edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bayly Andrew; Clark David; Salesa JennyANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): So that's a no? Thank you. So this is really really significant and this is not to say that there's not a role for the Māori Plant Varieties Committee—no one is suggesting that for a moment—and we all understand kaitiaki. But does the Minister not consider that if you establish a Māori plant varieties committee to assess whether something is of kaitiaki nature and they become the sole defining body to determine that isn't that a bit of a conflict? I would have thought that it just seems like we're enshrining in this bill a sort of a whole separate process depending on whether it's indigenous or certain non-indigenous plant species" setting that on a course through the Māori Plant Varieties Committee and then if you aren't happy with the outcome you go to the Māori Appellate Court. I'll yield to the Minister.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair. I think this is useful clarification and I perhaps haven't been as clear as I could be about the process of getting to that committee. There is a process that's laid out—and we have debated some of that—as to whether a decision goes to that Māori Plant Varieties Committee or not and the commissioner oversees that process and refers on it as appropriate to that committee.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I also just want to point out to especially the member Andrew Bayly that this has actually morphed into Part 5 the Māori plant variety. So if you have any questions on Part 4 or comments to make on Part 4 now is the time otherwise we can move on to Part 5."
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair. So the certain non-indigenous plants species that I read out that will be prescribed in regulations comes to a list of 10. The member Andrew Bayly said it was about 12 and he's about right: it's 10 in that list currently. For that list to be expanded a kaitiaki relationship would have to be established and the Māori Plant Varieties Committee would be the adjudicator on that. Andrew Bayly: The Māori Plant Varieties Committee?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes because they would have to establish a kaitiaki relationship which is not an easy test but it's a test. I think this is one of the reasons why the recommendations brought by the committee to have an appeal right are important also for the confidence and certainty of breeders and that's why I have welcomed that recommendation from the committee to have an appeal right which will be surfaced through the Māori Appellate Court for anybody that wants to take action in that respect. So I agree with the committee's finding that an appeal right was important. We wrote to the judiciary and got back their recommendation that the Māori Appellate Court would be the appropriate body to consider appeals with the necessary expertise and seniority. That is a change from the original bill and I think an improvement because I'm accepting an aspect of the member's argument there that there has to be a natural justice process if that kaitiaki relationship or other things were to be challenged on the way through.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Minister and it's good that we're having this interactive. The one question I think the Minister was going to answer was whether in fact the commissioner could overturn the decision of the Māori Plant Varieties Committee and if I understood what he was indicating before that's not the case.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair. No they have a separate jurisdiction to the commissioner. They are there to hear things where there is a kaitiaki relationship established or able to be established.
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Madam Chair and I'd like to thank my colleague the Hon Judith Collins for raising the issue of kūmara. I'd like to enlighten my colleagues across the House about Fay and Joe Gock who have been growing kūmara for 60 years. I just wanted to bring to the Minister and my colleagues that Fay and her husband Joe are credited with having saved the kūmara when black rot threatened to obliterate the industry in the 1950s—and I'm reading from a news article—They gifted their disease resistant strain to the nation refusing to take any money for it."What happened was that they developed a disease-free kūmara strain which became known as owairaka red in the late 1950s. When there was this disease that literally threatened all of the kūmara stock in New Zealand they actually gifted it to the Department of Science and Industrial Research to help re-establish the kūmara stock. So in effect how will this reflect in terms of the kaitiaki relationship when in fact it was the Gocks who actually saved the kūmara stock from their own black rot - resistant strain that they themselves had in fact developed while all the other strains would have been decimated as a result of that?"
