Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill

I move, That the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It is a pleasure to bring this bill to its final stage today. I want to start by thanking members of the House, the submitters, and the officials that worked on getting the bill here. At its heart, this bill is about making sure our regulatory system keeps pace with current practices while retaining its robustness.

The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act is approaching 30 years old. The science has moved on since it was written. Our trading partners and regulators have moved on. The practice of assessing these products has moved on. The law has not kept up.

This bill is a core part of delivering on the promise of the Ministry for Regulation’s review into agricultural and horticultural products. That review found what farmers and growers had been saying for years: that while the system of approvals is generally effective at protecting against risk for things like trade and food safety, it had become cumbersome to navigate and approval times had stretched, to the point that companies are questioning the value in registering new agricultural products in New Zealand. That means that somewhere in Europe today, there is a product on a shelf that could help a New Zealand farmer treat a sick animal or help a grower protect a crop with less chemistry and lower application rates. It has been assessed, it has been used safely, and it is not available here.

As a response, one of the central things that this bill does is strengthen the framework to build on assessments done overseas. Where a trusted overseas regulator has already done robust work on a product, our assessment will rely on that work rather than repeat it. What we will not do is skip the questions that are ours alone to ask. New Zealand’s specific risks will still be assessed and managed appropriately. So let me be very clear: we are not cutting corners, we are cutting duplication.

Here is what that means on the ground. For a dairy farmer: access to a new animal treatment in a sensible time frame, instead of waiting for years for a product that has already been thoroughly assessed and safely used overseas. For a grower: quicker to access to crop protection that is more targeted, needs lower application rates, or replaces older chemistry. For the people who make these products: less time filling in forms for an answer another regulator has already given, and more time and money going into the next product. The principle is simple: if the product is safe, if it is effective, and if it meets New Zealand requirements, we should not be making people jump through hoops for the sake of the hoops.

My colleague acknowledged the select committee at second reading, and I’d like to do so again today. This was a technical bill, and I thank the Primary Production Committee for the collegial way it conducted its review. The changes the committee made struck the right balance between flexibility and standardisation of notification, and it sharpened how we can use trusted overseas science without loosening New Zealand standards. These are practical improvements to transparency, certainty, and fairness, and they came from people outside this building telling us how the thing would actually work.

It is important that implementation is done well. That is why there is a two-year commencement period, unless the implementation before this date. It should absolutely be a priority for the Government to pursue the additional measures that are required for full implementation at pace, including new regulations covering the set-up, accelerated exemptions pathway, and processing time frames. I’ve also directed my officials to prepare operational guidelines that show how overseas assessments will be incorporated and will speed up the process. The two-year commencement provides a buffer, but it should not take that long.

I’ve spent most of my working lifer on a dairy farm. I know what it is to look at a sick animal or a paddock infested with weeds and be told the better option is not registered here. It is not a theoretical frustration; it is the sort of thing that makes good people lose faith in the system that is meant to be serving them.

This Government has been clear that regulation should be proportionate, practical, and focused on outcomes. It should guard what matters and leave alone what does not need guarding. That’s what this bills does. It keeps our standards where they belong, which is high, and it gets good products into the hands of the people who use them every day sooner. What it doesn’t do—as some people have asserted—is change, in any way, how genetically modified organisms are regulated under New Zealand law. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, known as HSNO, provides the framework by which new organisms, such as GE, GM organisms, are permitted or not permitted in New Zealand; not the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Act. Section 21(5)(b) of the Act is clear that no product containing a new organism can be approved for use until it is first approved under the HSNO Act. This bill does nothing to alter that arrangement.

This bill is a proportional response to a real problem. It will boost farm productivity by enabling to access to better management while properly managing risk. This will, undoubtedly, help unlock rural New Zealand’s potential. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to rise and take on call in this, the third reading of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. But before I do move on to that bill, I just want to wish all colleagues around the House a very happy last day here in Parliament, and wish everyone well on the campaign trail—make sure you take time for your family and good eating and exercise, and remember to play the ball and not the player. That’s my one piece of advice I want to leave you all with today.

We’re here in the House, on the last sitting day, in the third reading of this piece of legislation, and I want to acknowledge my colleagues on the Primary Production Committee, and, as the Minister mentioned, we worked together in a really collegial way, and that is one of things that I have loved about my whole time in Parliament, actually. When I’ve been a part of the Primary Production Committee, we do work in a really collegial way, because, as a select committee, we recognise that whilst there will be times we disagree, we need to make decision based on what is, ultimately, going to be best for our primary producers, farmers, and growers out there, but also ensuring that we do need to make sure that we keep our environmental protections in place, and things like that. I do believe that over the years of my time here in Parliament, we have managed to work really well as a select committee.

It’s an interesting process, this bill, and we do continue to support it at this third reading—I just wanted to make that clear. We do have concerns, still, about the fact that it was a shortened process. We have some concerns also around the consultation that was undertaken being a targeted consultation process. And so I do worry that, perhaps, we didn’t hear from as many people or that other people may have wished to be consulted as part of this process. I worry that in doing that, given that our primary production, our farmers and growers are a huge part, if not the biggest part of our economy here, that if we have rushed and accidentally missed something, which I’m hoping we haven’t—I would hate to think there could be unintended consequences as a result of that.

