Smith Nick: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11811] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 National has indicated its support for this Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill. We want to make a number of points in its third reading in terms of trying to come up with a regime that provides for the safe use of hazardous substances but also ensures that the many sectors of our agricultural and industrial economies that depend on chemicals can do so at minimum cost. 
First I want to raise the issue of just how sloppy the process of the Government has been in advancing this bill. Let me set out the background: the new Act was passed back in 1996 yet today only 10 percent of the substances—8 years later—have been transitioned into the new Act. By anybody’s measurement that is an appalling failure. 
Then we look at the process by which this bill has been rushed through the House. The Minister Marian Hobbs has said that there is a real need in the business community for this issue to be resolved but she has been the Minister for 4½ years. To expect Parliament to rush through complex legislation of this sort will result only in botch-ups more amendments and more problems in the administration of this important area of law. 
Last night during the Committee stage when we challenged the Minister and asked: “Minister have you finally got it right? Can we be sure that the provisions contained in this bill will end the amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act?” not a member was surprised when she admitted that there would be another amendment bill before too long. That is not good enough. 
 Then we come to the issue of the transitions themselves. At the current pace about 100 toxic chemicals or substances are taken per year through the system yet we are to believe that we will be able to increase the rate from 100 per year to 35000 per year. That is how many the Environmental Risk Management Authority will need to process over the next 2 years in order to meet its deadline of full implementation by July 2006. 
I would be happy to bet any member of this House the best wine in Nelson—in fact the best wine in New Zealand—that there will not be a hope in heck of meeting the deadline of all chemicals being transferred over into the new regulatory regime by July 2006. It will not happen. There will be another bill. There will be another list of excuses as to why this legislation has still not been implemented. Let us remember that in July 2006 this legislation will be 10 years old. Is it really acceptable that a new environmental law takes 10 years to be implemented—and that time period is only if that deadline is reached? 
I do want to offer some positive alternatives because there is some common sense that we should put into this legislation so that we do not have those sorts of expensive time-consuming delays. The first of those is that we should move to recognise as much as is possible the international regimes for the labelling and regulation of hazardous chemicals. We are a wee country of 4000000 people that has—by the Minister’s own admission—70000 toxic substances. Some of those toxic substances are probably used by only one or two small businesses. The sensible thing for us to do is to gang up with similar nations and provide for a common regulatory regime. That work began back in National’s time and was raised at a number of international conferences and the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) has been set up. We would like to see New Zealand adopting that system so that we do not need to go through the bureaucracy of registering every single chemical. 
In fact we would go one step further. Members will be aware of the debates we have had in the House about the former Australia New Zealand Food Authority in which we said that it makes good sense for New Zealand and Australia to regulate food for both New Zealand and Australia in that sort of way. It is the view of the National Party that we should go down the same road in relation to chemical regulation—we should do it in a united way. 
Sue Kedgley 
: One vote out of 10. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I know that Sue Kedgley as a member of the Green Party would rather that we be some isolated North Korea - type island at the bottom of the Pacific. We in the National Party take a very global perspective on these issues. We think it makes good sense to have a greater degree of international cooperation and we would want to move to an Australian - New Zealand—at the very least—regime in which we believe we could provide for better public safety better environmental protection and less cost for business in dealing with those sorts of regulations. 
A further point that National would make is that the thresholds we have set for substances being hazardous are way too low. I remember a wonderful petition that was launched by some people with a good sense of humour in my electorate of Nelson. It was about the fact that dihydrogen monoxide was a very dangerous chemical that should be banned. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Exactly right! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: “Exactly right!” says Mr Swain. In fact dihydrogen monoxide is in acid rain and nuclear power plants. It is a very very dangerous substance. At a high temperature thousands of people get burnt with it and there are many people who would seek to ban dihydrogen monoxide despite the fact that it is on the table here as water for us as members to drink. The truth is that water does kill a lot of people. People drown in it and are scalded and burnt by it. The point I am trying to make— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: They also drink it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes they do as Mr Duynhoven correctly points out. My point is that every chemical or substance if used incorrectly can result in death or hurt. With this bill we have legislation that sets the thresholds way too low so that we throw an incredibly wide net out for all sorts of very minor substances. For instance under this regime Sellotape is deemed to be a hazardous substance. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Is that right? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The glue in Sellotape is one of the substances that is caught under those regulations so the poor old makers of Sellotape have to go off to the Environmental Risk Management Authority and satisfy it that their product is safe. 
We need to focus on those substances that really are hazardous which need to have a good regulatory regime around them in terms of their handling storage and those sorts of things—rather than the regime in this legislation where we throw the net so wide that we pick up a whole lot of things that with an ounce of common sense pose no real risk to the general public. 
Yes this bill is a step forward. It is far too late coming. The Minister has been negligent in not bringing it to the House earlier. We have no confidence that she will meet her own deadline of all those substances being brought in by July 2006. We think it is inevitable that there will be another hazardous substances amendment bill before we get too far down the track and we believe that there is a common-sense approach around focusing on a narrower range of substances and taking a more international view on regulation of hazardous substances which would mean a far better outcome for the environment for people’s safety and for the economy.