Roy Eric: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Roy Eric: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:827] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on Part 2 and particularly on some elements of clause 20 which make some significant amendments to the whole process of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. I thank the Minister for his contribution. He responded to some issues on which we do have some concerns. I do not think there is any doubt that any reasonable and considered position would say that we must adopt a best-practice approach in giving assurance to the process of using hazardous substances. Although it may be our desire to minimise or have no involvement with hazardous substances that simply is not practical. They are a part of several elements of New Zealand’s production systems. They are certainly used right through the primary production system and in industry and a whole range of places. So it is essential that we can say we have a reasoned process—a process that is robust and withstands scrutiny. 
We certainly want to support some elements in clause 20 going forward so we are here to support the legislation today. But we have some questions. One implication of any legislation like this is the cost of compliance. The more we seek to create a trace-back or an audit process or to give an assurance the greater the implication is that users will have to comply and in compliance there is a time cost and in some ways a financial cost. For example I found to my surprise about 18 months ago when going into a service agency to purchase some chemicals that I was required to sit a test to certify I was an appropriate person to purchase those chemicals. 
Simon Power 
: Did the member pass the test? 
ERIC ROY 
: Well I cheated—not really; I am joking. But we just go on and on and in the assurance process we have to comply with a whole lot of things for a practice some of us have been involved in for a long long time. Yet we need to have some kind of certification in order to give that assurance. That has implications in terms of cost and a whole lot of difficulties surrounding what has been normal practice. It makes for a level of grumpiness in the consumers of the products concerned so we need to be absolutely assured that we are taking them with us. 
I just draw the Minister’s attention to new unanimous subsection (6) of section 96C inserted by clause 20. It states: “As soon as practicable after issuing amending or revoking a group standard the Authority must do the following:” and the notification elements in the provision then follow. I wonder why there is the phrase “As soon as practicable …”. I would have thought that notification would be an element in establishing the new group standards. I wonder whether the Minister could take a call and explain to us why there is not some immediacy about that. We live in a very vibrant landscape in the hazardous substances and new organisms area where things are moving and keeping up to speed with all of the changes is a significant issue. So I would like an explanation as to why there is that sort of little step back in that there is an out that may not have immediacy associated with it. 
I am encouraged though on looking through a number of the subsections in that particular provision to see that there is a test because one of the concerns I have regarding the compliance issue is that we have tended to just make changes for the sake of change. So I am pleased to see the test that applies in some of the new unanimous provisions in clause 20. For example subsection (1) of new section 96D inserted by clause 20 states: “… (a) in the case of any hazardous substance … to which section 96C(1A)(a) applies” the authority must “be satisfied that issuing or amending (as the case may be) …”. So we actually have the test that there is to be an advancement—an improvement. I am not sure about the factors that surround the decision on whether there is—