to the environment and to the human body also works differently.

So when the director-general exempted a class of agricultural compounds, are they required to know whether each of those individual potential compounds within that whole class would interact with the human body or with the environment, and how would they determine the long-term impact of some of those compounds? So, for example, it wasn’t until much later on that we saw some of the harmful aspects and the toxicity around DDT, and then it stopped being used. So it’s a long-term impact, and I think it’s also important to get clarification on, in terms of the exemption.

Finally, I want to check with the Minister—and I think this is something that the Hon Damien O’Connor kind of touched on—in terms of new section 8AA(5). But I actually want to focus on new section 8AA(6), because there seems to be a mechanism where the director-general can bypass the process for an exemption if it’s been granted urgently. But so far, from what I’ve heard—please correct me if I’m wrong—there’s been no clarification from the Minister on what then would be considered to be urgent by the director-general to be able to bypass that process under subclause 6.

So those are my three, maybe four, questions—if the Minister wouldn’t mind quickly clarifying the question on the salt as well.

Committee of the whole House

Just a little question. I don’t have more questions until we get to clause 40, where I’ve got a number of tabled amendments. But relating to that is this word “sale”: in clause 9 here, new Subpart 2, “Main controls on importation, manufacture, sale, or use of agricultural compounds”, if we look at the definitions in the primary legislation, it says “sale includes barter, and also includes offering, exposing, or attempting to sell, or having in possession for sale, or sending or delivering for sale, or causing or allowing to be sold, offered, or exposed for sale; and also includes—”—and this is the interesting bit—“(a) delivering or disposing of by way of gift, loan, or otherwise; and (b) giving or distributing, in the course of business”—oh, that bit might have been deleted; I’m working off an old copy of the Act—“giving or distributing, in the course of business, as a sample or otherwise, without charge”.

The issue here is that that definition of “sale” is very wide and it includes things where there is no commercial exchange at all. So I was wondering if the Minister has considered or would consider an amendment to that “sale”, or wants to make some comment about why it is that that definition needs to be so wide. This is relevant to an amendment that I have in a later clause, in clause 40, about trying to use some language around where sale isn’t for commercial gain.

So just a general question on “sale” and “sale” being so wide to include giving away, which is not commercial, whether she thinks it would be better to change the definition so that “sale” is just about commercial gain, and then add in a gifting provision as well. Or if it’s for some reason more useful just to bundle the two up together—I just don’t understand the rationale for bundling up a non-commercial gifting with commercial sale. That’s the question there.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. In regards to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question about salt, which is my favourite contribution of the morning so far.

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: Aw!

I know, I know. Come on, guys, you gotta ask more questions about salt, clearly. No, this is a serious topic. This is about whether or not salt is defined as sodium chloride. Yes, yes, that was what my officials were talking about. Many compounds that can be used can simply be bought from supermarkets and we as a Government do not propose to regulate who can buy salt.

When it comes to the contribution from Damien O’Connor, he had questions in regards to consultation and what would be reasonably practicable for consultation and who are the persons who may be affected and consulted. Examples of what would be deemed reasonably practicable would be contact with peak bodies, public notification, and Ministry for Primary Industries stakeholder lists. “Affected persons” is a good-faith test with discretion in the same way as applies using the existing test within the Act.

Rachel Brooking then also had a contribution in regards to the definition of “sale”. She believes the definition is wide and would it be better to amend it? Look, the definition is wide because under the Food Act, people can try to use any excuse to bypass regulation by saying that they aren’t selling. We do not propose to amend this.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to pick up on clause 20, the evaluation of risks and benefits—sorry, this is on page 12 of the bill if you’re looking—because this is such a critical part of the bill. I mean, my understanding is that there has been a change at the Primary Production Committee which is really beneficial in terms of more specific language being proposed here, changing “have regard to” to “take into account”, which we really support. But my question was about the director-general taking into account the recognised overseas regulators. I’m wondering in what ways does this replace or change existing requirements to evaluate risks and benefits explicitly in relation to manufacture and use in New Zealand? My understanding is that there are existing requirements and that that would be changed more directly for the director-general to take these into account. I’m really interested to understand that.

Then it goes on in clause 20 by inserting new section 20(aa), which requires these assessments from recognised overseas regulators when evaluating these risks. Are there specific frameworks or methodologies, I guess, that the director-general then takes to undertake this consideration, or are there sections in the bill where that is very clearly spelt out about what those methodologies or undertakings are?

Then my next question is on clause 21. This is the insertion of new section 20A. It talks about the declaration process itself, including public notification, consultation, and consideration of submissions. The whole point of that is presumably to ensure greater transparency. Some of our main concerns with this bill are that it does not specifically have any provisions for the consultation of iwi Māori. I’m interested in the public notification around that aspect. Is that purely a general public notification, or is there an ability within that for the director-general, for example, to assess what the actual implications are for the specific substance or compound and therefore then make some really clear decisions around that and specifications so that particular mana whenua or iwi and hapū could actually be specifically consulted on that, or is it simply a general public notification?

Then I’m interested in whether the provisions themselves within clause 20 allow sort of like automatic acceptance of overseas assessments or whether those are purely still a case by case basis. For example, we know how detailed these assessments often need to be. Sometimes we’re talking years and years of research and methodology to actually assess these things. Would there, for example, be a case for the director-general to do like a grouping or use an overseas regulator and set up more like a framework where they would say, for example, we would take this group of substances because they’ve all been approved by that company or whatever entity is actually involved?

