Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The bill’s primary objectives are to introduce a new approval mechanism, known as the group standard; to include regional councils as hazardous substances enforcement agencies that may enforce the Act; to increase the ability to set practical exposure limits to protect people and the environment; and to improve the workability of rapid assessment, reassessment, and several other provisions including those for exempt laboratories.

The amendments contained in this bill will reduce costs to the Government and to industry, reduce barriers to innovation, and better protect the environment and the health and safety of people in our communities. The bill is not divisive, setting up business against the environment. This legislation is good for business and the environment, and, perhaps most important, this bill is good for people.

The changes in the bill will ensure that the processes of the Act work better, providing meaningful reductions in costs to industry and the Government, and reducing barriers to innovation without compromising what the Act originally set out to achieve—a healthy environment for all New Zealanders. Concern has been expressed at the time frames within which the select committee was asked to report on this bill. I acknowledge that those time frames were tighter than the norm, and I thank the committee and its chair, Mr Donnelly, for their diligent work in returning this bill to the House. The pressure on timing comes from the time provided for the transitional provisions of the Act. That transitional period ends on 1 July 2006 and by that date all transfers must be complete. Delay means that businesses would continue to have to comply with hazardous substances and new organisms controls for some substances, and controls from the old legislation for others.

Passing this bill means that businesses will be able to get on with business under one piece of legislation, whereas previously there were four inconsistent and overlapping processes. This reduces costs for both business and the Government. Contrary to some concerns that have been raised, the bill enhances the protection of the environment and the health and safety of people and communities. The bill does this through group standards that will enable hazardous substance and new organism controls to be applied not only to the many currently uncontrolled notified toxic substances but also to hazardous wastes. The bill further enhances the protection of the environment and the health and safety of people and communities by removing the barriers to setting the exposure limit controls that protect people and the environment.

I moved a number of amendments to the bill during the Committee stage. Those amendments remove the legal circularity that currently prevents New Zealand from meeting its obligations under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. This is an important convention, as it provides for the safe disposal of persistent organic pollutants, including polychlorinated biphenyl. Other amendments clarify the consultation obligations of the Environmental Risk Management Authority around group standards and notices of transfer. They also provide consistency around the authority’s powers to incorporate materials by reference and group standards, and notices of transfer.

I also remind members of the benefits that the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation brings to the management of hazardous substances. I have explained in my earlier comments that this bill represents a significant step forward in protecting the environment and improving the living standards of all New Zealanders. Hazardous substances do bring us a great many benefits. They allow us to be more productive, to generate more with less, to grow more with less, and to achieve more with less. The bill not only ensures that economic growth can be more sustainable; it actually enhances the sustainable economic growth potential of our country.

Like many new ideas, there were some teething difficulties with the Act, and in June 2003 my colleague Marian Hobbs announced a hazardous substances strategy to improve the workability of the Act. This debate marks another vital milestone in delivering that strategy. It is important to speak of the strategy now, because it was effectively a promise to industry and to all New Zealanders to deliver good environmental governance through effective legislation. The Government promised to fix the Resource Management Act, and I believe we have done so. We promised to fix Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, and we are in the process of doing that.

This debate marks our commitment to deliver on the outcome of good environmental governance through effective legislation. We said we would do it, and we are doing it right now. The bill will reduce costs to the Government and to industry, it will reduce barriers to innovation, and it will better protect the environment and the health and safety of the people in our communities. I am pleased to commend the bill to the House.

I must say that we have just heard a revelational speech from Minister Benson-Pope, who said that the Labour Government had promised to fix the Resource Management Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, and that it has done that. I have not heard of anything as ridiculous as that in my life. New Zealanders up and down this country are deeply outraged by the ways in which the Labour Government has imposed compliance costs on them through those two Acts.

