Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I also thank the Minister for being so engaged. This bill is hugely important because it's being put through under urgency when it's only tangentially related to the Budget and would normally go to a select committee hence all of these questions around waste.If I may I would like to point out a couple of things in clause 4 that haven't really been touched on and this is in relation to the supplementary analysis report which has to be done because of urgency and a regulatory impact statement could not have been done and there is a lot of concern around this.So one of things that hasn't really been explored in all of the discussions that we had this morning is around clause 4(2)(a)(iv) which deals the ministry. We have talked about different budgets and I really appreciate that the fact that the Minister has talked about different uses as well. But I would like to know from a Budget perspective with the deficit that is being created as a result of a reduced funding in Vote Environment whether we are expecting proportionally that the amount of money that is created as part of that deficit in Vote Environment is going to be coming out of this waste levy—as in the money that wasn't funded in Vote Environment; are we expecting that same amount to come out of the levy? Because specifically this broadens the fact that the ministry will be using this funding to undertake its functions and duties and exercise its power in relation to waste management but it's still something that would normally have been covered in a Budget. So that is my first question.My second question is around clause 4(2)(a)(iii) around emergency management. Now Minister you mentioned before the type of things and Mr Chair just before the Minister mentioned emergency uses and I think that in the second reading and the first reading we talked about the fact that it could be used for like Cyclone Gabrielle and the clean-up. So are those are considered as waste? I would like to know from the Minister—the Minister spoke on other applicable funds—how this fund is going to interact with the Climate Emergency Response Fund which is being partially used for things like climate adaptation and cleaning up of this waste—before we see that the Minister has retracted the transparency in the reporting of the Climate Emergency Response Fund as of this year.So it will be really good to know from the Minister in terms of the interaction between the use of the waste levy on emergency management and also the interaction with the Climate Emergency Response Fund which was started under the Hon James Shaw the previous climate change Minister.Now to clause 5 and the Hon David Parker talked about waste and solids and all of that. I would like to get a piece of clarification from the Minister because again this bill may seem quite small but it has huge implications also from a judiciary perspective. So it's also really important when we're looking at Hansard when lawyers are looking at this and at any sort of potential use that the definition is really tight and we have an understanding from the Minister of what those definitions could be used for.The specific one that I'm looking at the definition of contaminated site"; it means land "where a contaminant is present or likely to be present". In paragraph (a) of amended section 5—this is in clause 5—it says "in any physical state"—which I'm assuming relates to the definition of "contaminant" which means a substance including gases odours compounds liquids solids and micro-organisms. I'm assuming that "in any physical state" will also be referring to those substances. However my key focus is on the word "land". Now my colleague Steve Abel mentioned run-off and the pollution we see in our waterways. I would like to ask the Minister whether things like rivers and waterways are considered "land" in this case.So those are my three questions and I really appreciate this opportunity for us to discuss more broadly in lieu of the select committee process."