Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) Link to this
I move, That the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Firstly, I thank the Primary Production Committee for its consideration of the bill, as well as those persons who provided submissions and representations to the committee. The committee’s consideration has resulted in a number of enhancements to the existing provisions of the bill.
This bill provides for changes to the principal Act—the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997—to make it more effective and more administratively efficient. It includes improvements to the regulatory framework and clarifies certain provisions in order to achieve the original policy intent of the Act. The changes improve the workability of the Act for stakeholders. In particular, these changes make provisions for a one-stop shop system for assessing and managing risks associated with the use of agricultural compounds.
The bill also allows changes to be made to the organisational environment—that is, it allows changes to the Government department responsible for the administration of the legislation—without the need for further specific change to the Act. This change will allow for the recognition from 1 July 2007 of the New Zealand Food Safety Authority as a separate public service department with responsibility for the administration of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act.
The bill makes provision to close several gaps identified in the coverage of the Act, in order to better manage the public health effects of agricultural compounds and the regulation of all parts of the supply chain. These provisions expand the purpose of the Act to include managing risks to public health, and specify that the manufacture and import of agricultural compounds that do not comply with the Act are prohibited. They also provide for the ability to set requirements for the distribution, storage, and transportation of agricultural compounds. The bill clarifies the statutory backing for arrangements to restrict the supply, sale, or use of certain products such as prescription animal medicines, and poisons such as cyanides, to authorised persons, and the process for transfer of registration between authorised persons. It also clarifies that pet foods and stock foods are covered by the Act.
The bill will also make changes to improve the enforcement of the Act. It provides for alignment of the processes and powers relating to imports of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicine products with those of the Biosecurity Act. It enables the director-general to recall non-compliant product or suspend product registration, and provides for a more appropriate and effective range of penalties for offences.
The bill makes changes to improve the flexibility and administration of the Act by providing an alternative approval process in special circumstances for the import, manufacture, or use of agricultural compounds without registration. It allows for recognition of persons or agencies to carry out specified activities or functions for the purpose of the Act, and provides for the issue of certificates of compliance to assist exporters. It also updates cost-recovery provisions in the Act.
The bill removes or amends regulatory requirements that are in excess of those necessary to manage risks, or where the required degree of control can be achieved by non-regulatory or administrative measures. The bill also makes some minor technical changes, removes provisions that have become redundant following changes in the operating environment, and updates terminology.
Hon Tau HenareThe member opposite is interested in my speech. Somebody is awake to hear this very, very good speech. I thank Mr Henare.
I will continue telling members about this very good legislation. The Primary Production Committee made amendments to clauses 20, 21, and 44 of the bill, which relate to sections 28 and 75 of the Act, in order to clarify the way in which the Act works in respect of the imposition of conditions on agricultural compounds, the setting of standards required to effect those conditions, and the notification of technical specifications detailing how standards can be met. These changes arose from concerns raised by the Legislation Advisory Committee to the New Zealand Food Safety Authority officials advising the select committee. The Legislation Advisory Committee was concerned that the Act was complex, lacked clarity, and conferred wide powers on the director-general. Further, it was advised that the bill as introduced added to these difficulties rather than reduced them. To address this, the select committee made changes to the bill to further clarify the relationship between codes, standards, and conditions on trade name products. The mechanisms for setting these requirements at the secondary and tertiary levels of the legislation have been made more straightforward and will be subject to increased levels of parliamentary scrutiny.
I fully support the changes made by the select committee to the structure of the Act. The changes deliver on the policy objectives and the intent of the Act and the bill, without stepping beyond the scope of the bill. The amended provisions will confirm the power to impose standards through regulation, thus providing transparency in the standard-making process and ensuring parliamentary oversight via the Regulations Review Committee. To ensure that people can understand what is required to achieve standards set under the Act, the director-general will have the power to issue notices that set out the technical detail of how compliance with a standard can be achieved. These changes prompted a further consequential change to the bill with the deletion of clause 55, which amended the Privacy Act. Clause 55 became redundant with the changes to the standard-setting and code of practice provisions. Additionally, codes of practice will now be known as operating plans, in order to convey more accurately the nature of these instruments and their place in the scheme of the Act. A definition of operating plan is added to the interpretation clause of the Act.