I completely understand the purpose of this piece of legislation because we’ve heard for many, many years, actually, about the frustration from our farmers and growers about the inability for them to have access to some of the things that are available currently overseas. I mentioned in my second reading speech that some of the products and things that are available overseas are, perhaps, often more environmentally friendly or more effective than what we have available here. So I completely understand the reasoning for this piece of legislation. An example of one of the hold-ups that the country has been facing, or our growers have been facing, has been an insecticide—the one the I mentioned, actually, for mealy bugs and grapes. An example of that was that, as at November 2025, it had been sitting in the approval system since 2019. That simply isn’t good enough. Our farmers and growers need access to products in a really timely manner so that they can also remain competitive. We need to have these products in a timely manner because if something that we’re using here somehow should hinder or impact our ability to sell our goods overseas—because we are an export nation—we need to make sure that we are keeping up with the most up-to-date veterinary medicines and agricultural compounds.

We did hear some concerns from submitters. They were concerned about the overseas regulators and taking into account those throughout the process. And, again, I want to give assurance to people who have those concerns that whilst the director-general must take into account—I think that was the new wording that we decided on—what overseas regulators have done and found, there must also be the consideration taken into our individual flora and fauna here in New Zealand. So just because something has been approved overseas does not mean it’s automatically going to be approved here without the appropriate measures and things taken into consideration.

It was really interesting that, when Government parties were wanting to put amendments forward, suddenly they were withdrawn. It does make me wonder if there is some concern, even within Government parties, about some of the pieces of this legislation as it’s gone through the process. But I guess we’ll never know since they were withdrawn.

We still have some concerns also with regard to some parts of it, where—actually, my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking was hopeful that her amendments might have been accepted and that they would have been able to take more account of environmental risk, and it does seem that, in some parts, that hasn’t happened. That is still a concern because, given that we’re a trading nation, we do need to consider environmental risks for everything—and I can hear the Minister muttering over there at me, and I’m sure he’ll tell me what he thinks.

💬 Hon Andrew Hoggard: I was saying that’s what HSNO does.

Oh yeah, well—OK, I take your point. The other interesting part about this piece of legislation is that we haven’t the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act come through. I find that quite intriguing in that we looked at both of these pieces of legislation alongside each other in the select committee—

💬 Suze Redmayne: We tried to have them as one bill, but you wouldn’t let us.

—and yet this is the only one that has come out. I find that quite intriguing, and I’ll look forward to my colleague Suze Redmayne’s contribution because I think she has some things to say over there.

💬 Rima Nakhle: Short and sweet, like her.

Oh, yes, and I don’t disagree with you, actually. She’s a lovely person to be on the select committee with.

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: So Suze is not short?

Well, no, she’s not, actually—no, she’s not.

Anyway, one of the beauties of having it go through a select committee process, which is an appropriate thing that Governments should do—using the select committee process—is the opportunity for our Regulations Review Committee to also look at pieces of legislation, as well as our submitters, who can bring forward things that perhaps may have been missed. One of the things that was missed and that is actually very important—but we have since corrected it, obviously, for this since it came out of the select committee process—was that the Regulations Review Committee picked up the fact that if something has been declined or exempted by the director-general, they didn’t have to necessarily say why or have it out there in the public arena as to why. I think it’s important that we’ve made the change in this legislation that it does have to be notified or put out there publicly as to why something might have been rejected, because I also think it gives New Zealanders confidence that things have been looked at in a proper manner and assessed as to the suitability for something being here in New Zealand or not.

Ultimately, this will allow our farmers and growers to have access to the agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines that they need in a timely manner. It should give confidence to people overseas. I know the Minister mentioned that it is about people being concerned about looking to invest here in New Zealand and bringing their products here, and we know that some have looked to leave the country, as well, because it’s been such a difficult process.

We do support this piece of legislation. It will mean farmers and growers have access to the products that they need to remain competitive, to continue to have good animal welfare, and to continue to farm in more sustainable ways as different products are made available. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Boy, these are dense pieces of legislation here. The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill, as we came to understand through the process—and I acknowledge my colleague here mentioning that fact—has a high degree of interaction between the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO Act). One thing that struck us—or that struck me at least, and perhaps others on the Primary Production Committee—was that there is potential merit in combining these two Acts at some point because there is so much overlap.

One of the anomalies that was drawn out through the debate in the committee of the whole House is that the environmental risks of hazardous chemicals and substances are managed through the HSNO Act, as the Minister for Food Safety has just pointed out, but the residue issues with those chemicals where they’re applied in agriculture are managed through the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act (ACVM Act). The interaction between those two Acts adds a level of complexity.

Similarly, on the question of genetically modified organisms, you can end up with a genetically modified organism being managed through the ACVM Act if—as the Minister also pointed out—it is first passed through the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act because it’s captured as a new organism. Or is it captured as a new organism, because part of the debate which we’re intimately involved with in this Chamber and in this term of Government, in particular, because we’ve dealt with the gene tech bill, which did not make it back to the House for a second reading—part of the challenge we’re grappling with is definitions of what are genetically modified organisms.

