King Annette: Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill — In Committee 
King Annette: Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11950] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 First of all I would like to thank the Primary Production Committee for the work it did on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. This committee has always been very harmonious in the way it has addressed issues on behalf of New Zealanders and my understanding is that it worked in its traditional way on this bill. I support the work of select committees in fact. Otherwise if they were of no value why would we have them? If we did not think select committees could add value why would we bother sending legislation that has been introduced to the House to them? 
We have seen with this bill that the Primary Production Committee did add value to the process. In fact it helped to improve the bill. So I was rather disappointed that the chair of that committee David Carter—whom I have a lot of respect for as a chairperson—turned it into some sort of political criticism of me. Obviously if one were a perfect person in a perfect world one would get every bill that was ever introduced to the House absolutely right and would never send it to a select committee. The fact that the select committee did some work on the bill and helped to improve it is an indication of how a good democracy works. So I was disappointed in the rather facile comments from the member in that respect. 
The other criticism David Carter made was that the bill took 4 months before it came back to the House for its second reading which was last week. We are now in the Committee of the whole House on the bill and I suspect we will have it finished by Thursday of this week. That means that the time it has taken from when it was reported back to the House to when it actually finishes will be 4 months. I think the member has a little bit of a memory loss about some bills that have been before the House. I do not because I have a very good memory and I know that under a National Government there were bills before the House that sat on the Order Paper for years. I also remember that under a National Government some petitions came before the House that were never looked at. So when I hear the bleating that it was 4 months before we finally got to debate the bill and pass it I think that those comments may have been made just for the sake of having something to say. I realise that Mr Carter was a little short of information for something to say. 
I also want to congratulate the New Zealand Food Safety Authority on the work it did on this bill. Although the select committee did some very good work on it I have to tell members and those who are listening that it was the officials of the Food Safety Authority who worked with the Primary Production Committee who brought to the committee’s attention areas where there could be improvement. In fact their suggested improvements to the bill resulted in their receiving an exceptionally complimentary letter from the Law Commission which wrote: “The impact of the actions by the members of NZFSA who were advising the select committee have been very positive. The select committee has taken the NZFSA officials’ advice seriously. Its report makes reference to the concerns raised by the Legislation Advisory Committee and recommended a number of amendments to address it.” So I think that what we have here is good work from the officials and from the Primary Production Committee and we are hearing that members in the Chamber believe we have a much-improved bill because of it. 
A number of questions were asked. Mr Carter asked whether any substances were generally accepted as safe in the original legislation. The answer is no. He asked whether the director-general was able to exempt an agricultural compound from the requirement to be registered in specific circumstances. The answer is yes. Another question asked about data protection. That issue was raised by two members then by Mr Carter in his last contribution. Mr Carter was quite correct when he said that the issue was considered to be outside the scope of the bill. I am informed that if we were to make amendments there would be amendments made to this Act but there would also need to be consequential amendments made to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The officials advised the committee that work needed to be done on that and that quite wide consultation would be necessary. I suspect that means it is not a dead issue but would require consultation and additional work. 
Also raised was the issue of regulatory costs. I think we always have to be concerned about the costs we impose on business particularly our agricultural sector. I think we have to be concerned— 
David Bennett 
: It’s the Labour Party! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I realise that Mr Bennett does not know a lot about this even though he has taken a seat where he is better able to promote his voice. He is sitting next to my very good friend who knows a lot about this bill and who no doubt would make a very good contribution. I suggest he gives Mr Bennett a little bit of advice on what the bill is about. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I’ve been trying to do that. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Well done Doug. The regulatory costs are an important issue. One of the things the bill does impose is an obligation to avoid redundant regulatory control. It makes it an express requirement to consider controls already imposed under other legislation such as the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act or the Medicines Act. We are not trying to duplicate things do things twice or add additional compliance to industry in this respect; we are trying to ensure that we have a sound regulatory framework for products that can be dangerous. So I thank members for their contributions on this bill. I think it has been positive and I thank them for the work they have done.