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister speaking to Part 5 and forgive my naivety but I'm just trying to get some clarity here—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): We're still on Part 4.MARK CAMERON: Oh we're on Part 4—I apologise.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you and I appreciate the Minister's response. Just dealing with each of those in turn the first one is the list that Cabinet has approved and thank you for specifying those. So the question there obviously arises: if that is the list that's been approved by Cabinet why wouldn't that be hardwired into the legislation? I suppose another way of asking the same question is that if Cabinet has agreed a list and it gets put into regulations that means that subsequently certain non-indigenous species can be added to or subtracted relatively easily so is the intent of Cabinet that there should be further additions to that list that Cabinet has already agreed and is that why it's going into regulations? I think that lack of clarity would be an important issue for the plant growers of New Zealand to know whether in fact they're likely going to be captured too or possibly going to be captured under what is deemed certain non-indigenous species. So that's the first question.With regard to the more substantive issue—which was the first issue I raised around the role of the Māori Plant Varieties Committee—what I detected from the Minister's statement was a very nuanced but significant change because if I understand what the Minister was saying up to now there have been many examples of similar advisory committees having an advisory capacity. They do not have the right under previous legislation to be able to make determinations and if I'm correct what the Minister has just said is that there is a subtle change that this Plant Variety Rights Bill introduces which means that the Māori advisory committee in this case moves from being an advisory committee to a decision-making committee. I take the point that a commissioner hasn't gone against advice of these types of tribunals or committees but it is an important fundamental legal change if it means that this is the first committee of this type—the Māori Plant Varieties Committee—where we've made that subtle change from an advisory to a decision-making committee. I think it's significant and I'm looking at my good colleague the former lawyer the Hon Judith Collins. I think the issue is really important—this subtle change if that is the case—and I'd love the Minister to be clear whether in fact it is because if there is that subtle change that changes the rights and sets a precedent that is really really important. I think it's really important at this stage to be absolutely clear and transparent about that change.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Madam Chair thank you. So first off the member asks why the Māori Plant Varieties Committee is not an advisory committee like for example the Trademarks Advisory Committee which would be a parallel example. Other than the decision-making power of the committee the committee is set up in just the same way as Māori advisory committees in that other regime—so that's the first point to make. The member is correct in drawing that kind of parallel. Though those other committees are only advisory it is I think worth the committee noting that the commissioner has never gone against the advice of that committee in those other circumstances—that's what I'm advised. Some trademark and patent applications have not proceeded as a result of the advice.In respect of the Wai 262 recommendations it was important to listen to the views of Māori and engage in good faith on the Treaty provisions in the bill. The Wai 262 recommendations are not binding on the Crown nor do they set any kind of ceiling on how the Crown may respond. The Crown basically has the flexibility and arguably the responsibility to determine how best to respond to those recommendations. So this is the response we have made and I'm just trying to think whether it's worth—yeah I suppose—making the other point. In the Wai 262 inquiry the tribunal found that the approach taken in the bill is consistent with Ko Aotearoa Tēnei's findings on the balancing required to give effect to the applicable Te Tiriti—Treaty—principles of partnership in active processes.In respect of the member's other question around certain non-indigenous plant species the member Melissa Lee raised this actually in an earlier stage of the debate but let's cover it here. There's no list in the bill or regulations of indigenous plant species but there is a list of non-indigenous species of significance that will be prescribed in the regulations. The list of non-indigenous species of significance was approved by Cabinet when it agreed on the policy decisions on the Plant Variety Rights Regulations and I'd note for the record that that relevant Cabinet paper and minute had been proactively released. But for the benefit of the House that list includes: kuru or breadfruit; hue or gourd or calabash; aute or paper-mulberry; karaka/kōpī; paratawhiti/paraa; perei; kūmara; taro; tī pore which is Pacific cabbage tree I'm told; and whikaho or yam. So that is the list of things that are included and they will be included in those regulations.
Fisheries Amendment Bill — In Committee—clauses 1 to 3
Salesa JennyClauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to our final debate. This is clauses 1 to 3 which is the title commencement and principal Act. The question is that clause 1 stand part.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon David Parker's amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
Fisheries Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2 and Schedules 1 to 3
Salesa JennyPart 2 Repeal and consequential amendmentsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 27 to 31 and Schedules 1 to 3 Repeal and consequential amendments". The question is that Part 2 stand part.The question is that the Hon David Parker's amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order 252 be agreed to. Amendments agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon David Parker's amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon David Parker's amendment inserting new Schedule 2A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon David Parker's amendments to Schedule 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 3 as amended agreed to."
Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
Cameron Mark; Parker David; Salesa JennyMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister going back to my Supplementary Order Paper 256—you didn't answer me sir—would you give it consideration? I think the explanatory note lays it out quite clearly about the nominal value or monetised value of certain species versus others and having so-called bait fish" removed in that 50—more-or-less—limit to try and give a little bit more certainty. Especially to coastal commercial fishermen—they're going to be heavily affected by the potentiality of unwanted bycatch and the attached prosecutorial reality that may follow. Would you give it consideration? Because I think this part of the industry certainly from the submitters we heard is deeply aggrieved about the legislation as proposed.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): I have previously addressed that issue; we're not supporting that Supplementary Order Paper. We don't think it's draconian; we do think it's appropriate that fish that are caught are landed and I've covered the reasons for that in a number of contributions.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the next call I do want to warn members that we are beginning to have repetitive questions on Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) so please make it relevant. And if it's SOPs that have not yet been covered go ahead."
Muller Todd; Parker DavidTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd just like to build on the Minister's last couple of conversations around the confidence that he wants us to have around how the judicial system will approach the penalties regime because what he has done is highlighted one of the real concerns that we had as the Primary Production Committee that too much of this is left to the interpretation of the regulations and the subsequent conversations if you like that are to be had with wider stakeholders over the next four years. At one level that circle-back for consultation in terms of the secondary legislation impacts makes sense of course but it does give us real pause for thought and concern as the select committee because the theme Minister that seemed to keep coming through when we tried to get clarity around the judgments that would be brought to bear on the 50 pilchards versus 50 tuna was essentially trust us" that once we get into the discussions with the industry and design the needed regulations where that's applied those sensible decisions will get made as opposed to relying on more clearer direction from the primary legislation as to the balance that we were seeking.You know one of the concerns that I still have when I reflect on this bill is those various submissions from the smaller often contract fishers—for example a few that talked to us from the Taranaki region. Relatively in some cases old or depreciated assets have been in industry for a long time but the idea of a requirement to have cameras and the costs associated with that and the reality of having to try to fish in some of those regions and not catch snapper when there's such a lot of it—as a particular species that is in a healthy state at the moment in that area—and being caught not only in terms of needing to put it against their annual catch entitlement but also just being hammered in terms of potentially letting fish go back to the sea that perhaps don't meet the criteria that is yet to be negotiated around survivability and the like.The concern that we still have I would say on this side of the House is too much of this is left to conversations yet to be had and there is not enough direction from the primary legislation. I would ask Minister whether you have had pause to reflect. You certainly have in terms of your sense that perhaps the recreational sector's perspectives weren't appropriately taken into account with respect to the pre-set decision rules. Have you any concern that perhaps those inshore commercial fishers' perspectives have not sufficiently been captured in the balance that you have struck with this legislation?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): I am convinced that this regulatory regime is better than the old one. It is less draconian it is better for fishers it's better for Fisheries New Zealand it will result in better outcomes for the fishery and it doesn't apply any unusual discretions to either the prosecutors or the courts. This is completely normal in any area of regulation."