We may already have an instance where something has been deemed to not be a genetically modified organism by the regulator through a process at the Environment Protection Authority and it has been released in a field trial—I’m talking about a compound that’s a potential solution to varroa mite—and there’s debate as to whether it was correct to define this double-stranded RNA compound as not being genetically modified, or not involving the potential release of a genetically modified organism that could convey heritable material. The courts found that it was an appropriate approval, but there is still contention and question around that.

All of this combines with the adding in of veterinary medicines. There are hazardous substances and new organisms, agricultural compounds—and, just for clarity, “compounds” means pesticides and herbicides, which is a far more familiar term, I think, to most people for what we’re talking about in practical terms—but also we’ve got veterinary medicines. Now, that is a much less contentious question, and going to the purpose of the bill in trying to ease the regulatory pathway for access to veterinary medicines, we support that. That is not contentious because, just like with human medicines, the processes in international jurisdictions around evaluating where it is appropriate and where a veterinary medicine is safe are very rigorous. Just as a paracetamol has an effect on a Homo sapiens in Denmark, it’s going to have the same effect on a Homo sapiens in New Zealand, and so you don’t need a separate regulatory regime for a human medicine; neither do you need a separate regulatory regime for a veterinary medicine, because we know that if it works on a horse in Sweden, it’s going to work on a horse in New Zealand.

Now, that’s why I actually think that one of the more useful solutions to the complexity of what’s being combined in these bills would be to separate out veterinary medicines because they are less contentious. What should have been done with the gene tech bill—which is part of this trio of legislation that occupies this space—is that it should have been separated into medicines and contained use versus environmental release. Had the bill been split into those two parts, it would have been much easier to deal with because the medicines bit is not contentious. Likewise, the veterinary medicines bit of this bill is not the contentious one.

But, on balance, our concerns around the loss of regulatory sovereignty around those agrichemicals is the reason that we’re not supporting this bill at the third reading. It’s because those pesticides and herbicides that are also regulated by this bill, as well as the HSNO Act, include pesticides and herbicides that are potentially novel and toxic. The worst effects of them—as is often the case with synthetic chemicals created by humans and laboratories over the last hundred years—are not understood or known until some years down the track or some decades down the track.

That’s why the precautionary principle and the precautionary approach is vitally important in regard to agricultural chemicals and compounds. We have, in the history of modern industrial agriculture, a pretty terrible track record of using some very damaging and destructive chemicals created by chemical companies—that they make a lot of money out of—and they serve a very simple, blunt, and effective purpose of killing things that we don’t like in the agricultural production monoculture, usually; killing the particular bugs we don’t like, killing the particular plants we don’t like. Now, the long-term effects of that on an ecosystem level are where we have a 2 percent decline in global insect population year on year. That is a catastrophic problem for us ecologically. The loss of bee populations globally is a major problem for agriculture and food production in general, let alone for ecology. One of the obvious causes of that is neonicotinoid chemicals. They have been used in the agricultural sector to kill the bugs that we don’t like but have had a knock-on effect on the bugs that we do like.

Similarly, we have to be wary and pay close attention to which companies are keen on deregulation of these chemicals. I just want to remind everybody that some of the companies that pushed hard for this deregulation of agricultural compounds—which are pesticides and herbicides—include BASF, one of the world’s biggest agrichemical manufacturers; Bayer, the company that bought out Monsanto, who invented glyphosate and who invented a number of highly toxic chemicals, some of which are now prohibited in other jurisdictions; Syngenta, who produce atrazine, a chemical banned in 40 countries around the world but not banned in New Zealand. It should be banned in New Zealand. We have to heed who is pushing for this deregulation of these chemicals. Whose agenda does it serve, and should we forfeit our regulatory sovereignty in terms of the management of those chemicals, and should we be so willing to accept an overseas jurisdiction that might be under the influence of the lobby of those massive agrichemical companies to get a lighter-touch approach at the regulatory level?

For those reasons, we stick on the side of a precautionary approach, notwithstanding that there will be some new chemicals and substances and biologicals that will be useful and will help us move away from more toxic chemicals. On balance, we do not believe that this amendment meets the right balance. We think it is too great a liberalisation, particularly in regard to those agrichemicals, those pesticides, and those herbicides, and so we won’t be supporting this bill at this reading.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill on the last day of the 54th Parliament. Look, I just wanted to thank the Primary Production Committee for the work that they did, and the officials and all of the advice that they gave us. We certainly did harass them a bit around certain issues.

I just want to reiterate that, in our report, we noted that the bill does not amend the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act or alter New Zealand’s regulatory settings in relation to GMOs or GEs. It’s in our report. We had no differing views that were proposed by any party for the committee report. Originally, we were going to report back mid-September, but the committee agreed unanimously to report back in late August.

We are not losing regulatory sovereignty. That is the whole process that will be enabled by this new bill, taking into account overseas jurisdictions and their assessment of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines. It doesn’t mean we rubber-stamp it. There are processes involved to make sure that they are acceptable for New Zealand conditions.

