2021 Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill

Publications & Resources

Submission: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill

Environment Committee. MP in charge: David Parker

Deadline for submission: October 3, 2021

Link to oral transcript text and live presentation (commencing at 26 minutes). Presented by Jodie Bruning. Presentation to: Hon Eugenie Sage, Rachel Booking, Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki, Angie Warren-Clarke, Nicola Willis, Tangi Ukitere, Scott Simpson, Shanan Halbert.

PSGR supported the Ministry for the Environment's proposal to amend legislation to enable the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority to apply data, information, assessments, and decisions from trusted regulators with a consideration of the New Zealand context. Our submission expresses concern hat the future Methodology document referred to in the Bill digest is structured to prioritise European decisions.

This amendment Bill follows a 2019 consultation: Hazardous substances assessments: Improving decision-making.

We urge New Zealand to transition towards making better use of international regulators. The sheer volume of chemicals that require assessment are beyond the capacity of a single national regulator. Over 6,000 chemicals constitute the bulk of chemical emissions, of these 62% are hazardous to health.[1] The result of this is that there are substantial gaps in knowledge that require international co-operation to address.

The Cabinet paper[2] which sought approval for the Amendment Bill noted that the changes are ‘aimed for better protection of human health, safety, and the environment’. This bill can ensure assessment and reassessment processes can more effectively protect ‘human health, safety, and the environment.’

This submission makes several recommendations:

We support the amendment as stated in the RIA: enable the EPA to apply data, information, assessments, and decisions from trusted regulators with a consideration of the New Zealand context (with consultation in its discretion, except in particular circumstances).[3]
The purpose of the bill must be to protect human and environmental health and future text can be deepened to ensure that the use of discretion by the Authority is required to support the purpose.
We highlight a weakness in the current approval and assessment process, in systemic deficiencies which result in regulatory decision-making defaulting to decisions that support industry claims.
We are concerned that where a review is triggered by an international decision, the current absence of human and environmental monitoring and research efforts will inevitably result in political controversy that is likely to tilt decision-making to favour industry claims over protection.
The absence of a strong scientific community has left hazardous substances regulation dependent upon offshore, unpublished industry data. There are no feedback loops which demand that local effects and exposures to human and environmental health are integrated in deliberation.
Currently cost-benefit scenarios favour productivity claims. Cost-benefit analyses used in regulatory assessment are currently unable to account for ecosystem deterioration, and off-target impact.
We recommend that a stronger application of the precautionary principle is applied. Uncertainty is a prevalent in risk management. Particular attention can be paid to emphasising uncertainty in legislation and the obligation to act precautionarily to protect environmental and human health, and that in terms of environmental health this may reflect a species-specific protective stance.
Decisions from trusted regulators may be applied to change the status of a chemical or tighten controls in favour of human and environmental health. However, the downgrading or loosening of controls should trigger a formal risk assessment or reassessment process and public consultation.
That the future Methodology is structured to prioritise European decisions. The European Commission places the precautionary principle at a high level in policy and regulation. Hazard-based European decisions may more appropriately navigate uncertainty due to the recognition that it is largely unknown at what level disease states triggered by exposure to mutagenic, carcinogenic, reprotoxic and endocrine disrupting substances commence.

REFERENCES

[1] United Nations Environment Programme, 2019. Global Chemicals Outlook II From Legacies to Innovative Solution

[2] MfE. Parker. June 30 2020. Policy approval for proposed amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 2zkv166sx 2020-06-30 09:31:04

[3] Regulatory Impact Assessments on proposed amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2021-07/ria-mfe-hsnoa-nov20.pdf p.19

Submission text:

Download

Oral transcript:

Download

Information

Providing scientific & medical information & analysis in the service of the public's right to be independently informed on issues relating to human & environmental health.