Cameron Mark; Parker DavidMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister clause 20—section 252 amended (Penalties)—(3A) states Every person convicted whether in the same or separate proceedings of 2 or more offences against section 72"—I'm paraphrasing of course—"returning abandoning or retaining fish or other animals [or] aquatic life in any 24-hour period". If I may just to try and help me contextualise that if you're a blue water fleet perhaps in the Southern Ocean and you throw a 2-tonne net overboard and you get a tonne and a half or two tonne of fish off it and by virtue—I mean you might smile sir but you can soak a net for a couple of hours and you will get tonnes of fish and you're talking about 50. And the potential for a prosecutorial reality if not a fine exceeding $250000 in respect to a second offence. Well gracious me you can chuck a net twice over in 24 hours and you've had two offences in that 24-hour period and this speaks to in a period of three years as liable for that potential fine. Now how do you reconcile that sir? I mean this is the practical world and we all support the cameras absolutely—it's a good idea—as does the industry. And the very point of these nets by design is to allow for as many fish that are not target species to escape and yet when you've got a tonne and a half of fish in a big net you get a lot of deck wash. When the fish spill out they're considered caught; if they go over the side—and I'm sure there'll be more than 50—all of a sudden we've got this $250000 potential reality in the space of but a few days or even potentially 24 hours. How do you reconcile that? Because again this is as proposed quite impractical.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): At the moment there is the same existing maximum penalty. The unfortunate thing for fishers at the moment is there's no alternative much less draconian penalty available. So in addition to the prosecutorial discretion to do nothing—which is always open to a prosecutorial authority if they don't think it's necessary or proportionate nowadays—once this legislation passes they can also issue infringement notices. So this is carrying forward the same maximum penalty as currently applies but that would never be imposed by a court in respect of a minor issue. And if it was a truly minor issue it would be very unlikely that there would be prosecutorial action anyway."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): In respect of the Supplementary Order Paper no. In respect of bycatch the member is correct and I think all members of this House are concerned with the bycatch of both mammals and seabirds. You know the prognosis for the Antipodean albatross for example is dire. At the moment I'm advised—in fact I was recently advised that we have a particular problem with the loss of female birds. They are lighter and they range further in their search for food and because they rove further they're actually roving into the areas of international waters where most of them are caught as bycatch not by the New Zealand fishing fleets but by overseas fishing fleets.That's not to absolve the New Zealand fisheries management system or New Zealand fishers from the need to do better in respect of interactions" as they're euphemistically called or you know the catching of birds as bycatch in the New Zealand waters or our exclusive economic zone. But we've got to tackle both of these problems both at home and in international waters and we do that through our international outreach both in the Pacific where a lot of these fleets are based but also with our diplomacy to their home countries as far afield as Spain. There's great civil society support for this including some really good advocacy that's being run by civil society groups. One of the things that they're advocating for is a change to the rules to require more of the mitigation techniques to be compulsory rather than two out of three and I'm expecting a report on those issues before the end of the year."
Muller Todd; Parker DavidTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Madam Chair. A couple of comments in response and questions to the Minister on that. I can't see how he can possibly see pulling the pre-set decision rules framework in the 11th hour as part of a strategy to rebuild trust.Secondly this bill as you would imagine was part of the conversations that I participated in last Thursday at the 30th anniversary of the iwi fisheries and the elements of having a pre-set decision framework were strongly supported. So I am interested to understand what has happened in a week that has meant that the Minister in his own words says that he now has limited confidence that this is an intervention that will work. And Minister in particular I contrast your comments now with your Cabinet paper that you took to Cabinet to support this bill paragraph 31 saying that pre-set decision rules will support more responsive decision-making improve the speed of decisions provide greater certainty and result in improvements to setting catch levels and other sustainability measures over time." And this is in paragraph 34 of your Cabinet paper Minister: "Amending the Fisheries Act to include pre-set decision rules in addition to these existing mechanisms will provide a tool to strengthen our response to changes in the status of our fisheries and better achieve our sustainability outcomes."Minister this has been something that you have been very aware of that you have helped facilitate the architecture of for your bill had comfort to introduce it it was part of a select committee report-back it was part of our speech this morning when we were yesterday in terms of the second reading and here you are saying "Well actually no I don't support it don't see the need for the intervention and I'm pulling it in its entirety from the bill." How can you align what you've just said with your advice to your Cabinet colleagues?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): I actually didn't say in my earlier contributions that it couldn't work I said that it's not a significant measure in terms of the overall management of the fisheries resource relative to the other parts of the Act noting that we already have two sustainability rounds a year. What I said was that rather than—my hope was that we would be carrying people that this was a non-controversial thing to do that would improve outcomes. We haven't satisfied people and I thought the Hon Eugenie Sage minority report captured their concern in a fair summarised way which is there are a significant number of people—perhaps on the basis of the experience in yesteryear which might not be fair to carry that forward now but that's how people feel; it's what they believe. They don't think that we should be conferring more powers on the Minister or the department to advise the Minister to have a within-season adjustment without public input on the actual change that is being proposed."
