Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
[Volume:616;Page:11753] 
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call on this Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill. It is one that the National Party supports because at its heart is the intent to minimise costs to business and reduce barriers to innovation. However the National Party has some grave reservations about the process used by the Government in coming to the final conclusion of this bill’s passage through the House. Unfortunately the Government called for submissions over the Christmas break and was due to have the deliberations very shortly after that which really did not allow time for appropriate consideration. I think that on a bill such as this which is highly technical in nature and for which there is large approval across the parties it is important for the Labour Government to be prepared to go through a process that is well considered so that the optimal result might eventuate. Unfortunately the Government fell short of that. 
The purpose of the bill is to facilitate the smooth transfer of hazardous substances from transitional controls to the appropriate control regime under the principal Act. There are a huge number of substances. In fact out of 80000 substances only 8000 have been previously regulated. The Environmental Risk Management Authority had a huge task before it and there was no doubt that appropriate efficient and effective regulations to achieve it were sorely needed. I think it is important to point out the huge range of hazardous substances covered by this bill because they include just about anything that can be thought of from explosive substances to flammable oxidisable corrosive toxic or eco-toxic substances and the list goes on. That demonstrates the highly technical nature of the movement of something like 72000 of these substances into categories appropriate for their very different natures. That is what this bill does 
:  
it 
enables the application of cost-effective controls to hazardous substances; and facilitates their transfer from transitional controls to the controls under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act by changing the legal processes and constraints. 
That is the reason we have supported the bill. We recognise that minimising business costs is a very refreshing change from what this Labour Government usually does. In some of the other hazardous substances and new organisms legislation we have seen only more difficult regulatory regimes be put into place that have caused difficulties for everyday research institutes around the country. We saw just yesterday the Rubicon group point out that it was stopping its genetic research because the regulations recently put in place by the Labour Government were too onerous for it. That is a hugely worrisome thing for New Zealand; clearly as a country we stand to gain so much from the economic growth possibilities that arise from the innovation that research and wise regulations around it can bring. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will support this bill although we are uncomfortable with some of the processes that were used to bring it to this particular point in time. 
One of those processes was alluded to by the previous speaker and that was the timing by which the bill went through the select committee hearings. In June 2003 a strategy was set up that this legislation would go through the House by 2003. The key date in all of this is 1 April 2004; a strategy was set up so that 500 substances could be moved on that date. We can see in the bill that the commencement of this legislation takes place on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent—in other words as soon as possible after it goes through. The problem came about at the introduction of this bill in November with a report-back date of 13 February that had not been discussed with the select committee. That meant that submissions had to be received over the Christmas break then somehow heard processed considered and deliberated upon in time to get this bill back to the House 3 days after it began sitting. That was totally inappropriate and inconsiderate and in fact treated this House with a degree of contempt. Fortunately we were able to negotiate a bit of a delay so that the processes were more timely but I point out that that is not acceptable practice. As I say in some respects it is the executive treating this House with a little bit of contempt. 
The second element that has to be pointed out is that the purpose of this bill is “to facilitate the smooth transfer of hazardous substances from transitional controls to the appropriate control regime under the principal Act;”. In fact the principal Act says that there are a whole pile of hazardous substances that have to be transferred out of the Act that they were previously regulated by and into the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation. That is basically what this bill is about. Unfortunately the processes that were being used were just too slow. There were about 80000 of these substances and I think 100 have been processed so far. So the deadline of 2006 simply was not going to be met and a more streamlined process had to take place. 
But we have been led to a bit of confusion. I ask the Minister for the Environment whether she could clarify this for us. In the second reading speeches a number of members talked about 70000 substances that are not controlled. In fact we well know that they are controlled. Well when I look at the select committee report I find that that is exactly what it says—that 70000 are not controlled—and it says it precisely because we put it in on the advice of the officials. That has led to some confusion. The figures the committee members were given say that there are approximately 80000 existing hazardous substances 8000 of which were previously regulated—and this is the information we got from the officials—and that 100 new hazardous substances per annum come on stream and have to be put under controls. Further down is a flowchart of substances legally in New Zealand as at 1 July 2001 and it shows that yes there are approximately 80000 which are to be transferred to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and that there are approximately 100 new ones per annum. We do know that some have already been transferred although we are not too certain. But the numbers we have been given seem to be very very confusing: either 100 have not been given approval; or 70000 are uncontrolled with obviously no approval; or 72000 have approval and are legal but have not been transferred; or there are 80000 to be transferred. 
