Hutchison Paul: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11804] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I am always somewhat wary when a Labour Government Minister says something like: “I’m going to set the record straight once and for all.” Although there was an adjustment from yesterday I say to the Minister that some of the figures were not quite right. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: No I object. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I have the ministry’s figures regarding the number of toxic substances which I think the Minister said was 215000. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: No “notified”. Please get it right for the record. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: We have the strategy for improving the workability of hazardous substances. The Environmental Risk Management Authority currently has about 217000 notified toxic substances on its books but estimates there are only about 70000. I accept the Minister’s point. She is quite right once we account for the duplications and the non-hazardous substances. Just to make sure that we get the record absolutely straight I think the Minister said there were 215000 but in actual fact the record suggests 217000. I suggest to the Minister as I think she herself said at the end of her “getting the record straight once and for all” statement that the real figures will be ascertained only at the end of the day once the Environmental Risk Management Authority has reported exactly what the situation is. So I think it is quite appropriate that I am wary of a Labour Government Minister who says she will put the record straight once and for all. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: “I’m from the Government. I’m here to help you.” 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: That is excellent. The other point the Minister made was that the time frames were tighter than normal. Indeed that was a wonderful exercise of licence given the fact that the Act for hazardous substances came into force in July 2001. If one looks at the legislative history of this bill one sees that it was introduced on 6 November 2003 and its first reading was on 18 November 2003. The time frame was somewhat tight—to use the Minister’s terminology—to suggest that report back could occur 3 days after Parliament resumed. As I understand it the process was poor because Brian Donnelly the very good chairman whom the Minister acknowledged yesterday was not consulted until Parliament resumed. Nevertheless National is supporting this bill because its intent is to minimise business costs and to reduce barriers to innovation. Certainly those causes are extremely worthy. 
I am interested in knowing the situation of the strategy that requires several things to be done once the bill becomes an Act. The advice from the ministry was that short-term easy gains can be made by two non-regulatory steps: firstly to make controls on hazardous substances and new organisms easier to understand and secondly to reduce compliance costs for applicants. The ministry recommended that user-friendly guidance be developed to interpret the controls on hazardous substances and new organisms for businesses. I would really like to know from the Minister—and I would suggest that she does comment on this—whether those user-friendly guidelines will be put in place. The officials did not seem to know but went on to say that it was a high priority because the risk that hazardous substances pose to the environment and people increases significantly if people cannot understand and follow those controls. So I tell the Minister that the challenge is to ensure that those user-friendly guidelines are put in place. 
The second requirement was that the Environmental Risk Management Authority take steps to reduce the information provision costs for applicants. In that case the costs of getting information together for an application are much higher than the fees the authority charges to process the application and are a significant cost to industry. Once again it is hugely important that the Minister does ensure that those steps are put into place. She has outlined the fact that by 2006 the transfer and controls should all be in place. I hope that will be the case but what we do want to see from this Labour Government is that those two very important non-regulatory steps are also put into place. They too will add to helping minimise the cost to business and reducing the barriers to innovation which are clearly so hugely important for this legislation to be successful. 
I commented earlier that it is refreshing to see the Labour Government at last bringing in some legislation that will reduce obstacles. Unfortunately the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is complicated. It has all sorts of regulatory controls that have been made worse by the Labour Government over the last 2 years particularly in relation to new organisms. That has been commented on extensively by the Biotechnology Taskforce which has asked for best-practice guidelines predictability and clarity in terms of regulations. It is hugely important that those are monitored. I understand that one of the tasks the Environmental Risk Management Authority will be required to do 2 years after the Act comes into place is review the situation. That is hugely important. In fact there is every chance a National Government will be in by then. Indeed we will wish to look at a review of the whole Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act so that it can be made much more sensible and appropriate to minimise business costs than it is at present. However it certainly is refreshing that this bill which is so necessary will be in place. 
One of the things I was concerned about was the fact the Minister had said that every day the passage of the bill was delayed would cost businesses throughout New Zealand. She had the gall to say that given the fact that the need for this bill has been around since 2001. The Government had plenty of time to pass this legislation much earlier but then had this extraordinary rush at the beginning of this year. The Government must put in context its wish to ensure that business wishes really are achieved. 
The very last thing I want to say about this legislation concerns the area of transfers relating to transitional matters. Before issuing a notice one thing the authority must do is consider best international practices and standards for safe management. It is hugely important that New Zealand is in the international loop in that respect and that it does everything reasonably practicable to advise all relevant people involved with the process. Again that is where the monitoring requirements are hugely important. The Environmental Risk Management Authority has a great deal to do with the transfers but it is also important that it monitors the practical way the legislation pans out in industry because the legislation covers such a wide variety of dangerous goods. 
National is supporting this bill. Its basic thesis in terms of minimising costs to business and reducing barriers to innovation is worthy of our support.