Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to start with—actually, I’m only going to be talking about commencement.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

Ha, ha! But there are quite a few questions around the commencement, and I guess I’m going to ask the first sort of obvious question, which is, in 2(3): “Any part of this Act that has not come into force 2 years after Royal assent”—can I just check the rationale around the two-year mark and whether those that are not in clause 2(2), which is the day after Royal assent, that two years is sufficient time to make any sort of changes or to have the ability to implement it fully?

My next question is—and I’m sure that others may have a few questions around this part. There are a lot of different sections—currently clauses—in clause 2(2). What I’m not unclear on is why some of them have been included to come into force after Royal assent and some of them haven’t. So to give the Minister in the chair an example: new sections 8AA and 8AAB, inserted by clause 10, around “Exemptions from registration”, that is something that is coming into effect on the day after Royal assent. But, for example, in clause 12, which talks about the director-general listing the exempt substances generally considered safe, that, again, doesn’t come into effect until potentially two years later or earlier by Order in Council.

But I would assume that over the next two years—now this has come into effect—let’s say you’ve the received Royal assent, and the director-general then went and exempted a particular agricultural compound or a class of agricultural compounds in two weeks’ time, surely there would then be a requirement for that to be listed somewhere as opposed to waiting potentially up to two years for clause 12 to come into effect before that takes place, unless, when we’re looking at clause 12, that’s an exemption of a different nature.

So I’m just trying to figure out why some of them is the day after Royal assent and why some of them are up to a two years’ period.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got a couple of proposals around titles. I think one of the challenges with this term “compound” is that most people don’t know what you’re talking about. It even caused us some confusion at the select committee because there was an assumption, I think, that compound somehow didn’t include agrichemicals, by which we mean the conventional idea of agrichemicals, the likes of pesticides and herbicides.

It’s been fortunate, today, in this process, that the previous Minister of Agriculture has explicitly articulated that, yes, this legislation covers both pesticides and herbicides. I wonder if, for the clarity of the public, the name of this bill wouldn’t more correctly or more comprehensibly be named the “Agricultural Chemicals and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill.” Obviously, I would propose that we change the name of the actual bill to “Agricultural Chemicals”, just to be very clear to everybody what we’re talking about.

Now, not all chemicals are compounds, but all compounds are chemicals, so by giving it a broader, more familiar name to most people—chemicals—we capture compounds, but we also make it clear what the bill is. That’s one of my amendments which is being rushed down presently; it hasn’t quite reached the table. An earlier proposal for a title—an alternative title, which serves the same purpose but is a little more wordy and I don’t think quite as elegant as the one I’ve just expounded—is to change the name to the “Agricultural Compounds, Pesticides, Herbicides and Veterinary Medicines Bill”.

That just makes it super clear that everyone knows we’re talking about pesticides and herbicides, not just veterinary medicines or this term “compounds” that I think, to most people, is not familiar. So those are my two proposals and they’re very much in the tradition of, you know, Grant Robertson, as he said in his valedictory speech: say what’s on the tin, or put on the tin what’s in the tin. I think it would very much simplify the public understanding—and even, I believe, this House’s understanding and the members in it—on what this bill is actually about, because it is to do with agricultural chemicals; it is to do with pesticides and herbicides, as well as veterinary medicines.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do think it would be useful for the Associate Minister of Agriculture to take us through the commencement clause—clause 2(1), (2), (3), (4)—because as we’ve heard, Order in Council can set the date, but there’s a “however”: a whole lot of sections come into force the day after Royal assent. Why is it that the sections listed in subclause (2) are going to come into force immediately? Why is it that all the other sections won’t come into force until the earlier of either the Order in Council or the two-year backstop that the first question was about? I think it would be very useful for us all to hear the Minister speak on that.

On the title, it is interesting; it’s unusual for me to be doing a title contribution when there’s no brackets. This is simply the “Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill”; there’s no brackets—

💬 Hon Jo Luxton: Disconcerting.

Disconcerting. I think there is an opportunity for there to be brackets with some words in them.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I was hoping that would be the clarification; there’d be some words in the brackets.