This bill is a real step forward for farmers who have been asking for changes in this space for quite some time. A number of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines that are available offshore are not available here. In many cases, these agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines have less of an impact on the environment and are certainly more effective in what they’re being used for.

I would just also like to note that we’ve actually lost a bit of scientific capability as well with the current system. We’ve lost one of our research labs that’s associated with one of the big companies and has shut up shop and moved to Australia, and that’s certainly restricted the number of opportunities for scientists and researchers here in New Zealand. This, hopefully, will help in bringing back some of that research and development of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines here onshore.

Finally, I’d like to close with, I guess, a shout-out to glyphosate, in particular, as one of the best and most useful inventions of the 20th century. It’s been an incredible chemical that has changed the way people farm. It has certainly been environmentally enabling, because, instead of tilling the soil, it’s allowed low-tillage or no-tillage systems to evolve. With that—

💬 Steve Abel: Tell the bees that.

It’s a great chemical, Steve Abel, and I think—

💬 Steve Abel: You wait to see how much you can grow when you’ve got no bees.

It’s a great, great chemical. Anyway, I commend this bill to the House.

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. New Zealand prides itself for having the best farmers and growers in the world, but they do need world-class tools, or competitive world-class tools, to be able to maintain that status. What we heard coming into Government was the enormous frustration by those involved in the sector, from both the companies and the farmers, of the ability to get new chemicals tested and regulated in this country. We did hear an example from the Hon Jo Luxton in her presentation about a six-year wait.

By international standards, even though we’re a great primary producer, we are, essentially, a small market, and we were perceived to be closed for business, and that was having real-world consequences: the closure of Bayers’s research facility in Hawke’s Bay; they shut up shop and moved to Australia as Miles Anderson has pointed out. The system was just not working for anyone and the length of time for the approvals was chilling investment, because it was narrowing the window of opportunity for a patent to be effected before an agricultural compound or veterinary medicine was to become generic. So it definitely was having a chilling effect. We do need to sort this out.

The main part of this bill is it gives effect for the ability of work done by trusted overseas regulators to be taken more fully into account by our team in the Environmental Protection Authority, as we’re not starting from scratch every time we get a new chemical or agrichemical veterinary medicine; we are able to take more fully into account work done by trusted overseas regulators. That does not mean that it’s an open door—there’s still New Zealand context to be taken into account—but we should be able to save a lot of time and effort and duplication through this new system.

We have put a lot of effort into making sure that this is robust and being satisfied with that. The stakes are very high. We had the dicyandiamide incident, where treatment of urea fertiliser—traces were found in the milk, which caused havoc, particularly in China; of course, milk powder and the like for infants. That was extremely detrimental to our reputation as a trading nation with really high-quality, safe food. The stakes are really high here, so we do have to have a system that is robust and will protect us from those sorts of outcomes, which can have a devastating impact on our reputation internationally.

The Hon Jo Luxton also referenced a series of amendments that came through at one point in this process under my name. The reason for that was that there was a late flurry where there was some Official Information Act information that was released showing that there had been some trials of a double-stranded RNA that, at face value, would breach the GMO-free rules. We were scrambling around to understand exactly what that means, how that got through the system, and how this particular piece of legislation as drafted would handle that—bearing in mind it’s gone through the previous, or the existing, policy framework and regulatory framework.

I would thank the Minister and his officials for indulging us, walking us through what had happened in terms of that being a treatment for varroa mites and their impact on bees, and that that is a contained experiment that has gone through the existing Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act. But I agree with the contribution from Steve Abel that, as the next Parliament looks at the HSNO Act and continues to grapple with where we land on GMO, we must make sure those definitions are clear. To me, as a layperson, double-stranded RNA is a modified organism, and how that got through our system to the point where it is—I think there are very real questions about that. I guess, the issue here is that that lies within the HSNO Act and how that is informed by the Gene Technology Bill that’s also been before the Parliament and goes through the next Parliament. So that’s the background of where that went. We’ve taken this issue very, very seriously. We wanted absolute assurance that we were not opening up a back-door pathway to GMO.

This is fiendishly complex, and those three bills—this bill, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) Act Amendment Bill, the HSNO Bill, and the Gene Technology Bill—are all linked. They’re probably being slightly done out of sequence here, actually, but it was important that we get this through before the election, because of this: that pipeline of products that we’re not getting access to. We needed to speed that up. With the other parts, we’ve got time to take more time and get that absolutely right. It’s going to be critical for the future of our agriculture and primary sectors. But it is fiendishly complex.

I will thank Miles Anderson and the Primary Production Committee for the work they’ve done on this, and the Minister and his team for shepherding the new bill forward. We now have, hopefully, the ACVM rules and regulations that allow much more effective and less toxic chemicals to work through our regulatory system. I mean, ironically, some of the stuff Steve Abel was talking about, some of these really toxic agrichemicals that have been used in our past—we actually have pretty rose-coloured glasses about our past and farming systems and our ecological and environmental record, because we used some horrific chemicals back in the day. This bill will allow us to get access to some much less impactful chemicals, treatments, and tools for our farmers and growers. New Zealand First supports this bill. Thank you.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, it’s quite incredible to hear the Government member and their shout-out to glyphosate, particularly at a time where we know that Monsanto, which is now Bayer, has been forced to pay literally billions of dollars in payouts to farmers, sprayers, and users because of the severe health impacts when it comes to glyphosate use. That’s the human health aspects, not to mention the environmental impacts, particularly on what we know is the true backbone of our economy and, actually, our entire world, and that is bees. Glyphosate has huge impacts when it comes to the environment and insects like these, and there are actually very valid ways to farm without these chemicals that are actually highly profitable. I just want to note that first.