All I ask of the Minister is that she clarify this point so that members in their speeches from hereon in know what they are talking about. It would appear that the select committee report as I look back on it is not accurate although it includes the details we were provided with at the time. So I ask the Minister to provide clarification so that people know. We do not want the public out there thinking there are 80000 hazardous substances that are totally uncontrolled illegal and unapproved when that is not the case. The committee members were given quite confusing facts and figures which has led to some of the confusing statements. 
To complete in terms of Part 1 New Zealand First will be supporting it but we abhor some of the processes. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I want to clarify that Act and I am really appreciative of doing so because obviously I was away and I read the speeches and thought: “Oh gee!” The Toxic Substances Act which is the Act from which these toxic substances are being transferred to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act required anyone importing a new toxic substance to notify the Ministry of Health. The theory was that the Ministry of Health would evaluate the notifications to determine which substances notified were hazardous enough to warrant placing on schedules. If a substance was placed on the schedules it was then and only then subject to regulatory control and specified requirements like all the things that we are talking about now. 
At the time the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act was enacted in 1996 there had been approximately 8000 notifications filed with the Ministry of Health over the previous 16 years since the Toxic Substances Act came into force. Notification as we understand from industry was widely disregarded by industry as no action seemed to result and it could not see the point of it. Over the following 5 years from 1996 when it could see the writing on the wall to the commencement date of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act the tally of notifications rose to a staggering—wait for it—215000. That is what came out of the woodwork. The chemical industry which we have been working with on this whole strategy recognised that this was the only way to gain the status of an existing substance under the proposed legislation—the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act the existing legislation—and therefore remain legally in use following the commencement of that Act. We do not know whether some of the notifications were brought forward because people were saying: “These are the things that we want to use.” or whether they were in use but I think it is quite safe to say that there are substantially more than 8000 toxic substances in use in New Zealand that have never been notified. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party will also be supporting this legislation with some trepidation I might add. There are many aspects of the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation that we do not agree with but they are more detailed. What we see in this bill is a slight trend towards an attempt to reduce some of the horrendous compliance costs many of them unnecessary that are built into the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. 
What I was particularly concerned about however was to learn from the chairman of the Education and Science Committee about the appalling process he had to endure with the indecent haste and time constraints that this Labour Government as executive has put on that committee. This is important legislation and what I am really flagging is an issue that is becoming too common. Many select committees are now finding that they have an unreasonable time constraint put on them. There is not adequate time for public submission. The select committee process is important and I put it to this Committee that it is being abused in a very arrogant way by this Government which is trying to ram through legislation with indecent haste. It is happening far too frequently and it certainly is of great concern to me to hear the concerns of the chairman of the select committee Brian Donnelly with regard to this legislation. 
The bill covers a wide range of substances as has already been mentioned—some 72000. That is an enormous range of substances and as has already been pointed out it includes explosives corrosives oxidising agents reducing agents caustic agents and acidic agents—the works. Just about every aspect of industry and business has to use some such substance in its processes. But some of the aspects of the bill that it seems are an attempt to minimise some of the costs to business and streamline it are welcome. In particular the delegation of powers from the Environmental Risk Management Authority to local control I think is important. There will be less centralised control. We cannot expect the central body of the Environmental Risk Management Authority to be doing all the work on the ground. The delegation of those powers is a trend in the right direction as provided for by this bill. 
I understand too that the authority may vary the default controls to allow the choosing of the most cost-effective option. That is certainly an important improvement because we should always leave discretion with business and with those on the ground and at the coalface as it were to choose the most cost-effective option. They will know what best suits their particular application of the generic legislation. I also note that there is the issue of the non-hazardous compressed gaseous substances. Certainly there are many substances that in their natural state are not hazardous but if compressed can become highly hazardous. This bill as I understand it attempts to close that loophole of dangerous substances in their gaseous forms escaping the loop of the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation. That is all I would like to comment on at this stage. As I indicated the ACT party will be supporting this legislation but we believe that an awful lot more could have been done to streamline it. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I stand to support this Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Bill on behalf of the United Future Party. This bill has many features in it and I think the intention all the way through has been to make it more user-friendly. One or two members have already spoken in this session about some of the confusion in terms of detail which the Minister has been able to give us some certainty about. We were bandying around all sorts of figures in the select committee and I am sure people were trying to clarify that to us but none of us could get it all together at the time. So we are sorry but now we are clearer and getting some of the history of it in the detail has helped to make it not so confusing. 
