9. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this
to the Minister for the Environment
Does he agree with Dr Kiddle, Nelson medical officer of health, that: “Methyl bromide is a hazardous substance and it needs to be used carefully and it needs to be used with appropriate risk management.”; if so, why?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) Link to this
Yes, I can confirm that methyl bromide is a hazardous substance and as such is regulated under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. I can also confirm that, as a potential hazard to workers and the general public, those who are permitted to use it also have obligations under the Health and Safety in Employment Act. I agree that its use must be managed very carefully so as not to put anyone at the risk of harm.
Given the finding in an until very recently secret report that residents living nearby to a methyl bromide fumigation facility in Nelson may have been exposed to the highly toxic gas at twice the level allowed under workplace safety exposure standards, does the Minister agree that fumigation with the gas should not be permitted in residential areas; if not, why not?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
I am aware of the issues raised in the report. I think it is important to note that those conclusions have been drawn as possibilities on the basis of modelling only and that they are contested. In that respect, I think the article in today’s New Zealand Herald is not helpful. The direct contradiction internally between what is, in the box, claimed as reality and what is referred to in the article as modelling is obvious. But I would add that if that level of exposure were the case, it would be the cause for very serious concern. I would also like to add the words of Dr Kiddle when talking about this matter. He cautions that these reports go only part of the way towards building an accurate picture of the effects of methyl bromide, that more work is required before firm conclusions can be drawn, and, further, that measures have been taken over the last 6 years to reduce any risk of health impacts. Dr Kiddle states: “We are currently in mediation, and while this is proceeding the court has requested that all parties to the mediation refrain from public comment on issues discussed by the parties in mediation and issues arising from the reports.” I think that is very sound advice.
Lesley SoperHon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
Yes, I can. Even if used safely, methyl bromide is an ozone-depleting substance. As such, it is being phased out globally, in terms of the Montreal Protocol—the international agreement under which ozone-depleting substances are managed. I can further advise that the Government has already informed the strawberry industry that it will no longer be given any further critical use exemptions for the use of methyl bromide as a fumigant. I can advise further that Government agencies in Australia and New Zealand are actively investigating alternative fumigants for use in the timber industry.
In view of the Minister’s last answer, why does his Government allow methyl bromide fumigation to take place in specified locations all around New Zealand, including in residential areas, without any monitoring to ensure that the amount of methyl bromide being released into the atmosphere is at a level that is, allegedly, safe or any requirement to inform local residents; and why does his Government allow fumigation operators simply to open container doors and release this toxic and ozone-depleting gas directly into the atmosphere?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
I am advised that officials do support investigating different ways of monitoring gas discharge, and discharge and exposure rates, over time; that they also support the idea of using a recovery and destruction method, where possible, for fumigations; and that they support options to reduce gases discharged into the air. However, decisions on permitted or non-permitted activities in urban or regional areas are made by the relevant local authority under the Resource Management Act. In Nelson, for example, the use of methyl bromide in fumigation is subject to an ongoing case, as I have referred to. It is before the Environment Court and in mediation, and, therefore, it is inappropriate to comment further.
Can the Minister confirm that, contrary to his earlier answer, our use of methyl bromide has steadily increased since we signed the Montreal Protocol and said we would phase it out; and does he further agree that there should be a requirement on all users of methyl bromide to recapture the gas, not release it into the atmosphere?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
I certainly did not make a comment that the use of methyl bromide had decreased because of our trade and, in particular, increases in timber exports. It has consistently increased over recent years. But I confirm to the member that the issue of the use of methyl bromide is on the priority list of the Environmental Risk Management Authority for reassessment, and can I assist her by reading an extract from the authority’s reassessment evaluation form: “There are a number of steps underway to investigate a reduction in use and emissions of methyl bromide. These include discussions with trading partners to secure agreement on phytosanitary standards (on the use of alternatives to methyl bromide) that can be applied internationally, consideration of alternative treatments, a trial of recapture technology that will be run in the Nelson area this export log season and consideration of operational procedures including monitoring.”
I seek leave to table the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee, in response to a petition by Claire Gulman, that recommends, among other things—
Madam SPEAKER