I want to say, as well, that initially the Green Party did support the intention of this bill. That this generally streamlined approval of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines by streamlining the existing regulatory requirements is not necessarily a concern in itself, and particularly those veteriny—those veterinary, I should say; it’s a very hard word to say at the end of a long week—medicines. It is uncontroversial.

What is a concern is that while there can be value in improving these regulatory processes, this should not be achieved by relaxing very necessary precaution and safeguards, particularly when it comes to the safeguarding of the health of our people and our environment and our animals. I mean, there are really clear lines where caution and adequate information and evidence that is fit for purpose for New Zealand is actually required. When it comes to the health of our people, the health of our animals, and the health of our environment, we absolutely draw that line, because this bill ultimately goes beyond simply improving efficiencies. It was really at the select committee process and, also, now at committee of the whole House where really clear Amendment Papers were put forward by my colleague Steve Abel and others on this side of the House, which just would have provided some greater clarity and certainty about those safeguards. Unfortunately, the fact that those were not picked up or adopted by the Government only then strengthens our concerns around this bill.

I want to pick up, too—and I want to acknowledge the first reading of the bill that was just passed, with Rēkohu Wharekauri whānau who were in the gallery just now.

We are very concerned about Māori participation and Te Tiriti o Waitangi when it comes to this bill. There is an absence of meaningful requirements for Māori participation. That’s a significant concern for us.

We find it really hard to be in the Chamber consistently for these settlement bills where the Government are saying one thing, and then, in so many of their actions, they are taking away the rights and the obligations that the Crown holds under Te Tiriti when it comes to iwi Māori participation. For example, particularly with this bill, there is no requirement for the director-general to actually consult with iwi Māori before approving agricultural chemical products that could considerably impact te taiao—environment—and also, as we’ve covered, human health.

We’re really concerned about this specifically because environmental impacts can have severe consequences when it comes to taonga, to whenua, to waterways, and to Māori communities. We think there is absolutely a place for Māori knowledge, for mātauranga, and for expertise in this. It’s completely absent. We’re really concerned about the safeguards, and we oppose this bill.

As the member for Whanganui, including South Taranaki and Stratford, and soon including the Ruapehu, too, I’m proud of our Government’s record in backing our farmers and our primary producers. Passing the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill is another example of this. It improves farmer’s, grower, and business access to agricultural and horticultural products while maintaining strong protections for public health, food safety, biosecurity, environmental outcome, and our international trade. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill at its third and final reading. And, yes, it is a bit of a challenging word to pronounce.

I want to begin this contribution just by—I was very interested to listen to the contribution from the New Zealand First Associate Minister, because last week, this was one of two bills where we saw what was the three governing parties in a little bit of disarray, where New Zealand First were popping up amendments on Government bills, and this was one of those.

It was quite intriguing that the amendments appeared on the Table and then subsequently disappeared from the Table. I’ll come to that a little bit later, because Labour did have a solution that was subsequently not agreed to by New Zealand First at committee of the whole House stage, which could have helped to allay some of the concerns that our colleague Mark Patterson has mentioned previously and also from the Green Party. So I’ll come to that soon.

We do support this bill. The reason we support this bill: it is as an important tool for regulating agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines—there’s that word again—and it is important that we have a process that is straight forward, that’s rigorous, that’s easy for people to participate in, but that does protect people and that does protect our environment. That’s what this bill’s approach is, is to ensure that that happens.

What this bill does is it amends the existing Act; it doesn’t create a new Act. But one of the fundamental things that it changes, where we have had a lot of debate in the last few days, is that, in addition to the main regulatory process—a permanent regulatory process for compounds and medicines—there has been a change to what was once called “provisional registration”, which is now going to be called a “consent”. So I’ll come shortly to some of the things that the Labour Party believes could have been amended—I’m sure my colleague Rachel Brooking will have more to say on this in her contribution—to add some more guardrails around that particular process. But I do want to just, I guess, put on record some of the things that we understand around that what is now called a consent process.

The first thing is that a consent doesn’t automatically then lead to a full registration. So just because a product has been granted a consent, it does not mean that there will then follow an automatic registration process. That’s one of the concerns that has sometimes been asked. OK, so if a product gets a consent for a short period of time in order to—mostly it would be to undertake some research in a defined way and in a defined area—would that automatically lead to research?

Discussions with officials have been helpful in assuring us, as elected members, that actually what occurs with that consent, with that shortened consent time is an opportunity to undertake research, to actually test out—to test out—whether that compound is going to be able to be used safely in New Zealand. That research that comes from that consenting process can then be used to determine whether the full registration application is robust. So just to note that there’s no guarantee that a product would be fully registered later; it would still need to meet all of the requirements for a full registration.

