Donnelly Brian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11806] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 So that we do not get to the awkward situation again whereby we come to the third reading of a bill before we are given an adequate understanding of what the figures mean I need to point out to both the Minister and to her officials that under mathematical convention the sum of approximately 70000 and approximately 8000 is approximately 78000 not approximately 80000 as has been said to us all the way through the debate on this bill. Confusion has arisen from the Minister’s approximately 2000 ghost hazardous substances. I hope that the Minister and her officials will take that convention on board in future. 
Enough has been said about the process by which this legislation has been moved forward. Let it just be said that a lesson should have been learnt by the Government that when an action strategy is established it needs to take into consideration the parliamentary calendar. In this particular case it did not. This legislation is simply part of a strategy established last year—the strategy paper was published in June last year—when it had been realised that the legal framework established all the way back in 1996 under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to deal with hazardous substances simply was not working in the sense of the transfer of substances. More particularly it was not working with regard to the transfer of substances from the various pieces of legislation because of some of the restrictions set out in the legislation itself. The strategy that was put in place in June of last year determined that the Environmental Risk Management Authority would transfer 500 substances by 1 April 2004. However in order to do so it needed this piece of legislation to be passed. Thus the legislation had to be progressed within a certain time constraint but unfortunately that time constraint did not take into consideration the parliamentary calendar. 
However the bigger issue is whether the requirement for all hazardous substance transfers to be completed by June 2006 will be able to be met within that legislated time constraint. Certainly without the changes to the transfer process that this bill envisages meeting the June 2006 deadline would be impossible. Moreover the cost to business if the present regime is maintained is estimated to be in excess of $2 million per annum in terms of compliance costs. This legislation goes a considerable way towards overcoming some of those problems. 
A number of problems are encountered within the current regime. The first problem is that when a transfer is completed under the present situation the very next day individuals and organisations must comply. For example if one has a whole pile of turpentine under one piece of legislation and the new controls state that it has to be labelled in certain ways all the bottles of turpentine throughout New Zealand have to be re-labelled overnight. This legislation will enable exemptions in certain cases to allow for change over time. It also allows for individuals and organisations to be able to move into the new regulatory framework in anticipation of those changes. That is far far more sensible than the here today gone tomorrow type of regime that currently exists. The second problem is the cumbersome system that requires an Order in Council in order to fulfil a transfer. Under the bill a transfer is to be effected by notice of transfer—a far more logical and sensible process than Orders in Council. 
The bill widens the powers of the Environmental Risk Management Authority to vary controls so that appropriate controls can be assigned to all hazardous substances. It provides greater flexibility whilst also ensuring that there is adequate risk management. But instead of creating of hammer to crack a nut it allows the appropriate implements for the particular items to be applied. The bill creates a couple of new forms of authorisation that do not currently exist. The first is called a permission which permits the general or particular use of a substance. A permission is required if the authority makes it a condition of the authority’s approval of a substance. In considering an application under that new form of authorisation the authority must consider any adverse effects involved in the use or uses of the substance to which the application relates and also the conditions if any that it thinks should be imposed as part of the permission. The permission is then given and the individuals or organisations can proceed with the particular use of that hazardous substance. 
The other new authority that the bill creates is a licence that authorises the possession of a hazardous substance. A licence under that new section is required if the authority makes it a condition of the authority’s approval of a substance. So the authority can approve a substance as long as one has a licence to be able to use it or to maintain it. But the authority must grant a licence under that section if it is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to possess the substance concerned and meets the relevant test certification requirements under section 82 of the principal Act. The bill states that if Bernie Ogilvy is a fit and proper person to have explosives and has been properly trained to have them he can get a licence to have them—albeit one would hope that he would not apply in the first place. The fit and proper person test will be prescribed by regulations made under the Act. But once again that is a sensible approach rather than having everything controlled and prescribed by regulation and by Orders in Council. Therefore the bill certainly allows for an improved regime now. 
There is also a provision—and this is the fall-back and I guess the quid pro quo of it—to contest a decision by the authority in the District Court by appealing against a decision about the terms and conditions of a permission or a licence held by a person or about the declining or revoking of a permission. The legislation also provides greater flexibility for the authority to grant exemptions. 
During the select committee process we did come across one area of concern and that was what was described as “onerous” materials in the select committee report but as “arduous” materials in the departmental briefing. If a company goes into receivership or bankruptcy there is the issue of what happens to any leftover materials or to sites if they have become contaminated when there is no person to assign responsibility to. The bill does not address that concern. We know at this stage that the Government is very much aware of the circumstances that there is a work programme and that it may well mean the Companies Act will have to be amended to accommodate that. However at this stage we have to alert the House that there is one area of concern not covered by this particular bill or by the principal Act. 
There is also a strong body of opinion that this legislation should not be necessary and would not be necessary if the regulations that flowed from the principal Act had been put in place appropriately in the first place. As I say it is a strong body of opinion. New Zealand First has considered that particular issue and has concluded that whilst we agree that the regulations need careful and immediate scrutiny we also require this legislation to go through. So it is not a matter of either/or; it is a matter of both/and. We will be keeping a close eye on the Government to ensure that the important work around the regulations is done. I mentioned compressed gases in my speech in the Committee stage. We think that matter has been covered as a result of the work carried out by the select committee. 
I want to finish up by saying that the very nature of New Zealand First is to look after the health and well-being of our nation. There is no way that we would frustrate necessary legislation to ensure that neither our citizens nor our environment are to be put at risk through hazardous substances. Neither however do we want a regime that paralyses economic activity. We believe that this bill goes in the right direction and therefore New Zealand First will be supporting it.