The committee amended the bill by adding a section that broadly sets out the overall scheme of the Act in order to address the Legislation Advisory Committee’s concerns about the lack of clarity in this respect. The committee also amended clauses 15 and 21 by replacing the words “prescribing” with “authorising the use of” to address concerns raised by submitters about the potential for confusion in this area between the requirements imposed on veterinarians in respect of the standards for prescribing medicines under this Act and those under the Veterinarians Act.
The committee also amended clause 23, which extends provisions for protection from compensation to cover the revocation or amendment of an approval under the new section 8C, entitled “Director-General may approve agricultural compound as exempt in special circumstances”. The committee’s amendment clarifies that the provision covers court-awarded damages as well as compensation given by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority.
Minor amendments to the bill made by the committee include the deletion of the reference to the Meat Act 1981 and the Dairy Industry Act 1952, as these Acts have been repealed since the bill was drafted, and changes to the wording in new section 81E(1) of the Act to correct a drafting error.
The Government supports all these amendments because they clarify the intent of the bill, provide greater transparency for the stakeholders, and improve the workability of the bill. Although access to, and the use of, agricultural compounds and veterinary medicine is vital to New Zealand’s pastoral, horticultural, and forestry sectors, there are also risks if they are used inappropriately or unwisely—risks to human and animal health, our biosecurity, and our agricultural exports. The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act is a key part of New Zealand’s regulatory framework for managing these risks.
I thank once again the members of the Primary Production Committee for their work in considering this bill, and I also acknowledge the helpful contribution of submitters. I commend the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill to the House.
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) Link to this
The National Party is, of course, delighted that finally the Government has brought the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill to the House for its second reading—nearly 4 months after the Primary Production Committee reported the bill back to the House.
The question being asked tonight by the media is why the Government has suddenly brought this bill back to the House after it sat around for 4 months. I suspect that Annette King, as Minister for Food Safety, is in the same camp as Damien O’Connor is in as Minister of Corrections. I think she is for the chop as the Minister for Food Safety, because this bill was an absolute mess when it came before the select committee. Annette King said euphemistically a few minutes ago, in a well-written speech supplied by officials—which she had trouble reading correctly—that the select committee had made a few enhancements to the bill. The truth of the matter is that the select committee had to make substantial changes in order to tidy up the bill, because that Minister had not done her homework and the bill was presented to the select committee in an absolute mess.
But the good news is that the bill is now back before the House in substantially better shape than when we saw it at its first reading. We want to now see the Government move the bill quickly through the rest of its stages, because there was general support from all the submissioners. They helped us tidy up the mess the Minister of Food Safety had made, and they were generally supportive of the bill. I have been fielding calls from them for months, asking when they could expect to see some progress on the bill. It was first introduced to the House late last year—I think it was 6 December.
No, we were out campaigning. The Minister went on holiday, and we called for submissions, which closed in late February. We then did our work, and it certainly took a lot of work, because the Minister had presented such a mess to us. We brought it back to the House on 29 May, and it sat there for 3½ months—and not much important legislation has been passed by the Labour Government over the past 3½ months—but, finally, the good news is that the Government has decided to progress the legislation. It is a lot tidier, and I look forward—
Hon Clayton CosgroveI think the Minister for Food Safety is the C-team. She is the one who is going to get the chop when Helen Clark does the reshuffle. Mr Clayton Cosgrove will get the corrections portfolio, so he will get the chop in the next reshuffle. It is the C-team that is down here, that is for sure.