It may be that in this particular bill there is an intention to reduce compliance costs, but no one knows—and the Minister would not confirm—whether there would be any monitoring of this amendment to ensure that it was efficacious. There were absolutely no promises of that from the Minister, and, certainly, when we heard the absolutely ridiculous statement from a Minister of the Labour Government that it had fixed the Resource Management Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, we knew that it was officially in denial. That is, indeed, a very serious condition to be in. It is so serious that Labour should, instead of taking just the end-of-year break in 24 hours’ time, take a complete break—resign, and give the opportunity to the New Zealand people to vote in a National Government for 2006. It is the height of ridiculousness for the new Minister to suggest that the Labour Government has fixed the Resource Management Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.

I note that both New Zealand First and the Green leader, Jeanette Fitzsimons, have made quite a lot of comment about the genesis of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. I agree that it is important to think about its genesis. As Jeanette Fitzsimons told the House, in the 1970s and 1980s, prior to that legislation being enacted, there were about 20 different pieces of legislation, which were all over the place and non-comprehensive. There were calls from right around the country to make it into comprehensive legislation. The bill that Simon Upton introduced in 1996 was world-leading and cutting edge. Yes, there were indeed problems with it, and I think that that is what often happens with cutting edge legislation. However, one would have thought that after 6 years of a Labour Government, which had been critical for a long time of some of the deficiencies of the Act, it would do something about it, instead of bringing this amendment into the House under urgency, 24 hours before it adjourns for the end of the year. I do recognise that Brian Donnelly, the chairman of the Education and Science Committee, and I are in absolute agreement on that fact.

Another revelation has struck me today, and it is that New Zealand First is no longer a schizophrenic chameleon in Opposition. Brian Donnelly has confirmed that New Zealand First has formally transformed into an official poodle of the Labour Government. It was quite extraordinary that Brian Donnelly suggested that compliance costs had not been thought through extremely carefully by the National Opposition, both in terms of the Resource Management Act—and we have put up amendment after amendment aimed specifically to reduce compliance costs—and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, where, in respect of the new organisms aspect of it, again, legislative changes were proposed and amendments put up to reduce compliance costs, which were absolutely valid and appropriate. Yet Brian Donnelly has suggested that National has not consistently supported the changes, whereas the Labour Government—which New Zealand First has formally and officially moved across to—is where New Zealand First is, and that is one of the other revelations regarding this bill.

Federated Farmers did put up a very well-thought-out, technical submission and assessment of the costs of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. They assessed that it costs New Zealanders, in terms of the set-up cost, something like $102 million, and, in terms of each arable farmer, on average, about $3,000 a year. When the Government says that this particular amendment will save $2 million, and the Minister gives us no reassurance whatsoever that there will be any monitoring of the efficacy of the amendment, then any faith in the Government erodes and crumbles away.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: No one believes anything he says.

It is absolutely correct that no one believes anything that David Benson-Pope says.

However, David Benson-Pope did give an assurance to New Zealanders that the costs of revoking the registration of some of the toxic substances and then carrying out an appropriate risk management assessment would be available from the Government. I think it is very, very important that he is held to the promise he has made to the New Zealand people today. The Environmental Risk Management Authority says that it simply does not have the resources available if, indeed, those toxic substances do require revocation from the register and a full assessment. The authority says that the cost will be about $1 million per substance, and that it simply does not have that money. We are in a situation whereby the authority says, on the one hand, that it is just not possible to transfer everything across by June 2006—the date by which that should occur—and, on the other hand, that it does not have the resources to carry out an appropriate risk management assessment of those substances that will be identified, inevitably, as being a worry to New Zealanders and to our environment. That is of considerable concern.

I will just point out two things that I think are certainly of value in this bill. I mentioned them before. The first relates to the rapid assessment and approval of other hazardous substances in special emergencies. We in New Zealand have had various concerns over the last few years, one being the varroa bee mite. The fact that it has become endemic in New Zealand raises a huge concern about the efficacy of our biosecurity agencies. As I understand it, only one bee scientist in New Zealand is at a level that one would expect international best practice to conform to. It was not until the varroa mite was endemic in New Zealand that it was suddenly realised that it was here. When the Labour Government gave up and said that it could not eradicate the mite, bee-keepers said that they needed a miticide to fix their hives. It was not possible through the legislation to make that available, so it took a tremendous amount of work to get this lazy Labour Government to provide for special circumstances when a miticide would be available.

