Smith Nick: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
Smith Nick: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
[Volume:616;Page:11763] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to make a number of points about Part 2 and the provisions that provide for the transfer and transition of hazardous substances into the new regime. I thank the Minister in the chair the Hon Marian Hobbs for some clarification of the numbers and I seek some further assurances. 
I understand that 215000 notifications have been made and that many of those substances are either non-toxic and do not need to go through the process or that some doubling up has occurred as compared with the new provisions so that we are dealing with about 70000 substances. I am not going to get too upset as to whether there are 70000 or 72000 but I am still concerned that about 8000 to 10000 I understand have got through the system to date. I also note as I understand the legislation that the transitional provision needs to be completed by June 2006 which is 2 years away. It seems to me to be very ambitious even with the transfer provisions that we will be able to get roughly 35000 substances per year through the hoops in time for June 2006. I would like some indication from the Minister as to whether she is confident that the ministry and most important the Environmental Risk Management Authority will be able to reach that timetable. Some clarification from the Minister on that point would be very helpful. 
The second point I want to raise is that as it seems so many substances are used in New Zealand the sooner we move to greater international recognition of these the better. I note for instance that the globally harmonised system of classification and labelling of chemicals is a huge step forward in reducing some of the bureaucracy of this. I want some reassurance from the Minister that we are moving at the front end of the pack internationally in the application of globally harmonised systems. As New Zealand is a little country of 4 million people and has a strong agricultural base that uses a huge diversity of chemicals and substances it would make good sense for us to maximise the use of globally harmonised systems to minimise compliance costs and in my view also to maximise safety. That is the second point I would like the Minister to respond to. 
The third issue relates to some of the regulations that are required to make this part of the bill work. I note for instance that the ministry and the Environmental Risk Management Authority had promised that the new safety regulations for tank wagons and compressed gases would be in force by March 2004. It is March now. Has the ministry met that timetable? I can see the Minister nodding. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Yes. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Is that the case for both tank wagons and compressed gases? 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: The tank wagons part. I have to check the other one. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Could she provide me with some clarification as to whether the ministry has reached its timetable for March 2004? 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Both have been done. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is to the credit of the ministry and I acknowledge that. 
Finally I come to the bigger issue which is whether the thresholds being set around toxicity are really at the right level. When this legislation was put together back in the 1990s we were trying to sort out what was and what was not toxic. It seems somewhat extraordinary to me that the net has been thrown so widely that we are picking up 80000 substances. I have talked with my own constituent companies in Nelson and they have told me some of the things that have been defined as toxic substances. I remember that a particular type of tape used for wrapping fruit products had been deemed a toxic substance and would need to go through the system. It seems that we have thrown the net too wide and that we are picking up too much when if we focused just on those things that are genuinely toxic and present some risk to the environment or to public health we would be doing a more thorough and better job. 
I ask the Minister to comment in respect of Part 2 and the schedules on whether we will get some greater clarification around that and not pick up so many substances. We could then perhaps get a regime that does focus on those substances that really are toxic—substances that we do need to take care with and have a pretty rigorous regularity regime around—and not include a whole lot of materials and substances that are in practice pretty harmless. I would appreciate the Minister’s clarification on those points.