Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:817] 
Tuesday 13 December 2005 
( 
continued on Wednesday 14 December 2005 
) 
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 This is a very complex bill. It contains a large number of amendments is highly technical and is very much a procedural matter. I was unfortunate not to be in the House for the first reading or part of the Education and Science Committee so I will not stand here and pretend I can talk at length about the details. But I have had the opportunity to read the bill and I would like to highlight a couple of thoughts from the side. 
Like any Act the legislation is open to interpretation. I agree with the exposure limits set around the environmental exposure limits the tolerable exposure limits and the workplace exposure limits. I also agree with the type and nature of the group standards that will enable the Environmental Risk Management Authority to manage the risks. These set conditions will actually help manage them. 
But I would like everyone in the House to know that this is just another compliance cost. It was interesting to find that a Federated Farmers survey in 2004 projected that the cost to farmers of this legislation would be $100 million. That is what it will cost to transfer the agrichemicals—the herbicides the insecticides and the fungicides—across to this legislation. The cost to the arable farmers of this country is estimated to be $3000 per year per farmer. For pastoral farmers—and I see that Mr Bennett a pastoral farmer from the Waikato is in the House today—the cost to their sector is estimated to be $2000 per year per farmer. So this legislation will have significant costs across the board for our primary industries. Although we all know that our primary industries are the backbone of this country we tend to forget that a little bit in the House. We in the primary industries get walloped by large taxes and by compliance costs that flow through from this House. 
Another cost will be the certification costs to be an approved handler. Actually to assess whether the candidates comply with the legislation is another cost. I am pleased to see that the Environmental Risk Management Authority is acknowledging that many of the people who handle these chemicals on a day-to-day basis are skilled in doing that and that the authority will look at reducing the time involved in training. It is my understanding that farmers who deal with these chemicals on an ongoing basis—many on a daily basis—will not be required to sit a full-day course. I believe that is positive. They will still need to be certified. But I am conscious of the grandfathers out there spraying their tomatoes in their gardens and the grandmothers spraying aphids in their rose gardens. I would not like to see their having to go through all this compliance in order to be certified to handle these chemicals. 
On the plus side I was pleased to read that those who handle veterinary medicines—as many many farmers do on a daily basis—do not need to be approved handlers. Thank goodness for that. Many many farmers—the backbone of this country—drench their stock on a quarterly basis and some even more often. 
In closing I want to touch on some of the comments made by my colleagues last evening. I agree with Dr Nick Smith that we have to work more closely with Australia and get a common agreement. Also I am mindful of the comments made by Brian Donnelly of New Zealand First last evening when he talked about it being tougher for the fly-by-nighters to be able to import toxic substances into this country. I am extremely supportive of that. Mr Hutchison who has just joined me here on my left also talked about the safety of the whole environment in relation to toxic substances and I agree with what he said. I will be supporting these amendments but I am also mindful of the costs. The primary industries are getting walloped by costs and I am fearful that this is just another compliance cost going forward. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will not be supporting this amendment bill not because we are opposed to the concept of group standards which are actually quite a sensible way to proceed—contrary to what the previous speaker just said this amendment does actually reduce costs and compliance for users of hazardous chemicals—but because it is the final closing of a window of opportunity to make the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act work in the way it was originally intended. 
I want to give the House a wee bit of history because there may not be many people here whose memories go back quite so far. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act came out of considerable concern in the late 1980s and early 1990s that our system for managing hazardous substances was a mess. We had a raft of overlapping and inconsistent legislation such as the Pesticides Act the Toxic Substances Act the Dangerous Goods Act and numerous others that imposed a sloppy inconsistent and not comprehensive regime on the management of hazardous substances. The Act was a very good idea. One of the things that led to that perception was the work I did in 1984 for the Auckland Regional Council on the management of hazardous activities in the Auckland region that showed up some of these legislative imperfections. 
Be that as it may the legislation was drafted to bring all hazardous substances under one umbrella and to provide a process whereby substances that were already approved could be transferred across to the new legislation with new sets of conditions that brought them into the modern world that were consistent with international practice and that discovered and got rid of environmental risks in the process. That is exactly what has not happened because the process since the Act was brought in has been for hazardous substances simply to be transferred from their old legislation across to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act without any major review of whether they should be registered at all and with very little review of the conditions under which they should be registered. 
What makes this worse is that this actually creates a right in perpetuity to use a particular substance no matter what science might show in the future about its appropriateness no matter what public opinion might be in the future about its appropriateness and no matter what new chemicals might be found that would do a better job for less environmental cost. The problem is that once this regime is complete—once the substances are transferred and are under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act—the substances cannot be reviewed by the Environmental Risk Management Authority except at huge cost to the public purse. This Act is supposed to parallel the Resource Management Act which gives planning permission for certain actions that affect the environment. But under the Resource Management Act the maximum length of time that one can have a consent is 35 years. Under this Act it is forever. Once a person obtains permission to use say DDT—it is not used any longer—it is forever and the only way that can be changed is totally at the cost of the public purse. I do not think Michael Cullen realises the costs to the Crown that are being imposed by this regime. 
There was an opportunity here and this was put to the Education and Science Committee and to the Minister for the Environment—I put it to the Minister myself—to provide that if there is not time for the Environmental Risk Management Authority to review properly all the substances that are in transition then they should be given short-term registration under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and a review provided at the expense of the applicants. They could be given 10 years and after that time the authority could at its discretion roll over the consent or it could decide that it is one that needs to be looked at and needs to go through a review at the expense of the applicant. That has not happened despite all the arguments that were put to the Minister and to the select committee. 
That means that one of two things will happen. One is that old chemicals that are no longer appropriate without the conditions that are appropriate in the modern world without international best practice will continue to be registered and used here in preference to the new ones coming on the market internationally because new ones coming on the market internationally will have to be registered at the cost of the applicant whereas the old ones just carry on regardless. New Zealand is a small market. We cannot expect innovative chemicals that might have lower environmental costs but do the same job to be registered here if the applicants have to pay but they do not have to pay for a reassessment of the old out-of-date chemicals. So this measure will stifle innovation and will increase risk to the environment. 
The alternative is that the Environmental Risk Management Authority will conduct a number of reassessments at a cost to the Crown of probably something in the order of $1 million every time it happens because it is a public process and it is not funded to do that. So either there will be some big Budget bids from the authority which will make Michael Cullen blanch in order to review a number of these chemicals which the authority already knows ought to be reviewed and which the authority already knows are under unsuitable conditions or should be deregistered—either there will be that cost to the Crown—or the risk to the environment will continue. There could have been an easy remedy in this bill: the consents could have been time limited. 
We also have this absurd contradiction where the Ministry for the Environment has advised the Minister that this bill has got to get through before Christmas because there is a time limit in the Act that everything has to be transferred by July next year. The legislation needs to go through so that the Environmental Risk Management Authority can do them in groups because it cannot meet that deadline otherwise. And we have advice from the Environmental Risk Management Authority that the deadline cannot be met anyway. In its briefing to the incoming Minister it said that the July deadline will have to be extended. So if the July deadline has to be extended why are we rushing this bill through before Christmas and why are we not having a good look at giving time-limited consents rather than perpetual property rights to pollute? 
I note that the Supplementary Order Paper that we have picked up this morning does not actually extend the time limit from July next year so I am wondering whether we will get a second Supplementary Order Paper to do that or whether the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s advice that it cannot do it by July is being disregarded—in which case what kind of mess are we going to be in? There is going to be even less scrutiny as the authority transfers all these substances across in huge haste without any proper look at the conditions under which they are registered. 
We are talking here about the sorts of substances that cause long-term human illness that cause long-term environmental harm if they are not used properly and if people are exposed to them when they should not be. It is always a Faustian bargain where humans use dangerous chemicals for useful purposes but how much environmental risk does one accept in doing that? Obviously this regime aims to make sure that the most lethal substances are not registered at all that the most environmentally appropriate ones for the purpose are registered and that the set of conditions under which they are registered gives one maximum protection for the environment. This measure is not going to do that. This means that the old Pesticides Act the old Toxic Substances Act and the old Hazardous Goods Act live on in disguise under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act because substances have been transferred to the new legislation with the conditions set under the old legislation and we do not really have a new comprehensive modern regime for hazardous substances at all. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I stand today considering the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill within the context of kaupapa and tikanga Maori. As the caretakers of Ranginui and Papatuanuku we have the responsibility to care for and to actively protect the environment which includes our whanau and the flora and fauna that clothes this land of ours. It is a question of values and of preferences and it is a question of what we are willing to pay to ensure that this country we call Aotearoa maintains its ability to be clean and green. 
The aim of the bill is to improve the workability of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and it includes specific proposals to address enforcement and regulation of tolerable exposure limits and environmental exposure limits and groups various substances together. These are issues of prime importance to us in our commitment towards ensuring genuine progress for the management and care of the environment. In this regard we have been supportive of the concept of a genuine progress index which is current in both the international scene and in initiatives being considered by a number of local authorities. 
The genuine progress indicator distinguishes between positive contributions to progress ensuring that toxins and hazardous substances are strictly tested and regulated and negative activity—the polluting of our land our waterways and our people. What has it cost this country in terms of the health or is it the ill-health of the land the waterways and the people? Would it not be more cost-effective to ensure that in regard to pollution and the use of toxins the effect of which is not clearly known there is thorough testing before availability for widespread use? Do I need to remind anyone in this House of what happened on the night of 2 December 1984 to the hundreds and thousands of people who were devastated as a result of the activities of the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal Central India? It is over 20 years since tank 610 spewed out a deadly cocktail of methyl isocynate and 23 other chemicals manifest in a cloud of poisonous gas. Those injured by the gas are indistinguishable from those who escaped. Their lungs and immune systems suffered but apart from eye problems such as cataracts they received few visible injuries unlike the victims of other disasters such as those caused by thalidomide or Agent Orange. 
Government officials say that around 6600 died from the effects of the gas and 350000 were injured. But local pressure groups put the death toll at 16000 and say that up to 600000 people were injured. Powerful commercial interests ensured that those workers were denied justice. In many cases throughout the world we have seen just how those with interests in the chemical and toxic industry who in my view should have been prosecuted for the hundreds of thousands of people whom they have maimed have been protected. 
We do not have to look very far here at home to see the evidence of other tragic examples. In the Waiariki electorate Sawmill Workers Against Poisons have led the charge against those responsible for the chemicals that workers handled throughout their sawmill careers from the 1960s to the 1980s. The worst chemical of the lot pentachlorophenol or “PCP” was used to prevent sap stain a fungal infection in freshly sawn timber from the 1960s right through to 1988. It was absorbed through the skin of many workers affecting various systems in the body. The dioxins in pentachlorophenol are toxic causing health problems from severe skin rashes to liver damage and possible cancer. The members of Sawmill Workers Against Poisons say that they have been exposed to 48 chemicals throughout their working lives. 
The Maori Party will stand and continue to stand strong until we can see action to address the inexplicable cancers ulcers and other health conditions suffered by those who work the forestry and sawmill sites contaminated by pentachlorophenol. This could be immediate and simple such as providing full free and regular medical check-ups for ex - sawmill workers from the Whakatane Kawerau Kinleith and Waipa sawmills and their families. 
As the member for Te Tai Hauauru I am also painfully aware of the need for urgent action to address the adverse health effects such as cancers and birth deformities reported from Taranaki residents living near the Ivon Watkins-Dow now Dow AgroSciences chemical plant in Paritutu. It is an outrage that the last Government report into cancer rates in New Plymouth released just 2 days ago by the Ministry of Health failed to follow a robust process to ensure that any findings as to what happened in Paritutu would have any integrity. This report released 2 days ago sadly does not do that. 