I think her glasses need a clean, but we thank the Minister for Food Safety for finally getting the legislation back to the House. I thank her for the kind words she said about the select committee tidying it up. We have been doing that for a while now—the Primary Production Committee is always tidying up the Labour Government’s mess. But the bill is now back and in good shape, and National looks forward to the Government progressing it forthwith through all stages.
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) Link to this
I would like to thank the Primary Production Committee and, indeed, the chairperson of that select committee, the Hon David Carter, for his and his colleagues’ cooperation on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. This is a wonderful bill, and all the work done in the select committee is appreciated. I must confess that this is one of the fantastic committees that I am a member of, and I enjoy working with the committee members. We really worked for the nation. I take pride in the fact that this particular committee works as a team and works for the farmers and for the economy of this country. So to that extent I am delighted.
New Zealand’s agriculture and forestry sector provides exports to a total value of $17 billion, which is about 60 percent of our total merchandise exports and 45 percent of our foreign exchange earnings. So it is a big industry. All the pesticides and veterinary medicines that we use are very important for us, and they have a huge input into our industries. We use about $400 million worth of pesticides in our agricultural industry, and there is a huge variety of them. New Zealand uses about 1,000 different pesticides and 2,000 different veterinary medicines and compounds, so it is very important that we have access to our veterinary medicines and that we use them in a wise and safe manner.
This bill is really about managing the risks to animal and human health. So to that extent this is a very timely bill that makes sure that all the agricultural medicines and pesticides are used properly. This bill will ensure that the risks to trade that are associated with agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines are managed more efficiently. I do not have a lot to add to what the Minister has already said. Both sides of the House agree that this is a very good bill, and I support and commend it to the House.
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) Link to this
I also commend to the House the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. The Primary Production Committee has had its head around a number of issues in relation to a bill about a very complex matter. Essentially, this bill seeks to allow the utilisation of a whole range of agricultural compounds but to maintain their integrity and the assurance that those products are safe and that there is no way they will impair, denigrate, or reduce the impression of the products we want to sell. That is quite a complex issue.
This bill is called the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill, and the first question that I think is of interest is: “What exactly is an agricultural compound?”. Agricultural compounds can be natural or synthetic and they can include medicines. They are fertilisers, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides, and they can be synthetic, organic, or conventional. Over 500,000 different compounds have been identified within foods in terms of nutrients and natural and artificial pesticides. So it is a very complex area.
We are all aware that we have to enhance what we do. We need to apply remedies, we need to improve fertility, and we need to do a number of things to treat sickness. That is where the animal compounds come in. This is important because we have to keep finding new remedies and new compounds that will do the work for those people who are in the production sector. We can very easily say: “Well, here is a level of protection—we just allow nothing in.”, but that certainly would impair the ability of our primary production sector to compete in a world in which it is becoming increasingly more difficult to produce, at a rate that is competitive, product that has all the qualities the market demands.
So we have a very complex thing called an agricultural compound that we need to be able to shift into New Zealand. We need to be able to give an assurance to the consumers who are buying the product. Agricultural compounds are controlled by a whole range of things: the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, the Environmental Risk Management Authority, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act, and Food Standards Australia New Zealand. There are a whole range of things covering this very, very complex area. This bill wants to set some trails or some pathways so that when a product comes in there is an identified way of giving an assurance, setting some requirements, or refusing entry to a new product or a product that is being used.
There is a lot of delegated authority in this bill. The question is whether there is another way to do it. Seemingly, there is not. The director-general is given a whole range of powers, with a set of quite stringent regulations as to how he or she makes determinations. It is quite important that someone has that responsibility and that it sits on one individual’s head. It does have some potential to increase compliance costs, but in essence there does not seem to be any other way when we are dealing with such a complex area.
I commend the bill to the House. We really need the bill to be passed to allow opportunities for the utilisation of a variety of agricultural compounds—not only those that are in use but also those that will be invented and those that are available in places other than New Zealand that we decide to have here.
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this
I rise to give the Green Party’s support to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. I missed the number the previous speaker gave of how many chemicals we have in existence.