I just want to touch on some of the other concerns that have come up and some of our proposals, as the Labour Party, via my colleague Rachel Brooking, that would have added some more guardrails. The first was that a consent, we believe, could have a maximum duration of less than five years. One of the concerns is that a consent could go on and on indefinitely—so, essentially, have an effect of having a full registration, even if it is limited in terms of where it’s able to operate and how it’s able to operate, it could still have an indefinite consenting time frame. That adds risk to the use of that particular product. So it was a pragmatic suggestion, and we’re surprised that New Zealand First didn’t take us up on the opportunity to vote in favour of that, to put some more guardrails around after having raised some fair concerns.

The second amendment that was put forward was to add some more guardrails around the environmental effects. It has been traversed in the House today around the relationship between the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act and the amendments to the HSNO Act and the amendments to this Act and this bill that’s going through the House. We did consider them in committee at the same time, and it is of interest to us on this side of the House that considered both bills together and asked questions about them together and have been advised that, no, we don’t need to have environmental guardrails in this particular bill because they sit in the HSNO Act.

However, the HSNO Act is also being updated, was reported back at the same time, but has not then appeared on the Order Paper in the House, so has not made its way into the debating chamber for its second reading, committee of the whole House stage, and third reading. Those two pieces of work have been dovetailed together. So it is of interest to us that one of those bills is now going to pass its third reading today and will have Royal assent and so forth, and the other one that it talks to, that it speaks to, will not. So it’s going to be an interesting little quagmire for officials in terms of how those two bills relate to each other. I mean, perhaps Government members can give us some more information on where that bill has gone—into the deep hole of bills that go nowhere, potentially. So just on the basis of, I guess, observing what’s happening with coalition parties and a bit of chaos at times, with New Zealand First popping amendments in on Government bills—Ministers, no doubt—it would be interesting to know what’s happened to HSNO.

We thought it would have been a pragmatic solution to add some guardrails around the environment into this bill. That would have helped allay some of those concerns raised by New Zealand First and ourselves and the Greens.

We also—and again, this came through my colleague Rachel Brooking; I’m sure she’ll want to mention these amendments she put forward, herself—wanted an amendment to say that any product sitting under that temporary consent shouldn’t be sold for commercial gain. There is the opportunity and references to those products being sold. We did discuss this with officials and understand that it’s a very rare thing to happen. We wanted an extra guardrail which would say that if those products were to be sold, because, essentially, if they’re having a provisional consent, it’s not for a commercial process; in future, it could be for a commercial purpose, but at the time, it’s usually for a research purpose.

It would be unusual for a product that’s being used for a research purpose in a very small way to have some type of sale process, but we believe that a guard rail to ensure that there wasn’t, I guess, a sideways option for one of those products to then be used to be sold for commercial gain, would have been an extra guard rail that could have been put in. Then we also just note that it would have strengthened the role of consents for research, rather than for commercial sales.

In the short time that I have left on this bill, I do just want to note that we are supporting this with those reservations I’ve laid out, because what it does do is it streamlines that process for approvals for compounds and veterinary medicines. We have heard those stories of products taking an extraordinarily long time to go through that process.

We believe it’s important to be very defined and clear between the two processes that exist: the short-term provisional consenting process—that is, primarily for research—where a product may only be used in a defined area in a defined way with extremely robust guard rails around it, versus a product that has actually received its full registration and that can be used in that environment. We know that that system, for many people, has been far too slow, and often, when there hasn’t potentially been a large risk, the process has largely been too slow, and that’s been very frustrating, because being able to have compounds that can be used in the primary production sector to treat animals is important for our primary production sector, which is so important to New Zealand’s economy.

On that note, with some of those reservations, which I’m sure colleagues from my party—the next two speakers—will be able to eloquently espouse also, we do believe that this bill, on the whole and on balance, will be useful for our primary production sector. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

Look, this bill is really important for a region like Hawke’s Bay, where I come from—

💬 Grant McCallum: The fruit bowl.

—the fruit bowl of New Zealand. It is the powerhouse of horticulture in this country. Growers and farmers need these products to be able to produce the best products and export them to the world, and, currently, it is taking too long to approve these products. We’re losing our competitive advantage with the rest of the world, and we need to step up and approve these products a lot faster and a lot more efficiently so that we can continue to be the powerhouse of horticulture and export to the world, to create jobs and opportunities for New Zealand, and to grow our economy. So I commend this bill to the House.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is slightly strange to be standing in front of you—and I’ve spent a lot of time standing in front of you—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have, in the last couple of weeks.

—in what I think would be my last contribution in the 54th Parliament, and it is on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill.

As we traversed last week under urgency in the committee of the whole House stage, this bill—or the ACVM Bill, as it is called—is an amendment bill. We’ve already got the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act, and the purpose of that Act has not changed, but some bits and pieces are changing in this legislation. We heard from the Minister for Food Safety that it is to enable these safer products to get permissions to be used in New Zealand, and then that will mean that the less-safe products can be swapped out.