I think too and it has been well pointed out that some of the time constraints we were under added to that. I felt we were under real pressure and the chair of the Education and Science Committee has certainly made that point strongly. However some features in here are encouraging and I would like to touch on one or two of those—certainly the one dealing with the delegation by authority. I think this is a very good way of trying to get that large number down to zero by June 2006. I believe that is the intention of these transitional provisions. So to delegate authority out to employees of any person specified in section 97 of the principal Act or any enforcement officer with relevant experience I believe is a very very good idea to speed the process of getting these many thousands of notified toxic substances completely under control. 
Another feature that I thought was good and essential to the cost-effectiveness of the whole programme as well related to the appeals that exist. I noted when I was going through the bill that it was very good to see a provision in here for appeals at the District Court level. That is another means of speeding up the process with less heavy costs through other types of court procedures and legal costs. So I am very happy with that. I find it also encouraging that there are in the bill certain exemptions from regulations and these are as I understand it to grant a further speedy action to ensure that these hazardous substances will get through on and by the date and month in the year 2006. So I would just mention those few points as encouraging at this stage and repeat that United Future supports this bill through the Committee stage. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to follow on from some of the concerns about this bill that have been raised by my colleague Paul Hutchison and also by Ken Shirley. Despite what might be said about clarifying some of the numbers I have to sayI am more confused than ever. I listened with great care to what the Minister had to say because I was interested. I was concerned to know that what is contained in the select committee report is not accurate and I would like to put some questions to the Minister so we might get some clarification. If we reflect on this bill we are talking about an Act that was passed in 1996 about an incredibly important area and that is ensuring that toxic substances used in New Zealand are safe. Yet I am to believe that despite the fact that we are now 7 years down the track we are only a fraction through the transitional provisions. 
I say to the Minister that depending on which numbers we might use we can come up with some pretty amazing figures for the transition. If I am to believe the Minister’s latest figures that in fact that are 215000 of those substances to go through the process and if I am to believe the select committee chair—and I have no reason to disbelieve him—when he says we are doing 100 a year I have worked out that the transition will be completed in the year 2804. That is a pretty long transition period for any piece of legislation. I do not expect many of the children in the public gallery to live until the end of this bill’s transitional period—the year 2804. It is a wee way away! 
But if I am to believe the figures in the select committee report—that there are 80000 of these substances and 10000 have made it through the process—that means it will be the year 2080 before we get to the end of the transitional period under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. 
Jim Peters 
: That’s progress! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I am not sure. I have to say that if that is how damn long it is going to take for this legislation to take effect then I truly think that this Parliament is kidding itself. It is not good enough. I have to say that I think the Minister has somewhat brought this problem on herself. With no disrespect to the very capable members on the Education and Science Committee I have to ask why it was that the Government referred this bill not to the Local Government and Environment Committee which has dealt with all the other issues associated with hazardous substances but to the Education and Science Committee on fast track. I will tell members why. It is because the Government is in a mad hurry. 
I say to the Minister that she has now been in this role for 4½ years. Why is it that she cannot have the select committee do the job properly rather than the much-constrained process that she forced on to Brian Donnelly and members of the Education and Science Committee? It is not good enough. It is not fair. The protection of our environment from hazardous substances deserves better than a constrained process where the select committee cannot do its job properly and where the chair of the committee does not even know whether his report is accurate and it deserves better than not being referred to the committee it should have been referred to—and that is the Local Government and Environment Committee which is very experienced with legislation of this sort. 
But I come back to the principal point. This Committee deserves clarification. How many substances are going to be required to be registered under the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation? Does the Minister know? I think it is a pretty important point. How many hazardous substances do we expect to be registered under the Act? Does the Minister not know? Does the Minister have no idea? Is the figure that is provided in the Education and Science Committee’s report accurate? The Minister is paid a salary. We deserve an answer. The ministerial car and all the other things that go with her role mean that this Parliament is deserving of answers. If the select committee report is inaccurate then we need to know. 
I also have to ask the Minister how many substances have actually been registered. Can the Minister answer that? The Minister does not know? The Minister is refusing to answer the question? Can the officials in the Chamber provide accurate answers to the simple questions? How many hazardous substances are there to register through this process how many are done and based on the current budget and schedule how long will it take? They are reasonable questions and the Committee deserves an answer. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call because I was not involved in the select committee process not being a member of the Education and Science Committee but I become concerned when I listen to the contributions by the chair of the committee the Hon Brian Donnelly and by my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I become even more concerned when the Minister sits there solemnly and does not answer any of the questions raised. As I study the bill and the commentary on the bill it seems to me that in good faith this legislation was advanced as a means of minimising a lot of the significant cost burdens that have been thrust on industry by the original hazardous substances and new organisms legislation. If that be the case then I am supportive and as has been already stated by my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison the National Party supports the legislation. 