Last September a report released by the same ministry confirmed that the Ivon Watkins-Dow plant at Paritutu was one of the largest historical polluters in New Zealand. The ministry chose to ignore the recommendations that for any study about Paritutu to be valid one would have to identify the actual residents who were exposed and track them down. Instead the study adopted a scatter-gun approach towards testing anyone in New Plymouth. A responsible approach would have tracked down the families who were exposed at key periods in the 1970s. Many of these families have now shifted away but the impact of their compromised health will remain and of course many have died. 
Here we are today talking about the approvals and enforcement required to ensure that hazardous substances and new organisms undergo rigorous and consistent assessment prior to entry into New Zealand something that the management of Ivon Watkins-Dow plant failed to do. My constituents have repeatedly asked the Government to take seriously the health problems that have resulted from dioxin contamination including birth defects behavioural problems diabetes and a strong association between exposure to dioxin and cancer risk. We are talking about a period of 30 years of neglect. Perhaps as Ross Wilson the President of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions has previously suggested it might be time to introduce a corporate manslaughter provision in our criminal law so that offenders can be held to account. How many lives have been lost? 
Sadly corporates which are not socially responsible entities have a reputation of denying any responsibility for products that they may use to increase what they refer to as the return to the shareholder. The shareholder must be our society and its citizens not just those who invested in a corporate entity. 
We still have issues with the bill including the basis of the groupings for group standards. The rationale for having group standards is so that we can save $2 million. It would be of great interest to the Maori Party if this Parliament were able to be briefed using the Land Transport New Zealand’s “value of a statistical life” calculation about the real benefits—the genuine progress—that we can expect from this new measure. This calculation estimated that each suicide cost a total of $2931250. That is the statistical value of one life. When one considers the number of lives that have been lost or seriously affected as a result of what happened at Paritutu and Whakatane the impact of Agent Orange on Viet Nam vets the impact on those naval personnel involved in supporting the British atmospheric tests at Christmas and Malden Islands during Operation Grapple and on all their descendants and families $2 million is a minuscule amount to be saving. 
These communities deserve to have effective health-care in recognition of the disastrous impact of the corporate manslaughter that they have endured and which many Governments have turned a blind eye to. This country must never allow to ever occur again such damage to its citizens to its land or to its environment whether by accident or design. To this end we live in hope that socially responsible behaviour will be encouraged by this bill; that people will not knowingly attempt to import products that they know are hazardous substances which put the health of the citizens and the environment at risk. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Parts 1 4 4A 5 and 6 of principal Act 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Some people are finding the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill somewhat droll. Indeed it is a very technical bill. New clause 8A “Prohibition of storage of persistent organic pollutants” set out on Supplementary Order Paper 5 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope reads: “Section 25B(2)(a) of the principal Act is amended by omitting the words ‘(other than polychlorinated biphenyls)’.” I have no doubt that it is wise and appropriate that those substances are included on the list because they indeed pose both environmental and personal hazards. That is the sort of thing we have to listen to; it is typical of the detail of the bill. 
National has reservations about the bill for certain reasons which are particularly associated with the compliance costs. But when we looked at issues such as clause 12 which inserts new section 49L “Rapid assessment and approval of other hazardous substances in special emergencies” we saw that like most of the submitters we were in absolute agreement that that is appropriate in a variety of situations particularly when the biosecurity of our country is threatened. There have been a variety of examples where that has been a major problem. The other night I commented on the bee varroa mite which is endemic in New Zealand and which was not detected by anyone until it had become thoroughly entrenched in New Zealand. The Labour Government decided to abandon any eradication programme and the beekeepers then realised that they were absolutely dependent on the availability of a miticide to protect their hives. Unfortunately due to the existing legislation it was impossible for them to bring anything in so in the words of Federated Farmers they had to “eyeball the Minister” very hard and solidly before special agreements were made to bring in the appropriate miticide. 
The other point about new section 49L is that if we were to have a major outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease or have a similar biological catastrophe it is absolutely vital that we in New Zealand have access to the world’s best available treatment for such conditions and this provision would make that possible. That sort of thing is relevant to the reason why we in the National Party support this bill. 
Of course the bill does have considerable limitations and for once I am in agreement with Jeanette Fitzsimons that there are some worries about the fact that the transferral will mean that something like 110000 toxic substances are registered in perpetuity without any provision for a review—as there would be for instance under the Resource Management Act after 35 years. What happens when the substances are transferred in groups is that many of them have never undergone any risk assessment whatsoever. Although a clause in the bill allows for the revocation of the registration of a substance I understand that the Environmental Risk Management Authority has pointed out that it simply does not have the resources to undertake a full risk assessment of some of the more complicated toxic compounds. In fact it has said that to do a thorough risk assessment would cost in the order of $1 million given that there are 110000 toxic substances. Even if only 40 or 50 of those substances required an appropriate risk assessment the authority simply does not have the resources to do that. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to talk about Part 1 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the issue of hazardous substances is of utmost national importance. It is important to the economy of our country and it is important for our farming and primary production industries. We must be proud too of the clean green image that we currently have in New Zealand and we certainly must jealously guard that image. But we must also be sensible. We must be sensible in our approaches to legislating and we must be sensible in our approaches to restricting certain substances. Many substances as we all know are harmless but they are hazardous in the wrong hands. Are we legislating for those wrong hands or are we legislating for the substances that are indeed harmful? How does one legislate for that without unnecessarily restricting the industries on which our economy so much depends? 
Part 1 refers to substances in containment. Again we must be very mindful of our biosecurity issues. We must protect our borders not only from biosecurity incursions but also in terms of immigration. I am concerned and appalled at some of the very slow delayed reactions of the Government to incursions in relation to biosecurity issues. We have only to look at the fiasco in relation to didymo and “rock snot”. To know that all our South Island waters have now been classified as ridden with didymo is I think an appalling state for our country to be in and as a South Islander I am absolutely appalled. It is totally negligent of the Government to have delayed for so long in relation to that incursion. I am concerned that the same will happen with this bill. Although we must protect against incursions we also must be sensible. I am concerned that the bill has the impact of perhaps regulating against Sellotape against Mr Muscle and against window cleaner and I think that is a ridiculous state of affairs. To say that those things are hazardous is absolutely absurd and ridiculous. 
But even more than that we have to look at the compliance costs to our agricultural and other industries. The transportation of certain hazardous substances which cannot be transported in the same vehicle as non-hazardous substances only adds to the compliance costs for our farming industry. If we are trying to transport goods from Invercargill to Canterbury and there has to be separate trucks and separate transports then I think we have to be very sensible and balance the compliance cost against the safety issue. That is where the National Party and I have reservations in relation to the bill. We must be very careful to ensure that this is sensible law-making and that it is balanced and responsible and not reckless. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I thank Kate Wilkinson for that excellent insight and I also thank Nathan Guy who gave a very good address this morning in relation to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. 
Darren Hughes 
: They’re all greasing each other up! It’s the mutual appreciation society! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The soon to be relieved member for Otaki needs to listen to his esteemed colleague from that region in order to learn something about the practical implications of farming. As a farmer with a farming business I point out that it is important to see that a bill like this can be very PC and very appropriate for a Government to put in place but the reality is that small-business people and the people who actually make the money that makes this place tick will have to pay for it in compliance costs and in meeting the obligations of the legislation. 
As a practical farming element a key thing is that people will now find they have to get authorisation to travel with chemicals in their vehicles. So if they go into an RD1 store for example and buy chemicals they will have to get a form saying they can transport them back to their farms. Those kinds of compliance issues are very difficult for individual property owners and farmers in particular to comply with especially if they have staff who may go in to pick up such requirements and other issues such as that. Also farmers have to sign certain forms all the time. 
Federated Farmers have made a number of submissions on the compliance costs of the bill and it is important to look at those. They have calculated $100 million in direct costs and over $3 million in record-keeping and documentation costs. So we are talking about substantial compliance costs that have been identified. That will impact on all sectors especially the arable sector. That is especially because larger farms are more prominent these days and more chemicals are stored on those farms. Compliance costs for arable farmers were estimated at over $3000 and for pastoral farmers at over $2000. So we are putting substantial costs on to small businesses that are struggling under a very high dollar which is a result of the Government’s policies in respect of such things as interest rates and student loans. 
Federated Farmers also identified some potential problems from this kind of legislation. They include things like: costs falling on industry or representative organisations; additional certification costs if employees are required to buy these products; increased agrichemical product prices; risks associated with any public access to farms—and if the Government goes ahead with its proposals in this regard it could create another risk for people going on to properties and also for farmers—the complexity and cost of applications to the Environmental Risk Management Authority; the cost of resource applications to regional authorities; and compliance with regional plans. So the compliance costs are not just limited to the individual farmers; they actually go through the whole community. They are taken up in our regional and local government and therefore those compliance costs will be passed on to individuals through their rates bills. So we have to be mindful that this measure is not just about the farming community; it will be a compliance cost on all New Zealanders. 
A point raised by the Green Party was quite interesting. It is in relation to the cost of existing chemicals as against new ones. Although we do not want to put a lot of costs on to existing chemicals that have been proved to be effective the Green Party raised the very good point that we need to be proactive in looking for future opportunities in any chemical or biosecurity field. To put additional costs on the new latest technology can be detrimental to our undertaking those kinds of technological developments and that is not in the best interests of New Zealand agriculture which has been a leader over many years. 
So in essence the problem with the bill is that it significantly increases costs and controls on the farming sector—both arable and pastoral farmers—and will require stringent controls. There could be significant ongoing and potential costs and there will be increasing bureaucracy and red tape. That is a serious burden on New Zealand businesses that are trying to get ahead. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I am grateful for the opportunity to take another call on Part 1 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. As I said earlier on this is indeed a very technical amendment bill. 
I must congratulate my colleague David Bennett who is a farmer of considerable experience—not only a farmer but also a lawyer and an accountant. He has pointed out the hugely important concerns that Federated Farmers have in respect of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. That Act in itself has a total set-up cost for compliance as estimated by the Federated Farmers of about $105 million. That leads to about $3000 per average arable farm and I believe about $2230 per average farm. The claim however is that this bill will save in terms of the transfer of the 70000-odd notifiable toxic substances about $2 million. 
It is good to see the Minister the Hon David Benson-Pope is in the chair. He will be able to explain to us whether he agrees that this amendment bill will actually achieve the savings that the Labour Government purports it will. There is absolutely no mechanism anywhere in this bill to suggest that the Government is interested in monitoring the outcomes of its efficacy. That is typical of the Labour Government’s lack of consideration of costs that affect New Zealand’s small medium and large businesses. The Government goes in makes an amendment thinks the amendment is wonderful and talks about it in glowing terms comes up with a very superficial impact report and then fails to ensure that the amendment is monitored for its efficacy. I hope that Minister Benson-Pope will take a call to tell us what mechanisms this Government has in place to ensure that the transfer of substances is done successfully and in a cost-effective way that will in future save businesses farmers and manufacturers throughout the country an appropriate amount of money. 
We received Supplementary Order Paper 5 just yesterday—as always the Labour Government brings in important legislation at the last minute. The Minister is shaking his head. This legislation has been an issue for the last 2 to 3 years and here we are in the last 48 hours of the parliamentary calendar for this year suddenly bringing through a very important bill of a highly technical nature that has huge implications for the environmental sustainability of New Zealand. The Minister has come up with a Supplementary Order Paper that for example proposes new clause 8A “Prohibition of storage of persistent organic pollutants” which states: “Section 25B(2)(a) of the principal Act is amended by omitting the words ‘(other than polychlorinated biphenyls)’.” I ask the Minister whether he can describe to me in detail the concerns around polychlorinated biphenyls. It certainly sounds to me as though it is sensible that those substances are on the register but does the Minister know the details of this legislation? 
