Guy Nathan: Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Guy Nathan: Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:6911] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 It is very difficult to follow on from that speech. The member from the West Coast Damien O’Connor was obviously a little bit confused near the end of the speech. It reminded me of a sort of bedtime speech written by the research unit where he trundled on for 10 minutes and really did not address the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill very much at all. He may have in the last couple of minutes before he became confused. I was interested to hear him mention there would be no increase in compliance costs and I heard the Minister of Finance interject: “Yeah right! Heard that before.” So I guess it will be up to the select committee to determine that one. I also heard the member from the West Coast talk about the duplication of other Acts and that is a real concern I have having had a look through the bill. 
In essence the bill is a bit of a tidy-up. The Food Safety Authority was formed in 2002 following on from this Act in 2001. It will clarify the statutory backing for arrangements to restrict supply sale and use of certain trade names—in particular 1080. It will also enable the transfer of registration. It will also define what an agriculture compound is. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Wow! 
NATHAN GUY 
: Would the member like me to tell him what that is? That is essentially natural and processed animal feed and substances used post-harvest. The bill also clarifies the benefits of registering a trade name product. 
 I have some particular concerns about this bill as it goes forward and I will talk a little about them. It appears that there could be some duplication in terms of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and I think it is very important to define that at the select committee. Reading through I believe there is quite a bit of duplication around the bill and that Act. In particular I alert the House to the part of this bill that deals with uncleared goods because the biosecurity inspector has the powers to detect an exotic disease outbreak that could occur in New Zealand. I think it is very important to realise that the inspectors are extremely important to this country’s biosecurity. 
It is quite appropriate I guess for me to mention that point right now when we have just had 1.8 tonnes of corn come in from the States and planted in New Zealand and I heard today the Minister of Agriculture mention that it was a human error. So we have had 1.8 tonnes of corn come into this country and I think that is a real concern for our little island nation. I was pleased to hear that he is going to have an inquiry into this. I hope it is not going to be like the Noel Ingram QC inquiry into the Taito Phillip Field allegations which was pretty toothless. This has to be a very complex inquiry because human health is at stake here. Important issues to raise around this biosecurity breach are that the Minister was a little unclear whether these plants will be destroyed and whether there will be some compensation to those landowners who have already planted the seed that has managed to creep through our borders. 
It brings to mind another issue that I should mention the varroa bee mite in the Nelson region. The Minister was advised that there was an 80 percent chance of success in containing that and he did not choose to take it so now the varroa bee mite is spread throughout the South Island. We have also seen didymo come in to the South Island. We had a scare recently in the Rangitikei. Fortunately it has not reached the North Island yet but once again the Minister had an opportunity to get stuck into that and try to contain it in the lakes and rivers of the deep south. So there are some real concerns around biosecurity in this country. 
I also want to talk about the importation and manufacture of unrestricted compounds and in particular special circumstances and that is in the explanatory note. I want to mention that the Director-General of Agriculture and Forestry has the power under this bill to approve one-off circumstances. If we had a rabies outbreak in this country it would be vital that we got a vaccine in from abroad very very quickly. That is a power that the director-general under this bill will have. 
The other thing that is important is to have clear lines of communication and cooperation between two of the big authorities the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority—that is really paramount. The proposed changes will allow the director-general to recognise the person standards being met. In particular I refer to new section 33 where the sale and trade name can be restricted to the authorised person. That needs to apply to those recognised persons under the legislation. 
I heard the member for West Coast - Tasman reading out that bedtime story before. He talked about the two discussion documents that had pretty wide stakeholder consultation in April 2002 and also in 2004 when there were some amendments that went back to those key stakeholders. That is detailed under “Stakeholder consultation” in the explanatory note on the bill. The important thing is that there has been some dialogue with the stakeholders but I am still concerned that there may appear to be some duplication between the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and this bill before us tonight. 
It is extremely important that I allude to the cost recovery. The explanatory note talks about a levy and the real concern there is that this could be introduced carte blanche. That would be a real concern to a lot of those people who would bear the brunt of that cost. In particular I am talking about the 18000 Federated Farmers members the 12000 suppliers to Fonterra the 7000 vegetable growers in this country the 500-odd winegrowers and the 600 who are involved in the viticulture and horticulture industry. Those people would end up bearing the brunt of what I believe could be quite a costly business. 
National will be supporting this bill but we do have some concerns around the cost and it will be down to the Primary Production Committee to iron those out. In particular I want to talk about those involved with the transport business because for them with the necessary legislation around storage and having the right labelling on their vehicles etc. there will be an increasing cost in time and an increasing cost in personal consultation there will be more paperwork and documentation to take through and there will actually be more processes and procedures that will add to compliance costs. This bill talks about the $85 an hour that will be charged out. 
Debate interrupted.