Goudie Sandra: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:835] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 That was an excellent contribution from my colleague Eric Roy on the term “bona vacantia”. I have to mention here that the term “bona vacantia” is not in the definitions in the original Act or in the bill. I do think that the Minister should give us an explanation with regard to bona vacantia. This is something we should all know about. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Bona vacantia means “happy holidays”! 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Happy holidays? OK. There is huge concern about dumping costs on to local authorities yet this Government is doing it again. The costs of enforcement in relation to hazardous substances will now be in the hands of local authorities. Members should think about what that really means. This is about testing equipment and proving the case or not proving it because in most cases nowadays people are deemed to be guilty and have to prove their innocence. This is about abatement notices enforcement officers and court procedures. No wonder this Government is talking about a $2 million saving. It looks like it is going to pass the cost on to local authorities. I suggest that it will cost far more than $2 million to local authorities throughout New Zealand and as a consequence that cost will be transferred to the ratepayers of this country and ratepayers are groaning under the weight of those costs. They really cannot accept any more impositions from this Government. But more are in the pipeline. 
The other day I was reading a document about housing. It was from a Government department promoting housing through local authorities’ long-term council community plans. It is the wish list for anybody who wants anything through local authorities and of course it is the ratepayers who have to pay for that. Here is another part of that wish list. The Government wants to transfer the onus of responsibility but without giving any remuneration for the costs associated with it. That is happening constantly with this Government and it will do that for all of its social services. If the Government can get away with it it will put more and more of its social services on to local government without a brass razoo going along with it. I think it is an absolute disgrace and it is time that that was addressed. 
We are also concerned about the cost on the farming sector the agricultural sector. Of course if the Government thinks it is making savings we know why. If it is not dumping costs on to local authorities it is dumping them on to farmers. I would like to answer some of the questions that were raised with regard to those costs. Where are the savings going to be? If we look at one of the submissions we see that the total cost of compliance with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is calculated to be nearly $105 million. This averages out at $2230 per farm in set-up costs and does not include any ongoing costs from 2007 onwards. For the arable sector the set-up cost was going to be about $3000 per farm. But does this Government actually care about those cost-compliance issues for businesses which include farming? No. It does not take any cognisance of that at all. In spite of all the rhetoric there is no substance and the Government does not actually follow through. This is another one of those instances. Those costs will be passed on to farmers and on to ratepayers through local authorities having to enforce them. Does having to enforce those costs mean local authorities will be getting into that whole eye in the sky stuff as well? I do not see that as necessarily being a part of this unless it is a visual assessment of the effects of any use of a hazardous substance. 
There has been an inadequate cost-benefit analysis of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to justify the costs to the industry. We see the costs being rorted too in the way people have to sit tests for the use of hazardous substances. Lots of people are now getting into the exercise of providing educational opportunities that farmers have to comply with and have to participate in at their cost.