We have 1,000 pesticides and 2,000 others. It is worth remembering perhaps, as we consider this bill, that human civilisation has existed for millennia, for thousands of years, without the use of any agricultural compounds or veterinary medicines. In fact, it is only in the last 50-odd years that we have started to become reliant and dependent on agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines. Of course, we have a thriving organics industry around the world—and to a small extent here in New Zealand—and that industry manages without reliance on these agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines. That is worth remembering, because the way the bill is set out implies—and, indeed, some previous speakers, such as Mr Roy, have suggested—that the agricultural sector would collapse if we did not have access to these thousands of pesticides and agricultural compounds. [ Interruption] I have just reminded Mr Roy—I think he may have been talking to someone else at the time—that we did manage for millennia without agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines, and that we managed until the last 50 or 100 years.
Nevertheless, the Green Party would like to make a couple of points about this bill. One of them is to say thank heavens for the Regulations Review Committee. I think that the Regulations Review Committee is rather overlooked in this Parliament. I know that it toils hard and meets several times a week at some early hour of the morning. Thank heavens for that committee, because it—along with the Legislation Advisory Committee—pointed out that powers and standards in the original bill would not be subject to any form of parliamentary scrutiny. There were a number of things that the Regulations Review Committee recommended needed to be changed, and that is a concern. I have noticed that an increasing amount of legislation coming before this House gives, through regulation, extensive delegated powers that are not subject to any form of parliamentary scrutiny. This bill was yet another example of that. I express my gratitude to the Legislation Advisory Committee, and in particular to the Regulations Review Committee, for bringing this to the attention of the select committee—for pointing it out, and for recommending changes that mean there is at least some degree, a very small degree, of parliamentary scrutiny by the Regulations Review Committee. That, as we know, is a reasonably limited scrutiny and does not involve debate in this House, but at least it is something that was not there before.
The other thing we are particularly pleased about is that, finally, we will require that we need to look at protecting public health and considering public health issues when we examine agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines. Previously there was no requirement even to consider the impact on public health of the numerous pesticides and agricultural compounds that were administered to animals in New Zealand.
I am also absolutely delighted that, finally, in the commentary on this bill, there is an acknowledgment that antibiotics, when they are administered in feed to food-producing animals, “pose a threat to human health”. I did not really believe that I would see the day when officials in New Zealand acknowledged that continuously feeding antibiotics to animals in New Zealand could produce adverse effects in humans. Every day for breakfast, lunch, and dinner we feed our chickens—and to a lesser extent our pigs—antibiotics, basically to make them grow more quickly, but also to reduce the widespread risk of disease. Until now officials have been in denial that this could produce adverse effects in humans. Microbiologists have warned that continuously feeding antibiotics to animals—in particular, antibiotics that are administered to humans, as the commentary points out—will inevitably result in the spread of antibiotic resistance.
Microbiologists warn that antibiotic resistance will be one of the major threats posed to humanity in the 21st century, and we are already starting to see that. Some countries, such as Sweden, have prohibited the continuous feeding of antibiotics to animals. Other countries in Europe are saying that if an antibiotic is used in human medicine it should not be permitted to be fed continuously to animals in their feed. We have not even got a restriction, much less a prohibition, on feeding to animals the antibiotics used in humans. So at least it is good to see that there is an acknowledgment that these antibiotics could pose a threat to human health, and that we should in the future require that these and other medicines undergo human health and environmental scrutiny, and assessment for residues and resistance.
This really is a big step forward; we are moving from a state of denial of these risks to a state of acknowledgment. Hopefully, we will eventually catch up with the rest of the world and we will prohibit the feeding of antibiotics that are used in human medicine to animals, we will prohibit the continuous feeding of antibiotics to animals like chickens, we will acknowledge the huge threat that the spread of antibiotic resistance poses to humans, and we will acknowledge what is being discovered in Europe, for example, and in America and Canada—the spread of the multiple-resistant, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in animals. Arguably, we have exactly the same problem here in New Zealand, but of course nobody is actually testing our animals to see whether they may be contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria as they are overseas, and what the implications of that might be for human health. When methicillin-resistant spreads we get vancomycin-resistant ; and eventually antibiotics, the modern miracle of human medicine, will become ineffective, and we will find ourselves without those drugs to combat human diseases because we have indiscriminately fed them to animals, resulting in widespread antibiotic resistance in humans.
