Smith Nick: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
Smith Nick: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
[Volume:616;Page:11757] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to follow on from some of the concerns about this bill that have been raised by my colleague Paul Hutchison and also by Ken Shirley. Despite what might be said about clarifying some of the numbers I have to sayI am more confused than ever. I listened with great care to what the Minister had to say because I was interested. I was concerned to know that what is contained in the select committee report is not accurate and I would like to put some questions to the Minister so we might get some clarification. If we reflect on this bill we are talking about an Act that was passed in 1996 about an incredibly important area and that is ensuring that toxic substances used in New Zealand are safe. Yet I am to believe that despite the fact that we are now 7 years down the track we are only a fraction through the transitional provisions. 
I say to the Minister that depending on which numbers we might use we can come up with some pretty amazing figures for the transition. If I am to believe the Minister’s latest figures that in fact that are 215000 of those substances to go through the process and if I am to believe the select committee chair—and I have no reason to disbelieve him—when he says we are doing 100 a year I have worked out that the transition will be completed in the year 2804. That is a pretty long transition period for any piece of legislation. I do not expect many of the children in the public gallery to live until the end of this bill’s transitional period—the year 2804. It is a wee way away! 
But if I am to believe the figures in the select committee report—that there are 80000 of these substances and 10000 have made it through the process—that means it will be the year 2080 before we get to the end of the transitional period under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. 
Jim Peters 
: That’s progress! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I am not sure. I have to say that if that is how damn long it is going to take for this legislation to take effect then I truly think that this Parliament is kidding itself. It is not good enough. I have to say that I think the Minister has somewhat brought this problem on herself. With no disrespect to the very capable members on the Education and Science Committee I have to ask why it was that the Government referred this bill not to the Local Government and Environment Committee which has dealt with all the other issues associated with hazardous substances but to the Education and Science Committee on fast track. I will tell members why. It is because the Government is in a mad hurry. 
I say to the Minister that she has now been in this role for 4½ years. Why is it that she cannot have the select committee do the job properly rather than the much-constrained process that she forced on to Brian Donnelly and members of the Education and Science Committee? It is not good enough. It is not fair. The protection of our environment from hazardous substances deserves better than a constrained process where the select committee cannot do its job properly and where the chair of the committee does not even know whether his report is accurate and it deserves better than not being referred to the committee it should have been referred to—and that is the Local Government and Environment Committee which is very experienced with legislation of this sort. 
But I come back to the principal point. This Committee deserves clarification. How many substances are going to be required to be registered under the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation? Does the Minister know? I think it is a pretty important point. How many hazardous substances do we expect to be registered under the Act? Does the Minister not know? Does the Minister have no idea? Is the figure that is provided in the Education and Science Committee’s report accurate? The Minister is paid a salary. We deserve an answer. The ministerial car and all the other things that go with her role mean that this Parliament is deserving of answers. If the select committee report is inaccurate then we need to know. 
I also have to ask the Minister how many substances have actually been registered. Can the Minister answer that? The Minister does not know? The Minister is refusing to answer the question? Can the officials in the Chamber provide accurate answers to the simple questions? How many hazardous substances are there to register through this process how many are done and based on the current budget and schedule how long will it take? They are reasonable questions and the Committee deserves an answer.