Then finally, I’m interested in the reduction of duplication in terms of scientific assessments, particularly for, I guess, potentially less risky compounds, so like companion animal products or other non-food compounds. What are the different requirements based on the actual category? Like, do different categories have different methodologies that the director-general has to undertake or not? Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister of Internal Affairs for her fulsome answers to our questions. My questions are related to clause 21 in a more broad sense with regard to recognition of overseas regulators. I’m just wondering if there’s been any thought given or analysis or thinking around whether the recognition of overseas regulators could disproportionately benefit larger multinational applicants that already hold overseas approvals compared to smaller New Zealand developers, Māori enterprises, and niche industries. Also how will the Government maintain and grow New Zealand’s domestic scientific capability if overseas assessments are used more extensively under the new regime, or is there a chance that overseas assistance may well be used more extensively? How will this bill improve biological products developed in New Zealand, particularly where these products do not already have approvals from recognised overseas regulators?

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. Look, I’ll take the contributions by Lan Pham first. In relation to consultation with iwi Māori and regarding general consultation or whether it will be specific, the Government, including the Ministry for Primary Industries, does its best to identify stakeholders, which includes Māori.

Lawrence Xu-Nan then had a contribution regarding organochlorines. A number of organochlorines are prohibited to be manufactured, imported, sold, or used as agricultural compounds under Schedule 1 in the agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines exemptions and prohibited substances regulations.

In regards to the other contribution by Lan Pham about whether or not overseas decisions would be accepted automatically or if it’s done on a case by case basis, no, the bill does not provide for automatic acceptance of an overseas assessment or approval. It would still need to be done on a case by case basis.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also had a query about clause 8AA(6) and what is considered urgent when bypassing the exemption clauses. This would be for biosecurity situations as an example. He also queried classes of compounds and whether or not the director-general is required to understand how every effect of a compound would work in this particular class. Understanding of the class of compounds is in terms of a—I’m sorry, I can’t actually read that particular bit of writing, so I’ll come back to that.

I will come back to clause 5. Will there be a risk assessment for cross-contamination? Cross-contamination is considered as part of the risk assessment in relation to the risks under the Act.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the conversation we’re having now around how we practically implement the recognition of overseas regulators, because this is an important question, and it did come up in part at the Primary Production Committee around the risks to regulatory sovereignty for us of the extent to which we take on board determinations made in other jurisdictions. One of the obvious challenges, which the Minister hasn’t yet clarified for us, not that it’s necessarily been specifically asked, is that where we have these recognised overseas regulators—and I think it would be useful for the committee if the Minister could outline who those recognised overseas regulators are, which specific regulators she is talking about. But they don’t agree on how a particular compound should be regulated.

One very obvious example, and it’s useful that the Minister has pointed out that herbicides and pesticides are covered by this legislation, is the one I mentioned in my opening speech, atrazine. Atrazine is a substance which is legally used in the United States. It is banned in the European Union. Now, that’s an existing example. It’s legally used in New Zealand, so we are taking the lowest bar on regulation of that substance, and we are an outlier in terms of the 40 nations around the world that have actually banned the use of that substance.

My question is: will we, in accepting the determination of an overseas regulator, take the one with the highest bar or will we take the one with the lowest bar? That seems to me to be a very important question as to whom we are taking most into account in deregulation of scrutiny over some of these chemicals and substances. That’s my first question.

The other question I have, and I’m not exactly sure where it fits, but I think it probably could be in these sections 20 and 20A, and perhaps the Minister can expand on this, is: do these amendments have any determination or opinion on the processes around removal of toxic chemicals from the existing register of approved substances? The reason I ask that is because one of the strong cases made for this liberalisation of the regulatory framework is that it will facilitate our access to supposedly less harmful and less toxic substances and so-called biologicals. But the corollary of that is: are we reducing the number of toxic substances in that list of available ones or are we just adding to it? Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to move on to clause 40, but I know that my friend Lawrence Xu-Nan has probably got more questions based on fifth-form chemistry—that’s ageing me, not him—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We’re going through the whole periodic table today, guys.

—on earlier parts of the bill.

Anyway, on to clause 40. This is the big—oh, I think it’s the biggest—new clause. It’s a big insertion, and it’s where we are—earlier on, there’s been a repeal of the provisions relating to provisional registration, and this provisional registration concept is now being replaced with these consents under clause 40. Those are “Consent to import, etc and use agricultural compounds for research and other purposes”.

There’s been a little bit of back and forth over the past week, and we’ve seen that from New Zealand First, with tabled amendments that have now disappeared—not on the Table anymore, mysteriously untabled. Is that a word—“untabled” amendments?

💬 Hon Mark Patterson: Disappeared.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I’ll allow it.

I’m hearing from the Hon Mark Patterson that they’ve disappeared. However, I had had a look at them and I’ve had a look at the Greens’ amendments as well, and it seems that there is this concern that this “Consent to import, etc” is not used as a back door to avoid the full registration process that we’ve been talking about, and that is the registration process for those trade name products. Everybody seems to agree that the process for trade name products is a big, robust process, and most of the changes aren’t about that big, robust process; they’re about this. My understanding is that these consents that were called “provisional registration” are really for research, and they are very much to work out whether or not you’re going to want to take a product through that big, robust process that I’ve just been talking about.