I think that the Minister probably does not know those details because with this transfer he is placing all those toxic substances—110000 of them—on a register in perpetuity. There is certainly a clause that provides for the revocation of registration but we understand that it would cost in the order of $1 million to carry out an appropriate risk management assessment. The Environmental Risk Management Authority just does not have that $1 million. I challenge the Minister to tell us whether the authority is worried about ensuring when some of those toxic substances prove to be of concern and it thinks a risk management assessment should take place the resources for that will be available from the Government. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 5 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to to insert new clauses 8A and 12A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 New Part 6A inserted in principal Act 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Certainly Part 2 is really the nub of this amendment bill. It deals with group standards. As section 96A inserted by clause 20 states: “The purpose of this Part is to enable the Authority to issue amend and revoke standards (known as group standards) for groups of hazardous substances … that have a similar nature are of a similar type or have similar circumstances of use so that the risks of the grouped hazardous substances can be effectively managed by 1 set of conditions.” In many respects that concept has been supported widely by the industry. I understand though I was not on the Education and Science Committee that the 26-odd submitters to the committee certainly agreed that the concept was quite appropriate. 
It is important to point out what the general policy statement in the explanatory note of the first copy of the bill brought to the House stated regarding that concept. It stated that the bill complements the amendments passed in March 2004 that addressed the urgent workability issues relating to the transfer of hazardous substances and that it offers a means to reduce costs to businesses and the Government and to reduce barriers to innovation while not compromising appropriate management of risks. That is where the Labour Government needs to be taken to task because of its track record. We know that this Labour Government has over the last 5 to 6 years an abysmal record in terms of adding costs to businesses and individuals right throughout the country—not only in terms of taxation and through the Resource Management Act but certainly through the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. 
This group standard provision is indeed one of the mechanisms by which the Government is hopeful that costs will be minimised. Once again I ask the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope to take a call to tell us what mechanisms he has in place to ensure that the standards will be effective that costs will be lower and that the New Zealand public will be safe under the mechanism of transference in groups rather than as individual substances when many of these substances have never had an appropriate risk management assessment. I hope the Minister is listening to this. I hope he will stand up and state whether the Labour Government will assure New Zealanders that transferring these substances in groups will indeed be good for the environmental sustainability of New Zealand. 
 Can he also tell us just how much it will cost the Environmental Risk Management Authority to make the appropriate risk management assessment? Will it be up to $1 million as we are led to believe by the authority? How many substances potentially may require risk management assessment per year—is it five is it ten or is it 15 which would mean $5 million $10 million or $15 million? And will the Government make sure that those funds are indeed available to the authority? I hope the Minister takes note of those issues and can indeed reassure the New Zealand public that those questions will be answered. 
I think one of the other points that it is important to focus on is the submission brought to us by the Sustainability Council. In the submission the council said that New Zealand had not learnt sufficiently from its historical mismanagement of hazardous substances. It went on to say that failure to regulate adequately in the past had left a billion-dollar bill for the clean-up of contaminated sites that should be acting as a burning incentive to implement best practice for future activities. The council said that that issue had not been squarely confronted and I am led to believe that the Labour Government once again has not squarely confronted that hugely important issue. Instead of agreeing that it will be the one to ensure the clean-up is paid for it has put the cost on to individuals. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I thank Dr Hutchison for the contribution he has made and the assistance of his party in correcting or bringing to fruition this legislation—which of course was introduced by his Government in 1996 with Nick Smith as Minister. So it is appropriate that National is helping us to make the corrections and policy adjustments needed to meet the transfer deadline of 30 June. 
In relation to the question raised earlier about polychlorinated biphenyls I ask the Chair’s indulgence to explain. Dr Hutchison is apparently not aware that the reason for that clause in the Supplementary Order Paper is to enable the collection of polychlorinated biphenyls and their removal offshore. There is a legal circularity that needed to be corrected which is one of the key things the Supplementary Order Paper does. 
In terms of the reassessment process I am absolutely confident that only the number of materials that need to be recommitted will be. I think that will be an open-ended question for the Environmental Risk Management Authority and I am sure that the funding and budgetary arguments around that will be made to me very aggressively. I am also confident that that mechanism provides for the revisiting of any concerns that people may have about an individual application or approval or a group standard as new knowledge becomes available. I believe that that meets the concern expressed to me by the Green Party about the desire for a rotational re-approval process which we believe would be extraordinarily unproductive—because there is no intellectual property involved in the consent itself of course—and extremely costly. So yes I believe I can give the member the assurance he is asking for. 
I am also happy to assure him that the discussion about the funding and the delivery capacity of the Environmental Risk Management Authority will be robust as we move into the next Budget round and one of the issues I am concerned about as a consequence of this bill is that we do have the capacity in our communities—with no added cost to local government if that can be achieved—to ensure enforcement of the regulations we are passing. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on Part 2 and particularly on some elements of clause 20 which make some significant amendments to the whole process of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. I thank the Minister for his contribution. He responded to some issues on which we do have some concerns. I do not think there is any doubt that any reasonable and considered position would say that we must adopt a best-practice approach in giving assurance to the process of using hazardous substances. Although it may be our desire to minimise or have no involvement with hazardous substances that simply is not practical. They are a part of several elements of New Zealand’s production systems. They are certainly used right through the primary production system and in industry and a whole range of places. So it is essential that we can say we have a reasoned process—a process that is robust and withstands scrutiny. 
We certainly want to support some elements in clause 20 going forward so we are here to support the legislation today. But we have some questions. One implication of any legislation like this is the cost of compliance. The more we seek to create a trace-back or an audit process or to give an assurance the greater the implication is that users will have to comply and in compliance there is a time cost and in some ways a financial cost. For example I found to my surprise about 18 months ago when going into a service agency to purchase some chemicals that I was required to sit a test to certify I was an appropriate person to purchase those chemicals. 
Simon Power 
: Did the member pass the test? 
ERIC ROY 
: Well I cheated—not really; I am joking. But we just go on and on and in the assurance process we have to comply with a whole lot of things for a practice some of us have been involved in for a long long time. Yet we need to have some kind of certification in order to give that assurance. That has implications in terms of cost and a whole lot of difficulties surrounding what has been normal practice. It makes for a level of grumpiness in the consumers of the products concerned so we need to be absolutely assured that we are taking them with us. 
I just draw the Minister’s attention to new unanimous subsection (6) of section 96C inserted by clause 20. It states: “As soon as practicable after issuing amending or revoking a group standard the Authority must do the following:” and the notification elements in the provision then follow. I wonder why there is the phrase “As soon as practicable …”. I would have thought that notification would be an element in establishing the new group standards. I wonder whether the Minister could take a call and explain to us why there is not some immediacy about that. We live in a very vibrant landscape in the hazardous substances and new organisms area where things are moving and keeping up to speed with all of the changes is a significant issue. So I would like an explanation as to why there is that sort of little step back in that there is an out that may not have immediacy associated with it. 
I am encouraged though on looking through a number of the subsections in that particular provision to see that there is a test because one of the concerns I have regarding the compliance issue is that we have tended to just make changes for the sake of change. So I am pleased to see the test that applies in some of the new unanimous provisions in clause 20. For example subsection (1) of new section 96D inserted by clause 20 states: “… (a) in the case of any hazardous substance … to which section 96C(1A)(a) applies” the authority must “be satisfied that issuing or amending (as the case may be) …”. So we actually have the test that there is to be an advancement—an improvement. I am not sure about the factors that surround the decision on whether there is— 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 Speaking to clause 20 I say it is interesting to look at what the group standards allow because there are two different ways in which this happens. Section 96A in clause 20 states the purpose is “to issue amend and revoke standards … for groups of hazardous substances … that have a similar nature are of a similar type or have similar circumstances of use so that the risks of the grouped hazardous substances can be effectively managed by 1 set of conditions.” A number of submitters did recognise that there was perhaps a saving in that regard—that it would not increase compliance costs but would actually reduce them. It is a bit of a surprise that the current Government has come up with something that might be useful but perhaps it was the participation of the National members on the select committee that brought that about. 
The Environmental Risk Management Authority issues group standards by notice in the  
Gazette 
 and a notice is a regulation for the purposes of the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989 but is not a regulation for the purposes of the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989. As a consequence group standards are a type of instrument commonly referred to as deemed regulations and are subject to the following requirements: presentation to the House within 16 days of being made scrutiny by the Regulations Review Committee and disallowance. So I guess that raises the question about their being issued within a reasonable time frame which was mentioned by my esteemed colleague Eric Roy. He made a fantastic contribution and it was very perceptive of him to have picked that one up. So there is a time frame around when that notification is required to be made. Group standards would not be subject to other requirements that apply to statutory regulations which include drafting by parliamentary counsel Cabinet approval and inclusion in the statutory regulations. 
So yes this move will reduce the costs to industry by lowering the number of applications businesses would have to make to the Environmental Risk Management Authority which is a good thing and it will provide simpler prescriptive alternatives to the technical controls and regulations which have been difficult to implement to date. In turn that will give industry a lot more certainty on exactly how to comply. 
But there was some concern about consultation with affected parties and a recommendation was made around that issue to ensure that industry and other affected parties have an opportunity to comment during the development of group standards. I am unsure whether that is actually being considered and recognised within the provisions of this bill so perhaps the Minister might like to take a call and let members know whether he has supported the ability for affected parties to be part of the consultative process in the establishment of group standards. Of course that move will result in a more robust outcome which is what we all want to see as it helps to encourage compliance in the industry. So I hope those concerns are noted. 
One of the other concerns raised was the duplication of the Resource Management Act with regard to group standards for regulating waste that has hazardous characteristics. As was mentioned in one of the submissions under section 31 of the Resource Management Act territorial authorities are required to control any actual or potential effects of the use development or protection of land including the implementation of rules for the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage use disposal or transportation of hazardous substances. The Resource Management Act has a broad definition of “hazardous substance” which includes but is not limited to any substance defined as a “hazardous substance” in section 2 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. Therefore that definition would include imported and manufactured hazardous substances registered under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act but would not be limited to them. So that whole section of the Resource Management Act refers to hazardous substances and we now have the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call to clarify that relationship between the two Acts so that the responsibilities and the use are clearly defined because we do not want to see any confusion about who is responsible for what and where. I think it is very important that those matters are clarified and perhaps the Minister could take a call on that. 
It is pretty disappointing that the opportunity was not taken during the process of this bill to perhaps streamline some of the provisions for increasing our biodiversity in this country because we cannot develop our entrepreneurial skills in our agricultural sector if we cannot import. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I would like to take this opportunity to speak to Part 2 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill but before doing that I want to review the purpose of the bill. This bill aims to improve the workability of the hazardous substances provisions of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. When I was doing some research prior to this people were telling me that it was a droll bill to be considering but as a new member of Parliament I thought that the hazardous substances may have had more to do with recalcitrant members of this House. But as time went on and as I looked through the pages of the bill I did not see the names of Rodney Hide or Winston Peters there. So as I got deeper into the research on the bill I found it had more to do with chemicals and a vast variety of other hazardous substances. 
Putting that aside let us look at Part 2 which provides for the insertion of a new Part 6A “Group standards” into the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Today I would like to address five areas within Part 2. Firstly I will address new section 96C regarding the notification of group standards and secondly new section 96D regarding the issuing of group standards; thirdly I would like to focus on the efficient and effective management of group standards in new section 96D which is a very key issue; fourthly I will look at the most effective means of dealing with the standard which is in new section 96D(1)(b); and lastly I will focus on considering the best use of group standards in terms of international practice. 