But I become concerned when there are so many examples of the Government spinning itself out of control by advancing legislation that it says is going to deliver a more cost-effective regime to industry and then we find when we take all the gloss and spin away that in actual fact this bill does not deliver as we as members of Parliament are told it will. So I think the Minister should take a call and take the opportunity of assuring us that this legislation will bring around a much-reduced cost structure to industry. 
The other point I want to pick up on is the superb point made by the Hon Brian Donnelly. He talked about the increasing disregard for the process of Parliament by which legislation is introduced in a rush and sent to a select committee with a very sharp report-back date required so that submissioners do not have the opportunity to sensibly construct a submission. The select committee often then does not have the opportunity to sensibly consider the submission before a report-back deadline is reached and the issue is back before the House. 
When we look through some of the legislation sitting on the Order Paper we see that this legislation has been rushed through. It was reported back from the select committee only 2 weeks ago. Yet a number of other pieces of legislation that were reported back over 12 months ago—the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill is one—still sit on the Order Paper. I see that some of the Labour members agree. It seems strange that there is such pressure to rush this legislation through and abuse the select committee process. Yet there is other legislation well and truly reported back for which people have made submissions under the due process and been given time to make sensible considered submissions on that for some reason sits on the Order Paper. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: The Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill was reported 3 years ago. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Hon Ken Shirley identifies another bill that has been sitting on the Order Paper for 3 years yet we have this rushed process. So I support entirely the comments of the Hon Brian Donnelly because I think too often the Government in its rush to make sure the legislation does not get examined sufficiently does not make the opportunity available for people to make submissions and receive a considered and respectable airing at a select committee. It makes the people suspicious that in actual fact the objectives and the purpose of this legislation are not quite as the Government has described it. So the Minister can certainly take a call and take an opportunity of satisfying me that my fears are ungrounded. I think it would be admirable if the purposes of the legislation were fulfilled and the legislation as reported back meant that the cost structures—under which many many industries are operating and are affected by the original hazardous substances and new organisms legislation —are significantly reduced and I look forward to the Minister’s contribution in that regard. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 My difficulty is that I think I have a reputation for being reasonably conscientious and for reading papers and looking at them carefully. The questions I really want to satisfy myself on are how many hazardous substances we have in New Zealand and the status of those substances at the moment. I asked the Minister for some figures to clarify that but in fact she confused the issue even more. She is now talking about the possibility of 215000 toxic substances being present in New Zealand— 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Notifications. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: OK. The figure we have is that there are approximately 80000 existing hazardous substances presumably captured under the old legislation—that is what I think because another chart states that they were legally in New Zealand as at 1 July 2001. Then the report states that approximately 8000 of them were previously regulated. So that leaves 72000— 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Yes. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Regulated non-regulated or what? We have it stated that 80000 substances are legal and 8000 were regulated. What has happened to the other 72000? How are they legal? I am then left with a figure of 70000 and I am told through the Education and Science Committee’s report—and I was there at the committee and we asked the officials precisely what the number was—that there are 70000 substances that are not official. That is the precise wording. 
I am left with a real confusion about the status and the number of the different hazardous substances in the country which this particular legislation now has to handle over the next 2 years. It only has 2 years in which to do that. What is the status of the hazardous substances and what are the numbers that we are talking about? At this particular point in time it would appear that if we have only done a few thousand from 2001 then we will not meet the deadline. So I do ask the Minister whether she can clarify that for me. As I say I think I have an average IQ and I think my maths is reasonable but I am getting more and more confused over that particular issue. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Madam Chair— 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member please be seated. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I called a point of order before. 