My first amendment, which is actually the last amendment in my little packet of tabled amendments, is to change the cross-heading. The cross-heading reads, “Consent to import, etc and use agricultural compounds for research and other purposes”, and I have put in the word “related” before “purposes” so it’s “and other related purposes”. This is just a very small amendment to try and demonstrate that these consents are not a back door for the big process and that they are very much for that research and other related purposes, not just other purposes. At the moment, the cross-heading is just “other purposes”, which could be very wide. You could argue that it’s constrained by having the word “research” in front of it, but by putting in the word “related”, as my tabled amendment does—and that was tabled on 17 September at 6.50.06 p.m.—then it would lead to some constraint.

I would like to talk to my other amendments as well, but I’ll start with that one and let the Minister know that my general approach to these amendments has not been to disrupt the whole scheme of the bill or anything like that. I note that Miles Anderson, in his second reading speech, queried why Labour was doing any amendments when, supposedly, he said, we’d voted for the select committee to have a short time—

💬 Miles Anderson: You did.

We did not. He might want to consider that and he might want to come back and apologise, because I have checked the voting record.

My point is that we are not trying to undermine the legislation, but we are trying to give some comfort to people who are concerned that this consent process could be a back door. It’s not a back door. It’s not intended to be a back door. That is why I’ve suggested some tweaks, and this is the first of those tweaks. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

I will tick off the last one I had for Lawrence Xu-Nan before he gets on to another one.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Any chemicals involved?

Well, it was about classes of compounds. Yes. This was in regards to the director-general—is the director-general required to understand how every effect of the compounds happens in a class? Understanding of the class of compounds is in terms of the risks that need to be considered under the Act—is the answer to that query.

In regards to Jo Luxton’s contributions about overseas assessments—could these favour particular multinationals over New Zealand companies? It’s, I don’t believe, quite that simple. Overseas assessments do go both ways. They also benefit New Zealand companies that have done research overseas.

There’s also been a contribution in regards to the overseas assessments, once again, in regards to whether or not they favour a multinational over New Zealand. The system is available to any company, and there are potentially many companies not considered to be multinational that could utilise the system as well.

Steve Abel had a contribution regarding the overseas regulators and what bar we would reach, really, if there were different conclusions. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) will consider each relevant assessment in relation to the New Zealand situation, and MPI will then make its own decisions under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act.

Rachel Brooking has mentioned a multitude of amendments that may be coming, however managed to mainly talk about one. We do thank the member for her amendments. As a Government, we have considered all of them, but, unfortunately for the member, we will not be supporting them, as they do not make material improvements to the bill.

Committee of the whole House

I see the Government members want to close down the debate just as we’re coming to the amendments. But I wonder what New Zealand First will do—if they will vote for a closure motion—after we have heard from the Hon Mark Patterson that this bill is very important and needs close scrutiny. Yet, his Amendment Papers have disappeared. I, of course, am thankful that the Minister has had officials check, look at my amendments, and I’m disappointed that they will not consider them when they are trying to respond to this discomfort. There is time to do them, and that one that I just mentioned is a very small, discreet change.

Anyway, if she’s not going to make the change, can she put on the Hansard what she thinks the scope of “other purposes” is? That is important; that’s why I put “related purposes” in. Can she comment on that? That’s my first question.

Then I will go to a second question, and it also relates to one of my amendments. These are all tabled, Minister. I think you said you might being seeing them; they’ve been on the Table and came in last night.

The next one would at new section 35AA, “Application”, which would be inserted by clause 40. So “a person may apply to the Director-General to—”

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): What’s the time stamp on that Amendment Paper?

17 September, 6.50.05. And it’s referring to the word “sell”. So you’re applying for to consent to import, manufacture, or sell—and I’ve got an amendment there that would say “sell for commercial gain”. That is because we’ve already discussed the definition of “sale”, and that can include gifting. So it’s just really to make the point of why you would be applying for one of these. That may be the wrong place for the amendment; I am no way saying that these are perfect amendments, but that is the point there—she can consider that. I’m more interested in this scope of “other purposes”.

Then we can go to other amendments as well. We have this clause 40 works through the application, the notification of that application, and the period within which that application can be decided, and then there is a decision on the application. I have some amendments around this, just because I think the wording could be clearer. But again, the Minister may provide some Hansard that could be useful on these issues.

So looking at new section 35AAD, which would be inserted by clause 40, that is decision on application. This is on page 21 of the bill. At (1), “the Director-General must identify the risks”—that seems very sensible; I’ve got no changes there. Then at (2), it says “The Director-General must grant the application if the Director-General is satisfied about the risks”. Risks are defined subsequently.

The issue here is the “must grant”. There appears to be no flip side, no requirement that the Minister doesn’t grant at (2). We turn over the page and see at (3), “However, the Director-General must not grant” if it requires a hazardous substance approval.

So what happens if you don’t require—not you, Mr Chair—if the applicant does not require a Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO) approval, so (3) does not apply, and we go back to (2), where is the ability for the director-general to not grant?

