Hutchison Paul: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
Hutchison Paul: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
[Volume:616;Page:11765] 
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.