Parker David; Dean JacquiHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I'm not sure it's relevant to the title debate but as I said we are considering some changes to make more practical the rules around laboratory research for not just medical but non-medical purposes as well. We don't have a current plan to broadly change the rules relating to the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that clause 1 stand part.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that clause 2 stand part.Clause 2 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that clause 3 stand part.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Madam Chair thank you and thank you Minister. On the title and your reference Minister to the fact that this bill exclusively addresses hazardous substances have you considered or received any advice as to whether in a future review of the operation of this legislation with respect to new organisms there could be a separate piece of legislation that addresses our future needs in terms of biotechnology to solve medical problems to solve environmental problems and potentially to solve some of the problems around food production—whether a separate piece of legislation titled maybe Beneficial Biotechnology" or something would be considered in the future?"
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): In the spirit of what the Minister's just suggested that this is in plain English what were some of the initial alternatives that officials put forward?
Dean Jacqui; Simpson Scott; Parker DavidClauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to our final debate on clauses 1 to 3. This is the title commencement and principal Act.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well just a relatively minor point but given the keenness of the current Government that supports plain language legislation I'm interested to know whether the Minister and his officials could have come up with something that was a little bit less complicated than the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill. Could that have been something that officials could have turned their mind to in terms of just saying This is something that is going to be a little less cumbersome" if only for those of us that have to speak to the title in the House?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I actually think officials did well to choose that name because it actually addressed the issue that Simon Court asked which is whether the bill actually addresses new organisms or hazardous substances and it actually addresses the assessments of hazardous substances. That's clear from the title and therefore I'm not proposing to change it."
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Schedule
Dean JacquiScheduleCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We move on to the Schedule. The question is that the Schedule stand part.Schedule agreed to.
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has technical panels that report to it and those panels would provide them with technical advice as to whether there was significant new information relating to the effects of the organism. That new information could be that it is more harmful than was previously thought but it has to be significant before they would trigger the grounds to reassess at the request of somebody. So this is where there are requests for reassessment and if there has been no significant change then you can understand that the EPA would want to put its resource somewhere else that was an area of significant change.In respect of clause 21 which inserts new section 62(2)(c) the wording there is that another substance with similar or improved beneficial effects and reduced adverse effects has become available;" So that's intended to cover the situation where there may have been no decent alternative to the chemical which had been approved for use albeit on restricted grounds notwithstanding adverse effects. The authority might on the request of somebody think "Well we've got this other chemical that does the job just as well with far fewer environmental effects. We should look again at the original approval for the more dangerous chemical." In respect to all those issues it will be a matter of discretion for the authority.Part 2 agreed to."
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. I would like to focus on section 62 in clause 21—this is Grounds for reassessment of substance or organism"—and in particular section 62(2) which sets out a range of matters that the authority may decide are grounds for reassessment of an organism or substance after taking some factors into account. Now there are several subjective definitions in paragraphs (a) (c) and (d). Words like—in (a) "that significant new information relating to the effects"—what is determined as "significant"? In (c) it says "that another substance with similar or improved beneficial effects". Who decides what is "similar" "improved" and/or "beneficial"—or indeed in paragraph (c) "reduced adverse effects"? In (d) again there is reference to "significant change of use or a significant change in the quantity manufactured imported or developed has become available;".So I'm interested in the Minister's view as to the test that the Environmental Protection Authority and then ultimately the chief executive would have to satisfy themselves with in terms of meeting those relatively subjective definitions as to "significant" "similar" "improved" "beneficial" "reduced" "adverse" and those sorts of words that are used in the legislation. Thank you."