I turn firstly to new section 96C to look at group standards in general and the issue of group standards. I believe that this provision which allows group standards to be put by notice into the  
Gazette 
 will improve the efficiency with which we are able to bring hazardous substances into the marketplace generally. I think it will speed up the process significantly and will allow for our farmers our manufacturers and our entire economy to put hazardous substances into the marketplace quicker which is generally a good thing for the Act and for the economy. 
I move to new section 96D which covers when group standards may be issued or amended and I will focus on new section 96D(1)(a) which provides that the authority must be satisfied that issuing or amending group standards is a more efficient and effective way of managing the risks of all hazardous substances. I think it is a very important point that before those substances are brought into the marketplace the Environmental Risk Management Authority which is responsible for making the decisions seriously takes heed of this particular point. In issuing group standards it must be certain that there is a more efficient and effective way of managing the risks posed by those substances. New section 96D which provides that the authority must be satisfied that issuing or amending group standards is a more efficient and effective way of managing the risks of those hazards is pointless. All that provision does is to increase the bureaucracy and the costs of bringing those materials into the marketplace rather than improve the ease of bringing new hazardous materials into the marketplace which would allow our businesses to be innovative and grow. 
I move to new section 96D(1)(b) the fourth point I will focus on which states: “(i) the benefits associated with a reduction of environmental and health risks outweigh the economic costs associated with complying with the group standard;”. That is a very important point. When we bring new hazardous substances into the marketplace we should consider whether they will have a much better economic benefit for our farmers or for ourselves. So bringing them in is as important an issue as the compliance costs or the regulations that we put on bringing those hazardous substances into the marketplace. 
Lastly I would like to focus on new section 96D(d) which raises a point that Nick Smith brought up early in the debate on this bill. When we bring in hazardous substances we need to focus on the best international practices and standards for the safe management of hazardous substances. I think that point out of anything is very important. Nick Smith talked a lot about having joint standards across New Zealand and Australia. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I rise to talk to Part 2. In particular I would like to bring to the attention of members section 96D(1)(b)(i) inserted by clause 20 which states: “the benefits associated with a reduction of environmental and health risks outweigh the economic costs associated with complying with the group standard;”. That is a significant point. What it means I believe is that although we have to be mindful of the environment that comes at a cost. I think we all need to be very much aware of that. If this amending legislation goes through today it will actually come at a cost. 
It was interesting to hear the Minister talk when he took a call about whether there is actually a time line for a review. I cannot see it anywhere in this document and I think that is significant. It sounds to me—and Dr Hutchison agrees—as though this legislation is a bit like an experiment. Where is the review? Will it happen in 2008? Will it happen in 2010? Or will it never happen? 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Or will it happen after a disaster? 
NATHAN GUY 
: That is right Dr Hutchison; that is a very valid point. I believe that we actually need to think seriously about putting a date in here for a review so that this experiment does not go wonky and end up becoming a disaster for this country. 
David Bennett 
: You had better make sure that they do not change the results either. 
NATHAN GUY 
: That is exactly right. The member from the Waikato has some first-hand experience with the hazardous substances legislation as a farmer and he knows that this amendment will be extremely costly on his business and on the businesses of his peers right across New Zealand. 
So I say again that I believe we need to be very cautious about this experiment. We should consider the efficacy around the bill and how it could potentially be costly and cumbersome for this country. We know that the costs will flow from the importer through to the retailer and on to the end-user. I talked about that previously—about the costs and about how farmers will bear the brunt of them. The costs will be passed down when the legislation is passed in this Parliament without thinking about the end-user. We know it will cost another $3000 for arable farmers. 
We have heard about $2 million of savings here today but I cannot see where the $2 million of savings are. Where are they? The member for Rangitikei who I believe might have sat on the Education and Science Committee knows that is an issue. Where are the $2 million of savings? I cannot see them. It would be great for the Minister to take a call and outline to a back-bench MP where the $2 million of savings are so I can actually understand that. 
Anne Tolley 
: Does he know? 
NATHAN GUY 
: I am not sure whether he does. That is why I would be quite keen for him to take a call and explain to me where the $2 million of savings are. 
What I can see is that we need to be mindful of protecting the environment and of the sustainability of this thing. But this legislation will lead to extra costs. I am concerned about the experiment and I think we need to have a date in the bill for a review. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill is indeed the nub of the bill. The group standards issue is the one that should be focused on most carefully because—as the member from Horowhenua Nathan Guy pointed out so ably—in many respects this is a very new situation for New Zealand. I note that both in the explanatory note and in the very good submission of the Sustainability Council the point is made that we should learn by overseas experience regarding the group standards situation. In fact one of the points that the Sustainability Council made was that the  
Environmental Risk Management Authority 
 can leverage off the work of overseas regulators to a greater degree than is currently envisaged so that standards can be linked directly to those set by the European Commission. New Zealand can therefore progressively acquire the standards used in its largest export market for food products. 
 I have some reservations about that in some respects because the European Commission exacts some very very tough requirements on those countries that export to it. But I think we should at least make sure that we are consistent with the Australian regulations and experience in that respect. I do not believe that the Labour Government has looked into the synergies with Australia to the depth that it should have. 
I also wanted to point out the comments made by the New Zealand Association for Animal Health and Crop Protection regarding group standards. It made the point that although it is generally supportive of the group standards initiative it notes that pesticides and veterinary medicines because of their proprietary nature and composition complexity do not readily lend themselves to this proposal. I would like the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope to take a call and respond to that concern of the Association for Animal Health and Crop Protection. 
It also said that in new section 96A “Purpose of Part” it believes that such a group of hazardous substances should be of a similar nature and type and have similar circumstances of use. I note that the select committee has quite rightly and with the support of National responded to that so that the section states: “The purpose of this Part is to enable the Authority to issue amend and revoke standards … for groups of hazardous substances … that have a similar nature are of a similar type or have similar circumstances of use so that the risks of the grouped hazardous substances can be effectively managed by 1 set of conditions.” 
So here is Her Majesty’s most loyal Opposition responding to the thoughts of industries and those involved in the technical aspects of the industry which has sadly been one of the things the Labour Government has lacked in the response to the technical consequences of this important bill. 
I want to make a comment regarding new section 96D “When group standards may be issued or amended”. Once again that is one of the areas where there is great concern. The section states: “(1) Before issuing or amending group standards under section 96C the Authority must—(a) in the case of any hazardous substance … be satisfied that issuing or amending … group standards is a more efficient and effective way of managing the risks of all the hazardous substances in the identified group than the approval process under Part 5; and (ab) in the case of any hazardous substance to which section 96C(1A)(b) applies be satisfied that issuing or amending … group standards is a more efficient and effective way of managing the risks of all the hazardous substances in the identified group;”. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 5 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to insert new clause 20A be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Amendments to Parts 7 8 10 and 11 of principal Act 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 3 deals particularly with enforcement of the Act. There are a variety of concerns about this part of the bill. Firstly clause 21 amends subparagraph (iii) of section 97(h) of the principal Act by omitting the words “local authority” and substituting the words “territorial authority”. I do know that Federated Farmers in their submission were deeply concerned about the cost implications of what local government and regional government could impose on them by not ensuring that their interests were taken care of and were a bit more concerned that central government itself should be held to account rather than a whole variety of bodies around New Zealand with different enforcement interpretations and different imposition of costs on to working New Zealanders. 
But I also note there is great concern about the liability framework around this bill and one of the points again made by the Sustainability Council was that agents making use of hazardous substances need to be financially fit in order to meet costs arising from any breach of the controls relating to hazardous substances or third-party claims for damages. They are making a very salutary and relevant point because more and more some of those companies that produce toxic substances shelter under shell companies when they are not sure as to whether the liabilities they could incur are able to be fulfilled by them. This is a mechanism that I would again like the Minister to take a call on and say whether he has thought about the situation whereby companies and manufacturers involved with toxic companies do not have the financial backing to be able to clean up the problems after a toxic accident or are not insured enough or insured appropriately for that to occur. 
The second point was that no liability for damages arises as long as the user of a hazardous substance abides by controls set by the Environmental Risk Management Authority. That is a very important aspect because even at the point that such a control is breached there is no strict liability for harm caused be it economic environmental or to human health. Again the required remedy is that developers and users be made strictly liable under the Act for damage resulting from the use of hazardous substances and further unless firms face the full social costs of their activity they will have the incentive to overexpand those activities at the cost of the wider economy. That balance is obviously one that has to be very carefully worked out so that the compliance costs are kept to a minimum and that is vital yet on the other hand the liability framework must be robust enough to ensure that those companies that are not abiding by the framework and are responsible for inappropriate toxic damage can be brought to justice and that there are sufficient liabilities. So it is important that the Minister assures the New Zealand public that those aspects are indeed fulfilled by Part 3. 
I would like to comment on new section 97B “Enforcement of Act in respect of hazardous substances in place of work”. Again we have the situation of Occupational Safety and Health officers going into workplaces and manufacturers’ premises and on to farms and enforcing their will sometimes extremely inappropriately. The submission from Federated Farmers stated that toxic substance is such a specialised area that those officers should be specially trained. Unfortunately the bill makes no provision for special training. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I have a few points to make about the enforcement provisions in Part 3 but in no particular order. The first point relates to clause 21 which substitutes “territorial authority” for “local authority”. I have not seen the arguments made but I presume that territorial authorities are probably the more appropriate bodies. My concern is not so much about who does the enforcement as about the costs. We have seen Parliament pass legislation time and time again on a range of matters such as the legislation regarding motorcar use— 
Chris Tremain 
: Prostitution. 
ERIC ROY 
: —the prostitution legislation the impositions around smoking and the Building Act. The list goes on and on. Again I ask: who will pick up the tab in respect of this bill? The Committee has a responsibility to consider the implications of what we are doing. The bill deals with a significant area but the enforcement provisions load the costs on to the most significant and most important body: the local territorial authority. 
In that regard I do not see any clarity offered in clause 22 which inserts section 97B. I look at subsection (2) and see the words “may appoint enforcement officers” and “may exercise the powers of inspectors under the Health and Safety in Employment Act”. Perhaps I have missed something and I ask the Minister to explain whether that is optional or is required. If we are to have a regime that protects absolutely then I would have thought that “may” should not be used but rather words that are clear and definitive about the way in which the enforcement powers are to be enacted. Perhaps the Minister could explain that. 
I move on to clause 27 which inserts new section 122 “Power to require hazardous substance to leave New Zealand”. I think every person of a reasonable disposition would say that if someone brings in something that is inappropriate it should go. I am in absolute agreement with that but my concern relates to a matter that is not covered. I ask the Minister to give some consideration to what happens to goods that are bona vacantia—in other words do not have a home. I have to say that if I were of a nature to bring in something that was a bit doubtful I would construct a little path of confusion about ownership or create some kind of parent company or some kind of construction of safe houses or something that would absolve me and make it difficult to trace the goods to me. I am aware of such things happening in some circumstances. So although the amendment in clause 27 requires the person who brings in the goods to take responsibility for the cost of removal and we would tick that off and say it is excellent in the case of goods that are bona vacantia—no owner no home—and a risk what thought and what provisions have been made to pick up on that anomaly? 