But let us just imagine, if we did not have this legislation, what would happen if we had a foot-and-mouth outbreak and we were not able to get the best therapies possible to ensure that it could be combated in the most efficacious way. Fortunately, new section 49L is to be inserted in the Act by clause 12 of the bill. That is important; it should have happened long ago.

I had the opportunity to be part of the Education and Science Committee when it deliberated on this bill in the last Parliament. My good friend Brian Donnelly chaired the committee, and I think we did a good job. We received a lot of submissions from the industry, scientists, and environmental people. I think this bill is really good in terms of promoting business, the environment, and the health and safety of people in our community. This bill really relates to group standards, which are something the industry has been asking for, for quite some time. It puts together a number of substances that, in particular, the farming community and the industry use. I think it will reduce the cost to the Government and the industry, reduce barriers to innovation, and better protect the environment and the health and safety of people. I am delighted that the industry, which the Government consulted, supports this bill.

Very briefly, the group standards will reduce cost to the industry by reducing the number of applications that businesses need to make to the Environmental Risk Management Authority, and by providing simpler prescriptive alternatives to technical controls and regulations. With that, I support this bill.

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!

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.

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 Manawatū floods?

Forgotten? The precedent was set in the Manawatū, 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.

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.

I think most of the issues have been covered in the debate, but I do have to make some comments upon one or two things. In relation to the last speech by Nathan Guy, I have to say that it really is quite sad that such a nice guy in such a short space of time should be driven to talk such drivel. But that is what happens when members get too close to National. Members on the other side have to realise that I was in that situation once. We had colleagues like Tau Henare who actually sat around in 1996 and said that they would never be seated around the table with the likes of Jim Bolger and Jenny Shipley, but now he is on that side of the House. That is what happens when they get with National. It is sad and unfortunate; nevertheless, that is the way things are.

Paul Hutchinson made some points about how New Zealand First has changed its position, but I want to make the point that New Zealand First has not changed its position towards this legislation one millimetre from the time we sat on that side of the House, right next door to National. We certainly have not changed our opinion that at that particular stage earlier in the year the National members who were sitting beside us were lacking in intellectual substance—they are still lacking in intellectual substance, and we have not changed our position one iota. But I want to ask Paul Hutchinson one thing, and it is a challenge—

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a point that the Jeanette Fitzsimons took against me some years ago. It concerns me that the member referred to me as Paul “Hutchinson”. In actual fact, the Hutchinsons were the side of the family that invented the thumbscrew, while we ourselves are a particularly gallant and honourable lot.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order.

I shall henceforth refer to the member as “Dr Paul”! Let us face it: how many members in this house would actually refer to “B scientists”? I mean, that has to be an insult to all scientists in this country.

The member has stated that New Zealand First has changed its position. It has not changed its position, and I challenge National speakers to tell us of one amendment that they have put up to change this particular legislation—just one issue they actually fought for and tried to change within the legislation in its passage through the select committee and through this House. I challenge the members on the other side of the House to come up with just one word in this bill they wanted changed. Was there one? I tell the House that there was not one instance of any effort to make any change to this legislation by National members sitting on the other side.

There was, from New Zealand First. I can tell members that all of the changes that came in this legislation through its process actually came from New Zealand First, and those changes tightened up some of the issues in there. But not one thing came from National. Therefore, for National members to say that they oppose this bill and think it is terrible, but to have done absolutely nothing except vote for it—that is all they have done—then we know there is a set of goalposts stamped on their foreheads. That is the point I need to make; I am challenging members on the other side of the House.

