edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17186] 
4.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What further steps are being taken to implement the New Zealand Fast Forward initiative? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 This morning I signed a heads of agreement with six cornerstone investor groups—Dairy New Zealand Fonterra Meat and Wool New Zealand the Meat Industry Association PGG Wrightson and Zespri. Aquaculture New Zealand and the Foundation for Arable Research also made public commitments to contribute to the New Zealand Fast Forward initiative. This is a unique partnership between Government and industry focused on innovation in the pastoral food and related industry sectors. It covers dairy horticulture meat and seafood and it is the single largest boost to innovation in New Zealand history. The Government has made its contribution and with today’s signing I am delighted to see the private sector moving to match it. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of a sector group that will not sign up to the Fast Forward initiative? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have not seen any credible sector that is opposed to the fund. Those who are putting their own matching funds into New Zealand Fast Forward include as I have indicated Dairy New Zealand Meat and Wool New Zealand the Meat Industry Association Aquaculture New Zealand Zespri Fonterra and PGG Wrightson. There is one group however that wants it axed—the National Party sector group. The entire primary sector is evidently wrong! National has a better idea—it is promising to axe the fund; it wants to gallop backwards to the failed policies of the past. Wherever I go in New Zealand our primary sector industries are astonished to find that the National Party is opposed to innovation and is acting to undermine our primary sector industries. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What difference will New Zealand Fast Forward make to New Zealand’s primary industries? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: New Zealand Fast Forward will help achieve a step change in our performance among the industries that form the backbone of our economy. For example Fonterra chief executive Andrew Ferrier said today that the New Zealand Fast Forward fund will enable New Zealand to build on our competitive advantage in agriculture and food production and complement the current investment in primary sector research. Meat Industry Association chief executive Tim Ritchie said that New Zealand pastoral sectors have a long history of world-leading innovation and he went on to say that “The Fast Forward initiative will make a significant contribution to ensuring that this continues and thereby growing New Zealand’s international competitiveness.” We wonder when the National Party will find out anything about those comments. It does not understand.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:648;Page:17178] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am unable to give the member any advice on that matter at this point.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:648;Page:17178] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes it is likely priority will be given to the remaining stages of the New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill to the first readings of the Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill the Judicial Matters Bill the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill and the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill and to the second reading of the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Noting that the Prime Minister recently suggested that the item on the Order Paper under No. 22 the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill may be something that eventually she has to seek a mandate from the country for can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether it is likely that this bill will be on the floor of the House in the next 3-week block of Parliament sitting? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am unable to give the member any advice on that matter at this point.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:648;Page:17178] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes it is likely priority will be given to the remaining stages of the New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill to the first readings of the Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill the Judicial Matters Bill the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill and the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill and to the second reading of the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:648;Page:17178] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Noting that the Prime Minister recently suggested that the item on the Order Paper under No. 22 the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill may be something that eventually she has to seek a mandate from the country for can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether it is likely that this bill will be on the floor of the House in the next 3-week block of Parliament sitting?
Wilson Margaret: Privilege — Judicial Proceedings—Freedom of Speech 
Wilson Margaret: Privilege — Judicial Proceedings—Freedom of Speech 
[Volume:648;Page:17177] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is obviously a matter for the committee itself to determine not the Speaker. As I have made clear the matter specifically relating to Heather Roy has not been referred to the Privileges Committee. But I think members are aware that particularly in recent times there have been several instances where members themselves have sought advice and guidance on where exactly the line is drawn in terms of matters relating to the courts and matters before the courts. I think this matter is yet another instance of that type of issue. It seemed appropriate as it does involve a privilege of the House that the Privileges Committee should not look at it in the context of one specific case but should look at the general issues I have set out.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers’ Answers 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers’ Answers 
[Volume:648;Page:17177] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yesterday the Hon Dr Nick Smith raised with me the public interest requirement set out in Standing Order 377(1). Standing Order 377(1) requires “an answer that seeks to address the question”. As members cannot hear perhaps we could have the sound up a little. A Minister must give such an answer “if it can be given consistently with the public interest”. The Minister is instructed under Standing Order 377(1) to consider the public interest in framing a reply. In considering consistency with the public interest the Minister may address such principles as privacy commercial sensitivity or national security. But ultimately the judgment of whether a particular reply is consistent with the public interest is for the Minister to make. I refer members to Speakers’ ruling 153/3: “an answer can be absolutely refused if in the opinion of the Minister interrogated the public interest would be imperilled by giving the information sought.” It is not a matter for the Speaker to judge. Nor is it a matter for the member asking the question to suggest that because that member considers the matter to be a matter of public interest the question should be answered in a particular way.