That’s right—some words in the brackets. I note that the Minister of Internal Affairs who was in the chair earlier was determined that the whole purpose of this amendment is to enable provision of safer products. That is what she said, and I asked her if she would consider something in the bill that said that or if she could—you know, maybe there could be a purpose of the amendment, to do that, but we didn’t get there. So now is the time to include “safer products” in some brackets in the title, if that is really what the Government’s intention is here. I wasn’t on the Primary Production Committee, but I believe a number of submitters heard, and we’ve had Ministers tell us, that there’s a problem at the moment whereby some “old, nasty chemicals”—these are my words and I’m paraphrasing somewhat: “There are old, nasty chemicals, but they’ve been through the process, so they are legal. There are new, fancy chemicals that are better; there’s better chemicals—”

💬 Steve Abel: Maybe.

We got a “maybe”, but this is the story. The story, the logic, is: “We’ve got old, committed—they’re registered—nasty chemicals. There’s these new ones over here that aren’t as nasty, that are hopefully better, but for them to go through the registration process is very time-consuming and overcomplicated and doesn’t take the evidence that has been applied in other jurisdictions, so that is why we need to fix it.” That is a compelling argument: that if we don’t want something that is old and nasty and that can be replaced with something new and nice, we want to enable that, but there’s no hook in this legislation that does that, that really spells out, “We’re trying to do better here.” That’s the whole point of this legislation: it’s to do better; to get those newer, not-so-nasty products into the system so we can get rid of those older ones and not use them anymore.

We’ve got an opportunity here for a hook, and that is to use some brackets, so that this bill would be the “Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (Safer Products) Amendment Bill.” That is the title that I would like the Minister to consider.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to the questions from Lawrence Xu-Nan about why there are different commencements for exemptions, some provisions require delay to give time to make regulations or administrative changes. Regarding clause 10, only the heading comes into force the day after Royal assent. In regards to the question about rationale for two-year commencement: two years will be sufficient for implementation.

The questions from Steve Abel regarding his suggested new title: we’re happy with the title as it is, thank you. Chemicals would cover wider products than the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill covers; for example, pet food and surfactants.

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: What is it? Tell us again. What was that word?

Surfactants.

💬 Steve Abel: Surfactants.

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: How do you spell it?

Yes—come and see me later. The question from Steve Abel around “compound” as confusing: all compounds are chemical. The question from the Hon Rachel Brooking around why do some clauses come into force has already been answered; refer to my answer to Steve Abel’s question. Rachel Brooking’s question: why aren’t there brackets around the title? The Parliamentary Counsel Office drafts the title.

Committee of the whole House

I appreciate that and I do have only a quick question; you did give me a follow-up on that. I did, too, myself, state that all compounds are chemicals; yes, we all agree on that. I wonder, is there another piece of legislation which uses that term, “chemicals”—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Quiet please—not Steve Abel; everyone else.

Thank you. Is there another piece of legislation that uses that term “chemicals” in the same context as this one does—as regards to agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines, and my proposal that it would be chemicals—that would cause a trouble for that? And where are surfactants currently managed? Is it in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, I presume? Therefore, I didn’t get the Associate Minister of Agriculture’s answer on my second proposal—which, if he was concerned about the use of “chemicals” because it was too broad—whether adding in “pesticides” and “herbicides” would give sufficient specificity, without removal of the word “compounds”. It would make it a wordy title, but the “Agricultural Compounds, Pesticides, Herbicides, and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill”, I think, would make it more easily understandable. I think there was even confusion in the second reading of the bill today from some parts of the House as to whether this bill did include agrichemicals in the conventional sense, as they are known by those who work in the agricultural sector. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just waiting for a bit of advice on the surfactants in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. In regards to Steve Abel’s question around chemicals in the title, no, salt is also covered by the bill, so “pesticides” would be misleading.

Committee of the whole House

A point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to clarify a previous vote, if I may, and seek leave on Part 1 standing part. Labour voted 32 votes—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’ll just seek leave. Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? Are you seeking to correct a vote?

Correct a vote, yep.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes. Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

Thank you. To confirm, Labour votes 32 votes in favour for Part 1 standing part.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. In regards to the question around what regulations cover surfactants, surfactants are subject to both the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Steve Abel’s two tabled amendments to clause 1 are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that clause 1 stand part.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 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.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that clause 2 stand part.

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

Clause 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that clause 3 stand part.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 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.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has further considered the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

💬 SPEAKER: The bill is set down for third reading next sitting day.

Public Works Amendment Bill

Legislative Statement