Let us face it: we are talking about cross-benchers here. We were cross-benchers before, we are still cross-benchers, and I can categorically say that I am not a part of the Government constitutionally—absolutely not a part of the Government, any more than Georgina Beyer is. But as we did in the last Parliament, we will operate in a way that will further the interests of New Zealanders, and of New Zealand as a nation. If legislation has to be moved forward in that particular interest, New Zealand First will do it. We will continue to operate in that particular manner.

However, I do have to say that I agree with “Dr Paul” on one particular point. I also was gobsmacked by the statement of David Benson-Pope that “This Government promised to fix the Resource Management Act—and we have done it.” That is an unbelievable statement, and if Government members actually believe it, then they have to have their minds sorted out. Of course, a party like New Zealand First is eminently placed to be able to sort their minds out on such issues.

We have heard an awful lot this morning about compliance costs for business. We have heard about the trouble it will give farmers. We have heard all of that from the National Party, which is voting for the bill. We have heard from the Labour Party that this legislation will reduce compliance costs—we have not really heard how—but we have not heard anybody talk this morning about the nature of the materials that this legislation tries to regulate, and why they need to be regulated.

I think it is time that somebody spoke about those issues, because amongst the thousands and thousands of chemicals that we are transferring from old legislation to new legislation—but without any change in the way they are managed or in the regulations under which they have to be used—are some chemicals that are known to be capable of causing cancer, some that are known to be capable of causing birth defects, some that are known to be capable of causing and do cause chronic illnesses, some that are known to be hormone disrupters and that affect people’s reproductive systems and their general health, and some that are known to accumulate in the environment long term and to concentrate up food chains. Surely, that is the reason we have legislation to try to control these substances. We have heard nothing from anybody in the Chamber about how this legislation will improve the management of those hazards.

We have heard from one National Party speaker that we should not have any compliance rules or any enforcement; we should just trust people who use these substances to use them wisely. I wonder whether the National Party actually needs a lesson in toxicology or in the illness that is caused in society by exposure to hazardous chemicals. It makes me very concerned that the House does not see fit to debate the health effects of these substances, but only whether it will be inconvenient for farmers to have to have some training or whether it will be costly for industries to have to pay assessment costs to have their products approved for sale, given that they make enormous amounts of money out of selling those chemicals and there are consequences for the rest of society.

As I said in the second reading debate, the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation sets up a system of grandfathering, whereby substances that have already been approved under old and—everybody agrees—inadequate legislation are grandfathered in under the new legislation and approved, and there is no way that that can then be challenged except at enormous cost to the Crown. It creates a perpetual property right, or a perpetual consent, to use those substances without further assessment in a way that no other legislation does for any other purpose. If we want a consent to take water, discharge into water, discharge into air, or use land for a purpose under the Resource Management Act, we have a time limit on that consent. We have to apply for a new consent at the end of it, so we can go through a process to check whether what we are doing is still acceptable by modern standards, whether there are better ways of doing it, whether the consent should have new conditions on it, or whether, in fact, the consent should not be allowed at all.

It has been widely accepted, virtually forever, that consents are not perpetual, but these consents are to be perpetual in such a way that it would be an enormous cost to the Crown to reassess the chemicals that the Environmental Risk Management Authority already knows need reassessment. The authority has a list of the ones it is concerned about. It has a list of chemicals that do not meet best international practice, either in being used at all or in being used under the conditions that they are currently used under. There is no time, before 30 June 2006, to put those chemicals through a rigorous reassessment, so they are being brought in and given a perpetual consent. The only way they can be reassessed in the future is at the cost of the Crown. My bet is that they will not be reassessed, because the authority will never persuade the Minister of Finance to make enough Budget available to go through those processes. That is why we need to set up a system where the applicant pays the cost to get its consent continued. That opportunity has now been missed.