Jill Pettis 
: No the member did not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have called the vote—[ 
Interruption 
] The member will withdraw and apologise for that remark. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I was trying to clarify in my point of order the discussion that occurred between the senior Government whip who has just moved the closure motion and the Chair and the Minister for the Environment. When questions were raised quite legitimately by the chair of the Education and Science Committee the Hon Brian Donnelly which the Minister refused to respond to I saw the three members discussing that they wanted closure. I think that is an inappropriate intervention. If you can clarify that for me I will be happy to withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member does not have the right to ask that question of the Chair. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am concerned that I and the chair of the select committee have both raised quite legitimate questions about that point. We saw the Minister who was somewhat uncomfortable about those questions talking with you and with the senior Government whip and next minute a closure motion was moved by the senior Government whip and accepted by the Chair. I think the Committee deserves an explanation of that. We need to be satisfied that the Chair of the Committee is behaving in a neutral way and is not being influenced by the Government to stop answers being given to very legitimate questions. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am very happy to share with the Committee what I said. As members will know this is the last bill that I considered when I was on the Education and Science Committee and I said very casually to the Minister I had forgotten how short the bill was. That is what I said to her. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will not let this go on. This is not a debate about the closure motion; members know quite well that they cannot debate that. I will put the motion. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I want to raise with you a matter of procedure. I did not interrupt the vote because it was not appropriate to do so but just as you were taking the closure motion my colleague Dr Nick Smith sought a point of order. I was concerned that it took some time before his point of order was recognised. Every member in this Chamber has a right at any stage with one or two exceptions as we might be going through a procedural matter to raise a point of order. It may be that finally the Chair will decide that it was not a legitimate point of order but of course that cannot be judged until after the point of order is taken. 
I want your assurance that when a member—particularly from this side—raises a point of order it will be recognised immediately and dealt with appropriately in whatever way the Chair decides. It is not appropriate for the point of order to be refused by the Chair initially because the Chair may think it would do something to prejudge the procedure. I just want an assurance that points of order will be taken and recognised because it is important that that is a common part of our practice in this Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I acknowledge the point that Mr Carter is making. 
Part 2 and Schedule 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 A number of assertions were made in the debate on Part 1 and I think some of them actually touched on Part 2. There was an assertion—and I shall clarify the statistics—that it will take light years to get through the process because so many substances are outside the legislation. Extravagant claims were made about that. 
This wondrous piece of legislation was written in 1996. The purpose of the bill is to speed up the process. It allows the authority to issue a notice of transfer by notice in the  
Gazette 
. It removes the requirement to transfer substances through regulations. It has always taken ages for that to go through the required Cabinet committees and be written in the Parliamentary Counsel Office. That has been part of the problem in the past as the transfers have been worked through and it has slowed down the process through to the present time. 
Members also talked about the authority having the ability to assign practical cost-effective controls to hazardous substances rather than having to vary the default controls individually and do that by regulation. It had become ludicrous as people got into the actual business of transferring. April is the time line we are working to if this legislation is passed. We had a timetable to push this through. I thank the chair of the Education and Science Committee in that respect. There was a need for speediness. It was costing businesses in this country money. In April we hope that dangerous goods will be transferred; and in July pesticides—the scheduled toxic substances; and in post-July we will try to deal with notified toxic substances. 
I want to clarify one matter. The figure mentioned of 70000 is correct. The 215000 figure is to do with notifications under the old toxic substances legislation. That figure becomes 70000 notified toxic substances once we remove multiple notifications and substances that are not hazardous. The interesting thing is that that figure leapt from 8000 to 215000 once people started raising their hands saying: “I think I’m using or about to use a toxic substance.” They had to go through that whole process—if I am correct—of finding out what was multiple and what was toxic or not toxic to reduce that to 70000. I can assure people that we will not be going through a process that will take another 80 years. With the help of committee members I think we have a process that will keep this thing on time and online. 
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. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I guess that the confusion over the numbers proves the point about the need for select committees to have an appropriate amount of time to go through the issues carefully. I make that point because at this particular stage as I say I am still not too certain about the numbers; I think we will just agree that lots and lots of substances have to be processed. 
Given that lots and lots of substances have to be transferred from the various different Acts into the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act it is equally clear that the current transfer provisions are inefficient and are causing increased costs to Government and to business. It is for that reason that New Zealand First is supporting this legislation. We believe that something has to be done. Back in 1996 what was drawn up on paper looked good but when it was put into practice and tested it did not show up very well. The regulation process was obviously just too slow. So New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation on that particular basis. 
However questions have been raised about the regulatory framework in which this whole hazardous substances and new organisms process is operating and some very strong positions were taken on that. In fact I think it was agreed that significant work has to be done on those regulations. I ask the Minister for the Environment whether she can assure the Committee that the work that needs to be done is being done. Some people have suggested that we do not need this legislation but New Zealand First is not convinced; we believe that the legislation is needed but that significant work also needs to be done on the regulations. I ask the Minister to take a call to confirm for us that that work on the regulations which underpin all of this is actually being done. For example the tank wagon and compressed gas regulations are supposed to be in force by March 2004. If this legislation is to do what it is meant to do those deadlines have to be met. I ask the Minister to guarantee that those deadlines are being met. 
