Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually only have one question on this part.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Nice.

I know! I might think of others. It depends on the responses. It is just a drafting question as well, and it’s to do with what I consider a fairly new drafting technique where you talk about “new” provisions and “old” provisions, referring to the insertions by the amendment Act—those are new, and the old is the one provision that was immediately in force. This works for amendment legislation—I understand that—and at clause 4(2) of Part 2 inserted in Schedule 1, that is described.

But my question is if you go a bit further through Schedule 1, you will see at clause 19, it’s “Requests under Official Information Act”—this is page 45. It says “an application for an exemption under section 8C;”. There’s no “new” or “old” in front of 8C, but then if you look down further to clause 19(2)(c) it says “an application for registration of a trade name product under old section 27;”. I’m wondering why some sections don’t have the prefix of “old” or “new”, and is it because they are unchanged? That is the question there.

Then, related to this, I’ve got a question. If you go over the page again to 46, clause 21(4) of Schedule 1 says, “In this clause, innovative application and non-innovative application”—that’s a bit mean, isn’t it; to call something “non-innovative”? But that’s not my question.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It takes all sorts.

It says “have the same meanings as in section 72(1) (as amended by the amendment Act)”. But why doesn’t that just say “as in new section 72(1)”?

Why have we got these defined terms of “new” and “old”, but then sometimes they’re not used and it’s “refers as amended by the amendment Act”, which would seem to be “new”; and then other clauses don’t say if they’re “new” or “old”? Are those clauses with no prefix—do they just remain unchanged and they’re just, like, staying the same? Are they non-innovative? Is that the answer?

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. In answer to the member’s question: because they are not changing.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I noticed also in Part 2, clause 8 on page 40—I appreciate Rachel Brooking with her skill asking questions about drafting decisions, so I’m going to do similar.

This specific change is preconditions and crossed out of the words “to granting exemption”, and apparently added are the words “and requirements to publish reasons switched off”. I don’t understand what that means, and I wonder if the Minister in the chair could explain to us this term “the reasons switched off”? It follows on with “The Director-General may grant an exemption under new section 8AA that applies to any agricultural compound”—I won’t read that all out, for the benefit of the committee, but I would love to have a greater understanding of what the necessity of that change is and what it means, and specifically understanding this term “switched off”. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. With this one, I want to check with the Minister in the chair—this is clause 77, “Schedule 1 amended” in line 5 of page 40. Can I just check with the Minister on the interpretation of the expiry of this clause? Does the expiry of this clause refer to the commencement date of this bill, or does it refer to another particular expiry? Can I just check: the expiry of this clause refers to—I’m assuming the entire section, clause 6, which is “Exemptions in regulations continued”, so everything in that clause, if that’s the correct interpretation.

Moving on to amended clause 9, so this is page 41 regarding “Existing applications for registration”. In the new subclause (3), it says “The application is to be notified”. Can I just check if that is to interpreted as every existing application for registration would be notified in accordance with the new requirements under this bill, if any? I’ll start with those two questions, and I do have follow-on questions for the other sections.

Committee of the whole House

Just a tiny question. Thank you, Minister, for answering my question that indeed those sections without a prefix are non-changing—“non-innovative”, we might even call them—but what about that one that I was referring to in the example in clause 21(4), where it says “section 72(1) (as amended by the amendment Act)”. Why doesn’t it just say “as in new section 72(1)”? Why does it need that “as amended by the amendment Act”? Wouldn’t it be more consistent to have “new”? That’s my big question for this part, Madam Chair.

Committee of the whole House

In that case, I do have a few more questions for this part and I’ll go through at least the ones for Schedule 1 anyway.

In terms of clause 9, one of the things I want to check with the Minister in the chair—and this is in reference to new clause 14, “Applications for registration that are called in by Minister”. I would also assume that this is the Minister responsible for this bill? But also I want to check with the Minister: what is an application for registration that is called in by the Minister for Food Safety? Does it mean that the Minister is able to intervene in terms of granting a particular application that overrides the decision of a director-general? Or does it mean that the Minister themselves is able to make an application for registration for a particular compound that we’re referring to here? I do want to check with the minister on clause 14.

Moving along to clauses 16 to 18, this is the area where we’re looking at provisional registration. Again, we are looking at this transitional measure, which is a big part of this particular section. When we are looking at provisional registration but not decided—this is what new clause 16 is referring to—what then would be the notification for the applicants in this case to have clarity of a provisional registration to a final decision? Also, if the Minister wouldn’t mind just clarifying how, then—so we can have it on record—would this new system and this new process affect a provisional decision to a final decision, if at all? I’m assuming, based on my reading of this section, that any provisional decisions that are made, the final decision will be based on the previous or the old requirement, as opposed to the new requirement? Is that a correct interpretation?

My last question for this particular section is around clause 19, requests under the Official Information Act (OIA) involving trade secrets. I understand why this particular section—and I remember the Minister in the chair at the time mentioned confidentiality when it comes to trade secrets. But I do want to check how this would potentially interact with any Government funding that is given to something that potentially pertains to trade secrets. I guess the balance between what we’re seeing in terms of the OIA versus what we often see in terms of the Cabinet Manual for procurement and also in terms of what we’re seeing in terms of trade secrets.

The reason I ask this is often in select committees, as the legislators, when we are scrutinising a particular expenditure in a select committee, a lot of the times we are being told, well, we can’t disclose a particular aspect because of commercial sensitivity, etc., I do just want to check if this is something that is of a higher, even more stringent requirement than what we see normally through an Official Information Act process; or is it something that, essentially, currently exists around commercial sensitivity as well?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Sorry, Madam Chair. That was my last question.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. In regards to the question from Lawrence Xu-Nan—what happens to existing provisional registrations?—they continue under the provisions that are applied for before the new consent regime begins. They remain valid until they expire or otherwise are dealt with under the existing framework.

With regards to the member’s question around clause 14—is this the ministry responsible for the bill?—yes.

Another question from Lawrence Xu-Nan: what does “call in” an application mean? The Minister for Food Safety has the ability to call in an application to make the decision, instead of the Director-General.

In response to the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question around non-innovative applications: because section 72(1) of the principal Act is not entirely new, it is just being amended

To Steve Abel’s question around what does “switched off” mean, I refer him to new Part 2 in Schedule 1, section 8(2), inserted by clause 77 of the bill: “The Director-General is not required to comply with the preconditions set out in new Section 8AA(4) and (5) before granting an exemption under subclause (1).”

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m just not sure whether Mr Abel wanted a clarification for that—

💬 Steve Abel: Madam Chair, I—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I know you didn’t stand up, but I’m allowing you the grace.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. I really appreciate that. It is really just to understand in very simple terms the use of the phrasing “switched off” and why it’s used in that context. If it’s to simply articulate what the Minister in the chair said, which is that the director-general—I think he said—doesn’t have to apply certain clauses, I wonder—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Perhaps the Minister wants to repeat that answer.

I did hear the answer, but I’m just not sure that that explained the use of the term “switched off”—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh, OK.

—because it seems peculiar and unnecessary, unless it’s got a particular function.

Committee of the whole House

I’m advised that it’s a drafting decision by the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 77 is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 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 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We come now to Schedule 1.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 793 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 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.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 793 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 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.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 to 3, the debate on “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.