Hobbs Marian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11802] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill’s primary objectives are to enable the practical application of controls to all hazardous substances and to provide for practical management of the transitional period. In providing for these outcomes this bill reduces cost to Government and to industry reduces barriers to innovation and better protects the environment and the health and safety of people and communities. 
No amendments were made to the bill during the Committee of the whole House but I would like to address some of the concerns raised in the House during its passage. On the numbers of existing hazardous substances let us put this to rest. The chair of the Education and Science Committee expressed concern that the committee may have been incorrectly advised as to the number of the existing hazardous substances. There are I admit a lot of numbers flying around and I want to set the record straight once and for all. We have approximately 8000 hazardous substances that were previously subject to regulatory control under explosives dangerous goods pesticides and toxic substances Acts which the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act replaced. 
Then there are the notified toxic substances. In the years 1996 to 2001 when the hazardous substances part of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act commenced the tally of notifications rose from 8000 to a staggering 215000. This happened because the chemical industry recognised that this was the only way to gain the status of an existing substance under the Act and therefore remained legally in use. If we take these 215000 notifications and remove the multiple notifications and the notifications for substances that are not hazardous we arrive at a figure of approximately 70000 notified toxic substances. A more exact figure will not be known until the Environmental Risk Management Authority has further progressed its work with industry on these substances. If we add 8000 substances that were subject to direct regulatory control to the approximately 70000 notified toxic substances we would find that we have approximately 80000 existing hazardous substances. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: 78000 actually. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: “Approximately” was the word. I know these numbers do not add up exactly. As I said the reason is that the 70000 can be confirmed only when the Environmental Risk Management Authority has finalised its work with industry. These numbers match those in the select committee report and I wish to assure the chair that the select committee was correctly advised. 
I refer to select committee time frames. Concern has been expressed at the time frames in which the select committee was asked to report on this bill. I acknowledge that the time frames were tighter than the norm and I thank the committee for its diligent work in grappling with this small but very technical bill. I would like to explain a little of why these time frames came about and I acknowledge that perhaps I should have explained this in December. The current provisions governing transfer are woefully unworkable. It took until August 2003—and this question was raised last night—to successfully make the first transfers under the Act the explosives. This was not due to a lack of effort; it was due to the roadblocks in the legislation. The process was unworkable. However we needed actually to use the provisions in order to learn all their pitfalls—otherwise we would be doing it in theory—to make sure we fixed the problems. So finalising the details of this very technical bill could not be done until after the explosives had been transferred and that was in August 2003. That brings us to the point at which the legislation was introduced in November. 
Perhaps most important this bill must be in force to allow the dangerous goods transfer scheduled for April to happen. Businesses have long planned for these transfers. Delay means uncertainty and forcing people to change their plans resulting in significant and avoidable business compliance costs. We must avoid these costs—and avoid them we will with members’ help which I appreciate. 
This bill will result in a dramatic improvement in the functioning of the hazardous substances and new organisms regime. In addition to the costs associated with delays in the transfer dates delay has other effects. Delay means adverse effects on the authority and wider government in terms of efficiencies. Delay means businesses that wish to proactively take advantage of the flexibility the Act offers cannot free themselves of the old requirements. Delay means that businesses trying to import or manufacture newer safer or more specific substances are forced to use a more onerous process of application and in some cases accept impractical controls. In practice we think that many businesses are simply waiting until the bill is passed. This means the market availability in New Zealand of these generally safer substances is being delayed. 
With so many substances to transfer and so few substances transferred to date the progress in respect of transfer has been slow. Why? Because of the very problems that this bill fixes. The bill contains amendments that remove the need to give effect to transfer through making a regulation. We have given the Environmental Risk Management Authority the ability to design practical and cost-effective controls rather than having to vary the default controls individually upon transfer if they are not suitable for the substance like the approved-handler requirement for petrol which could have been exciting. We have allowed—and this is terribly important—groups of substances to be transferred together. All these things are critical in enabling transfer to occur to deal with the 80000 existing hazardous substances by the deadline of July 2006. Much of the technical work required has been done. What is needed is the changes in this bill that remove the legislative roadblocks that hamper practical effective and efficient risk management. 
The transfers will begin to flow in April with dangerous goods and scheduled toxic substances. July will see the transfer of pesticides. By the end of this year 80 percent of the hazardous substances previously subject to direct regulatory controls will have been transferred to this bill. Over the following 18 months the 70000 notified toxic substances will be transferred in groups. These substances are less hazardous than the explosives the pesticides the vertebrate poisons the dangerous goods and the scheduled toxic substances that properly precede them in transfer. 
Contrary to some concerns that have been raised this bill enhances the protection of the environment and the health and safety of people and communities. It does this because it removes the barriers to transfer bringing existing hazardous substances under hazardous substances and new organisms control sooner. This supports business in a variety of ways as I have described but it also allows New Zealand to reap the environmental and safety benefits of the hazardous substances and new organisms regime. These benefits are considerable. Firstly in contrast to earlier regimes the hazardous substances and new organisms regime includes controls to manage all the hazardous properties of a substance. This means that petrol for instance will have controls to manage not only the fact that it is flammable as it did under dangerous goods but also its toxicity and eco-toxicity. Secondly the notified toxic substances will come under direct regulatory control when transferred. This bill is necessary in order to get the job done safely and in a timely manner. Thirdly completing transfer means that transferred substances can be used as reference substances for rapid assessment of new substances. That enables faster and more cost-effective approvals for safer new-generation substances thereby helping to reduce the overall level of risk from hazardous substances. 
Enactment of the bill is a key milestone in the Government implementing its plan to make the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act more workable for hazardous substances—in other words the hazardous substances strategy. This debate marks the completion of a crucial step in making the hazardous substances and new organisms regime workable thereby providing for cost-effective management of hazardous substances. That protects people the community and the environment. The changes in this bill will ensure that the processes of the hazardous substances and new organisms regime work better. 
This is not a divisive case of business versus environment. The very same features of this legislation are good for both business and the environment. This legislation is a snapshot of the future of New Zealand one in which sustainable development is an achievable goal that is enabled by New Zealand’s legislative framework. I commend the bill to the House.