At the same time, this legislation creates a great disincentive for innovation. New Zealand is too small a market for a company to apply to introduce a new chemical that is better and, particularly, less environmentally harmful than an existing chemical, if it has to face the full cost of the assessment of the new chemical, but it gets to continue a consent for the old chemical forever, for free. That is a huge disincentive for innovation; it is a huge disincentive for environmental improvement. I simply cannot understand why the Government will not accept the evidence that was given to the select committee, the submissions that I made personally to the Minister, and what many other people have been telling the Government. It seems to be all about a concern that business will kick up if it has to pay any costs, at all, for the privilege of subjecting the rest of us to chemicals that may endanger our health. I would like to suggest that that is actually the wrong way round. If business wants to get its chemicals registered in New Zealand—and I am not denying that chemicals have many uses—then it needs to face the cost of having them properly assessed.

So we have the inadequate provisions of the Toxic Substances Act, the Pesticides Act, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, and the Dangerous Goods Act rolled over in perpetuity under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. That is a huge missed opportunity that could have been remedied in this amendment bill, but it is not. So while the Green Party accepts that there are useful things in this bill—and it is not actually the content of this particular bill that we are opposed to—we are voting against it because it does not take the last remaining opportunity to set up a system under the Act, whereby it is possible to reassess chemicals and get safer ones without it being at the expense of the Crown.

There is no doubt that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act actually needs some substantial change, and this bill goes some way towards doing that, but it is only a very small step. National supports the bill, contrary to what Brian Donnelly would have everybody believe, because he said that National opposed the bill.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: No, I never said that.

The member did say that. If he goes to Hansard he will find that he did say it. I was listening and I took the member to task at the time. National is supporting the bill, but there is a long way to go towards addressing the compliance costs associated with the whole Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. With this bill we had an opportunity to address some of the issues of compliance cost, but that did not happen. So let us see what the Labour Party lackeys—once known as New Zealand First—really understand about compliance costs, if they do not understand that substantially more has to be done to reduce compliance costs and have them properly addressed in the Act. [Interruption] I said “the Labour Party lackeys—once known as New Zealand First”.

The explanatory note has in it what I presume is the Government’s compliance cost statement, under the heading “Statement of net benefit of proposal, including the total regulatory costs (administrative, compliance, and economic costs) and benefits (including non-quantifiable benefits of the proposal) and other feasible options”. Do members know that that statement does not identify one single dollar—not one? I just wonder how the Government assesses any sort of cost, when it does not even provide the figures to show it has done any number crunching or sums. Then under, “Government”, the statement talks about the benefits and costs, blah-blah-blah, but no dollar figures are mentioned there, either. The general policy statement states: “This bill offers a means to reduce costs …”; it does not state that the bill does reduce costs. So we have to look very closely at what the words actually say. Of industry the explanatory note states that the standards will reduce the compliance costs for business. It talks about a number of things to make that happen, but it is questionable whether that will be the case.

I am very sceptical when it comes to this Government, because I find it to be highly fiscally irresponsible, and the student loan situation is a classic example of that. In respect of society and the environment—and I say to Mr Donnelly that it might pay him to read the bill—no environmental, social, or cultural costs have been identified. So what does that say? The Government has not even done any cost-benefit analysis or assessed any environmental, social, or cultural costs, so I presume that it has not done any actual business or compliance costs assessment, at all. I ask the Minister to stand and take a call, and perhaps give us some evidence that he has actually done any sort of compliance costs assessment whatsoever.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: It’s the third reading.

That is the whole thing about urgency. Everything gets rushed through to such a degree that it is questionable whether a proper oversight of the bill has been undertaken.

We are disappointed that this bill is the fourth Hazardous Substances and New Organisms amendment bill introduced into the House by the Hon Marian Hobbs. When she introduced a previous amending bill, we said she did not have a hope of registering the 70,000-odd chemicals and hazardous substances that were required to be registered by the deadline of June 2006. That is only 5 or 6 months away, so I do not think there is any hope of achieving that.