Smith Stuart; Parker DavidSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm quite surprised by the Minister's comments here given that I think everyone in this room has had two jabs of a genetically modified organism into their arms. I think it's extraordinary that he would think it was so reluctant for genetically modified organisms to be used in New Zealand. I think the world has changed and I think that the Environmental Protection Authority and the Minister might want to reconsider their position.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! We're having a wide-ish ranging debate but I think coming closer to what is actually in the bill I think we're about at that point. Do you want to respond?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I do feel a need to respond to that because there is actually a significant difference. I wouldn't want people to think that by being vaccinated they are changing their genetic makeup because they're not. There is a difference between that and a genetically modified grass that replicates and creates a heritable trait which a vaccine does not. And I wouldn't want to leave listeners or observers of this with the impression that being vaccinated means that you are being genetically modified because you're not and that is a very very important issue to be careful with at the moment in New Zealand.
Smith Stuart; Parker DavidSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. Going back to the reassessments the Minister will be aware that many of the hazardous substances that would come up for reassessment are seasonal in nature. So a crop where a family group of chemicals is used is totally reliant on the season. If a chemical comes up for reassessment during that period and they decide to halt the use of it during that reassessment what processes does that go through so that we have assurance when  for example kiwifruit or the wine industry or wheat harvest or whatever it is is reaching a critical stage that requires a chemical to deal with a certain disease threat and then suddenly it's halted and we can't use it and when there's no time whatsoever to get alternative chemistry to deal with that particular challenge? How do we know that that has been taken into account before that halt is being called? So I guess what I'm saying is: how high is the bar for that halt of use?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Those are issues that are determined by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) on the facts that are before them. I suppose it would depend a bit on the practicality of alternatives to the danger relatively that is posed by the incumbent if you like and their assessment of risk. I know that in the case of methyl bromide again the prior reassessment because it's now been reassessed twice gave a very long lead-in period. But those in the end are for the discretion of the EPA to take in accordance with the advice that they get from the expert panels that provide them technical advice.In respect of the earlier question from Simon Court the department's confident that they will do it within 12 months. They don't have a specific date earlier than 12 months but they confirm that it won't be this year it will be next year.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well just further to that Minister is there no reasonableness test or anything other than just the judgment of the person concerned rather than something prescribed to meet a certain standard of reasonableness?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Hon David Parker.Hon DAVID PARKER: Sorry Madam Chair I should've called. I don't understand that they're to be stated in that way. There are various factors that have to be taken into account by the EPA. Their primary focus is obviously safety but they also have regard to the societal benefit of the chemicals that are used. They balance all of those issues in a way that is wise. So I haven't heard complaints in my time as Minister as to how they have abused that process. I've never had a complaint in that regard and I'm not expecting any.Part 1 agreed to.
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Court Simon; Parker DavidSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister thank you for bringing this bill the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill to the House. ACT New Zealand supports this bill. Anything that reduces the regulatory burden on New Zealand consumers taxpayers and businesses is welcomed by ACT. So thank you Minister and thank you to the officials for putting in all that effort.I just want to ask you about new section 20C—in clause 4—Reassessments work plan". It's quite likely that there are a range of hazardous substances for which an evaluation by technical experts would point to the need to either reduce limit or stop their use as better products are available. That's what we understand the reassessments work plan will be designed to do.I just want to ask the Minister—and he might need to consult with officials—has there been an appropriation in a Budget to reform or improve the reassessments process? Will the existing resources staff and IT systems that the Environmental Protection Agency currently uses be able to be used? And in terms of the reassessments work plan it requires the plan to be put together within 12 months I understand of the legislation passing. Given it's taken quite a long time for the legislation to move through the House is it likely that we'll know the time frame or schedule for reassessment to proceed? Is this something likely to happen in 2023 or is it more likely to be 2024 before the reassessments process starts? And if so are there any interim measures that you think should need to be taken?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of the Budget point no there hasn't been additional budget given to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The long-term funding of the EPA is actually being reviewed this year which is not to say that it will be substantially increased but it could be.In respect of the most important feature of this bill the very fact of the passage of this bill enables the EPA to do more with the budget that it has because they can now adopt information from overseas regulators that have been approved through the process that I covered in response to an earlier question.In respect of the date by which the work plan will be set I'll ask officials that now but I don't know it to be earlier than the 12 months."