I’ve proposed some wording that—what is the wording? “Can only grant”—some change like that. Yes, “may only grant”—and this is at Amendment Paper, date stamped 17 September 2026 at 6.50.04 p.m., and that is just to provide a flip side. There might be another method to have a flip where the HSNO application is irrelevant. So it would be useful for the Minister at least to comment on why that’s not needed and whether or not—where those criteria are not met that that means that the director-general does not have to grant the—

Committee of the whole House

I’d like to tick off a range of contributions. Firstly, to Rachel Brooking, in regards to her Amendment Paper about scope and what is the scope of “other purposes” under new section 35AAD(2)(a). The provision recognises that research and information gathering may support a range of legitimate purposes beyond registration. For example, a company may wish to compare a product it does not intend to register against another product that it intends to register. The activity must still be for research or information gathering and meet the requirements of the Act.

In regards to her other contribution around new section 35AA and the wording of “sell”. The member is quite right to recognise that we have ticked off the definitions of “sale”, and I would refer her to my previous answer. The proposed amendment by the member could increase risks to the bill by opening up a loophole.

Steve Abel also had a contribution that we hadn’t quite covered about toxic pesticides. The risk assessment takes into the level of risk of a product on a case-by-case basis. The Act provides for ability to reassess any registration of trade-named products.

Rachel Brooking also asked what happens if the applicant does not require a Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act approval, can the director-general approve it? There is no requirement for the director-general to grant consent if the test is not met. So we believe that the law is sufficiently covered through this bill without amendment.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 2 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 12.56 p.m. to 2 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the committee is resumed on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. Before the lunch break, we were debating Part 1; it’s the debate on clauses 4 to 76, which are the main amendments. I note from the previous work that’s been done in the committee, we’re around about clause 40 on page 20—is that about where we got to? Rachel Brooking is nodding. So the question is, again, that Part 1 stand part.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I’m on clause 40; some other people might be still getting up to clause 40.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s cool. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan will tell me where he’s up to when he gets up to his call.

He will—he will, indeed, won’t he? But I’m on clause 40. Before the lunch break, the Minister was being helpful with assuaging some of my concerns that I’d been trying to fix via Amendment Paper, and he’d been doing it by responses to me on the Hansard. That is very useful.

I have talked about my amendment to talk about selling for commercial gain, and it might be that I’ve put that in the wrong place, and I can do a Mark Patterson and withdraw my tabled amendment. What I would very much like to hear from the Minister in the chair, though, is about the comfort given to these consents that are not the big robust consents, these are the research consents, that they’re unlikely to be sold for commercial gain. That is what I’m looking for some comfort for: that you wouldn’t expect the research consent to be finding that at the shop to buy; it may be that the person who’s applying for the application will have to have a number of different people using the product to do the research, and to get people to use the product they might have to give them the product to use, and under the definition of “sale”, that counts, but what I’m worried about and what I’m seeking some reassurance on is that these research consents made under this clause 40 won’t be used to sell things for commercial gain, because that would seem to be the process that you’d use for the bigger section 21 of the Act process—the full application, the full robust process. That is one question.

Then, if I move on—also, just on that selling, noting, also, at new section 35AAD of the Act, inserted by clause 40 of the bill, “Decision on application”, it again uses that word “sold”. “The Director-General must grant the application … by imposing conditions on the consent that ensure that—(a) neither of the following is sold, released, or used in any way … other than those for which the consent is granted:”. I don’t understand why it would be sold for commercial gain under this type of application. I understand, obviously, it would be sold for commercial gain under an application made under section 20 of the Act. I thank the member earlier in the chair, who said that the director-general does not have to grant the consent if those conditions are not met; that was useful.

I go over the page, and look at risks. Risks include “(a) risks to public health: (b) risks to trade … : (c) risks to agricultural security: (d) risks to the welfare of animals … [and] (e) risks to domestic food residue standards.” Now, the risks there—this is at new subsection (5)—at (b), (c), (d), and (e) match the purpose of the Act, although they don’t mention consumer information, but paragraph (a) does not; (a) is not found in that purpose of the Act, and that is “risks to public health:”. I believe it’s to do with antimicrobial resistance and there being some gaps in the legislation, so I’m not complaining about “risks to public health:” being in that list, but the issue is around whether or not we could include “environment”, but environment that is not already considered under the hazardous substances and new organisms (HSNO) legislation. I know, and I accept that, if a permission is required under HSNO, then that process will take care of the environment. But what if there is some environmental effect that could relate to trade and primary production, that could relate to animal welfare, could relate to agricultural security? Surely that is a risk that should also be determined. It might be that the Minister wants to say, on the Hansard, “Well, they’re already covered by the risk to trade at (b).”, because, obviously, any risk to the environment is therefore a risk to trade. So is that something that this process looks at, and, if not, how far does it go?

Those are two questions: one on when you would—Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Rachel Brooking.

Yep, I’ll just be very quick for these two questions. The question is: is something that gets a consent ever likely to be sold for commercial gain? Can you give us some comfort that that is not what the research is for? The second question is: in these risks, can we include a risk to the environment that’s not assessed by HSNO; or can he give us some comfort that where trade or agricultural security relates to the environment, that that risk will already be considered under (b), (c), and (d)? Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a reasonably quick question for the Minister with regard to clause 33, “Section 30A amended (Suspension of registration)”.

