Roy Eric: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Roy Eric: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:834] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I have a few points to make about the enforcement provisions in Part 3 but in no particular order. The first point relates to clause 21 which substitutes “territorial authority” for “local authority”. I have not seen the arguments made but I presume that territorial authorities are probably the more appropriate bodies. My concern is not so much about who does the enforcement as about the costs. We have seen Parliament pass legislation time and time again on a range of matters such as the legislation regarding motorcar use— 
Chris Tremain 
: Prostitution. 
ERIC ROY 
: —the prostitution legislation the impositions around smoking and the Building Act. The list goes on and on. Again I ask: who will pick up the tab in respect of this bill? The Committee has a responsibility to consider the implications of what we are doing. The bill deals with a significant area but the enforcement provisions load the costs on to the most significant and most important body: the local territorial authority. 
In that regard I do not see any clarity offered in clause 22 which inserts section 97B. I look at subsection (2) and see the words “may appoint enforcement officers” and “may exercise the powers of inspectors under the Health and Safety in Employment Act”. Perhaps I have missed something and I ask the Minister to explain whether that is optional or is required. If we are to have a regime that protects absolutely then I would have thought that “may” should not be used but rather words that are clear and definitive about the way in which the enforcement powers are to be enacted. Perhaps the Minister could explain that. 
I move on to clause 27 which inserts new section 122 “Power to require hazardous substance to leave New Zealand”. I think every person of a reasonable disposition would say that if someone brings in something that is inappropriate it should go. I am in absolute agreement with that but my concern relates to a matter that is not covered. I ask the Minister to give some consideration to what happens to goods that are bona vacantia—in other words do not have a home. I have to say that if I were of a nature to bring in something that was a bit doubtful I would construct a little path of confusion about ownership or create some kind of parent company or some kind of construction of safe houses or something that would absolve me and make it difficult to trace the goods to me. I am aware of such things happening in some circumstances. So although the amendment in clause 27 requires the person who brings in the goods to take responsibility for the cost of removal and we would tick that off and say it is excellent in the case of goods that are bona vacantia—no owner no home—and a risk what thought and what provisions have been made to pick up on that anomaly? 
 I believe it is a real anomaly. I know as I said earlier of instances where that has occurred with regard to hazardous substances. I know of people who want to bring in something that is on the edge and that maybe there are some questions about—maybe their bookwork has not been done and they intend to get it done here and the substance does not comply. There is a range of issues whereby that sort of situation can occur and if there is not a very clear trail back to the person or entity who brought the substance in who actually pays? Then there is the other element that comes out of this whole argument: the company that brings the substance in may not be able to afford the transit of the goods back out again if they do not comply. It is very easy to understand how someone may have taken for want of a better word a punt on a new product in the belief that it is a magic bullet—a cure-all—and something from which he or she will make a considerable profit. But in bringing the product in the person may have extended himself or herself and be in a position where he or she actually does not have the finances to be able—or again the person may have constructed some kind of company that is unable—to afford to move it out.