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. Under the principal Act it's clear that hazardous substances that are approved by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) are approved in perpetuity. However there can be a reassessment option and programme initiated and at select committee there was a proposal—which has been I think picked up in clause 4—to create a new section 20C relating to reassessment of work plans. Now at select committee the committee understood that the intent of the bill was for reassessment work plans only to include reassessments that were initiated by the chief executive and that they would not be able to be initiated on an applicant basis for reassessments.So that then seems to me—on the face of it Minister—to provide the chief executive with very significant power to manage and intercede on reassessments at the personal initiative of the chief executive. And again just referring to a number of very keen and enthusiastic environmental NGOs who may want to have reassessments done it seems that this legislation will simply not provide for any mechanism for an initiated reassessment option to occur and that the only trigger for reassessment lies with the chief executive. I'm keen to know from the Minister why he thinks that power should be limited to the chief executive. Does he consider that there could ever be situations where an applicant-initiated reassessment request could be considered or triggered that was contrary to the views and opinions of the chief executive of the day? So I'd be interested in the Minister's views on that please.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair. The chief executive of the authority—and I should go back a step. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) takes these decisions independently of the Government. They're not ministerial decisions and neither should they be because it's a regulator that's trying to get the best safety outcome for New Zealand as well as within the bounds of safety; good economic outcomes where chemicals are needed in New Zealand's economy. The Act provides that there are criteria set out at section 62(a) to (d) of the Act; I haven't got those in front of me but I can get them for the member if the member is interested.But in addition to that the work plan must list the substances and give an indicative time frame for when the work will start. But then the authority comes into play rather than the chief executive which is provided for in new section 20C(4) in clause 4 of the bill. It says: The Authority must ensure that the work plan (a) gives the highest priority to … (i) hazardous substances that are prohibited for use under section 64: (ii) hazardous substances that are subject to restriction under section 64A;". So in the end the authority has control of the list and they've got duties to prioritise the things that are most important to prioritise."
Smith Stuart; Parker DavidSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Minister for that answer. While I accept it's not particularly part of this it does relate to the—we have these substances that are not desirable to be used but we do use them and we need to know how they're controlled. My question was really around how they're handled in New Zealand.So if for example we ban methyl bromide and the Environmental Protection Agency say that that's no longer to be used under this Act then those logs that are going to be exported if they're going to be treated on the sea—not in New Zealand; outside the 12-mile limit—are they able to be carried on board so that those exports can continue but they're just merely used and treated outside of our 12-mile limit?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair. I expect it is legal for vessels to carry them if they carry them safely. We wouldn't assert the ability to control what happens on the high seas. But I'm not sure whether that practice does occur.I do know that methyl bromide has been recently reassessed. It took a number of years. There was an assessment some years ago that proposed phasing it down to very very low concentrations of residue which proved impossible to achieve. There had been a hope that in the meantime there would be substitute chemicals or processes developed. Some substitute processes have been developed for some markets. Some markets are happy for the logs to be stripped of their bark and then just effectively steam treated I think—or it might even just be the removal of the bark. But some markets I think including India refuse to recognise that as sufficient control of the risk that a pest could be carried with the log and so they still require fumigation.As a consequence of the reassessment there are strict controls covering both in-hold and on-the-wharf applications of methyl bromide. It was quite a long process because at one stage there were some wind assessments that were done that indicated that on a certain wind there could be problems caused in the Tauranga area which the Environmental Protection Agency had to work through.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I'm aware that methyl bromide is used both in the hold and portside under tarpaulins. There are different rules that apply to each which reflect the consequences of each methodology. Obviously if a hold has been pumped full of methyl bromide in concentrations that can kill all the bugs there would be a danger to people who went into the hold thereafter without it being cleared. I will check with officials but I'd presume that the jurisdiction of WorkSafe would end at the 12-mile limit but I will see if officials are aware of that. It's not directly on point to this bill so if I can't get an answer from officials I apologise and I'm happy to get to the member later.Indeed that's been confirmed by officials: 12 nautical miles.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to take part in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill—it's quite a mouthful actually. I thank the Minister David Parker for his full and frank responses. My question is around methyl bromide and it's actually used in the Port of Picton as well—Shakespeare Bay to be precise. You mentioned Minister how important a part WorkSafe plays in chemicals such as methyl bromide. A lot of logs that are exported are actually treated with methyl bromide on the journey away—the logs are loaded and they're actually treated with methyl bromide at sea. Is that restricted if it occurs within New Zealand waters? How does that work? Is methyl bromide allowed to be carried but not used and then used at sea? If so where at sea is it that the laws of the land end as far as that's concerned and WorkSafe's jurisdiction ends? Is that the 12-mile limit? Is it the exclusive economic zone or where does that happen?