Now, it says, “The Director-General may suspend the registration of a registered trade name product, for a period of up to”—up to—“3 months, if the Director-General has reasonable grounds to believe that—(a) a condition imposed on the registered trade name product is not being complied with; or (b) the registered trade name product poses a risk to public health, trade in primary produce, animal welfare, or agricultural security.” A period of up to three months doesn’t seem like an awful lot if this product poses a risk to public health, trade, animal welfare, or agricultural security. It then goes on to say, “The effect of a suspension [etc., etc.] … or use the relevant trade name product during the period of suspension, except as authorised by the Director-General … If satisfied that it is necessary in the circumstances, the Director-General may extend the period of suspension once”—once—“for a further period not exceeding 3 months that the Director-General notifies to the registrant in writing before the original suspension expires.”

I’m really interested in that three-month specific time frame, because if something poses a risk to public health, why would there be a period time frame put on something? If something poses a risk and there needs to be something more looked into it, it could well be that it’s going to take a heck of a lot longer than three months to sort out. And then if it is decided that it needs to continue, it can only be for another three months. I’m interested in understanding what the purpose is of the three-month specific time frame is.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in regards to the questions from the Hon Rachel Brooking—“Does the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) Act consider environmental risk?”—the Act has a specific set of purposes that does not include considering or managing environmental risk; environmental risks from hazardous substances and new organisms are managed under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act.

Further question: “Does the ACVM Act consider public health risk and not environment?” The risk to public health was not in the original Act; it was added later based on a gap between the Health and HSNO Acts on managing certain public health risk associated with agricultural compounds. The main concern was antimicrobial resistance from use of ag compounds, mainly veterinary medicines, and crossover resistance to humans impacting on human medicines. There has never been a similar issue identified for environment—i.e., the HSNO Act manages this appropriately.

In reply to the question about new section 35AAD, inserted by clause 40, “Why wouldn’t it be sold?” Noting we’ve already answered this question: the director-general can specify non-sale as a condition. Further answer to the question around will the consents be sold for commercial gain, noting, again—repeating an answer given previously—I’m comfortable the research consents won’t be used inappropriately.

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: Won’t be?

Won’t be.

And, a further answer to a question previously answered on new section 35AAB: could we include environmental effect not covered by HSNO? We wouldn’t want to introduce confusion around what ACVM Act manages; it’s not about environmental risk.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Steve Abel. Just noting that we’ve just received some further amendments from you.

Committee of the whole House

Yeah, thank you. Appreciate that, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Minister now has those.

Yeah, thank you. I wasn’t yet going to speak to those, but—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s alright. I just wanted to note that, just to say they’ve arrived on the desk.

Bam! I have a very excellent executive support person assisting me.

It’s on this very subject, Minister, and I appreciate you expanding that. So my interpretation of the reason in clause 33, section 30A amended, that in (1)(b) it lists “public health, trade in primary produce, animal welfare, or agricultural security.” but does not list the environment. What I think you’ve just outlined to us is because if there are environmental issues, and for example, an agricultural compound that could turn out to be eco-toxic, for example, i.e. it’s not a human health risk, but it’s an environmental risk; are you clarifying for us that that would be managed under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO) even though that same compound, say a pesticide, is covered by the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act as well? I think that’s what you’ve just told us. But if you could just triple clarify, that would be good. Because my question was why isn’t environmental in there? If you’re assuring us that it’s captured by the HSNO, then I feel that question is allayed.

My other question, which is an extension—a different question, but an expansion on a question my colleague Jo Luxton just asked. A registered trade name product can be suspended for three months if the director-general has reasonable grounds that conditions have not been complied with, and then in clause 33(3) it says that suspension will mean that “no person may import, manufacture, sell, or use the relevant trade name product...”. That seems like a very blunt tool, and I’m trying to understand what are the probable contexts in which no person would be allowed to use something that had not been complied with by some person, if you understand what I mean. I’m imagining an instance where one user of that product is misusing it, and then the director-general only has the ability to stop everybody from using it. Because if you read the condition in subclause (3) it then says once the suspension is put in place, no person can use it.

I just want to understand if there’s any nuance and the ability of the director-general to prohibit use by certain persons or entities, but not prohibit use by everybody. Because it seems to me that that’s a very broad and blunt tool, and I can’t quite imagine the circumstance in which misuse of the product means that the most appropriate response would be that no one can use it. I can understand if there’s new information that indicates that particular product is a risk to public health broadly, in which case you do want to suspend it for everybody.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. There are just a few questions before clause 40 that I want to just tidy up with the Minister based on Minister’s previous response. So I’ll be quick and then I’ll move on to clause 40.

The first one is—thank you to the Minister for your previous response regarding clause 10, section 8AA. My last question over here is whether any exemptions will require an active review by the director-general? Or is it only if someone complains about the particular exemption of a compound or any class of compound that there would be a trigger of whether that exemption is necessary?

I’m going to move now on to clause 18(4). I want to check when we’re looking at the waiver for the notification here, if it’s something that is urgent, would a notification soon need to be given retrospectively?

I now move on to clause 31 and this is regarding trade name products. So clause 31(4). When we’re looking at trade name product, can I just double-check that a trade name needs to be a trade name that is registered here in New Zealand or is it any trade name, and what jurisdiction would count in terms of trade name or via international—like a trade name register or through other trade-related intellectual property scheme or trips?