I would like to point out some of the impracticalities in the Act as it stands. One is that the controls change on the day a transfer takes place. On one day a business or an entity is acting under one regime and on the next day it is operating under another regime. It is pretty obvious from the field in which I and the Minister have more experience—education—that when we start doing that sort of thing we turn things into a nonsense. So this legislation in fact provides a means by which there can be a much more sensible transfer from one particular regime to the next regime. 
The next point I would like to make relates to something that once again came out of the select committee process—that is the issue over compressed gases. The committee became aware that a gas in itself is not a dangerous or hazardous substance. Oxygen in its natural form is not exactly hazardous; otherwise we would all be dead. But once a gas is compressed regardless of its natural form it becomes hazardous per se. The bill in the way it was drawn up did not accommodate that reality but as it has progressed through it has accommodated it. 
Also some other issues were raised that this bill does not cover but on which further work needs to be done and I think they need to be mentioned. One example is whether a company that becomes bankrupt can just say that it is getting rid of all its hazardous substances and that it is no longer responsible for them. Certainly as a result of this legislation further work will be done on that particular issue. 
New Zealand First believes that this legislation is necessary. We would have hoped it would be processed in a far better fashion but we believe that what is suggested in it is a far more sensible approach to the whole issue. The bill gives greater flexibility and gives the Environmental Risk Management Authority greater powers of delegation to local decision-making. Therefore New Zealand First will support it. However we hope the Minister will answer some of those pressing questions on the development and the fixing up of the regulations as they stand. 
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. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 United Future believes that this legislation is needed and that it is overdue. That is why we strongly support this legislation. I shall refer to one or two of the things that have been mentioned. 
I noted that when the Education and Science Committee was asking questions of the officials a comment was made that this bill would certainly not be the last amendment to the hazardous substances and new organisms regulations. That gives me some comfort—not necessarily full comfort—in respect of the questions that have been asked around the Chamber. It tells me that as we move along there will be little wires we trip over and things that need to be tidied up. My colleagues asked for instance whether sufficient regulations were in place to cover what we now know. I am sure there are not. That is my question. I think that as one of the officials admitted there will be further amending legislation coming through to tidy up as we go along. That encourages me as I said in my earlier speech. 
I am comforted by the fact that there are in this bill in any case sufficient hand-holds to speed up the process and to ensure that the things we do know at least are done and are properly classified. The gazetting arrangements that this bill allows for certainly go in that direction—ensuring that the licences are set up and the permissions are made. At the end of the day I think all of this comes down to labelling so that everybody has clarity about a whole range of substances. Even if they have a common base chemical in them they will have one range. Fly spray as I seem to recall was one of the illustrations used. There will not be a regulation for every fly spray— 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: One has to get a licence to use it. 
BERNIE OGILVY 
: I agree; we need some directions on how to use it. There needs to be a regulation stating: “Put finger on top and squirt.” “Push here and not down here.” or something like that. 
Those labelling issues tie up to Dr Smith’s question. He raised the matter of international standards. As we all know New Zealand is part of a global village and as we go around the world we are starting to realise that there are international symbols for virtually everything from driving on roads to whatever. I want to be assured that for hazardous substances there is an international standard that we are conforming to or at least that we are setting the pattern for everybody else to follow us. Would that not be remarkable in itself? 
I take on board what this bill is trying to do. I endorse it and the sooner we get under way with all the detail the sooner I am sure the officials and others will be able to tell us how many of these numbers we will have to legislate for yet again or make amendments for to tidy up what is left over. As I said at the beginning United Future endorses this bill and would love to see it in place so that we can get the actions that are required. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 As I said before Part 2 is certainly the substance of this bill. As we have noted the range of substances is absolutely huge. It varies enormously from cleaners to flea powder to explosives to pesticides and hence the need for the tremendous flexibility that the bill contains. I was quite fascinated by some of the colourful substances that were brought to our attention by the Education and Science Committee. Unfortunately I was not there to receive the information but as I read it one that caught my imagination related to section 77A “Authority’s power to impose controls and vary specified controls” in clause 5—that is the level of control for Billy Peach flea powder. I guess that is the sort of thing all of us who have had a dog or anything to do with a dog— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I don’t have fleas. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: My colleague assures me that it is not he who has fleas but I am really thinking more of our canine friends. The point made here is that— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Don’t talk about the Government like that. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I would not talk about the Government like that for a moment! The point made here was that the authority was proposing to delete all approved-handler controls for flea powders but it requires that the bill be passed in order for it to make that deletion. The really important thing is that indeed it is right and proper that the people who deal with bulk flea-powder purchase and distribution be official handlers but it would be quite ludicrous if every flea-powder user throughout the country also had to be an official handler and indeed that is one of the things that the bill does away with. 