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you the Hon Mr Simpson. That clause earlier new section 53AA in clause 7 sets out that in addition to public consultation departments of the Crown that are likely to have an interest in the application should be consulted. Where it's an application for the approval of a new organism there is also an obligation to consult with the Department of Conservation and if the application is for approval of a hazardous substance WorkSafe must be involved. One of the more difficult issues that the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has dealt with in recent years has been the approval of methyl bromide for its continued use in New Zealand. New Zealand we now know is one of the largest users of methyl bromide in the world and if used unsafely it can cause serious health effects for the people close to it. I know that in that case a lot of the work on both the safe application of it and alternatives to that chemical the role of WorkSafe has probably been in addition to the EPA's work themselves. I would have thought that WorkSafe has been the lead agency to provide good input to the EPA as to what is a proper outcome in respect of public notification. In that case there were concerns about its use around ports because it's used as a fumigant before the export of logs to kill the bugs that might be in the bark in the main. And some of those activities are on the port within close proximity to cities. Mr Muller will be aware of this because this is the case in point in Tauranga. I'm aware that in that case obviously those that were consulted were those people who were affected or potentially affected. I would expect that in the future in a similarly difficult application the EPA decision as to reasonableness would be a decision that they took with care and that they would be wanting to make sure that people who had a legitimate interest in what are contentious issues had an opportunity to make submissions to them. If they did that in a way that excluded a significant portion of the population who might be adversely affected by the use of that chemical then I suppose it is possible that those people could take that issue to the court and allege that there was a breach of the statutory duty in terms of their assessment of what is reasonable. In my time as Minister of this organisation that's never happened because I think the EPA does get it right.
Parker David; Dean JacquiHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well I'll take the first call on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill. This bill updates the processes under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act—the HSNO Act as it's called—to allow the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to use information that comes from reputable overseas regulators rather than requiring all of that evidence to be produced in a bespoke basis for the New Zealand regulator.It's a very sensible bill and it will have better environmental outcomes in New Zealand because the problem that we have with our current system is that because the process requires reconsideration based on a full volume of evidence quite a few of the owners of the rights to chemicals don't bring them to New Zealand. As a consequence we're still using chemicals in New Zealand that could be replaced with better chemicals that are more effective or have less environmental harm but they don't get registered here. One of the impediments to that registration is the cost of the process.The other effect of this is that it constrains the ability of the EPA to conduct reassessments of chemicals that are already in the system based on information that is from overseas. So what this legislation does in this globalised world is allow the EPA to take notice of the information that comes from for example a European regulator who may have looked at the same chemical in great detail.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Dean JacquiHAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND NEW ORGANISMS (HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSESSMENTS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Main AmendmentsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we are in committee on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill. We come now to—Tim van de Molen: Fisheries.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): A member is trying to tell me something. Would you like to take a point of order?TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): I raise a point of order Madam Chair. I believe we are due to consider the Fisheries Amendment Bill in the first instance.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Well it's interesting you should say that. Thank you. We've been having that discussion so let's just clarify.
O'Connor GregDEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee on the Fisheries Amendment Bill the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill the Plant Variety Rights Bill and the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill which will commence when the sitting resumes at 7 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): The Labour Party will be opposing this motion. I would note that the claim that this is the major part of the bill is exaggerated. It is a 48-page bill. These provisions are on pages 3 to 7.