That is great, and that is why we—the Labour Party—have been in support of this bill. However, we did suggest some changes that would make that more explicit. It is useful to have it on the Hansard from the Minister because there doesn’t seem to be an explicit hook in the bill that does what I’ve just said, which is that it really has a focus on enabling these safer products to come into New Zealand and be swapped out with those less-safe ones. But I very much hope that that is how this legislation is used, because that is why the Labour Party is supporting it.

Now, we also heard some things about the select committee process. I’m not on the Primary Production Committee—I am our food safety spokesperson, but it sits at the same time as the Environment Committee. We heard from Miles Anderson at one point that Labour was supporting the shortened report-back time to select committee—it absolutely was not. There was a vote on the motion in an earlier contribution, and Labour opposed the vote for the earlier report back. It didn’t get a six-month report back; it got the sort of four-month report back, and then the select committee did report back slightly earlier than that.

We also heard from the Minister that there was this collegial approach in the select committee, which is interesting when you have a coalition Associate Minister of Agriculture tabling Amendment Papers during urgency against another Associate Minister of Agriculture’s bill. Now, those amendments disappeared, and that was interesting. Obviously, someone was not pleased in the coalition.

But, I have listened to the Hon Mark Patterson, and what they were trying to do was to give some clarification and some comfort that where this new consent for research is given—so it used to be called a provisional registration, or it’s called a provisional registration under the Act that is being amended—and when this consent comes in, it is really for research. We had some discussion in the committee of the whole House stage that even though the word “selling” is used in the bill, the intention is not for these products that get a consent—this is clause 40 of the bill—are not to be sold. It is that these consents, which have a much less rigorous process than the other consents, are there just for research.

I put forward an amendment that would have said “and other related purposes”, but the Government voted that down, which I think is a shame. But we did get some useful comments on the Hansard in the committee of the whole House stage of that process that really go to the scope of other purposes—which is in the subheading—which is that it is restricted and related to research. So it was useful to have that debate. I also suggested that there should be a time frame on the duration of these research consents, but the Minister didn’t agree to that amendment, which is a shame, I think, because we could have made it a little bit better.

In conclusion, for the 54th Parliament, I very much hope that this bill will do what the Minister has said. I hope that it will enable these safer products to be used in New Zealand, that we will see some of the older products stop being used, and that it will, indeed, be better for the environment.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, this is not the first time I’ve spoken on the same bill as the previous speaker Rachel Brooking, but it will be the first time, I think, that we’ve both supported a bill. So I’d just like to acknowledge that. See, good things do come eventually, Rachel—thank you.

Look, this is a great bill for the farming communities of New Zealand and for Northland. It will allow our farmers to get on and do their jobs better, with better environmental outcomes and better economic outcomes. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the last day of Parliament for this Parliament, this is quite both a significant day and, I guess, piece of legislation. There will be people out there saying, “The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill—why is this here on the last day and why is it important?” Well, we are an agricultural and horticultural trading nation and we have been very successful at it, and the tools that we use for that are really, really important, but sometimes we have to be careful what we ask for.

If I can go back to the reasons that this bill was brought in by the Government, there’s been grumbling for a long time. In fact, there’s always grumbling from the farming sector, and we have to admit that, but some of the chemicals that they—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am attempting to stay neutral, Mr O’Connor!

I think even the Deputy Speaker will admit that. Things take too long to get through the process. I think there’s some truth in that, and I’ve had discussions with the Environmental Protection Authority over the years as to why it takes so long, but I could simplify it and say that there’s just too many lawyers—that’s the simple way—because the world is a very litigious place. We export some of the most vital ingredients in the world—that is, food, particularly if you talk about things like infant formula; highly sensitive. People care a lot about the ingredients that go into food, particularly if they’re feeding it to their infant child.

We’ve had incidents, unfortunately, across the globe—New Zealand being involved in one of them—with melamine in infant formula in China, and that put our international reputation at risk, in fact, and under a cloud for quite some time. The components that go into the white powder that we export—and we export about 1.4 million tonnes of white powder from our country each year. Now, the only other country that probably relies so much on white powder is—

💬 Suze Redmayne: Colombia?

—no—Colombia, and they export about 3,000 tonnes. It’s called cocaine; very valuable. One point four million tonnes of white powder and it goes into ingredients into some of the finest food products around this world. It is critical that we know exactly what is in that white powder, and we’ve had incidents when unknowns were in the white powder. Dicyandiamide (DCD) was a product that was applied by farmers in good faith and supplied by chemical companies to try and reduce methane emissions. Good tool—innovative Kiwis, as we always are, sometimes using products off-label. They might be for animal use, and some were thinking, “Oh, maybe we can use it on a different animal or maybe we can use it on a different crop.” That’s what has gone on for many, many years, but now the ability to identify residues in food products is far greater than it has ever been.