We remain disappointed that 5 years later, the Act is still not enforced. It is definitely another failure of this Government. That is no surprise. But who really believes there will be any cost savings for anybody? There may be cost savings for the Government, because it just passes it all on to local government, to farmers, and to businesses and says that there may be some sort of cost reduction and reduced compliance costs, but it has not done any assessment to prove that. No cost-benefit analysis was done—nothing. So I do not know about Labour’s lackeys, New Zealand First. If Brian Donnelly’s passionate defence of Labour’s position is anything to go by, I say that New Zealand First has certainly changed its position. Sector groups are already saying that they believe compliance costs will increase—and of course they will. This Government has no fiscal sense of responsibility at all, and that has been proven time and time again in this House by my esteemed colleagues.

Questions have already been raised as to why the bill was referred to the Education and Science Committee instead of the Local Government and Environment Committee. Why was that? It should have gone to the Local Government and Environment Committee. After all, that is where the real grunt is. The bill probably received a bit of spelling improvement and that is about it. I cannot imagine that New Zealand First would have had much to do with that. So why the need for urgency? Going into urgency and the bill being sent to the wrong select committee may explain why no proper scrutiny was done.

I can give some examples. I refer to the very serious issue of bona vacantia raised by my esteemed colleague Eric Roy—what a fantastic find. Who has heard of bona vacantia? There is no definition in the Act and there is no definition in the bill. Clearly, nobody considered that. What happened to the call from Mr Donnelly that the committee had actually done a great deal in regard to this bill? Bona vacantia means “without a home”, so what happens to a hazardous substance that arrives on the doorstep of New Zealand? Section 122(1), inserted by clause 27, states: “If a customs officer has reasonable cause to believe that a hazardous substance is being, or has been, imported in breach of this Act,” So a customs officer—just an average Joe Bloggs—says: “I don’t know about this one. Is this a hazardous substance or isn’t it? Well, OK, I’ve got reasonable cause to believe it is and there has been a breach of the Act so, yeah, well, this stuff has got to go back to where it came from.” The poor importer asks: “What am I going to do now? What are my appeal provisions?”.

The importer can appeal to the District Court, but guess what? The hazardous substance has to remain on the ship or the aircraft at the importer’s own cost. Well, I am sure the aircraft or the ship will remain for the number of weeks and months it might take the importer to appeal to the District Court! Quite clearly that is a compliance cost, even if the customs officer is wrong and there was not a breach of the Act. For the person who is affected by the importation of a substance that has been wrongly identified as being a breach of the Act, it would probably be far cheaper to send the stuff back.

So clearly some things did not get identified correctly through the bill, and that could have been well addressed by the select committee but were not. I guess that is the problem with not giving proper oversight to legislation, not giving due regard to it, taking time over it, and not putting in the amount of grunt that is necessary. Of course, when we are talking about compliance costs we are talking about loading local authorities once again with costs from the Government. The Government is once again putting a compliance cost on to local authorities. Maybe, at the other end, they could take out the auditing of long-term community plans and make them a non-statutory document. All that will do is allow the Government to slowly dump social services, and anything else it can, on to local authorities. That will send rates through the roof.

Already, fixed-income people, our senior citizens, are the ones who will be hardest hit. By the year 2020 they will be 52 percent of the population. That is pretty serious. But does this Government care? Absolutely not! If they can get rid of costs to the Government they will do it any which way they can, and dumping it on to local authorities keeps them really happy. It keeps this Government really happy. But what does it do to the local authorities and to the ratepayers? It just pushes them down into the ground, and makes it so much harder for them to survive—particularly our older citizens, who have worked hard all their lives and are on a fixed income, and who just cannot support all of these increases.

Yes, we are supporting this bill, but it has a long way to go. Is it not amazing that it is easier for a hazardous substance to get here illegally than legally? It is about time we streamlined the Act so that people can legitimately import genetic material, plants, etc., in a streamlined process and meeting all the obstacles they do. Instead, we get illegal substances like rock snot establishing really quickly, and they are absolutely disastrous for this nation.