Ogilvy Bernie: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Ogilvy Bernie: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11624] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support the second reading of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill. The bill has a number of features and I will speak briefly on a couple of them. 
The Education and Science Committee when it considered the bill answered many of the questions and objections that the previous speaker raised. It would have been of greater use to the Greens if they had had somebody participating at and contributing to that committee process. Ms Kedgley would have then received answers to her questions which are legitimate. I am happy that the Greens will support the second reading. 
One of the ways that cost reductions are planned in this bill is simply for the Environmental Risk Management Authority to delegate its powers so that—as has been so rightly pointed out—it will be possible for those 70000 notifiable toxic substances to be reclassified by June 2006 and stored and labelled correctly. The provisions to ensure proper labelling and definition of each of those substances are a major part of this bill. 
There are technical amendments which others have brought out and I do not want to go into. There is a matter associated with the disposing of onerous property that relates to matters of insolvency and bankruptcy and I am really thrilled that was highlighted in the considerations of the select committee. 
United Future will support the second reading of the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This bill reflects a scandalous level of implementation of the 1996 hazardous substances legislation. I emphasise to the House just how far behind the eightball we are in terms of implementation of the principal Act. Eight years after the Act was passed of the 80000 toxic substances that are used in New Zealand only one-eighth—10000 of them—have been registered. If we maintain the pace that has been set over recent years I have worked out that we will meet the transitional requirements of this legislation in the year 2066. I do not know whether Mr Hunt will still be here—the Speaker has advised me that he thinks he will be considering retirement by that stage. I simply point out that after 8 years of transition we are only one-eighth of the way in terms of the registration of hazardous substances and this bill has to be seen within that context. 
So many areas of government are so far behind the eightball. This is an inefficient Government that is making no progress on these sorts of basic issues. We cannot say it is moving at a snail’s pace because a snail would be supersonic compared with the rate at which this bill is being implemented. We were advised back in 1996 that the legislation could be fully implemented by 2002. It is now 2004 this bill provides for full implementation by 2006 and I think that one would have to be an extreme optimist to believe that we could meet its requirements by that year. 
I endorse the comments made by MP Dail Jones on behalf of Brian Donnelly about the shonky process this bill has gone through. It has been rushed it has been truncated and it has not been a thorough process. My concern is that when complex technical bills of this sort are rushed through in this sort of process it is inevitable that there will be mistakes and errors. I bet any member of this House that we will be back with another hazardous substances amendment bill before the end of this year to pick up the latest mistakes. 
I want also to express some concern about the lack of international integration. A range of hazardous substances are used in New Zealand in every nook and cranny in industry and some chemicals may be used by only one individual business—and constituents have come to me with examples of an individual chemical of which they are the only user in New Zealand. In my view with the expensive process that is required it would be far better to integrate our hazardous substances regime with that of Australia. To have a completely separate process for a little country of 4 million people does not do us justice. I know that the Green Party is all upset about Food Standards Australia New Zealand but in my view the authority is doing a more thorough job of ensuring the safety of food. In my view the same sort of approach is required to this area of hazardous substances and to expect that New Zealand would have on its own the sort of high-level skills to make assessments on the 80000 different substances used in New Zealand industry is somewhat naive. We need to look to an international forum—in my view Australia—to get a greater degree of integration in this area. I hope that is where we might head in future. 
Yes there are some provisions in this bill which is being rushed through that do make good sense but we are a long way behind the pace in implementation of this new Act. I encourage the Government to look to integration with Australia because I do not think it is possible for New Zealand alone to provide a proper regime for the regulation of hazardous substances and new organisms. 
Bill read a second time.