Thank you to the Minister for your response on clause 33(1) on suspension. I understand that if a director-general suspends for three months because something hasn’t been complied with that the suspension may lift when it is complied with. But I want to check how would the director-general, within three months, assess the risk to public health and be able to lift that suspension within three months, or even with the extension of another three months. Does it mean that if the director-general found that there is a risk to public health within that three months or one of the three-month extensions, then that registration is cancelled altogether?

Now I am going to move on to clause 40, but I’m only just going to ask one question right now for clause 40, but signalling to you, Madam Chair, that I will be going from clause 40 onwards from here. The question I have is on section 35AAD(5) inserted by clause 40. So this is starting at line 14 on page 22. Over here it does list some of the risks in relation to agricultural compounds. I want to double-check that in subclause (5)(b) the “risks to trade and market access…” would also apply to, for example, our New Zealand-European free-trade agreement or other multilateral trade agreements with Europe. They have requirements around organic certification that that potential—either cross contamination, or, etc.—would not affect our ability to continue on with that organic certification, and that is built in as part of the risk to trade and market access as well. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. In regards to the question from Steve Abel, would environmental risk be managed under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act? Yes, both Acts apply to the compounds.

In regards to the Hon Jo Luxton’s question around suspension of registration and why only a three-month suspension. This matches the existing time frame in the Act and the clause expands the reasons for suspensions.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Going back to the sale point, the Minister said it’s been answered several times; it has not. My question was: can he explain why there would be, ever, any commercial sale of something that is being used for research? And he said, “Oh, well it’s been answered a lot of times.” It hasn’t. And then he said he’s sure it won’t be used inappropriately. So by saying “inappropriate”, does he mean that there won’t be a commercial use of it? Can he just explain to us why there needs to be provision for commercial use in a consent that we’ve heard is to be restrained and only used for research? So that’s one question.

Then my second question is in answer to his question about risks. He went back to the purpose of the Act, and I’m well aware of the purpose of the Act, and says it doesn’t provide for the environment, but that wasn’t my question. Well, one of my questions was would you like to include it? But the other question was those risks that are already in the bill and in the purpose of the Act, can they consider the environment when looking at them with a wider lens? So one of the risks is risks to trade and market access for primary produce. I would see a risk for trade would be if there was some environmental harm considered, caused by something that was having one of these research consents. Can that be considered or is he saying that risk to trades needs to be narrowly interpreted? That is my question about environment and risks.

I’ll move on to another amendment that I had, and that relates, still on clause 40, to new section 35AAE, “Duration of consent”. The issue here is that the director-general must be satisfied that the period is “sufficient only to achieve the purpose of the consent”—that is a useful clause. The next one is about extending that time frame, but there is not a maximum for the duration of the consent. And my understanding of these types of consents are that they are, normally, for about one or two years and that they would very, very rarely, or it would be exceptional for them to, go past five years.

I have a tabled amendment that a inserts a maximum of five years or no more than five years. So would the Minister consider that amendment about including a maximum? That is the amendment that was tabled on 17 September, at 6.50.02, and the wording is “to insert after (b), ‘(c) must be less than five years.’ ” The point there is just to put on a maximum. As I’ve been saying throughout my contributions, we’re just trying to give some comfort to people that these consents won’t be misused; they’re not a back door.

My final amendment that I have not yet talked to relates to the reassessment of consent. So if we go to clause 40, new section 35AAH, it is “Reassessment of consent”, and it’s that if there is significant new information, then the director-general may, after consultation, decide to reassess. So that is at the discretion of the director-general and it’s based on significant new information. And so I have an amendment—I think it would be useful to discuss this as well—that if there was a significant risk that appears after the consent is granted, whilst during the duration of the consent, then I think it should be incumbent on the director-general to review or reassess that consent.

I have an amendment that does that as well. That is tabled amendment 17 September, again, at 6.50.01. It is to insert at new section 35AAH a new (1)(a)—so that’s after the clause that I’ve just been talking about—that says “the Director-General must reassess the agricultural compound to which consent applies if, in the opinion of the Director-General, the risk can no longer be adequately managed by the conditions on the consent.” So I’ve used some language that’s used elsewhere in the bill, but the key thing there is that it’s a “must”—the director-general “must” reassess if these risks are not being adequately managed. I would be very happy for that to be some different tests: stronger than “adequately managed”; it could be “if the risk is significant”, or some wording like that. But it’s just to make sure that that reassessment happens.

If the Government is not of a mind to accept my amendment, as seems to have been the way, then it would be useful for the Minister to comment on how he considers that discretion, in paragraph (1) of new section 35AAH, to be used, and what he expects would happen if the research suddenly identifies some large risk, but the consent is continuing—what should happen to their consent. I’m hoping that the Minister will say that it would be his expectation that it would be reassessed and that there is an ability to do that reassessment and that that’s the expectation. At the moment, it’s a discretion, and if it’s a significant risk, noting that, you know, this type of consent isn’t going through the robust process that a registered compound is going through; it’s just going through a lesser test, which is appropriate because it’s for research. But if he could comment on that as well.

