Guy Nathan: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Guy Nathan: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:817] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 This is a very complex bill. It contains a large number of amendments is highly technical and is very much a procedural matter. I was unfortunate not to be in the House for the first reading or part of the Education and Science Committee so I will not stand here and pretend I can talk at length about the details. But I have had the opportunity to read the bill and I would like to highlight a couple of thoughts from the side. 
Like any Act the legislation is open to interpretation. I agree with the exposure limits set around the environmental exposure limits the tolerable exposure limits and the workplace exposure limits. I also agree with the type and nature of the group standards that will enable the Environmental Risk Management Authority to manage the risks. These set conditions will actually help manage them. 
But I would like everyone in the House to know that this is just another compliance cost. It was interesting to find that a Federated Farmers survey in 2004 projected that the cost to farmers of this legislation would be $100 million. That is what it will cost to transfer the agrichemicals—the herbicides the insecticides and the fungicides—across to this legislation. The cost to the arable farmers of this country is estimated to be $3000 per year per farmer. For pastoral farmers—and I see that Mr Bennett a pastoral farmer from the Waikato is in the House today—the cost to their sector is estimated to be $2000 per year per farmer. So this legislation will have significant costs across the board for our primary industries. Although we all know that our primary industries are the backbone of this country we tend to forget that a little bit in the House. We in the primary industries get walloped by large taxes and by compliance costs that flow through from this House. 
Another cost will be the certification costs to be an approved handler. Actually to assess whether the candidates comply with the legislation is another cost. I am pleased to see that the Environmental Risk Management Authority is acknowledging that many of the people who handle these chemicals on a day-to-day basis are skilled in doing that and that the authority will look at reducing the time involved in training. It is my understanding that farmers who deal with these chemicals on an ongoing basis—many on a daily basis—will not be required to sit a full-day course. I believe that is positive. They will still need to be certified. But I am conscious of the grandfathers out there spraying their tomatoes in their gardens and the grandmothers spraying aphids in their rose gardens. I would not like to see their having to go through all this compliance in order to be certified to handle these chemicals. 
On the plus side I was pleased to read that those who handle veterinary medicines—as many many farmers do on a daily basis—do not need to be approved handlers. Thank goodness for that. Many many farmers—the backbone of this country—drench their stock on a quarterly basis and some even more often. 
In closing I want to touch on some of the comments made by my colleagues last evening. I agree with Dr Nick Smith that we have to work more closely with Australia and get a common agreement. Also I am mindful of the comments made by Brian Donnelly of New Zealand First last evening when he talked about it being tougher for the fly-by-nighters to be able to import toxic substances into this country. I am extremely supportive of that. Mr Hutchison who has just joined me here on my left also talked about the safety of the whole environment in relation to toxic substances and I agree with what he said. I will be supporting these amendments but I am also mindful of the costs. The primary industries are getting walloped by costs and I am fearful that this is just another compliance cost going forward.