Smith Nick: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Nick: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:812] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 We need to look only at the tragedy that has just occurred in Britain to understand the importance of our Parliament passing good-quality legislation for toxic and dangerous goods in order to ensure the safety of our public and our environment as well. Where National believes the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act has got into significant difficulty is that the net has been thrown so wide that lots of things that have very low levels of toxicity and hold very little risk to the public have been caught up in this bureaucratic monster. That causes all sorts of costs impositions and really a breakdown in innovation within New Zealand. 
The classic example of that for me was the realisation that good old sellotape has now been defined as a toxic and dangerous good requiring its registration under the legislation. So I say again that where we have got ourselves in trouble with this legislation is not in focusing on those goods and items that are of risk but rather in throwing the net so wide that we pick up just about everything. As the previous Minister for the Environment has said in a country of 4 million people we now have 110000 different substances and goods that are within the ambit of this legislation. We have become too carried away and it needs to be simplified. 
This bill goes some way along that road and National says that is good. We are however unconvinced as to whether it goes far enough in focusing on the goods that are truly dangerous and pose some risk to the public of New Zealand. I note that National does support the idea in the bill of having a group standard rather than having individual extra substances that all have to be individually registered. That makes good sense. We also support the introduction of exposure limits. That is a good thing. 
But I also have to note that those changes were approved by Cabinet over 2½ years ago. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How long? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It was 2½ years ago I say to my colleague Paul Hutchison who has a strong interest in these areas. So for all the rhetoric that we hear from Labour about its concern about compliance costs we have had a set of quite sensible ideas to try to improve this legislation and it has sat before this Parliament for 2½ years. What does that say about the level of commitment from this Government to getting on with improving important laws such as the Act? 
I want to give a practical example. The previous Minister Marian Hobbs was the Minister for the Environment for 6 years and during that period we have done little more than tread water. We are now talking about legislation that is nearly 10 years old and we are still in transition with it. We can accept when we introduce a new statute that it may take a few years—a couple of years—to get up and running but when the transition period is 10 years long we really do put ourselves in something of a pickle. 
There is a large number of horticultural industries in my electorate and time after time I have written letters to the Minister asking about the compliance costs of introducing a new less toxic approach to pest management. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: What was the response? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I received very little response. Basically what has happened is that New Zealand’s horticultural industries have been tied to old technologies simply because it is so expensive to introduce new ones. An organic kiwifruit grower in my area wanted to introduce a new organic substance for use in production. It was going to cost him $23000 to be able to import a 44-gallon drum of a chemical that was approved for organic use. Not surprisingly he threw his hands up in horror and he has gone nowhere. We have killed off that sort of innovation with the poor implementation of the Act and with some of its difficulties. 
I also want to give a steer as to where National sees the future. In a global environment the difficulty of being a country of just 4 million people in trying to register everything from sellotape to glue to very complex agricultural pesticides and chemicals is that it is just too much for a little country to do thoroughly. Just as is the case in respect of medicines and Food Standards Australia New Zealand it is National’s view that we need to take a more international approach. We think there is a real opportunity to work more closely with our near neighbour Australia and to come up with a common regulatory regime around many of these issues. 
As much as we despise the Aussies the reality is that they blow up just like we do. They are affected by chemicals whether they be diesel or petrol or explosives—all of those things. The vast majority of the 110000 goods covered by this legislation pose exactly the same safety and environmental issues in Australia as in New Zealand. If this Government really was concerned about compliance costs it would sit down with its Australian counterpart and move the regulatory environment to the point where when one of these new products or innovations is introduced it is possible to establish common standards between New Zealand and Australia to provide protection against it. A small range of plant materials may pose a greater risk to New Zealand than Australia but they will be a very small minority of what goes through this excessively bureaucratic process. 
 The last comment I wish to make in this debate is in support of my colleague Paul Hutchison who asked where the system is to ensure there are savings. We heard the Minister proudly boast that this bill will save $2 million a year in the hazardous substances and new organisms mechanisms for approving new substances. Quite frankly I do not believe that. I want to know which measure in the bill gives this Parliament any confidence that that will happen. I suspect it will be like the last hazardous substances and new organisms bill. This is not the first one; we had another one. We were told that that bill would solve the problems with regard to the Act and it did not. Now we are back 4 years later having another crack at it. Quite frankly I share the cynicism of Paul Hutchison that although this bill does some things that are useful there are not the checks and balances to make sure they are followed through with savings. 
The very last point I wish to make is that this stuff does matter. There is a very large imposition under the Act particularly on New Zealand’s primary industries. Whether it be the horticultural sector the agricultural sector or our forestry sector the sectors that are the driving force of the New Zealand economy are deeply affected by the legislation. As it stands at the moment we are holding back innovation and holding back success in those industries and we are stopping them from using the latest international technology—much of which is more environmentally friendly—because of issues with regard to the Act. This Government has been tardy in addressing those issues. Six years on we still have problems with the Act. We want to see a wider reform. We want to see the Act working so that New Zealanders can be confident that their environment is looked after and that dangerous goods are managed in a safe way but equally confident that we can be economically successful without holding back the industries that provide the wealth for our nation.