The question of transfer is absolutely relevant in terms of enabling the authority to transfer substances from the transitional regime to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act regime. I take up the point raised by my colleague Dr Nick Smith. Section 160A(5) in clause 10 states: “Before issuing a notice of transfer under this section the Authority must—(a) consider the best international practices and standards for the safe management of hazardous substances;”. That is absolutely relevant in this highly interconnected world where hazardous substances are being moved from country to country. New Zealand is expected to take on at least 100 per year although I can easily see that number varying from year to year—sometimes it might be much more and sometimes it might be less. It is hugely important to have best international practice and standards. 
The other thing that is required is that the authority must “do everything reasonably practicable on its part to advise all persons who in its opinion may be affected by the notice of transfer”. That is always a difficult task for an authority because it is left with discretion. I think that is right and proper. It is part of the flexibility. Hopefully the Minister will make sure that there is a clear intention to monitor it to ensure that it does indeed work. This is the sort of thing where individuals may be left out of the loop inappropriately. 
The last thing I want to mention is in section 160B “Controls may be imposed for purposes of notice of transfer” in clause 10. Subsection (4) states: “Section 77A(4) does not apply for the purposes of subsection (1) if—(a) the control being varied on transfer relates to a previous management practice; or (b) the control being deleted on transfer existed under Parts XI to XVI …”. With regard to that I noted that the Ministry of Health pointed out that this section enables the authority to delete default controls where no such control applied. The example given was fly sprays. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 92 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 28 
New Zealand National 27; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedule agreed to. 
Clause 1 Title 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to make a few points in respect of the title because this bill is one of a number of hazardous substances and new organisms bills that we have seen in the last couple of Parliaments. My real question I wish to put to the Minister for the Environment is whether we finally have it right. The truth is the Education and Science Committee was under pressure and had to rush the bill through. I am surprised that the Minister having had so many difficulties with this particular Act would not have wanted to be absolutely sure that with such complex law we had got it correct. I want some reassurance that before June 2006 when the transitional provisions are complete we do not get another Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill because somehow we got something wrong this time as we again rushed an amendment bill through. So my challenge to the Minister is to stake her reputation on finally having it right. Having put Parliament under pressure having sent the bill to the wrong select committee and having given a time constraint much tighter than is normal for the scrutiny of bills—let alone bills as complex as this one—is the Minister going to stake her reputation on her and her officials finally having got it correct? 
Hon David Carter 
: What reputation? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My colleague asks what reputation; I will be generous and say that we simply want assurances that finally with this amendment bill—No. 4 I understand since 1996—we have it correct. 
I also wish to have some reassurance that we have the resources and the other things in place to ensure that by June 2006 we truly are going to be in business and that we are not going to have another Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill that proposes to extend the transitional period beyond June 2006. I remind the House that June 2006 will mark 10 years of transition since the substantive Act was passed. On those points we want some reassurance. 
In terms of the title perhaps we should call the bill the “Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (This Goes on Forever) Bill” or some other words could be added if we wanted as a Parliament to be more sarcastic about the frustration felt about the long transition that is being required to make this legislation work. So if the Minister would respond to those points it would help in terms of a speedy transition of the title debate. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Just to respond to that I think this is a particular piece of legislation that was designed for the transfer processes that were absolutely stymied. There will be possibly some further amendments to this bill because if we look at the select committee record we will see that it talks about a draft discussion paper. A year ago we went out to industry and could see some of the problems facing the transfer process and this particularly complex legislation. The industry came back to us with some ideas. Part of that is in the discussion paper that it wanted and that we will look to for some possible further legislation. 