We exported some white powder, and it had residues of DCD, and indeed, the Europeans said, “Well, what is this? What’s a safe level for maximum residue level?”, and there wasn’t one, so that product is now off the shelf. We had another product come along called Bovaer, produced by a European company and supplied to animals—to cows, mainly—in indoor settings and in small amounts on a very regular basis into the feed that the animals consumed, and it had been claimed, I think, that there was some evidence that methane emissions from those animals was being reduced. So the Kiwi farmer thought, “Oh, this is a great thing. We were looking to reduce methane.” Many farmers are still looking to reduce it, even though this Government has given them confused signals over that—should they, shouldn’t they; that’s another issue. None the less, they thought, “This would be a great product for us. Let’s just kind of put it in the stalls. We don’t have a lot of in-stall feeding. We have more and more, but mostly it’s pastures, so can we use this on the pasture?”

They were frustrated. The farmers were frustrated that this wasn’t going through the process fast enough and we wanted this tool, and so they started banging on the door. Indeed, the company Bovaer were banging on the door of Ministers—we were in Government—saying, “We want this rushed through because this is a tool.” Well, in fact, the application hadn’t been made because there wasn’t sufficient proof that this would work in a pastoral system, and, indeed, still had unknowns about whether this would flow through into the milk and into the white powder that we export. So we do take a cautious approach to this, and, indeed, we should do to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO Act) and to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act.

Our concern is that this Government has been stupid with many, many pieces of legislation that it has brought through this Parliament over the last almost three years—stupid. We, in Government, when we get there after November 7, will have to reverse some of those because some of them either put individuals at risk through really crazy health and safety legislation, or they take away people’s rights, or they undermine our innovation; there’s a whole lot of reasons. I haven’t got time here to go through all the stupid pieces of legislation that this coalition Government has rushed through, much of it under urgency. This bill passed through the House under urgency, parts of it through the committee of the whole House stages. It had gone to a select committee, I’ll acknowledge that, but the risks here, if we get this wrong, are massive—absolutely massive.

That’s why the Opposition scrutinised this very, very carefully at every stage, and through urgency in the committee stages of this House. Indeed, one of the coalition partners in New Zealand First—and I have to acknowledge them because, from time to time, they show a bit of vision. In fact, their agricultural policy is not too bad; a little bit visionary, so they’re a bit cautious about this, as they should rightfully be, but, unfortunately, not National and ACT. They just want to dump anything on the market and let the market decide with the inherent risks that go with that. We are taking a more cautious approach. We should take a more cautious approach, given the impacts of getting this wrong.

There will always be companies that want to sell us chemicals. There will always be chemical companies coming up with new innovative products, and they may apply in other parts of the world, but we have a unique agricultural and horticultural environment in this country. We’re blessed with a moderate climate, with some fertile new soils, with a reasonably reliable supply of water and rainfall and some storage irrigation—we are blessed with all of those things. But if we screw it up by putting on the wrong fertiliser—and someone over there said, “Oh, glyphosate’s great.” Well, be cautious—be cautious—because, around the world, people are starting to connect cancer with glyphosate residues. We have used it cautiously; some countries don’t. They abuse the use of it.

The point being is that we can’t be dragged into a system that might apply elsewhere in the world just because companies want to sell us chemicals. We do need to have robust systems in place. This bill will speed up some of those processes, but it also raises the risk that something might get through, given, like urgency in Government, if you rush these things, you sometimes screw them up and you have to backtrack. But if we have another melamine, or another DCD, or Bovaer was proved to be clastogenic and it would get through into the food system, our economy would drastically suffer. I know, Madam Speaker, you understand this.

Labour has supported this piece of legislation through. We’ve scrutinised it to try and make sure that there are no stupid mistakes in this, but we have to table the fact that urgency, which was part of this process, doesn’t always deliver those safe outcomes. Look, we’ve got AgriZeroNZ trying to work on methane reduction, we’ve got people advocating for genetic engineering, all of those things. Be very cautious that, as we move forward and continue to be innovative producers of some of the finest food and fibre in the world, that we don’t let the market—which is the ACT stupidity and ideology—decide what we should have or should use. No, we should have proper oversight by people with ethical values through the Environmental Protection Authority and other areas of the HSNO Act. Labour supports this bill with caution, and we hope that people use it wisely.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As the MP for the mighty Rangitīkei, and a proud farmer, I know firsthand that farmers rely on and depend on effective science-based regulation to enable them to remain productive, competitive, and innovative. This bill is about fixing the basics and building the future. It’s about helping our farmers access the tools they need while maintaining strong safeguards for animal welfare, food security, and market confidence. For a region like the mighty Rangitīkei, where agriculture drives local jobs, exports, and economic growth, greater efficiency and certainty means better returns at the farm gate and stronger rural communities, and that is great for New Zealand and all New Zealanders. I commend the bill.

Can I just, firstly, start with a quick mihi to my very good mate Mark Grantham, who, on his 50th birthday, has come to Parliament here for the first time. Gidday, Mark. G’day, Mark. Mark is an absolute stalwart in our central communities in Auckland, particularly in Maungakiekie, and has raised thousands of dollars to help people in need. It’s amazing to have you here, my mate, with my other good friend your dad, Chris Grantham. Tēnā kōrua. E mihi ana ki a kōrua i tēnei wā.

National supports farmers. This bill is going to support farmers, and, therefore, I commend it to the House.

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

Ayes 101

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 21

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill

Legislative Statement