So just to remind the Minister, four things: the first one was on sale: when could it possibly be used for commercial gain? The second one was on risk: with those existing risks to trade, can we incorporate the environment into that or is it a narrow reading of risk to trade? That was my second one. My third one was: would he consider putting a maximum on the duration of the consent. And then, my fourth one: is this a requirement for a mandatory reassessment of consent.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. An answer to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s questions: do any exemptions require active review or is it just after complaints? The director-general (DG) can reassess the consent if new information becomes available; new information can be from any source.

Another answer to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: if a suspension is three months, how can the director-general assist risk within three months? Yes, the DG can assess the risk within three months. There is also the potential to extend the suspension for another period of up to three months if the assessment is not finished.

In regards to Rachel Brooking’s question, if research identifies large risk, would the consent be reassessed? Yes. Reconsideration of a consent: should the DG reassess this if there is new information? Yes, this provision mirrors that in the existing Act.

And then there’s another lot of questions to be answered from the Hon Rachel Brooking: would you consider environmental harm a risk to trade? I believe this might have been previously answered. Environmental harm is managed under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.

A further answer to the Hon Rachel Brooking: is commercial gain an appropriate use? If someone sells a product subject to consent, they breach the conditions, which would have implications for enforcement. A further answer to the question of whether a maximum of five years for research purposes is agreeable: noting this has been answered previously, I considered this amendment and I don’t think it substantially improves the bill.

In response to Steve Abel’s question: why is no person able to use a product that has been suspended? No person can use it except as authorised by the director-general. A single misuse by a user would not be considered grounds for suspension. However, if the product was causing significant issues, for example animal welfare, where the product has been used appropriately, then this would be a reason for suspending.

In answer to Lawrence Xu-Nan questions around risk to trade and market access and whether it is considered around organic certification: organic certification is managed under the organics Act. And to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question: does trade name product mean any product overseas, too? Trade name product means something within New Zealand.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Look, I’m very acutely aware that we’ve moved on to the 30s and 40s in this part, but I appreciate you mentioning that I’ve tabled some amendments. I believe I can cover them off pretty quickly in a single call and I won’t speak to all of them, but I’ll speak to some of the key ones. They are in earlier clauses in this part. For clause 22, my proposal is that we insert a requirement that the director-general “must consider the cumulative, synergistic, and long-term effects of the agricultural compound in the application, including its interaction with other agricultural compounds and contaminants.” Now, this is really bringing to light, I guess, our greater contemporary awareness of the extent to which agrichemicals interact with each other to create cocktail toxins that may be much worse than those chemicals alone, and that that should be part of the consideration under clause 22.

In clause 21, furthermore, not unrelated, I’m proposing to insert, in new section 20A(3)(d), “the person will consider in their assessment any New Zealand - specific conditions, including differences in climate, soil, waterways, native species, agricultural practices, animal husbandry, food consumption patterns, exposure pathways, residue standards, antimicrobial resistance, biodiversity impacts, and Māori interests and mātauranga Māori.”

That serves the purpose of being very clear of what I think the public should have as an expectation they are sure has been considered in making evaluations that can use determinations made in other jurisdictions. I think laying out these issues makes it very clear that there’s an expectation that those unique factors to our environment and our native biodiversity—for example, and mātauranga Māori—are part of that consideration, hence that proposed amendment.

Further, in clause 21, I’m proposing, in new section 20A(2), that after “class of agricultural compounds” we insert “excluding genetically modified agricultural compounds”. Now, this cuts to the challenge of us having two Acts that manage both the pesticides, the herbicides, the toxic components and the environmental components through the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO Act), and the genetically modified components through the HSNO Act, but they interact with the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act (ACVM Act), and the environmental component of a chemical or a substance or a compound is supposedly managed through HSNO, but, actually, those very chemicals and compounds and substances are in the ACVM Act.

So for absolute clarity, for the public and for the regulator, the genetically modified agricultural compounds should only be managed through the HSNO Act. That would be the effect of this clause. The reason for it is that we have a specific example of this in a field trial of an agricultural compound that is a double-stranded RNA that was approved through HSNO and the Environmental Protection Authority but has potentially interacted with other components—it’s classified as a compound in the ACVM Act. So for clarity—

💬 Suze Redmayne: We’ve had this explained.

Pardon me?

💬 Suze Redmayne: Sorry.

For clarity, I think it would be beneficial if there’s an explicit exclusion in this Act so that there’s no doubt that it if there is a genetically modified compound, it’s managed by the HSNO Act.

In fact, I won’t speak to my other clauses, because I’m aware we’re moving on, but those are the main ones that I’d appreciate a response from the Minister on in terms of those tabled amendments. Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just noting that when the Minister did answer that last group of questions, some of them had been answered before, so I think we want to—and I know there was some clarifications. But in general—I’m not just pointing to your questions; I’m talking about the questions in general—we really have got to the point where we need to be specific in terms of the uncertainties just because it’s had a select committee. So I think we want to move quite succinctly through the rest of this.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do agree with your point that it has had a select committee, and we were interested that one Government party then put up some amendments to it that have since been removed, so that shows that there is a bit of tension—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I get that, and I hear the depth of the questions. I just think that we need to start moving to the specific things that haven’t been covered in select committee.

Yes. It would be useful if the Minister didn’t just repeat what the bill says. But I will go forward. Because I’ve been asking for—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The bill says what the bill says.

