Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Good morning Mr Speaker. Thank you. It does seem like Groundhog Day because I think last night at about 11.20 p.m. I followed Mr Foster on this bill and I'll do the same today.You know Mr Foster is right: there is some agreement around what this levy could be spent on but the problem is we are progressing this bill through urgency. And this is second reading sir—so by now usually in the normal scheme of things this would have gone to a select committee we would have heard from the community the select committee would have generally for a matter of months considered that bill turned its mind to it and will have provided a summary to the House as to what communities of interest—wherever they might be in Aotearoa New Zealand—might have to say about this bill: the changes and the provisions therein.So it's disappointing that it's been less than 12 hours since the first reading to now moving on to the second reading. The difficulty that I and members on this side of the House have is that members of the public have not had a chance to have their say. For a bill that talks about a 50:50 split between central government and local government I think local communities around New Zealand would absolutely take up the opportunity if given it to share their views—well I know they would sir— and tell us what it is that this money would go towards what other opportunities it could go towards and what other forms of innovation exists in communities.Now last night just like others in this House many of us took a call and we alluded to our experience in local government. My colleague Lemauga Lydia Sosene last night talked about her experience in local government. For those of us that have sat around local decision-making tables we know that when it comes to waste minimisation you often hear from individuals who would otherwise not talk about or share their views on many things. Why? Because they're passionate. They're passionate about the environment they're passionate about the community. So for this Government to basically move straight to second reading without the opportunity for select committee process to take place is an indictment and really quite unfortunate.I recall actually when we were in our city pulling together our waste minimisation plan we heard about the difference of yes rubbish but also recycling. We did hear about compost actually—that was mentioned in the House last night—and we heard about other innovative opportunities as well. Mr Foster and others have talked about the need for emergency works.Now what my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has consistently said over the last 12 hours on this Bill is that we support the widening—well we would support the widening of criteria—however what is proposed goes far too far and if we don't allow the public to have a say on this that makes it even more confusing and more difficult I would suggest.Last night we talked about the distinction between the levy and the tax. This is a levy that is directed specifically—whether it's a 50:50 split or some other differential between the central and local government split—and targeted for waste minimisation and in this context particularly around waste disposal. So when I look at the bill—and no doubt we'll have plenty of time to explore this when we go through committee stage and I know there are a number of amendment papers that we'll turn our minds to around that—this is a bill that proposes to widen the scope of additional matters that would be funded. I'm looking at the list here. The first is around environmental harm reduction or what would increase environmental benefits and that would be something that the Secretary for the Environment would effectively be entitled or empowered to spend revenue that's generated from this levy on.The waste-related emergency spending—we don't deny on this side of the House that there needs to be a provision for emergency works. The question is where does that appropriately sit and without having an opportunity to hear from people without having an opportunity on this side of the House to engage directly with the very advisers and officials that would work with select committees at this point in time it is very difficult to have a fulsome understanding on behalf of the community as to what that might look like.Of course a further bullet point is around the funding for the ministry which would require it to undertake the various duties that it would have. Now clearly the duties would be expanded as a result of this and I look forward to hearing from the Minister in the committee of the whole House around that and what that might look like. But fundamentally we are at second reading. Our colleague Kahurangi Carter last night talked about the $2.4 billion infrastructure deficit. This here does not seek to tackle that and without public input it is very difficult to support but we'll see what the committee stage might bring.