 I believe it is a real anomaly. I know as I said earlier of instances where that has occurred with regard to hazardous substances. I know of people who want to bring in something that is on the edge and that maybe there are some questions about—maybe their bookwork has not been done and they intend to get it done here and the substance does not comply. There is a range of issues whereby that sort of situation can occur and if there is not a very clear trail back to the person or entity who brought the substance in who actually pays? Then there is the other element that comes out of this whole argument: the company that brings the substance in may not be able to afford the transit of the goods back out again if they do not comply. It is very easy to understand how someone may have taken for want of a better word a punt on a new product in the belief that it is a magic bullet—a cure-all—and something from which he or she will make a considerable profit. But in bringing the product in the person may have extended himself or herself and be in a position where he or she actually does not have the finances to be able—or again the person may have constructed some kind of company that is unable—to afford to move it out. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 That was an excellent contribution from my colleague Eric Roy on the term “bona vacantia”. I have to mention here that the term “bona vacantia” is not in the definitions in the original Act or in the bill. I do think that the Minister should give us an explanation with regard to bona vacantia. This is something we should all know about. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Bona vacantia means “happy holidays”! 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Happy holidays? OK. There is huge concern about dumping costs on to local authorities yet this Government is doing it again. The costs of enforcement in relation to hazardous substances will now be in the hands of local authorities. Members should think about what that really means. This is about testing equipment and proving the case or not proving it because in most cases nowadays people are deemed to be guilty and have to prove their innocence. This is about abatement notices enforcement officers and court procedures. No wonder this Government is talking about a $2 million saving. It looks like it is going to pass the cost on to local authorities. I suggest that it will cost far more than $2 million to local authorities throughout New Zealand and as a consequence that cost will be transferred to the ratepayers of this country and ratepayers are groaning under the weight of those costs. They really cannot accept any more impositions from this Government. But more are in the pipeline. 
The other day I was reading a document about housing. It was from a Government department promoting housing through local authorities’ long-term council community plans. It is the wish list for anybody who wants anything through local authorities and of course it is the ratepayers who have to pay for that. Here is another part of that wish list. The Government wants to transfer the onus of responsibility but without giving any remuneration for the costs associated with it. That is happening constantly with this Government and it will do that for all of its social services. If the Government can get away with it it will put more and more of its social services on to local government without a brass razoo going along with it. I think it is an absolute disgrace and it is time that that was addressed. 
We are also concerned about the cost on the farming sector the agricultural sector. Of course if the Government thinks it is making savings we know why. If it is not dumping costs on to local authorities it is dumping them on to farmers. I would like to answer some of the questions that were raised with regard to those costs. Where are the savings going to be? If we look at one of the submissions we see that the total cost of compliance with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is calculated to be nearly $105 million. This averages out at $2230 per farm in set-up costs and does not include any ongoing costs from 2007 onwards. For the arable sector the set-up cost was going to be about $3000 per farm. But does this Government actually care about those cost-compliance issues for businesses which include farming? No. It does not take any cognisance of that at all. In spite of all the rhetoric there is no substance and the Government does not actually follow through. This is another one of those instances. Those costs will be passed on to farmers and on to ratepayers through local authorities having to enforce them. Does having to enforce those costs mean local authorities will be getting into that whole eye in the sky stuff as well? I do not see that as necessarily being a part of this unless it is a visual assessment of the effects of any use of a hazardous substance. 
There has been an inadequate cost-benefit analysis of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to justify the costs to the industry. We see the costs being rorted too in the way people have to sit tests for the use of hazardous substances. Lots of people are now getting into the exercise of providing educational opportunities that farmers have to comply with and have to participate in at their cost. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I also rise to speak in relation to Part 3. Like my colleague Dr Hutchison I would like to refer to clause 22 which inserts new section 97B “Enforcement of Act in respect of hazardous substances in place of work” which as Dr Hutchison has very wisely mentioned includes farms. I will take a bit of a different tack on this however. But before I do so I will refer to another learned colleague—we have so many on this side of the Chamber—Mr Eric Roy. He referred to the totally discretionary nature of the appointment of enforcement officers which gives no certainty at all to this legislation. My point however is that this provision states that the enforcement agency “may appoint enforcement officers in accordance with this Act who may exercise the powers of inspectors under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992”. 
We all know of ludicrous examples under that Health and Safety in Employment Act which hinders progress rather than helps progress and which discourages personal responsibility rather than encouraging it. We have heard in the media the stories of the cancelled lolly scrambles and the cancelled pipe band marches which are examples of how totally ludicrous and ridiculous some of the legislation passed through this House actually is. But let us look at it from a more legal point of view and consider the definition of “place of work”. Place of work under the Health and Safety in Employment Act as we all know includes vehicles. It includes motor vehicles trucks and tractors. It includes harvesters. If any of those motor vehicles happen to be carrying some spray a hazardous substance who will be responsible for that? Will it be the owner or will it be the driver? I think that that adds to some of the uncertainty of this legislation. 
My other question in relation to enforcement is will those enforcement officers then have the powers of the police to stop and inspect the vehicles and to check whether they are indeed carrying a hazardous substance? That is what they will need to do under this bill. My question really is: does that mean we will need more than the 1000 front-line police now promised by this Government and at what cost? It is another cost that I do not believe has been thought of under this Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. 
My other concern in relation to this bill is clause 29 “Notification of hazardous substance injuries”. That clause adds more compliance costs to our already totally compliance – cost ridden country. It provides that if a medical practitioner finds that a person who is not admitted to a hospital is suffering from an injury caused by a hazardous substance the medical practitioner must give notice of the injury to the medical officer of health. What does “injury” mean? Does it mean that if a person sniffs a bit of spray and feels a bit queasy and goes to the doctor then the doctor has to refer the incident to the medical officer of health. 
 When the medical officer of health knows that someone has felt a bit queasy from sniffing a bit of spray as by mistake some of us from rural backgrounds have been prone to do will this not then lead to more red tape more bureaucracy more compliance costs more work and more paperwork? Is that really a sensible option? I do not believe that this Government has thought through the ramifications of requiring medical practitioners to report any injury caused by a hazardous substance no matter how small or how serious to the medical officer of health. The common theme through this legislation is the cost of compliance. We will have compliance costs in trying to enforce the legislation in places of work not only on farms but also in vehicles. These compliance costs will affect farmers who are already lumbered with so many other costs. We heard that the cost of this legislation alone adds $3000 costs to farmers. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 National members are making a big play on the cost of this legislation to farmers. I want to raise one or two issues in the submission that came from Federated Farmers to the Education and Science Committee in terms of this bill. The first one which I shall read from the submission is: “In general Federated Farmers supports the provision of a group standard approval mechanism.” That is the basis of this legislation. So I really have to question some of the points that members on the other side of the Chamber are raising. I will go on to quote from another part of the submission remembering of course that the 1996 legislation—which for Sandra Goudie’s information is the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act—was brought in by Simon Upton who was National member. 
This is what Federated Farmers have to say: “Practical implementation of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 has been fraught with difficulties. Federated Farmers has supported changes to the Act that helped to remove constraints and minimise the unintended cost to business and Government and the barriers to innovation.” This includes both written and oral submissions in support of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill. In other words Federated Farmers are supporting this legislation because it reduces the compliance costs that were implicit in the original Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act brought in by National. I need to make the point that representatives of Federated Farmers came to the select committee and said that this legislation is good legislation because it fixes up some of the mistakes that National had in its 1996 legislation. 
National members really have to start considering that they mucked it up in 1996 and that that is why Federated Farmers are supporting this amendment bill. If compliance costs were being added by this bill they would be voting against it. They are voting for it because they know that it is reducing the compliance costs that were created by Simon Upton in his original 1996 legislation. Everything we are hearing from National members on that side of the Chamber has to be questioned because of the fact that it means nothing at all. 
I make one extra point which is about the on-farm compliance cost of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act as calculated by Federated Farmers in their submission. It states: “The total set-up cost for compliance with the HASNO Act”—brought in by National under Simon Upton—“is calculated to be nearly $105 million which averages $2230 per farm in set-up costs but does not include any ongoing cost from 2007 onwards.” That is what that lot did when they were in control of this nation and now they are complaining about efforts to try to fix up their mess. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
It is interesting that we get those kinds of responses from the New Zealand First crew now that they are in Government with Labour. These are the people who told us they would keep everyone honest. And what happened in Rotorua? They said one thing then a month later they said something else: they joined the Government. Where is the honesty we looked for in New Zealand First? People voted those members in on honesty. Where is it? Show us the honesty.  
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Do you know which side he was on? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: One would never know.  
The enforcement provisions of this legislation raise three issues that we need to address today. The first one is definitely the increase in compliance costs as we have said throughout the discussion on this legislation. That is the issue that is brought up by a lot of small-business people around the country. They are sick and tired of paying increased compliance costs. The second issue is that we are moving the responsibility on to regional government. That will create another level of work for regional government and the Government will not be funding it. The Government will expect regional government to do all that work and the costs of that will be transferred on to the small-business owners landowners and ratepayers of this country. They will have to pay increased rates to meet those service levels. 
Darren Hughes 
: What’s the alternative? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The alternative? It is a matter of trust. This Government does not trust New Zealanders and is trying to control everything. It has a control orientation within it. It does not trust farmers and others to look after their own properties. Compliance would not be needed if that trust was there. That goes to the heart of the cost estimates that the Government is bringing in as a measure of control. If the Government had trust in the people it would back them up in what they are doing and a compliance regime would not be needed.  
We also need to be open and to embrace science. One of the major things we need to do is to promote science in this country. An important part of promoting science is that we give people opportunities to take advantage of modern technology. Earlier a Green Party member talked about the fact that we need to create a regime that allows modern technology to be considered. That is important for compliance as well and for enforcement. We need a system that enables us to look forward to science and to provide the opportunities it may provide in dealing with issues in this area. In essence we need to look at compliance costs we need to promote science and we need to have faith that individuals are able to look after their own businesses. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 5 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 28A be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 The title of this bill the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill is fairly obvious. But one does wonder whether an entirely appropriate alternative would be the “Labour Government (Let’s Delay Another Technical Bill Until It’s Too Late) Bill”. We know that the raison d’être behind this bill—the 79000 notified toxic substances—has been around for a very long time. The Labour Government has known about the issue for many years and has simply done nothing. This is a classic case of Labour Government irresponsibility. 
 The point is indeed that the Environmental Risk Management Authority itself has been saying that it will be impossible to transfer all those substances by the due date of June 2006. Here we have the Labour Government bringing in this technical bill under urgency 24 hours before it packs up for the end of the year—a desperate Government whose members are saying there is very little on the agenda—when it does not even carry out the thorough checks that it should do on this sort of technical bill and ensure that indeed the aspects of transference can be carried out within the requirements that it itself set down. I challenge the Minister to stand up and tell the Committee that all those substances will be transferred by June 2006. I guarantee the answer is no. Over there we have the member for Otaki and I know that he must be very worried about his seat—the farmers have certainly rejected him. Can he too take a call and give us an assurance that indeed these toxic substances will all have been registered and transferred by June 2006? I do not think so. Here they are bringing in under urgency a bill that is impossible actually to carry out technically when they should have literally done it years ago. 
The second alternative title of this bill perhaps could be “Labour Government (Reduction of Compliance Costs of Transfer of Hazardous Substances) Bill” but really we do not know whether there will be any reduction in compliance costs. 
We just heard a bit of a tirade from New Zealand First. We are not sure just where New Zealand First members are. It seems as though they are thoroughly and completely entrenched on the side of the Government. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Oh no no. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Oh the member is protesting. Well what about the Minister of Foreign Affairs? Where is he? Which side of the fence is he on these days? Clearly the Rotorua speech belies anything that any common-sense New Zealander knows. He said “no baubles no LTDs” but when that party gets the possibility to have them it takes them and goes across to Labour. 