That’s right—that’s right. The Minister is doing a great job. I’ve got nothing against the Hon Mike Butterick there. But he did say—again, the selling and the commercial gain. Can he give me any examples of where a consent for research would have conditions enabling commercial gain? Do we need to be setting up a system which enables commercial gain for research consents? Or is that something that is farfetched and is not anticipated or is not common, or it would be very heavy regulated or something, because I’m just still worried—he said it won’t be used inappropriately, but I still haven’t heard him say that it’s not his expectation that these compounds that only had the research consent would be being sold, rather than the other permission. So that’s the first question.

And then he did answer: he said the five-year expectation doesn’t help—the five-year maximum to the duration doesn’t help the bill; some words to that effect. Can he give the committee—again, just looking for comfort—any examples or can he give his expectation, really, of whether the norm of these consents which are currently called provisional registrations, being for one or two years—does he expect them to go beyond the five years that I proposed or is there the expectation that they will still mainly be for one or two years and are unlikely to go beyond five years? So if you can just give a little bit more on those two points, that would be very helpful, I think, for the Hansard. They are my points.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. In regards to the question from Steve Abel about new section 20A(2), in relation to the class of products inserting genetically modified, the bill does not change the regulatory framework for genetically modified organisms. I can reassure the member of that.

To Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question regarding waiver of notification and whether a notification will be given retrospectively: if the waiver was given urgently, no.

And to Steve Abel’s question around cumulative impact of the compound when assessing, noting this has been previously answered, environmental impacts are not regulated under this legislation; negative environmental impacts are regulated by the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.

In regards to the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question regarding consents post five years, no, it is not my expectation that any consent would go for that long. In answer to another one of Rachel Brooking’s questions, the example of a consent allowing sale for commercial gain, officials assure me they are not aware of any examples where consents—provisional registration, in the old money—have resulted in sale for commercial gain.

Committee of the whole House

In that case, why does commercial gain need to be provided for in clause 40 for these new consents, these research consents, which are the swap out for the provisional registration? So he’s just told us provisional registration has never been for commercial gain. That gives me a lot of comfort, and I thank him for the answer. But then the question is, well, why do we have these provisions about sale in front of us, and if it’s only for non-commercial sale, then why can’t we say it’s only for non-commercial sale—that is, the gifting of products or the distribution of products? So that’s just the tidy-off that I’d appreciate. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a very quick question from Rachel Boyack, only because I believe that the Minister is just waiting for an answer for that question. But we are coming to the end.

Committee of the whole House

Just on that very point, just further—it’s actually a really important clarification. Just to add to what my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has asked, we understand that a lot of these provisions are literally a copy-paste from the existing Act, and changing from that provisional registration to a consent. My specific question about it is: is that commercial gain reference in the existing law or is that a new terminology that’s been added in the updated legislation? If it is, then it would be wise if there is no suggestion from officials that this could actually occur, for it to not be in there. If it is currently there, and that’s never actually happened, then, again, it would be wise to remove it.

So I just wanted to bring together the conversation about the fact that this is essentially a copy-paste from existing legislation. But we think it’s something that has actually been missed through that select committee process and needs addressing.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): A bonus question!

A bonus question! Well, I’ve just picked these up off the Table and now given them to my whip—Mr Abel has introduced a lot of tabled amendments—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Which I mentioned about 20 minutes ago.

Yes, yes. I thank the Chair for mentioning all of his tabled amendments. We did think, when you, Madam Chair, mentioned the tabled amendments, that it might mean that the Minister for Food Safety had put up a tabled amendment—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, when Steve Abel stood up to take a call, I specifically told Mr Abel that his amendments were now on our desk.

Oh, see, I missed that bit.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You did miss that bit!

I ran to the Table to see if there was a new amendment—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m noting also that the Minister looks like he might be ready. If this is only a quick clarification about Mr Abel’s tabled amendments—

That’s exactly what it is.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Right. Thank you. The honourable Minister.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. In answer to the Hon Rachel Brooking, why do we have provisions for sale if there’s never been an example. This clause is a safety net in case the situation ever arises.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): If you must, Miles Anderson.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 793 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 4 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to delete clause 10 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just to let the member know: you may not have been in the position of doing all of the voting before, but you’re welcome to stand on your feet in between those extra votes that you are giving for other people.

💬 Lan Pham: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you. The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 10 inserting new subsection (6) into new section 8AA be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to delete clause 19 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 20 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to delete clause 21 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 17

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 99

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 32; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 21 relating to New Zealand - specific conditions is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 21 amending new subsection (2) in new section 20A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 21 amending new subsection (3A) in new section 20A to replace “10” with “5” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 21 inserting new paragraph (d) into new section 20A(5) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to subclause 22 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 40, cross-heading before new section 35AA, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 40, new section 35AA(1)(a), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 40, new section 35AAD(2), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 40, new section 35AAD(5)(a), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 40, new section 35AAD(5), inserting new paragraph (f) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 40, new section 35AAE(2), inserting new paragraph (c) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 40, new section 35AAH, inserting new subsection (1A) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 52 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 99

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 32; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 17

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 67, Noes 49.

Committee of the whole House

Part 2 Importation, manufacture, and sale of agricultural compounds, and Schedules 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 77 and 78—“Other amendments”—and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.