Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I think the Minister's very accurately summed up the committee's report back in this second reading in his legislative statement and I appreciate his comments on it. I recall in the first reading introductory speech that I made on this bill that I sort of classified it as dull but worthy. Nothing that occurred in the select committee process has caused me to change my view on that—dull but worthy—but sometimes this Parliament needs to pass dull but worthy pieces of legislation because they have a practical implication that is actually common sense that is pragmatic and that is sensible. So we on this side of the House are supporting this legislation and will continue to do so. We've got a sort of a quirky cultural conditioning that occurs in New Zealand too frequently in my view not just in relation to matters to do with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) but across so much of what we do as a society. That is that we have this view that we must always come up with a uniquely original bespoke Kiwi approach to everything and that anything we do should start with a blank piece of paper and that our position on any kind of subject of the day should be a Kiwi New Zealand solution and that we should completely ignore the work and effort and science and information that is available from jurisdictions similar to our own. That's not always the case of course and I'm kind of exaggerating but essentially the way the Environmental Protection Authority was set up and the legislation under which it operates and the regulatory environment under which it operates has precluded it from taking on board and examining the oftentimes very useful scientific chemical information the data that is available from other jurisdictions similar to our own. So they've had to spend an inordinate amount of time energy resources money on often replicating work that has already been done in other jurisdictions. And I'm not talking about jurisdictions that we might consider sort of—now I'd better not upset the diplomats—fringe jurisdictions but jurisdictions where we would recognise the credibility and the substance of their scientific data and information from similar bodies such as our own EPA. It just seems to me to be eminently sensible that the EPA should be able to take into account the work the data the science that comes from those sorts of jurisdictions and other similar bodies when they are assessing the worth and practical application of the literally hundreds of thousands of chemicals that we ask them to keep an eye on on our collective behalf. One of the reasons that this has been a problem is not just the cost and the effort that's required to come up with our own bespoke solutions and science around all these chemicals but it's actually that in some cases the time taken to do it has actually prevented some really good environmental outcomes from occurring. And that delayed process has actually hindered some of the good things that could have been done by use of modern new chemicals and science that has not yet been tested under the previous rules that the EPA had to operate under. So this is a piece of legislation that we are supporting. It provides as the Minister said a simplified process for the EPA to update hazard classifications of substances and corresponding controls. And just to give the House and people who might be listening to this—the EPA is responsible for providing that kind of advice on something north of 150000 separate chemicals. That's a very big portfolio by any measure. So if we can provide as a Parliament a level of greater efficiency for them to their assessment process and also their reassessment of chemicals as they are required to do for hazardous substances from time to time then on the face of it the rationale for this piece of legislation seems to us to be very worthwhile indeed. Currently the assessment and reassessment of hazardous substances in New Zealand is time consuming and it's very resource intensive. Our EPA is actually a very small agency by comparison to the environmental protection agencies and authorities in other parts of the world. And I think there is an argument for actually—notwithstanding the constraints of prudent use of taxpayer money but I think there's an opportunity actually to have a wider discussion that goes beyond this piece of legislation about the role and the shape and the future and the extent to which the EPA could actually benefit us and be a more useful organisation in an expanded form. That's a discussion and a debate for another day. But I want to indicate to the House and to the Minister who I see is nodding that that's a conversation we'd be up for at some point and I think that that would be probably appropriate. The EPA was established under a National Government with quite a narrow purview in terms of what it was supposed to do but actually a very big workload that goes with that narrow purview. And it's an agency that needs to be funded resourced and equipped to do the job that we are asking of it in its current format let alone any kind of a different or expanded role. So these proposals would effectively give the EPA the flexibility and the discretion in the decision making that they make to consider science technology information and data from similar jurisdictions to our own that are credible reliable and trusted. I think that that will add enormous efficiency to the work that they do that we ask them to do on our behalf. The Minister I'm pleased to see here has accepted the recommendations that the select committee made. I think this was an exercise that actually quietly and sort of under the radar represents the very best part of the parliamentary and select committee process where the diligent careful attention to detail is applied by the select committee and the submitters and a good result is achieved. And as a result of that the legislation has been improved a wee bit and that's a good thing; that's part of the process. And I too want to commend those people that made submissions for their time diligence and effort also to the select committee members the secretariat who helped guide us through this legislation. National has no problem in supporting this piece of legislation. Thank you Madam Speaker.