But the point I am really making is this: do we really know whether this bill will achieve a reduction in compliance costs? Has the Labour Government put any provisions in place to ensure the efficacy of the bill? I do not see them anywhere whatsoever. The rhetoric is yes $2 million will be saved in the transference and yes this has been accepted by industry as a good thing. But do we know that it is actually going to happen? Are there any monitoring mechanisms? No there are not. I believe that once again there has been a dereliction of the detail of a bill by a somewhat desperate and pathetic Labour Government. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Ha ha! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I see the member from Northland laughing away. He was the one who said there were no toxic accidents up in Northland. Well I say to Dover Samuels there are plenty of toxic accidents up in Northland. Maybe he is one of the living examples of them! 
The third possible title for this bill is “Labour Government (Transfer of 70000 Toxic Substances with No Review or Time Limitation) Bill”. I think that is a very serious issue. It was brought up by the leader of the Green Party Jeanette Fitzsimons and also by the very thorough submission of the Sustainability Council. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 Mr Chairman—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Member 
: Tena koe! 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Tena koe—or tena koutou! Get it right if you are going to use Maori language please! 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. Do not bring the Chairman into it. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I would like to speak to the title of this bill. The purpose of the bill is to improve the workability of the provisions around hazardous substances such as paint petrol sprays and all manner of chemicals within the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. With the recent explosions at the Bunsfield Oil Terminal near London it is imperative that we have robust legislation to deal with hazardous substances and indeed new organisms that come into this country. If we look back at the accident that happened in Kaikoura when rat poison went into the ocean we see that it is imperative that we have controls on hazardous substances. There is no argument there. 
There is however a fine line between controls and over-regulation with its effect on innovation and growth in this country. Right now New Zealand has one of the worst balance of trade deficits in history and we still sit under halfway down the list of OECD countries in terms of individual per capita economic wealth. If we are indeed going to grow that position we must continue to introduce bills of this nature which reduce compliance costs and help innovation to help to grow this country. Anything we can do as a nation to reduce bureaucracy and help business to export and to grow should be a key focus. I believe that this bill will help to do that. Anything we can do to reduce regulation should be a priority for this Government. I also believe that this bill will have an impact on that. 
In talking to this point of reduced regulation I just want to bring to the Committee an example of regulation at the moment outside this bill. It is a company called Goodtime Foods in Napier. It is a small to medium sized enterprise with a strong domestic market and champing at the bit to get into the international market. It has potential orders of products that would triple the size of its business but is faced with totally unreasonable regulations that prohibit the growth of its business. In one instance the bakery is expected to comply with the same wash-down regulations as a slaughterhouse. This company has flour on the floor and on its conveyer belts. That regulation is absolutely nuts. In another instance it was necessary to build an entirely new corridor so that a trolley of raw meat could be pushed down one corridor and one of cooked meat down another corridor. The compliance costs—the actual costs of this company getting an export licence—were absolutely ludicrous. 
If we are serious in this country about growing our per capita income and about growing the nation we need to focus on legislation that will actually reduce compliance costs and make it easier for our nation’s businesses to export goods and to achieve wider economic growth. It is points such as that that I hope this bill is addressing to actually reduce compliance costs for our businesses overall and allow them to grow on a wider basis. At all times we must remember that New Zealand is a microeconomy catering to many different economies of a much larger nature. Removing barriers to innovation and to sustainable economic growth are critical to driving this country forward. National supports this bill on that basis and hopes it will go some way to reducing the bureaucracy around hazardous substances and in fact new organisms. 
In particular I support firstly the provision of a new approval mechanism known as the group standards which I spoke to earlier in the Committee stage. Secondly and also important I support the adoption of international standards for exposure of chemicals so that we do not have to assess each pesticide ourselves as it comes into the country which again creates major costs. These seem to me to be common-sense measures. To follow on from New Zealand First’s tirade about the introduction of the Act in 1996 that did in fact tidy up three or four Acts that had become intertwined. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I would like to take a brief call on the title and commencement. I do not have any particular great issues with the title that is here—the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. But because we have had a number of modifications to this bill over time it occurs to me that probably we should have just started numbering them: the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill (No 1) (No 2) and (No 3) or whatever. Because I will make this prediction: this will not be the last time that this House debates amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. I see the Hon Brian Donnelly smiling I think in agreement about that. He did make the point that this was a National bill. Before New Zealand First was a twinkle in the eye of the Rt Hon Winston Peters this bill went through the House— 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: In 1996 we had two members in. 
ERIC ROY 
: It was still a twinkle in those days. Let me say there was a high degree of unanimity about the need for hazardous substances and new organisms legislation. Not only that a special select committee was set up to deal with the legislation and it sat mostly on Fridays to deal with this separately. So to say that all the errors in this one are due to National is an extension of reality when in fact there was a great degree of unanimity about the process by which the original bill became an Act. 
As we reflect—we are getting near the closing of the Committee stage on this bill—I think we are kind of locked into some problematic situations. Consumers and our international markets have a standard of assurance that is getting higher and higher and higher. The implications of this is complexity in cost at our end. [ 
Interruption 
] Someone called out: “How do you undo that?”—I do not know. Somehow or other we need to get together in the same way that we had unanimity about doing this and be able to provide that assurance without the ongoing cost. 
I reflected on an earlier trip to the European Union. There could be coming for us as a nation a passport for each animal slaughtered and exported with a required diary of every intervention animal health procedure and every chemical applied. The whole thing is coming towards us. We say that assurance is important—and we are kind of dead at selling our products if we do not have it—but I think we need to take stock a little bit and apply our very capable minds to finding a process where we can give assurance and engage in the process without this ongoing complexity and this ongoing cost. 
I am amused and fascinated that in Part 1 the section that I do not think anyone spoke on the Chief of Defence Force—[ 
Interruption 
] The member covered the Chief of Defence Force did he? I am sorry I do not want to repeat what the honourable member might have said. Again it is an example of how complex it is getting. The Chief of Defence Force has to ensure methods of controlling any hazardous substance he might have of handling any weapon of mass destruction anywhere in the world that could come into New Zealand yet we have to have a process label. I wonder whether the terrorists or the rebels who might impose this somewhere in the world are operating under the same set of rules. I have to suggest that they are not but again it says that this is getting complex and is getting almost nonsensical in some elements. 
But if we fall away from it and say we are not there then we get an opportunity for any kind of non-tariff barrier to come up and ask what our process on this is and say that no they are not taking our product. We are locked in the horns of a very very difficult dilemma. Yes we need the protection; yes we need the assurance; but at some stage we will have to address the problem which is becoming more and more complex. 
Let me give members another example. When patients went into a hospital they used to have a couple of pages to fill out before an operation and now they have 24—about what happens to their organs what happens with liability and there is a whole range of things. Again this is symptomatic of the complex assurance nature of the things we are involved in. The House has to address the issue of ongoing cost and complexity while retaining assurance. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to make one or two points in reference to the comments that have been made. First Mr Eric Roy claimed that when the 1996 bill—under Simon Upton and the previous National Government—went through New Zealand First was just a twinkle in Winston Peters’ eye. In fact New Zealand First had as many members at that particular time as ACT now has. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Not very many. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: No there were not very many at that particular time. It was under first past the post. It had two members. I would like to remind the Committee that half of New Zealand First at that time now sits amongst the National Party. He was probably the member who was looking at Simon Upton’s bill at that particular time. He never really was one who did his homework very well. Therefore he probably let some of the things through that we now have to fix up with this legislation. 
Paul Hutchison did make a point and it is a point that I will affirm. He made the point that this legislative programme has been too slow. I think that is correct. I believe that we are dealing with some very important matters here. A programme has been set out and the fact that we have had to put through Supplementary Order Papers purely and simply to comply with the law is really a symptom of bad management under the previous administration and the previous Minister. I think I made that point earlier and I confirm what Paul Hutchison said. The process has not been managed in a timely fashion or in a fashion that gives priority to the safety of New Zealanders under the original agreement and framework. I hope that any further legislation that comes forward on this matter and on these issues will be advanced in a much more timely fashion than this legislation has been advanced. Almost everything that the National members have said in this debate has been balderdash with the exception of that one particular point regarding the need for timely advancement of this legislation. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill’s primary objectives are to introduce a new approval mechanism known as the group standard; to include regional councils as hazardous substances enforcement agencies that may enforce the Act; to increase the ability to set practical exposure limits to protect people and the environment; and to improve the workability of rapid assessment reassessment and several other provisions including those for exempt laboratories. 
The amendments contained in this bill will reduce costs to the Government and to industry reduce barriers to innovation and better protect the environment and the health and safety of people in our communities. The bill is not divisive setting up business against the environment. This legislation is good for business and the environment and perhaps most important this bill is good for people. 
The changes in the bill will ensure that the processes of the Act work better providing meaningful reductions in costs to industry and the Government and reducing barriers to innovation without compromising what the Act originally set out to achieve—a healthy environment for all New Zealanders. Concern has been expressed at the time frames within which the select committee was asked to report on this bill. I acknowledge that those time frames were tighter than the norm and I thank the committee and its chair Mr Donnelly for their diligent work in returning this bill to the House. The pressure on timing comes from the time provided for the transitional provisions of the Act. That transitional period ends on 1 July 2006 and by that date all transfers must be complete. Delay means that businesses would continue to have to comply with hazardous substances and new organisms controls for some substances and controls from the old legislation for others. 
Passing this bill means that businesses will be able to get on with business under one piece of legislation whereas previously there were four inconsistent and overlapping processes. This reduces costs for both business and the Government. Contrary to some concerns that have been raised the bill enhances the protection of the environment and the health and safety of people and communities. The bill does this through group standards that will enable hazardous substance and new organism controls to be applied not only to the many currently uncontrolled notified toxic substances but also to hazardous wastes. The bill further enhances the protection of the environment and the health and safety of people and communities by removing the barriers to setting the exposure limit controls that protect people and the environment. 
I moved a number of amendments to the bill during the Committee stage. Those amendments remove the legal circularity that currently prevents New Zealand from meeting its obligations under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. This is an important convention as it provides for the safe disposal of persistent organic pollutants including polychlorinated biphenyl. Other amendments clarify the consultation obligations of the Environmental Risk Management Authority around group standards and notices of transfer. They also provide consistency around the authority’s powers to incorporate materials by reference and group standards and notices of transfer. 
I also remind members of the benefits that the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation brings to the management of hazardous substances. I have explained in my earlier comments that this bill represents a significant step forward in protecting the environment and improving the living standards of all New Zealanders. Hazardous substances do bring us a great many benefits. They allow us to be more productive to generate more with less to grow more with less and to achieve more with less. The bill not only ensures that economic growth can be more sustainable; it actually enhances the sustainable economic growth potential of our country. 
Like many new ideas there were some teething difficulties with the Act and in June 2003 my colleague Marian Hobbs announced a hazardous substances strategy to improve the workability of the Act. This debate marks another vital milestone in delivering that strategy. It is important to speak of the strategy now because it was effectively a promise to industry and to all New Zealanders to deliver good environmental governance through effective legislation. The Government promised to fix the Resource Management Act and I believe we have done so. We promised to fix Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and we are in the process of doing that. 
This debate marks our commitment to deliver on the outcome of good environmental governance through effective legislation. We said we would do it and we are doing it right now. The bill will reduce costs to the Government and to industry it will reduce barriers to innovation and it will better protect the environment and the health and safety of the people in our communities. I am pleased to commend the bill to the House. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I must say that we have just heard a revelational speech from Minister Benson-Pope who said that the Labour Government had promised to fix the Resource Management Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and that it has done that. I have not heard of anything as ridiculous as that in my life. New Zealanders up and down this country are deeply outraged by the ways in which the Labour Government has imposed compliance costs on them through those two Acts. 