The bill also acknowledges that other veterinary medicines used on whole herds of animals, such as anti-parasite dips and drenches, pose significant risks to human health and the environment. It is good to know that we are finally acknowledging this. There are other examples of substances, such as genetically-engineered commodities, that have also been fed to animals until recently—until now, probably, with the passage of this legislation. There has been no requirement to assess the potential impact of genetically-engineered commodities fed to animals, and whether they may have some impact on human health through residues, etc. Now, as a result of this bill, there will at least be a requirement—we hope—to assess the risks to human health, and of course to the environment. When we are looking at dips and drenches the effect on the environment is significant, so the Greens are pleased that this bill is finally acknowledging the potential impact on human health and the environment.
We are a bit worried about some of the fast-tracking provisions of this bill. We are pleased that the regulations review has removed some of its worst aspects—its most undemocratic aspects—that would have allowed entire standards to be fast-tracked without any form of parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, we will be supporting the bill and we hope that, finally, New Zealand will start to catch up with countries such as those in Europe in acknowledging that we need far greater scrutiny of some of the agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines we feed to animals, and consideration of the impact that these will inevitably have on our health and well-being.
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Māori Party will be supporting the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. It is an interesting coincidence that this bill is being discussed on the day the Law Commission, Te Aka Matua o Te Ture, released its issues paper entitled Presentation of New Zealand Statute Law. The paper begins with the premise that New Zealand’s statute law falls well short of a basic standard that the law must be accessible to the public. The paper states: “ …our statute law as a whole lacks coherence, is untidy and unwieldy, and is difficult to find, understand and use.” That is hardly a great advertisement for Acts of Parliament.
In this setting, then, the recommendation from the Primary Production Committee to include a new provision to clarify the purpose of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill in order to “address any concerns regarding obscurity” is greatly welcomed. The Primary Production Committee recommends the insertion of a new clause 5A to make explicit the scheme of the Act, how the Act works, and its relationship to other Acts.
I want to make a point of this recommendation, because statements of purpose are extremely important in assisting citizens in knowing and understanding how the law affects them. In the case of this bill, the understanding that no agricultural compound may be used in New Zealand unless its use is authorised by, or under, this Act is a vital step towards clarifying the original policy intent of the bill.
Another key change introduced by the Primary Production Committee is the proposal to make explicit the relationship of this bill to other Acts—variously listed as the Animal Products Act, the Food Act, the Wine Act, the Animal Welfare Act, the Biosecurity Act, the Medicines Act, and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Again, this is a welcome innovation, which the Law Commission also has something to say about.
The commission promoted the practice of looking to historical Acts to interpret modern provisions in order to provide the broader context for understanding. Its report released today describes the impressive process carried out in the case of Ngāti Apa v in 2003, in which the court considered 37 Acts in deciding the issue of whether any historical legislation had extinguished any Māori customary property in the seabed and foreshore. That case, the House will recall, confirmed—following the expert interpretation of the precedent set by these 37 Acts—the possibility of territorial claims by Māori groups to the foreshore and seabed. It was a decision that, again the House will recall, has led to perhaps the most significant legislative debate that thinking New Zealanders would consider has taken place in decades.
As history has shown, the current Government chose to wilfully discard the expert interpretation of the statute in the case of the Foreshore and Seabed Act and, instead, ran roughshod into a process that squashed any opportunity for Māori or the courts to be able to benefit from due access to justice. We hope, therefore, that in the case of this Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill, the wisdom and precedent established by the broader context of its relationship to other Acts will have meaning and will serve to improve the regulatory framework.