Hide Rodney: Privilege — Judicial Proceedings—Freedom of Speech 
Hide Rodney: Privilege — Judicial Proceedings—Freedom of Speech 
[Volume:648;Page:17177] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask just to clarify whether my colleague Heather Roy will be required to appear before the Privileges Committee. It seems to me that the case will revolve round Heather Roy’s statements and it would be unfortunate if she were somehow convicted without the ability to appear.
Wilson Margaret: Privilege — Judicial Proceedings—Freedom of Speech 
Wilson Margaret: Privilege — Judicial Proceedings—Freedom of Speech 
[Volume:648;Page:17177] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon David Parker raising as a matter of privilege statements made in the House by Heather Roy on Thursday 26 June 2008 that may be in breach of a suppression order made in the High Court at Nelson on 4 December 2007. Such actions may bring the House into disrepute and may indirectly impede the House in its performance of its functions and thus constitute a contempt but I am not convinced that the immediate matter complained of can genuinely be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the House in the discharge of its functions. However serious issues regarding the privilege of freedom of speech one of the House’s most fundamental privileges have been raised that I consider do warrant the attention of the House. Consequently I have determined that a general question of privilege does arise in terms of the exercise of the privilege of freedom of speech by members in the context of court orders the implications for the relationship of mutual respect and restraint between the House and the courts and the publishing of the House’s proceedings. The question therefore stands referred to the Privileges Committee.
Privilege — Judicial Proceedings—Freedom of Speech 
Privilege — Judicial Proceedings—Freedom of Speech 
[Volume:648;Page:17177] 
Privilege 
Judicial Proceedings—Freedom of Speech 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon David Parker raising as a matter of privilege statements made in the House by Heather Roy on Thursday 26 June 2008 that may be in breach of a suppression order made in the High Court at Nelson on 4 December 2007. Such actions may bring the House into disrepute and may indirectly impede the House in its performance of its functions and thus constitute a contempt but I am not convinced that the immediate matter complained of can genuinely be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the House in the discharge of its functions. However serious issues regarding the privilege of freedom of speech one of the House’s most fundamental privileges have been raised that I consider do warrant the attention of the House. Consequently I have determined that a general question of privilege does arise in terms of the exercise of the privilege of freedom of speech by members in the context of court orders the implications for the relationship of mutual respect and restraint between the House and the courts and the publishing of the House’s proceedings. The question therefore stands referred to the Privileges Committee. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask just to clarify whether my colleague Heather Roy will be required to appear before the Privileges Committee. It seems to me that the case will revolve round Heather Roy’s statements and it would be unfortunate if she were somehow convicted without the ability to appear. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is obviously a matter for the committee itself to determine not the Speaker. As I have made clear the matter specifically relating to Heather Roy has not been referred to the Privileges Committee. But I think members are aware that particularly in recent times there have been several instances where members themselves have sought advice and guidance on where exactly the line is drawn in terms of matters relating to the courts and matters before the courts. I think this matter is yet another instance of that type of issue. It seemed appropriate as it does involve a privilege of the House that the Privileges Committee should not look at it in the context of one specific case but should look at the general issues I have set out.
Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers’ Answers 
Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers’ Answers 
[Volume:648;Page:17177] 
Thursday 3 July 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers’ Answers 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yesterday the Hon Dr Nick Smith raised with me the public interest requirement set out in Standing Order 377(1). Standing Order 377(1) requires “an answer that seeks to address the question”. As members cannot hear perhaps we could have the sound up a little. A Minister must give such an answer “if it can be given consistently with the public interest”. The Minister is instructed under Standing Order 377(1) to consider the public interest in framing a reply. In considering consistency with the public interest the Minister may address such principles as privacy commercial sensitivity or national security. But ultimately the judgment of whether a particular reply is consistent with the public interest is for the Minister to make. I refer members to Speakers’ ruling 153/3: “an answer can be absolutely refused if in the opinion of the Minister interrogated the public interest would be imperilled by giving the information sought.” It is not a matter for the Speaker to judge. Nor is it a matter for the member asking the question to suggest that because that member considers the matter to be a matter of public interest the question should be answered in a particular way.
