Hutchison Paul: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
Hutchison Paul: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
[Volume:616;Page:11761] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 It is interesting to hear the Minister now talk about 70000 substances. That is a new figure plucked out of the air. The advice to the Education and Science Committee was that there were 80000 substances of which 8000 did not require the process so that left 72000. At some stage I hope the Minister will take a call and be accurate about that issue. It is important because as I understand it we have been told that there is in the order of about 100 new substances per year that will in future have to be transferred. Once the backlog has been achieved that figure in itself is quite manageable. However I would like the Minister to take a call and assure us all that it is only 100 per year. After all there was confusion about the 215000 figure then the Minister said that it was 70000—when we know it is 72000. So we hope she will be able to guide us accurately because that is so important. 
Part 2 is the substance of the bill. Indeed it deals with the issue of delegation of powers by the Environmental Risk Management Authority. Undoubtedly there has to be a considerable amount of flexibility. Clause 4 gives the authority the power to decide any application for any permission or licence under Part VI or the revocation of any permission or licence under that part to any employee of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry any medical officer of health or any enforcement officer with relevant experience. If there is no employee or enforcement officer with relevant experience it can be any other person with the relevant experience whether or not that person is a member of the authority. 
My only concern is that clearly there needs to be a degree of conviction that that individual will have bona fide qualifications to be able to do the task in hand. I absolutely accept that under this situation it is right and proper to delegate to various parts of the country and to delegate the wide variety of hazardous substances that are available to people with the appropriate expertise. However it is hugely important to be able to assure the Parliament that the delegated person does indeed carry a qualification that we can have confidence in. 
Clause 5 inserts new section 77A “Authority’s power to impose controls and vary specified controls”. When one first reads that one becomes worried. Subsection (1) states: “The Authority may at the time it approves a substance for any purpose under this Act impose as controls under this section any obligations and restrictions that the Authority thinks fit.” On first looking at that new provision it seems to be extremely wide. However new subsection (4) states: “Before imposing a control under this section the Authority must be satisfied that against any other specified controls that apply to the substance—(a) the proposed control is more effective in terms of its effect on the management use and risks of the substance; or (b) the proposed control is more cost-effective in terms of its effect on the management use and risks of the substance or (c) the proposed control is more likely to achieve its purpose.” Undoubtedly these provisions must give a range of qualities that are hugely important and go to the nub of why we are supporting the bill. Hopefully there will be effectiveness efficiency and cost-efficiency associated with the transfer process. 
I note that the officials brought up a variety of issues and I am quite taken with the one about the level of control for Billy Peach flea powder. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Before I call the next speaker I should have announced that Part 2 which includes clauses 4 to 11 also includes the schedule.