It may be that in this particular bill there is an intention to reduce compliance costs but no one knows—and the Minister would not confirm—whether there would be any monitoring of this amendment to ensure that it was efficacious. There were absolutely no promises of that from the Minister and certainly when we heard the absolutely ridiculous statement from a Minister of the Labour Government that it had fixed the Resource Management Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act we knew that it was officially in denial. That is indeed a very serious condition to be in. It is so serious that Labour should instead of taking just the end-of-year break in 24 hours’ time take a complete break—resign and give the opportunity to the New Zealand people to vote in a National Government for 2006. It is the height of ridiculousness for the new Minister to suggest that the Labour Government has fixed the Resource Management Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. 
I note that both New Zealand First and the Green leader Jeanette Fitzsimons have made quite a lot of comment about the genesis of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. I agree that it is important to think about its genesis. As Jeanette Fitzsimons told the House in the 1970s and 1980s prior to that legislation being enacted there were about 20 different pieces of legislation which were all over the place and non-comprehensive. There were calls from right around the country to make it into comprehensive legislation. The bill that Simon Upton introduced in 1996 was world-leading and cutting edge. Yes there were indeed problems with it and I think that that is what often happens with cutting edge legislation. However one would have thought that after 6 years of a Labour Government which had been critical for a long time of some of the deficiencies of the Act it would do something about it instead of bringing this amendment into the House under urgency 24 hours before it adjourns for the end of the year. I do recognise that Brian Donnelly the chairman of the Education and Science Committee and I are in absolute agreement on that fact. 
Another revelation has struck me today and it is that New Zealand First is no longer a schizophrenic chameleon in Opposition. Brian Donnelly has confirmed that New Zealand First has formally transformed into an official poodle of the Labour Government. It was quite extraordinary that Brian Donnelly suggested that compliance costs had not been thought through extremely carefully by the National Opposition both in terms of the Resource Management Act—and we have put up amendment after amendment aimed specifically to reduce compliance costs—and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act where in respect of the new organisms aspect of it again legislative changes were proposed and amendments put up to reduce compliance costs which were absolutely valid and appropriate. Yet Brian Donnelly has suggested that National has not consistently supported the changes whereas the Labour Government—which New Zealand First has formally and officially moved across to—is where New Zealand First is and that is one of the other revelations regarding this bill. 
Federated Farmers did put up a very well-thought-out technical submission and assessment of the costs of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. They assessed that it costs New Zealanders in terms of the set-up cost something like $102 million and in terms of each arable farmer on average about $3000 a year. When the Government says that this particular amendment will save $2 million and the Minister gives us no reassurance whatsoever that there will be any monitoring of the efficacy of the amendment then any faith in the Government erodes and crumbles away. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No one believes anything he says. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It is absolutely correct that no one believes anything that David Benson-Pope says. 
However David Benson-Pope did give an assurance to New Zealanders that the costs of revoking the registration of some of the toxic substances and then carrying out an appropriate risk management assessment would be available from the Government. I think it is very very important that he is held to the promise he has made to the New Zealand people today. The Environmental Risk Management Authority says that it simply does not have the resources available if indeed those toxic substances do require revocation from the register and a full assessment. The authority says that the cost will be about $1 million per substance and that it simply does not have that money. We are in a situation whereby the authority says on the one hand that it is just not possible to transfer everything across by June 2006—the date by which that should occur—and on the other hand that it does not have the resources to carry out an appropriate risk management assessment of those substances that will be identified inevitably as being a worry to New Zealanders and to our environment. That is of considerable concern. 
I will just point out two things that I think are certainly of value in this bill. I mentioned them before. The first relates to the rapid assessment and approval of other hazardous substances in special emergencies. We in New Zealand have had various concerns over the last few years one being the varroa bee mite. The fact that it has become endemic in New Zealand raises a huge concern about the efficacy of our biosecurity agencies. As I understand it only one bee scientist in New Zealand is at a level that one would expect international best practice to conform to. It was not until the varroa mite was endemic in New Zealand that it was suddenly realised that it was here. When the Labour Government gave up and said that it could not eradicate the mite bee-keepers said that they needed a miticide to fix their hives. It was not possible through the legislation to make that available so it took a tremendous amount of work to get this lazy Labour Government to provide for special circumstances when a miticide would be available. 
But let us just imagine if we did not have this legislation what would happen if we had a foot-and-mouth outbreak and we were not able to get the best therapies possible to ensure that it could be combated in the most efficacious way. Fortunately new section 49L is to be inserted in the Act by clause 12 of the bill. That is important; it should have happened long ago. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I had the opportunity to be part of the Education and Science Committee when it deliberated on this bill in the last Parliament. My good friend Brian Donnelly chaired the committee and I think we did a good job. We received a lot of submissions from the industry scientists and environmental people. I think this bill is really good in terms of promoting business the environment and the health and safety of people in our community. This bill really relates to group standards which are something the industry has been asking for for quite some time. It puts together a number of substances that in particular the farming community and the industry use. I think it will reduce the cost to the Government and the industry reduce barriers to innovation and better protect the environment and the health and safety of people. I am delighted that the industry which the Government consulted supports this bill. 
Very briefly the group standards will reduce cost to the industry by reducing the number of applications that businesses need to make to the Environmental Risk Management Authority and by providing simpler prescriptive alternatives to technical controls and regulations. With that I support this bill. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the third reading of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. It has been interesting to listen to the discussions in the Chamber today and last night. We have heard today that this bill will result in a saving of $2 million. When this bill goes through today—if it does—that will be an interesting Christmas present for all the orchardists and farmers to get. I cannot see where those savings will be made. I have listened to Minister Benson-Pope today and I am still unenlightened as to where that $2 million saving actually is. 
It is interesting to read section 96D(1)(b)(i) inserted by clause 20: “the benefits associated with a reduction of environmental and health risks outweigh the economic costs associated with complying with the group standard;”. What it actually says is there is a cost associated with this to do with environmental and health risks and it actually sounds to me a little like the Kyoto Protocol. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Oh what a disaster! 
NATHAN GUY 
: Indeed it is a disaster. This bill seems to me to be a bit of a rush job. It has been on the cards for 3 or 4 years. We heard from Mr Benson-Pope that there had been a few teething problems in the past. Suddenly we seem to be trying to crash this legislation through before Christmas. I wonder where the review is. Where is the date for a review? The whole thing seems like it could be a bit of an experiment. It seems to me and to other members of the House that this bill could be a bit cumbersome. It could be an experiment with no date for a review. We have highlighted today the costs and we are sick of hearing about compliance costs—I know that everyone has had a bash today. But we know that this bill will add costs. It will add costs to the importer and the retailer that will then flow on to the end user. 
It was also interesting to listen to the debate on Part 4. Regional councils will be left to bear the brunt of this legislation. We have seen just recently that Waikato ratepayers are subsidising a helicopter to go around checking on dairy farmers to see what is happening. It is sort of like Big Brother. Regional councils will be left to administer this measure and I ask where the money will come from. It will not come from the general taxpayer will it; it will actually come out of the ratepayer’s pocket. There will be no flow-on money from the Government. It will be left to the little old ratepayer to pay for this amendment via the regional council. Once again something is being passed through this House that will have a direct impact on the ratepayers of New Zealand. 
It is also interesting that many people will have to acquire approved handler certification. There will be some assessment of candidates. I am pleased that farmers who have a huge amount of experience in dealing with chemicals will not necessarily have to do a full-day course. I am pleased that the course will be reduced in some areas to a half-day course. The other thing I think is significant is that there is some relief around veterinary medicines. I would hate to see that farmers who drench their livestock on an almost monthly basis have to get handling certification. 
 A few of us took a trip to Gisborne the other day to see the flood-affected farmers the farmers of the East Coast whom this Government over there—of which New Zealand First is a part—has just snubbed. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. You say you are not members of the Government but you are sitting on that side and I tell you Mr Donnelly that you are definitely part of it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is not to bring the Chair into the debate; he is to refer to the member. 
NATHAN GUY 
: It is interesting to see that this Government has snubbed those farmers on the East Coast whose farms have been badly flooded and who are now out there trying to salvage their crops that have been water damaged and suffer from humidity and rot. In particular I am talking about squash. When I was there the other day it was interesting to see that the farmers were putting chemicals on their crops to try to salvage some of the possessions they have left. This Government does not care one iota about our primary production sector and assisting those people even though a precedent has been set. I have seen first-hand that those farmers are putting on chemicals and that is a double-edged sword for them. They get nothing from this Government. Their costs will go up as a result of this amendment bill. They are all paying huge taxes and there is no relief in sight for them. The backbone of the country has once again been let down by this Government—the hard-working primary production sector— 
Hon Member 
: The backbone of the country. 
NATHAN GUY 
:—the backbone of the country which supports 80 percent of this economy. 
Jill Pettis 
: Has the member forgotten the Manawatu floods? 
NATHAN GUY 
: Forgotten? The precedent was set in the Manawatu but that was before the election; now the East Coast people are feeling snubbed. They feel extremely disappointed. 
It was interesting to hear Dr Smith last evening signal that we should be working more closely with Australia to have a common agreement on standards—which I believe is paramount. It was also interesting to hear from Mr Donnelly that fly-by-nighters and importers will actually find it tougher to import substances into this country. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Who put the amendment in? Not you guys. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Oh the member should not worry about that. I tell Mr Donnelly that he should not give us historical rhetoric; let us face the facts now. He is well aware that this legislation will add a greater burden of compliance and be a greater burden on the people who actually support the economy. 
Looking forward I say that this amendment bill will enhance the environment. It is all about sustainability and I think we need to be mindful of that. Farmers and orchardists are looking forward to the $2 million of savings that will come from our passing this amendment today but I am mindful of the fact that they deserve better than what they get now from this Government. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I think most of the issues have been covered in the debate but I do have to make some comments upon one or two things. In relation to the last speech by Nathan Guy I have to say that it really is quite sad that such a nice guy in such a short space of time should be driven to talk such drivel. But that is what happens when members get too close to National. Members on the other side have to realise that I was in that situation once. We had colleagues like Tau Henare who actually sat around in 1996 and said that they would never be seated around the table with the likes of Jim Bolger and Jenny Shipley but now he is on that side of the House. That is what happens when they get with National. It is sad and unfortunate; nevertheless that is the way things are. 
Paul Hutchinson made some points about how New Zealand First has changed its position but I want to make the point that New Zealand First has not changed its position towards this legislation one millimetre from the time we sat on that side of the House right next door to National. We certainly have not changed our opinion that at that particular stage earlier in the year the National members who were sitting beside us were lacking in intellectual substance—they are still lacking in intellectual substance and we have not changed our position one iota. But I want to ask Paul Hutchinson one thing and it is a challenge— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a point that the Jeanette Fitzsimons took against me some years ago. It concerns me that the member referred to me as Paul “Hutchinson”. In actual fact the Hutchinsons were the side of the family that invented the thumbscrew while we ourselves are a particularly gallant and honourable lot. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: I shall henceforth refer to the member as “Dr Paul”! Let us face it: how many members in this house would actually refer to “B scientists”? I mean that has to be an insult to all scientists in this country. 
The member has stated that New Zealand First has changed its position. It has not changed its position and I challenge National speakers to tell us of one amendment that they have put up to change this particular legislation—just one issue they actually fought for and tried to change within the legislation in its passage through the select committee and through this House. I challenge the members on the other side of the House to come up with just one word in this bill they wanted changed. Was there one? I tell the House that there was not one instance of any effort to make any change to this legislation by National members sitting on the other side. 
