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:845] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the third reading of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. It has been interesting to listen to the discussions in the Chamber today and last night. We have heard today that this bill will result in a saving of $2 million. When this bill goes through today—if it does—that will be an interesting Christmas present for all the orchardists and farmers to get. I cannot see where those savings will be made. I have listened to Minister Benson-Pope today and I am still unenlightened as to where that $2 million saving actually is. 
It is interesting to read section 96D(1)(b)(i) inserted by clause 20: “the benefits associated with a reduction of environmental and health risks outweigh the economic costs associated with complying with the group standard;”. What it actually says is there is a cost associated with this to do with environmental and health risks and it actually sounds to me a little like the Kyoto Protocol. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Oh what a disaster! 
NATHAN GUY 
: Indeed it is a disaster. This bill seems to me to be a bit of a rush job. It has been on the cards for 3 or 4 years. We heard from Mr Benson-Pope that there had been a few teething problems in the past. Suddenly we seem to be trying to crash this legislation through before Christmas. I wonder where the review is. Where is the date for a review? The whole thing seems like it could be a bit of an experiment. It seems to me and to other members of the House that this bill could be a bit cumbersome. It could be an experiment with no date for a review. We have highlighted today the costs and we are sick of hearing about compliance costs—I know that everyone has had a bash today. But we know that this bill will add costs. It will add costs to the importer and the retailer that will then flow on to the end user. 
It was also interesting to listen to the debate on Part 4. Regional councils will be left to bear the brunt of this legislation. We have seen just recently that Waikato ratepayers are subsidising a helicopter to go around checking on dairy farmers to see what is happening. It is sort of like Big Brother. Regional councils will be left to administer this measure and I ask where the money will come from. It will not come from the general taxpayer will it; it will actually come out of the ratepayer’s pocket. There will be no flow-on money from the Government. It will be left to the little old ratepayer to pay for this amendment via the regional council. Once again something is being passed through this House that will have a direct impact on the ratepayers of New Zealand. 
It is also interesting that many people will have to acquire approved handler certification. There will be some assessment of candidates. I am pleased that farmers who have a huge amount of experience in dealing with chemicals will not necessarily have to do a full-day course. I am pleased that the course will be reduced in some areas to a half-day course. The other thing I think is significant is that there is some relief around veterinary medicines. I would hate to see that farmers who drench their livestock on an almost monthly basis have to get handling certification. 
 A few of us took a trip to Gisborne the other day to see the flood-affected farmers the farmers of the East Coast whom this Government over there—of which New Zealand First is a part—has just snubbed. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. You say you are not members of the Government but you are sitting on that side and I tell you Mr Donnelly that you are definitely part of it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is not to bring the Chair into the debate; he is to refer to the member. 
NATHAN GUY 
: It is interesting to see that this Government has snubbed those farmers on the East Coast whose farms have been badly flooded and who are now out there trying to salvage their crops that have been water damaged and suffer from humidity and rot. In particular I am talking about squash. When I was there the other day it was interesting to see that the farmers were putting chemicals on their crops to try to salvage some of the possessions they have left. This Government does not care one iota about our primary production sector and assisting those people even though a precedent has been set. I have seen first-hand that those farmers are putting on chemicals and that is a double-edged sword for them. They get nothing from this Government. Their costs will go up as a result of this amendment bill. They are all paying huge taxes and there is no relief in sight for them. The backbone of the country has once again been let down by this Government—the hard-working primary production sector— 
Hon Member 
: The backbone of the country. 
NATHAN GUY 
:—the backbone of the country which supports 80 percent of this economy. 
Jill Pettis 
: Has the member forgotten the Manawatu floods? 
NATHAN GUY 
: Forgotten? The precedent was set in the Manawatu but that was before the election; now the East Coast people are feeling snubbed. They feel extremely disappointed. 
It was interesting to hear Dr Smith last evening signal that we should be working more closely with Australia to have a common agreement on standards—which I believe is paramount. It was also interesting to hear from Mr Donnelly that fly-by-nighters and importers will actually find it tougher to import substances into this country. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Who put the amendment in? Not you guys. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Oh the member should not worry about that. I tell Mr Donnelly that he should not give us historical rhetoric; let us face the facts now. He is well aware that this legislation will add a greater burden of compliance and be a greater burden on the people who actually support the economy. 
Looking forward I say that this amendment bill will enhance the environment. It is all about sustainability and I think we need to be mindful of that. Farmers and orchardists are looking forward to the $2 million of savings that will come from our passing this amendment today but I am mindful of the fact that they deserve better than what they get now from this Government.