The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill amends the 1997 Act to include provisions to protect public health from the adverse effects of agricultural compounds. We in the Māori Party are pleased to support any amendments to regulate and assess the contamination of food for the benefit of public health. We note in particular the support of the New Zealand Veterinary Association to include the management of risks to humans in the revision of the original Act.
Although the management of risks is meant to be covered by the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, the Act is not sufficient to the task. It excludes some of the key risks from veterinary medicines, including antibiotic resistance in humans arising from their use in humans; infectious agents such as live vaccines; needle-prick injuries; drugs of habituation, dependency, and abuse; and illegal use of performance-enhancing drugs such as steroids. In including the management of human risks, the revised Act will therefore offer an opportunity for a one-stop shop to regulate veterinary medicines.
As the Law Commission made clear, the linkages between Acts of Parliament are a vital means of enhancing the quality and meaning of legislation. I also want to make clear the importance of the link between the revised Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act in relation to the risk of contamination. Let me mention something of great interest to Māori: pig hunting. The nation saw this at first hand with our own Corporal Bill Henry Apiata, who was awarded the Victoria Cross for bravery in Afghanistan. He said publicly that rather than being honoured at all the celebratory events he would have preferred to be pig hunting.
What do kai moana, hunting, shooting, and fishing have to do with the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill? A 2005 report, Wild Food Contamination, describes anecdotal evidence that hunters sometimes leave skinned carcases of poisoned possums that wild pigs can consume. The report highlights the need for a better understanding of the status of wild food and its consumption in New Zealand, in order to determine whether there is a risk to public health and, if there is, how it might be reduced.
We know there is a risk of secondary poisoning when, say, weka or pigs eat possum carcasses, and humans then go and eat those same pigs. Therefore, the potential of contamination and poisoning of wild animals, of shellfish, and of watercress has relevance both to this bill and to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. We believe that this issue merits greater consideration by the House.
Finally, I think it is also important to note that it is not enough to regulate and risk manage toxicity levels and to improve the regulatory framework; we also need to consider opportunities to make progress towards an organic and GE-free Aotearoa. The Māori Party believes that all people have a fundamental right to clean air, land, water, and food. Such a commitment means we must work on all fronts to be protected from the production, release, and disposal of toxic and hazardous waste. A necessary component of such a pathway would be to look at ways to reduce reliance on pesticides and fertilisers.
We will support this bill, as it is in keeping with our responsibility towards upholding kaitiakitanga, whakapapa, and whanaungatanga. This is a commitment we make to ensure we use the resources of the Earth in a way that preserves the planet and the peoples for current and future generations. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this
Mr Deputy Speaker—[ Interruption] Is it not distressing, Mr Deputy Speaker, that members opposite would denigrate the importance of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill by indulging in cheap shots across this House?
Previous speakers have praised the chair of the Primary Production Committee for his role, and the Minister has praised all members of the committee for their contribution to this bill. I have to say that I was disappointed that the Hon David Carter, who is actually a very fine person, rose not as the chair of a select committee of the Parliament of New Zealand, selected and elected by this House, but as a partisan speaker from Canterbury. I think that is a big shame, because David Carter is a fine person. I personally think he seems to have been a good chair of the Primary Production Committee. This House, under MMP, now has select committee chairs from a range of parties, and they are servants of the select committees. When they report back to the House a major component of their speech, in my view, should focus on representing the cross-section of the views of their select committee. I think it is quite sad that one or two chairs of select committees have not adapted to that role.
Having said that, I will be gracious—I will show the graciousness that perhaps was not evident in David Carter’s presentation—and compliment all members of the select committee on the excellent work they did. I also think it is appropriate that we acknowledge the excellent contribution of the advisers and the officials, and their work in helping the Minister and members of the select committee.