There was from New Zealand First. I can tell members that all of the changes that came in this legislation through its process actually came from New Zealand First and those changes tightened up some of the issues in there. But not one thing came from National. Therefore for National members to say that they oppose this bill and think it is terrible but to have done absolutely nothing except vote for it—that is all they have done—then we know there is a set of goalposts stamped on their foreheads. That is the point I need to make; I am challenging members on the other side of the House. 
Let us face it: we are talking about cross-benchers here. We were cross-benchers before we are still cross-benchers and I can categorically say that I am not a part of the Government constitutionally—absolutely not a part of the Government any more than Georgina Beyer is. But as we did in the last Parliament we will operate in a way that will further the interests of New Zealanders and of New Zealand as a nation. If legislation has to be moved forward in that particular interest New Zealand First will do it. We will continue to operate in that particular manner. 
However I do have to say that I agree with “Dr Paul” on one particular point. I also was gobsmacked by the statement of David Benson-Pope that “This Government promised to fix the Resource Management Act—and we have done it.” That is an unbelievable statement and if Government members actually believe it then they have to have their minds sorted out. Of course a party like New Zealand First is eminently placed to be able to sort their minds out on such issues. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 We have heard an awful lot this morning about compliance costs for business. We have heard about the trouble it will give farmers. We have heard all of that from the National Party which is voting for the bill. We have heard from the Labour Party that this legislation will reduce compliance costs—we have not really heard how—but we have not heard anybody talk this morning about the nature of the materials that this legislation tries to regulate and why they need to be regulated. 
 I think it is time that somebody spoke about those issues because amongst the thousands and thousands of chemicals that we are transferring from old legislation to new legislation—but without any change in the way they are managed or in the regulations under which they have to be used—are some chemicals that are known to be capable of causing cancer some that are known to be capable of causing birth defects some that are known to be capable of causing and do cause chronic illnesses some that are known to be hormone disrupters and that affect people’s reproductive systems and their general health and some that are known to accumulate in the environment long term and to concentrate up food chains. Surely that is the reason we have legislation to try to control these substances. We have heard nothing from anybody in the Chamber about how this legislation will improve the management of those hazards. 
We have heard from one National Party speaker that we should not have any compliance rules or any enforcement; we should just trust people who use these substances to use them wisely. I wonder whether the National Party actually needs a lesson in toxicology or in the illness that is caused in society by exposure to hazardous chemicals. It makes me very concerned that the House does not see fit to debate the health effects of these substances but only whether it will be inconvenient for farmers to have to have some training or whether it will be costly for industries to have to pay assessment costs to have their products approved for sale given that they make enormous amounts of money out of selling those chemicals and there are consequences for the rest of society. 
As I said in the second reading debate the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation sets up a system of grandfathering whereby substances that have already been approved under old and—everybody agrees—inadequate legislation are grandfathered in under the new legislation and approved and there is no way that that can then be challenged except at enormous cost to the Crown. It creates a perpetual property right or a perpetual consent to use those substances without further assessment in a way that no other legislation does for any other purpose. If we want a consent to take water discharge into water discharge into air or use land for a purpose under the Resource Management Act we have a time limit on that consent. We have to apply for a new consent at the end of it so we can go through a process to check whether what we are doing is still acceptable by modern standards whether there are better ways of doing it whether the consent should have new conditions on it or whether in fact the consent should not be allowed at all. 
It has been widely accepted virtually forever that consents are not perpetual but these consents are to be perpetual in such a way that it would be an enormous cost to the Crown to reassess the chemicals that the Environmental Risk Management Authority already knows need reassessment. The authority has a list of the ones it is concerned about. It has a list of chemicals that do not meet best international practice either in being used at all or in being used under the conditions that they are currently used under. There is no time before 30 June 2006 to put those chemicals through a rigorous reassessment so they are being brought in and given a perpetual consent. The only way they can be reassessed in the future is at the cost of the Crown. My bet is that they will not be reassessed because the authority will never persuade the Minister of Finance to make enough Budget available to go through those processes. That is why we need to set up a system where the applicant pays the cost to get its consent continued. That opportunity has now been missed. 
At the same time this legislation creates a great disincentive for innovation. New Zealand is too small a market for a company to apply to introduce a new chemical that is better and particularly less environmentally harmful than an existing chemical if it has to face the full cost of the assessment of the new chemical but it gets to continue a consent for the old chemical forever for free. That is a huge disincentive for innovation; it is a huge disincentive for environmental improvement. I simply cannot understand why the Government will not accept the evidence that was given to the select committee the submissions that I made personally to the Minister and what many other people have been telling the Government. It seems to be all about a concern that business will kick up if it has to pay any costs at all for the privilege of subjecting the rest of us to chemicals that may endanger our health. I would like to suggest that that is actually the wrong way round. If business wants to get its chemicals registered in New Zealand—and I am not denying that chemicals have many uses—then it needs to face the cost of having them properly assessed. 
So we have the inadequate provisions of the Toxic Substances Act the Pesticides Act the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Dangerous Goods Act rolled over in perpetuity under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. That is a huge missed opportunity that could have been remedied in this amendment bill but it is not. So while the Green Party accepts that there are useful things in this bill—and it is not actually the content of this particular bill that we are opposed to—we are voting against it because it does not take the last remaining opportunity to set up a system under the Act whereby it is possible to reassess chemicals and get safer ones without it being at the expense of the Crown. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 There is no doubt that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act actually needs some substantial change and this bill goes some way towards doing that but it is only a very small step. National supports the bill contrary to what Brian Donnelly would have everybody believe because he said that National opposed the bill. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: No I never said that. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: The member did say that. If he goes to  
Hansard 
 he will find that he did say it. I was listening and I took the member to task at the time. National is supporting the bill but there is a long way to go towards addressing the compliance costs associated with the whole Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. With this bill we had an opportunity to address some of the issues of compliance cost but that did not happen. So let us see what the Labour Party lackeys—once known as New Zealand First—really understand about compliance costs if they do not understand that substantially more has to be done to reduce compliance costs and have them properly addressed in the Act. [ 
Interruption 
] I said “the Labour Party lackeys—once known as New Zealand First”. 
The explanatory note has in it what I presume is the Government’s compliance cost statement under the heading “Statement of net benefit of proposal including the total regulatory costs (administrative compliance and economic costs) and benefits (including non-quantifiable benefits of the proposal) and other feasible options”. Do members know that that statement does not identify one single dollar—not one? I just wonder how the Government assesses any sort of cost when it does not even provide the figures to show it has done any number crunching or sums. Then under “Government” the statement talks about the benefits and costs blah-blah-blah but no dollar figures are mentioned there either. The general policy statement states: “This bill offers a means to reduce costs …”; it does not state that the bill does reduce costs. So we have to look very closely at what the words actually say. Of industry the explanatory note states that the standards will reduce the compliance costs for business. It talks about a number of things to make that happen but it is questionable whether that will be the case. 
I am very sceptical when it comes to this Government because I find it to be highly fiscally irresponsible and the student loan situation is a classic example of that. In respect of society and the environment—and I say to Mr Donnelly that it might pay him to read the bill—no environmental social or cultural costs have been identified. So what does that say? The Government has not even done any cost-benefit analysis or assessed any environmental social or cultural costs so I presume that it has not done any actual business or compliance costs assessment at all. I ask the Minister to stand and take a call and perhaps give us some evidence that he has actually done any sort of compliance costs assessment whatsoever. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: It’s the third reading. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: That is the whole thing about urgency. Everything gets rushed through to such a degree that it is questionable whether a proper oversight of the bill has been undertaken. 
We are disappointed that this bill is the fourth Hazardous Substances and New Organisms amendment bill introduced into the House by the Hon Marian Hobbs. When she introduced a previous amending bill we said she did not have a hope of registering the 70000-odd chemicals and hazardous substances that were required to be registered by the deadline of June 2006. That is only 5 or 6 months away so I do not think there is any hope of achieving that. 
We remain disappointed that 5 years later the Act is still not enforced. It is definitely another failure of this Government. That is no surprise. But who really believes there will be any cost savings for anybody? There may be cost savings for the Government because it just passes it all on to local government to farmers and to businesses and says that there may be some sort of cost reduction and reduced compliance costs but it has not done any assessment to prove that. No cost-benefit analysis was done—nothing. So I do not know about Labour’s lackeys New Zealand First. If Brian Donnelly’s passionate defence of Labour’s position is anything to go by I say that New Zealand First has certainly changed its position. Sector groups are already saying that they believe compliance costs will increase—and of course they will. This Government has no fiscal sense of responsibility at all and that has been proven time and time again in this House by my esteemed colleagues. 
Questions have already been raised as to why the bill was referred to the Education and Science Committee instead of the Local Government and Environment Committee. Why was that? It should have gone to the Local Government and Environment Committee. After all that is where the real grunt is. The bill probably received a bit of spelling improvement and that is about it. I cannot imagine that New Zealand First would have had much to do with that. So why the need for urgency? Going into urgency and the bill being sent to the wrong select committee may explain why no proper scrutiny was done. 
I can give some examples. I refer to the very serious issue of bona vacantia raised by my esteemed colleague Eric Roy—what a fantastic find. Who has heard of bona vacantia? There is no definition in the Act and there is no definition in the bill. Clearly nobody considered that. What happened to the call from Mr Donnelly that the committee had actually done a great deal in regard to this bill? Bona vacantia means “without a home” so what happens to a hazardous substance that arrives on the doorstep of New Zealand? Section 122(1) inserted by clause 27 states: “If a customs officer has reasonable cause to believe that a hazardous substance is being or has been imported in breach of this Act” So a customs officer—just an average Joe Bloggs—says: “I don’t know about this one. Is this a hazardous substance or isn’t it? Well OK I’ve got reasonable cause to believe it is and there has been a breach of the Act so yeah well this stuff has got to go back to where it came from.” The poor importer asks: “What am I going to do now? What are my appeal provisions?”. 
The importer can appeal to the District Court but guess what? The hazardous substance has to remain on the ship or the aircraft at the importer’s own cost. Well I am sure the aircraft or the ship will remain for the number of weeks and months it might take the importer to appeal to the District Court! Quite clearly that is a compliance cost even if the customs officer is wrong and there was not a breach of the Act. For the person who is affected by the importation of a substance that has been wrongly identified as being a breach of the Act it would probably be far cheaper to send the stuff back. 
 So clearly some things did not get identified correctly through the bill and that could have been well addressed by the select committee but were not. I guess that is the problem with not giving proper oversight to legislation not giving due regard to it taking time over it and not putting in the amount of grunt that is necessary. Of course when we are talking about compliance costs we are talking about loading local authorities once again with costs from the Government. The Government is once again putting a compliance cost on to local authorities. Maybe at the other end they could take out the auditing of long-term community plans and make them a non-statutory document. All that will do is allow the Government to slowly dump social services and anything else it can on to local authorities. That will send rates through the roof. 
Already fixed-income people our senior citizens are the ones who will be hardest hit. By the year 2020 they will be 52 percent of the population. That is pretty serious. But does this Government care? Absolutely not! If they can get rid of costs to the Government they will do it any which way they can and dumping it on to local authorities keeps them really happy. It keeps this Government really happy. But what does it do to the local authorities and to the ratepayers? It just pushes them down into the ground and makes it so much harder for them to survive—particularly our older citizens who have worked hard all their lives and are on a fixed income and who just cannot support all of these increases. 
Yes we are supporting this bill but it has a long way to go. Is it not amazing that it is easier for a hazardous substance to get here illegally than legally? It is about time we streamlined the Act so that people can legitimately import genetic material plants etc. in a streamlined process and meeting all the obstacles they do. Instead we get illegal substances like rock snot establishing really quickly and they are absolutely disastrous for this nation. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.