Bennett David: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Bennett David: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:823] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I thank Kate Wilkinson for that excellent insight and I also thank Nathan Guy who gave a very good address this morning in relation to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. 
Darren Hughes 
: They’re all greasing each other up! It’s the mutual appreciation society! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The soon to be relieved member for Otaki needs to listen to his esteemed colleague from that region in order to learn something about the practical implications of farming. As a farmer with a farming business I point out that it is important to see that a bill like this can be very PC and very appropriate for a Government to put in place but the reality is that small-business people and the people who actually make the money that makes this place tick will have to pay for it in compliance costs and in meeting the obligations of the legislation. 
As a practical farming element a key thing is that people will now find they have to get authorisation to travel with chemicals in their vehicles. So if they go into an RD1 store for example and buy chemicals they will have to get a form saying they can transport them back to their farms. Those kinds of compliance issues are very difficult for individual property owners and farmers in particular to comply with especially if they have staff who may go in to pick up such requirements and other issues such as that. Also farmers have to sign certain forms all the time. 
Federated Farmers have made a number of submissions on the compliance costs of the bill and it is important to look at those. They have calculated $100 million in direct costs and over $3 million in record-keeping and documentation costs. So we are talking about substantial compliance costs that have been identified. That will impact on all sectors especially the arable sector. That is especially because larger farms are more prominent these days and more chemicals are stored on those farms. Compliance costs for arable farmers were estimated at over $3000 and for pastoral farmers at over $2000. So we are putting substantial costs on to small businesses that are struggling under a very high dollar which is a result of the Government’s policies in respect of such things as interest rates and student loans. 
Federated Farmers also identified some potential problems from this kind of legislation. They include things like: costs falling on industry or representative organisations; additional certification costs if employees are required to buy these products; increased agrichemical product prices; risks associated with any public access to farms—and if the Government goes ahead with its proposals in this regard it could create another risk for people going on to properties and also for farmers—the complexity and cost of applications to the Environmental Risk Management Authority; the cost of resource applications to regional authorities; and compliance with regional plans. So the compliance costs are not just limited to the individual farmers; they actually go through the whole community. They are taken up in our regional and local government and therefore those compliance costs will be passed on to individuals through their rates bills. So we have to be mindful that this measure is not just about the farming community; it will be a compliance cost on all New Zealanders. 
A point raised by the Green Party was quite interesting. It is in relation to the cost of existing chemicals as against new ones. Although we do not want to put a lot of costs on to existing chemicals that have been proved to be effective the Green Party raised the very good point that we need to be proactive in looking for future opportunities in any chemical or biosecurity field. To put additional costs on the new latest technology can be detrimental to our undertaking those kinds of technological developments and that is not in the best interests of New Zealand agriculture which has been a leader over many years. 
So in essence the problem with the bill is that it significantly increases costs and controls on the farming sector—both arable and pastoral farmers—and will require stringent controls. There could be significant ongoing and potential costs and there will be increasing bureaucracy and red tape. That is a serious burden on New Zealand businesses that are trying to get ahead.