I want to make one other point. Yes I think we are almost at the leading edge but I am a bit nervous about getting too far ahead. We are part of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals and all that that means but that is fairly new as well. There is some difficulty at the moment with the European Union wanting to begin some processes towards using chemical assessment that may act more as a trade barrier so we have to be very careful. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 In referring to the title of the bill the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill we have to say that it probably is an accurate description of what the bill tries to do. But I would like to bring something to the attention of the Committee in order to help answer the question asked by the previous speaker—will the bill enable the transfer of all existing hazardous substances by July 2006? 
I am quoting from the departmental report which states: “There are two groups of substances that warrant further explanation in answer to this question. These groups are: the notified toxic substances or NOTS and the non-hazardous compressed gases.” We have talked about the non-hazardous compressed gases which are dealt with within the bill but this is what the report has to say about the notified toxic substances which I think is pertinent to what we have been talking about: “There are approximately 70000 hazardous substances that are not presently controlled.” Therein lie some of the issues around the statements made in that select committee report back and also in the speeches made during the second reading. “These are known as the NOTS. In order to achieve the completion of transfer by July 2006 the bill must enable transfer of the NOTS in groups. Groups are based on the controls needed to manage the risks of these substances as it is the controls that enable achievement of the purpose of the Act.” In other words section 160A and section 160B actually deal with some of the issues about whether the deadline will be met. I just rise to bring that to the attention of the Committee so that we clarify some of those issues around the numbers. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 As I speak to the title of this bill it does give my heart considerable quivers to hear the Minister say that there may be possible amendments to this bill in the future. I think that is absolutely right. Indeed it does sort of back up the view of my colleague that this bill could be called the “Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Labour Government This Will Go on Forever and Ever) Bill” and that is a worry. [ 
Interruption 
] No the Labour Government will not; I am talking about the bill. I make that absolutely clear. The Government has got less than 18 months. 
Indeed the thing that was hugely concerning about this bill was the fact that the process was so rushed. I was quite surprised to hear the Minister say that this was costing the Government in New Zealand a fair amount of money every day. That is true. Why on earth did the Government not bring it in considerably earlier so that indeed it could have been deliberated on in an appropriate way? There was a conscientious chairman Brian Donnelly of the Education and Science Committee ready to ensure that the deliberations would be appropriate but oh no the Labour Government had to rush it in after 3 days of the House coming back from the break. 
Perhaps the major reason that the National Party did support this bill was the fact that we certainly perceived and believe that it is business-friendly. So perhaps the name should be the “Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Labour Government’s Attempt at Long Last to Minimise Costs and Cut Down on Bureaucracy) Bill.” Undoubtedly the major thrust is to minimise costs and reduce barriers to innovation which is so hugely important for New Zealand. 
In fact when one considers the previous hazardous substances and new organisms bills that this Labour Government has brought in and the difficulties that the biotechnology research sector is having with them then one considers that it will be unfortunately necessary to review the whole Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act that has eventuated particularly from the amendments of the Labour Government. There was an opportunity after some years of the Act being in existence to make it more effective and efficient but so far the Government has not done that apart from this bill which we support. 
So that is why my heart does go down with trepidation when I hear the Minister saying: “More amendments” and I would urge the Minister to keep in mind if she is going to put in amendments to take advice from or consideration of the Biotechnology Taskforce which said we should at least in making those regulations observe international best practice and make them transparent make them predictable and ensure that there is cost-minimisation and that indeed the legislation reduces barriers to innovation. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I shall be very brief. On speaking to this substantial bill titled the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill I want to put on record that despite all the questions about the title it is a reasonably good title. If members focused on one word in the title it would either alarm or quell our suspicions. It is the word “transitional”: that could mean anything. 
 It is not in the past tense; it is in the present continuous tense which allows for further amendments to take place. It also gives us the picture that this is really what it is all about. It is a transition issue and if we took the other words “Provisions and Controls” as separate we could take from this that the bill is reasonably well named in light of the transition of all the substances that is yet to happen by June 2006. If there are others beyond that I will not be surprised as some people have already questioned. If it gets completed by then I guess we will all be so happy that we might award the Minister some sort of prize. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I was totally confused by the speaker who has just resumed his seat and I seek clarification from the Minister on this very important point. I thought I understood this bill until the United Future member took a call and his speech has thrown me into a mass of confusion. My clear understanding was that the substantive Act provides for a set transitional period through to 2006 and that this bill deals merely with transitional measures within that time but listening to—I do not know quite how to describe it—the contribution perhaps from the member from United Future the Government’s coalition partner I am totally confused now. I think there is an onus on the Minister to clarify it for the House as that confusion was introduced. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The member is correct. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment.