Tisch Lindsay: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18784] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 This is very important legislation and both National speakers the Hon Dr Nick Smith who has expertise in these matters and the Hon David Carter who is a practising farmer well versed with what hazardous substances and new organisms are about have stated a very strong case—a very strong case indeed—that because of its importance it should not be going to the Education and Science Committee. The reason for that is that there are precedents where such legislation has gone to other committees. My colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith is moving an amendment along those lines and I think that this House should support that proposition. 
This is no slight at all on the chair of the Education and Science Committee Brian Donnelly. We know that he is a very competent chair. We know that his expertise in education is very very strong—we acknowledge that. But he will have a major task ahead of him with regard to the National Certificate of Educational Achievement and what has been happening over the last few days. It is certainly our view that given the time frame for the report back date of this bill which will be in June the bill would be better served by a committee that does also have expertise in this particular field and that would be able to be expedite and meet the deadlines that the Government wishes to see progressed. So with that in mind it is certainly our view that the bill should go through to the other committee. I just want to make the point very clearly that this is not a reflection on the chair of the Education and Science Committee but is because we know that he has a major task ahead of him—an important task that the whole of New Zealand knows about at this stage. 
There are some major compliance costs associated with this legislation. I refer here to a compliance cost report on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. This is a draft presentation for Meat and Wool New Zealand Dairy InSight Deer Industry New Zealand the Foundation for Arable Research and Federated Farmers of New Zealand. So a very very comprehensive report has been done. It is dated August 2004 and is a draft report on the challenges facing the sector at that time. I just want to quote from the executive summary of this report. “This project qualifies the on-farm costs of complying with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act of 1996 in respect to pesticides and dangerous goods commonly used in the arable dairy deer sheep beef and agricultural sectors.” 
I was a farmer for many years in the area of arable farming. I used to grow large acreages of potatoes onions and soy beans along with maize. In those areas we did use some of those products and chemicals. It is important in the agricultural sector that pests are controlled and diseases are kept out but at the same time we acknowledge the risks that are associated with the handling of those products not only to the people who may be selling them but also to the users. I know that Sue Kedgley mentioned that about 70000-odd—I cannot remember the figure exactly—products are on the market that have no certification or registration and she specifically mentioned cosmetics. I do not know much about cosmetics. However I know that the member Sue Kedgley knows a lot about cosmetics so I shall leave it there. I do not want to be outdone on that. I do not like to lose on these things and I know that Sue Kedgley is right up with the play on cosmetics. 
I shall get back to something that I do know about and that of course is the agricultural sector. The report states that the cost of compliance with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to the agricultural sector—and that is what it is related to—is $106 million. 
Hon David Carter 
: Direct costs. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Those are direct costs. On top of that—and this is the point—there is another $321 million of indirect costs for approved handling certificates test certification services storage signage and safety equipment requirements. So a huge compliance cost will be put on the wealth creators of New Zealand the primary industries. As my colleague the Hon David Carter mentioned earlier on during the debate on the Veterinarians Bill—and members may recall that I took a call on that bill—the agricultural sector is the heart and soul of New Zealand and the backbone of the country. I am sure that Gerard Eckhoff from ACT would support that as he sits there and acknowledges my words. He is a farmer so he knows those things. When we look at the direct costs of $106 million and the indirect costs of $321 million we see that significant costs have been identified in the report. 
I think that we need to break those costs down further and ask what they mean on a per farm basis. At the end of the day we need to know what it will cost the individual operator the person who will have to fund this regime off the bottom line as it were in his or her budget. The figure is absolutely staggering; it equates to $4222 per farm. People may think that the economic viability of farming is so great that farmers could just write out a cheque for that sort of compliance cost. However they cannot do that. Those who are practitioners in that field—and Mr Eckhoff is nodding at me—know that I am right. I know that the Hon David Carter who has his sheep farm on Banks Peninsula certainly understands what those costs are. It has been identified in the executive summary—and I shall quote from it—that: “Costs can be divided into different sectors. Dairy sheep and beef are identified by the Environmental Risk Management Authority as commonly using a similar combination of agrochemicals.” and I can understand that. 
When we are dealing with livestock farmers that includes dairy and beef farmers. The summary does not mention deer but I know that livestock farmers have even goats. The Waikato area I represent has a large number of goat farmers producing fibre and milk from goats. We also have huge numbers of deer farms. Deer farming is a significant contributor to the economy in my particular area. I know that Landcorp is New Zealand’s biggest farmer. I was a director of Landcorp for 6 years. In my days as a director with Landcorp we moved into deer farming in a big way as of course we see here with regard to the dairy sheep and beef sector. The products and chemicals used in that sector are different from what arable farmers would be using. In my experience in the arable farming sector especially in relation to horticultural crops— 
Hon David Carter 
: Potatoes! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Yes and potato growers. Potatoes are grown in the Matamata area because of the soil type and other agricultural crops are being grown: potatoes onions pumpkins for export buttercup squash and the sorts of crops that we export. That is what is important here. This is where the economy of the country is. These are the wealth creators of New Zealand. These are the people who are generating the money for the country. 
Finally I say this is important legislation. National will support this bill although as I indicated earlier not its referral to the select committee that the Government wants it to be referred to.