Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Speaker. I sympathise with the previous speaker Rachel Brooking because I have had my name mistaken but mine's so much more difficult than yours so it is quite understandable! I also have sympathy for the Minister who—you know this is quite a mouthful really. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill—fortunately I'm only going to say it once. The Minister had to say it several times and so I can see why he had to struggle with it a bit. It is a dull but worthy bill. I know from experience that we are a small market as the Minister said in his remarks. And actually it's quite important because often these chemicals are brought into the country or attempted to be into such a small market that the chemical companies just simply don't find it worthwhile to actually bring them into the country and go through the process given the size of the market that we are to get the relevant process to get the approvals.That has a significant impact on our industries in New Zealand and often also it can be something like for example a chemical used in cereal crops that could be used in vegetables or something else say a fungicide and that actually has to have a label claim. So it's not just having the original work to say it's safe; it also then has a claim process that it has to go through for the particular crop that it's going to be used in because it may well be used in a different way but it's the same base chemical. They run up against those costs that can be quite significant and crippling and then we as a country are poorly affected by that because our industry is unable to utilise those products.So this is a really sensible way to go about things to be able to utilise existing research from other jurisdictions. We like to think of ourselves as being quite unique in a unique climate and we are indeed in some respects but most of these substances that are being used will not be affected by the slightly different climate and conditions that we have in this country. So a significant step forward.I note that the consultation for this began two years ago which shows how long it takes to get through the process to get a bill in front of us. You'd think in that time they'd hopefully come up with a better name for the bill that'd be easier to say. However it is what it is and there's probably good reasons why it's sheeted home to the legislation that it's amending. But none the less it is kind of hard work. I think one of the things I'll be looking to find out during the process in the select committee—and I think it will actually be one of those select committee processes that while there won't be a large number of submissions they will be enlightening because they'll all be the people that are utilising the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) at least annually if not more often and we need to make it easier for them. So we'll be getting a lot of good information from those entities on how this bill can be made to work as best it can.I think that I'll also be looking to find out would this apply to something like the GMO grass that would lower methane emissions quite significantly and I know that's something the Green Party are very keen on. They want to get that GMO out in the market as quickly as possible as we do because we want to lower our methane emissions and so that will be fantastic when we get that up. I know the Green MPs will be just so excited about this when it gets to select committee and we'll just come in behind and we'll support the Green Party through that. I know they're very keen on GMOs!There are 150000 hazardous substances that the EPA are administering. That's a significant number and they do require reassessments quite frequently. I've seen that through ag chemicals that I've used in the past and I know that for very good reasons they do have to come up new evidence comes into the realm and we do need to go through that and in our own environment. I note that the Minister said there will be a provision here for temporary changes to the regulations for using those particular chemicals or may be used in that period while that reassessment is being carried out. I think that's a very sensible change. Some of these things with all the best intentions in the world the regulators are tied to the legislation that they have to work under. And if they can't work efficiently through that then it is not only an economic cost but also potentially a health cost and an environmental cost. I note that there's only a relatively small cost-benefit here of $10 million to our economy over 10 years which doesn't sound like a lot. I actually wonder about that assessment because I seriously doubt that includes the cost to the users of these chemicals the opportunity cost that's lost because of these chemicals not coming into the country in a timely manner or in fact being removed if they are no longer appropriate because I suspect that would be a lot more than $10 million. But we will explore that through that process. So look we've got a great select committee in the Environment Committee. We have certainly got our share of work at the moment and that is a big workload to get through. But this will be quite different something which will be kind of light relief I suppose it might be for the committee to get our teeth into and it'll be a quite different style and tenor from the submitters I suspect than the bills that we're working through at the moment. So with that I commend the bill to the House.