Wagner Nicky: Waste Minimisation Bill — Third Reading 
Wagner Nicky: Waste Minimisation Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:18830] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Waste Minimisation Bill. It has been a long long journey but we have finally made it. National voted against the legislation at its first reading. We voted against it because it was excessively detailed and overly prescriptive. We voted against it because it tended to focus on how things should be done rather than on the outcomes we need to achieve. We were also concerned about excessive costs in terms of compliance and enforcement and layer after layer of new bureaucracy. 
However during the select committee process which included a series of visits to recycling and resource-recovery businesses throughout the country and two submission processes the bill was completely and comprehensively reworked. The Local Government and Environment Committee worked hard on the definitions required for the bill and we got them right in most instances. There was a large amount of debate about the definition of waste. It seemed to be very difficult to find a definition that was neither too wide nor too narrow. We finally decided on a wider definition which includes any thing that “is no longer required for its original purpose and but for commercial or other waste minimisation activities would be disposed of or discarded;”. Once the bill was reported back we had representations from several organisations that highlighted unintended consequences of the original wider definition. They believed that the wider definition would create disincentives for recycling and could jeopardise New Zealand’s significant export of waste resources. 
When we designed the bill we aimed to encourage the extraction of valuable commodities from the waste stream but this wider definition could have had a perverse effect as it included materials that were never intended for the waste stream. The recyclers were also concerned that the wider definition could unnecessarily increase administrative and compliance costs for recycling businesses and that would have hindered the bill’s objective of encouraging waste minimisation activities. Furthermore any suggestion that recyclables such as scrap metal were considered to be waste by the New Zealand Government had the potential to influence importers from other countries and New Zealand exports could have become subject to more rigorous import controls. 
I came to the conclusion that unless we reworked the definition of “waste” we could cause problems for the people and organisations that had been the most proactive in the minimisation of waste and had spearheaded the recovery of valuable resources from the waste stream. We want to attract businesses and operators to work in this area not kick them in the shins when they have been proactive. I therefore proposed an amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 219 that narrows the definition of “waste” by excluding recyclables and recoverable resources. It would have solved the recyclers’ problem and ensured that pioneer recyclers and resource-recovery businesses—such as scrap-metal merchants paper recyclers and organic and green-waste collectors—were not disadvantaged by the bill. 
However the Ministry for the Environment and representatives from local government were concerned that this narrower definition would impact on the ability of local councils to fulfil their responsibilities under the Local Government Act. That did not seem ideal either. So over the adjournment I worked with Russel Norman and with the help of the ministry and local government representatives we came up with a compromise that everyone can live with. I am very pleased that we have been able to come up with this compromise because we are actually all on the same side in this issue. It is important that both businesses and communities that drive waste minimisation are on board and that councils can fulfil their responsibilities. 
I have to say that the process of working through the bill with the select committee and even the process of managing the Supplementary Order Papers which is a difficult one has worked well. My only disappointment is that Russel Norman of the Greens who gave his word to support my last Supplementary Order Paper but reneged after they had got everything they wanted—[ 
Interruption 
] Throughout the process I worked closely and well with Nandor Tanczos even after he had left Parliament and it is a pity that Russel Norman does not appear to understand that a member is expected to be honourable and to keep his word. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes that comment was unnecessary. Would the member please withdraw and apologise. 
NICKY WAGNER 
: I withdraw and apologise Madam Speaker. 
New Zealanders are conscious that the disposal of waste however carefully managed does harm to our environment. Although modern landfills utilise new technologies to protect the receding environment we still need to minimise the volume of waste we dispose of. Even transporting waste is destructive and increases our carbon footprint. So the bill introduces some new tools. 
I believe that the establishment of product stewardship schemes is perhaps one of the most important parts of the bill. Although some very successful voluntary product stewardship schemes are in existence already their inclusion in the bill will highlight the need for these schemes and encourage their development. The big advantage of a product stewardship scheme is that manufacturers and distributors of a product are incentivised to think about the product’s whole life cycle. They are in a position to redesign the product in light of its future use and its final disposal. Too often when products are created no thought is given to their final disposal. We need manufacturers to make smart decisions at the beginning of the design process. 
It is easy to make good decisions—such as the use of recyclable material rather than non-recyclable material—at the beginning of a product’s life cycle. The worst products are those that are a mixture of different materials as they are almost impossible to recycle. Some very successful voluntary schemes are in place such as those of Resene Paints and Fisher and Paykel—and we have made sure that they are eligible for accreditation under this bill. The Minister can also declare certain products to be priority products and they must become part of a product stewardship scheme. For that to happen the waste from the product must cause significant environmental harm there must be benefits from reusing reducing recycling or recovering the product and the waste must be able to be managed effectively under a product stewardship scheme. 
We heard at the Local Government and Environment Committee that many companies and industry sectors were being very proactive in managing their wastes but some industries were struggling to get all of their members involved. It is the same old story. The majority of people in organisations are prepared to do the right thing but there is a minority of free-riders who are not prepared to contribute. In these cases a mandated scheme will ensure that everyone is included and it will be beneficial for those who are already carrying the costs of managing their waste responsibly. 
The imposition of a waste disposal levy was a hot topic for debate in our caucus but we finally decided that as a user-pays fee and an economic instrument designed to encourage waste minimisation it would be useful. We wanted to reward people and companies for minimising their waste and penalise those who do not and as everyone is already looking for a cheaper way those who make the effort to minimise their waste can save money. 
We were also keen to find a way to finance capital expenditure for waste minimisation projects. At present most projects are paid for by the ratepayer via local government and again everyone regardless of his or her waste behaviour pays the same. Proceeds from the waste levy will be split fifty-fifty between territorial authorities on a population basis and a centralised contestable fund for waste minimisation projects. The contestable fund will be available to any business or organisation with a waste minimisation project. 
Territorial authorities can spend levy money only to promote or achieve waste minimisation in accordance with their waste management and minimisation plan. My Supplementary Order Paper—No 221—includes a third criterion that requires territorial authorities when funding waste services through the levy to treat private enterprise council-controlled organisations and their own in-house operations on an equal basis. This is to deal with an issue raised by waste service operators. They were concerned that councils could use the levy to subsidise council services that may unfairly undercut private enterprise schemes.