I represent one of the major agricultural regions of New Zealand—the Waikato, obviously. It is a privilege to have in my city AgResearch, a major institution. We can boast that anything up to 25 percent of the nation’s scientists are in Hamilton. People who are involved in animal production and pasture management obviously have a key interest in and have made a key contribution to this very important legislation. I thought that this bill was non-partisan legislation, and I thought members of this House could rise above the notion of partisan point-scoring. I would say to members opposite that they do themselves no credit—not all of them; just one or two—by trying to turn this bill into some sort of means of partisan point-scoring. Frankly, rather than indulging in partisan point-scoring let us focus on the intent of this bill. Indeed, this bill is a very important bill.
I compliment Sue Kedgley on some of the important points she made, and I compliment Dr Pita Sharples as well. I think this has been a very constructive assessment and debate, with the exception—sadly, in my view—of one or two comments made by the chair of the select committee. I notice, of course, the Minister’s key points. She said that although access to and use of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines is extremely vital to New Zealand’s pastoral, horticultural, and forestry sectors, there are risks if they are used inappropriately or unwisely. If they are used inappropriately—and I know that the member for Hamilton East is listening to this—or unwisely, they then pose huge risks to human and animal health, to our biosecurity, and to our agricultural exports. This bill is indeed a key part of New Zealand’s regulatory framework for managing those risks. I know that the member for Hamilton East joins me in acknowledging the huge importance of this bill. I know that member joins with me in praising the Minister for her contribution, and I know that member, who represents the city of Hamilton, also praises the select committee for what I think is excellent work.
I will finish my brief contribution tonight. I praise the chair of the select committee and praise the select committee for its good work, but I would particularly praise the very excellent, hard-working Minister, who continues to make a wonderful contribution to the Government, to the country, and to this Parliament. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
NATHAN GUY (National) Link to this
I rise to take a call on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill, and I say thank goodness the bill went through the Primary Production Committee so that we could tidy it up. It came through in December of last year. On 6 December 2006 the bill had its first reading. It was reported back to Parliament at the end of May this year. It has languished on the Order Paper for about 3½ or 4 months now, and finally it is in front of us. We had six submissions on the bill, and we heard four of them.
In general, the bill is a one-stop shop intended to tidy up the legislation, and we support it. We actually had to do quite a bit of work on the bill in order to get it into a tidy state. I do not need to respond to Mr Roy’s good contribution and to the Hon David Carter’s speech this evening, because I think they have covered a good deal of what is in the bill. I guess we will get into the intricacies of that in the Committee stage.
I think it is worthwhile at the moment to just touch on rural affairs, which this bill is focused on. Damien O’Conner has been left in limbo by the Prime Minister, so right now people in the Beehive will be running around with bits of paper, doing the backslapping, saying: “I am in your camp. I am supporting you.”, and doing a trade-off here and a trade-off there. When we think about it, we realise that all the cockies who may be listening to this debate now—having a cup of coffee and a bit of cake before they head off to get a good night’s sleep before calving and lambing commences in the morning—will be wondering who in Labour will potentially fill the gap on rural affairs. If we think about it, we wonder whom Labour has. If Mr O’Conner loses all his portfolios—corrections, tourism, and rural affairs—then whom does Labour have? Labour members are not going to text Jim Sutton and ask him to come back, are they?
Does the member think they might?
Labour members will be busy sending out texts to rural New Zealanders, asking them to come on board and join the Labour Party, because it has a real shortage of rural people in its caucus. There would be a deathly silence in response to that, I am sure, because rural New Zealand is pretty sceptical about Labour. So we will watch with interest to see whom it can pull in for the 2008 election to support rural New Zealand, because we do not see that happening right now.
The National Party supports this bill. We had to do a bit of work in the select committee in order to get it tidy. In essence, we are really supportive of the 3-yearly review on cost recovery, which I think is important. We have some concerns about the duplication, particularly on costs, that may occur. We will just have to watch that issue as it runs. So we are supporting this bill tonight, and I wish to thank the select committee for the good work that it had to do to get the bill to where it is now.