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:831] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I rise to talk to Part 2. In particular I would like to bring to the attention of members section 96D(1)(b)(i) inserted by clause 20 which states: “the benefits associated with a reduction of environmental and health risks outweigh the economic costs associated with complying with the group standard;”. That is a significant point. What it means I believe is that although we have to be mindful of the environment that comes at a cost. I think we all need to be very much aware of that. If this amending legislation goes through today it will actually come at a cost. 
It was interesting to hear the Minister talk when he took a call about whether there is actually a time line for a review. I cannot see it anywhere in this document and I think that is significant. It sounds to me—and Dr Hutchison agrees—as though this legislation is a bit like an experiment. Where is the review? Will it happen in 2008? Will it happen in 2010? Or will it never happen? 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Or will it happen after a disaster? 
NATHAN GUY 
: That is right Dr Hutchison; that is a very valid point. I believe that we actually need to think seriously about putting a date in here for a review so that this experiment does not go wonky and end up becoming a disaster for this country. 
David Bennett 
: You had better make sure that they do not change the results either. 
NATHAN GUY 
: That is exactly right. The member from the Waikato has some first-hand experience with the hazardous substances legislation as a farmer and he knows that this amendment will be extremely costly on his business and on the businesses of his peers right across New Zealand. 
So I say again that I believe we need to be very cautious about this experiment. We should consider the efficacy around the bill and how it could potentially be costly and cumbersome for this country. We know that the costs will flow from the importer through to the retailer and on to the end-user. I talked about that previously—about the costs and about how farmers will bear the brunt of them. The costs will be passed down when the legislation is passed in this Parliament without thinking about the end-user. We know it will cost another $3000 for arable farmers. 
We have heard about $2 million of savings here today but I cannot see where the $2 million of savings are. Where are they? The member for Rangitikei who I believe might have sat on the Education and Science Committee knows that is an issue. Where are the $2 million of savings? I cannot see them. It would be great for the Minister to take a call and outline to a back-bench MP where the $2 million of savings are so I can actually understand that. 
Anne Tolley 
: Does he know? 
NATHAN GUY 
: I am not sure whether he does. That is why I would be quite keen for him to take a call and explain to me where the $2 million of savings are. 
What I can see is that we need to be mindful of protecting the environment and of the sustainability of this thing. But this legislation will lead to extra costs. I am concerned about the experiment and I think we need to have a date in the bill for a review.