Browning SteffanSTEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I would like to speak on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. I am very disappointed that a bit more rigour has not been put to the bill by the Government and some of the other Opposition parties as well. This bill is openly aiming to encourage more pesticides into New Zealand and with double the length of secrecy around those compounds. I call it a Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) bill and the reason I do that is that this bill started off extending the data protection from 5 years year on year on year—in three stages—for new uses up to 8 years. When that was announced last year I thought Mmm that sounds like the Pharmac issue around the TPPA." and I looked at that and identified it as that. But it got worse. When the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was agreed and signed effectively earlier in the year it had made a 10-year period of data protection for agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines (ACVM). We identified that with the officials. They fudged for a bit and said "No no we're not sure what's in the TPPA."—it was very straightforward it was very easy—and then sure enough it has come through to 10 years' data protection. That is 10 years where civil society interested parties in the community people who really care about the health of New Zealanders and the environment cannot get the information about the formulations in these compounds—10 years. How many of those will need to be reassessed and withdrawn even in that time—or should have been? We cannot rely on our Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). It is interested in production; it does not care about the tool. It does not care it seems whether people are being exposed to endocrine disrupters that are affecting our children's hormonal development. It does not seem to care about the rising cancer rates that are so prevalent throughout New Zealand particularly in the horticultural and agricultural areas. We have our own universities doing research and showing the prevalence and the increased rate of these sorts of diseases amongst the workers particularly women in horticulture where they appear to be exposed to these pesticides. But what is happening? We cover it up. We say: "Bring in more and tell us less." Eleven hundred new ACVM compounds were registered since 2008 since this Government has been in and only 239 were cancelled or expired. I am holding the fine print—these are the thousands of pesticides and agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines are already registered. What do we need more for? Do we need a plethora of more things when we are not even managing what is out there? Other countries progressive countries are doing pesticide reduction strategies. They are not cranking up. They are not trying to find ways to bring in more and then to hide what the hell is in them. I did an amendment to this but of course it got voted down. It was to make sure that all applications for new or altered compounds be assessed in the full formulation as used—as used; as the community the farmer the worker the animals and the environment are exposed to. So many of these are not assessed. They are generally assessed with industry science which you could assume is partially biased or at least edited and not the full formulation as it should be tested—actually tested and not just fiddled about with—"Look at this compound maybe or that." I did bring up in a previous speech that one of the main additives in many of the glyphosate products—it is in 69 of the 91 registered—is banned in Europe. The European Commission has banned it and we cannot even find out because of this sort of damned law which one it is. Someone who may even think that glyphosate-based herbicides are OK cannot find out which ones have got polyoxyethylene tallow amine in them which has been found to be even more toxic than the base ingredient glyphosate. They cannot find that out because of this bill. Unfortunately most of this House apart from the Greens and the Māori Party are ticking it through. It is appalling. Can we rely on MPI? No we cannot. Can we rely on the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)? No we cannot. I use a primary example with the EPA. Because of the pressure on glyphosate and the issues that are going especially through Europe—and we should be very cognisant of that as an exporting country that relies on clean unadulterated food and what consumers want—they do not want to have those traces in their food. The Environmental Protection Authority commissioned a paper to look at what the World Health Organization's (WHO) international agency for research on cancer had found—that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen. [Interruption] Seventeen world-class toxicologists—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Sorry—[Interruption] Order! I just ask the member to take a seat and I am going to ask Mr Barclay to cease interjecting for the rest of this speech.STEFFAN BROWNING: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. So this international agency with highly reputable scientists people who really really know that subject went through a multitude of papers not just the industry papers. They looked at papers with full formulation not just the ones with a sole ingredient and they said it is a probable carcinogen. It should be off the shelves on that basis but of course it does not suit us here in New Zealand. So what happens? The EPA commissions someone to reassess it. It gets one individual to reassess it and then of course it edits it. We have looked at some of that editing and we have also looked at what the Ministry of Health said about it. The Ministry of Health said: "What are you doing? What are you going down that strategy for because even if you find it is different from the WHO does that mean we cannot use all WHO stuff anymore?". The Ministry of Health and the Minister should take good note of that. The ministry warned the EPA but the EPA still went down this track. That paper for the EPA discounted full-formulation science invariably. It discounted more independent science and it came to the conclusion that it probably was not a carcinogen—this one retired toxicologist from New Zealand against the 17 with all the influences from MPI and EPA to make sure he got the damn words right. Is that the sort of stuff we want for New Zealand—to come out with something that has no credibility in terms of science just so that we can do business as usual in New Zealand? It is appalling. The purpose of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is "to protect the environment and the health and safety of people and communities by preventing or managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances and new organisms." This bill does nothing of the sort. It leads us further down the track in this pathetic approach to pesticides in New Zealand. This pioneering country in the old colonial style of rip tear and bust and do whatever—with no precaution or care it seems for the health and safety of people and communities—will allow 10 years' data protection to meet the TPP agreement's requirements. That is what has happened here. The literature out there says that that particular herbicide—which I go on about so much because it is a classic example—should be off shelves and it certainly should be off the streets and parks of New Zealand. The Greens are certainly opposing this bill. Thank you."