Wagner Nicky: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Wagner Nicky: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17607] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I would like to make some comments on the commencement of the Waste Minimisation Bill. I did not discuss that in my last call. There was some debate as we have said on when this bill should come into force. The bill has been in Parliament for a very long time and we were very keen to get moving quickly to introduce it. However we were also aware that the work to be done by the Ministry for the Environment in establishing the systems to collect and allocate the waste levy would take some time. 
The compromise was to recommend that the legislation come into force on the day after the Royal assent with the exception of Part 3 which related to the waste disposal levy and clause 60 which will commence on 1 July 2009 in order to fit in with local government legislative timing. However as we are running late again and have missed the beginning of the financial year for 2008-09 my Supplementary Order Paper 218 proposes that the commencement date for the bill in total be 1 July 2009.
Chadwick Steve: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17605] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 With regard to Part 1 I just want to make a small comment on the commencement. I think the decision of the committee—that the bill will be enacted on the day after it receives the Royal assent—is great. It seemed a pity when the original bill was referred to the select committee that it would take a year other than for Part 3. I accept that that is only practicable because it will take at least a year for the Ministry for the Environment to get the work going to set up the levy system. 
It is great news because around the country people want this bill they want leadership on this legislation and they are pretty keen to get going. I understand the need for definition but an issue that I think is quite interesting is that when we talk to young people when we go to Enviroschools we hear that they love the old definition of waste. They have it themselves and they know it. We all have a picture in our heads of what we are talking about here. Young people are telling us that we are not going fast enough either at local government level or us in central government. They will not get bound down by definition. Industry will require definition—I absolutely agree—but young people are saying to us that they absolutely agree with reduction reuse recycling and recovery. They know what it means. They are actually putting a lot of pressure on local authorities asking why they do not have kerbside recycling or recycling facilities in particular communities. They are putting on that pressure which is exactly what ought to come through. 
I think we will pretty quickly see a change in attitude from local authorities once this bill is enacted. They will jump in they will see the leadership from the Ministry for the Environment and I do not think they will get too caught on semantics here. They know it is coming. As Mr Blumsky said it has been a long journey and they have been waiting. They have watched for this bill to be a bit more refined but on the day of the bill receiving the Royal assent they will be ready to go. 
I think they will be delighted too at the way that we have made this a much more flexible bill. As managers of the best health interests and environmental interests for their communities they understand the economic social cultural and environmental benefits so they will be ready. They have been waiting for this bill and it will be gratefully received. The definitions will not bother them but I do think they need to be in there. Thank you.
Norman Russel William: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Norman Russel William: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17604] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I will speak very briefly about a couple of things in Part 7. Firstly picking up on what my co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons was saying it is really important that we get the right people on the Waste Advisory Board. That is one of the key things. We need people on the board with expertise in the area from the community sector as well as the commercial sector. We need a lot of them on the board so that they can provide great advice. 
My other point is around the terms of reference which provide the board with some ability to initiate its own work or ideas. I am sure—I certainly hope—that the Minister for the Environment in consultation with the board in developing the terms of reference will look at what kind of capacity the board has to initiate work. For example container deposit legislation was talked about earlier. We certainly hope that the board will at some point look at that legislation. 
I spent a number of years living in Adelaide which is the only Australian state to have container deposit legislation. It is a fantastic system and has worked incredibly well over there but as a result of lobbying by some very big beverage and container producers it has not spread. Container deposit legislation has been a very effective system. 
There has been a very lively debate around the role of container deposit legislation but I hope that the board will be given the power to initiate its own inquiry to look at container deposit legislation and its role. That is really important. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Part 7 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 7 as amended agreed to.
Blumsky Mark: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Blumsky Mark: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17603] 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 My two parliamentary colleagues who spoke earlier on Part 7 have covered most of it. I want to cover something that was in the bill but now is not and I think it is just as important as what made it to the finishing line. The organisational waste minimisation plans were a big part of Part 7 and were an aspect that most people were very very nervous about. The provision would have required all New Zealand businesses to implement waste minimisation plans by 2016. It was in the original bill but is not in the bill now. 
It was probably the most contentious aspect of the bill to be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee because people were very nervous about just what a bureaucratic nightmare it would be for them. I want to draw to the attention of submitters the fact that the aspect they were so concerned about is no longer in the bill—and the bill is better for it.
Wagner Nicky: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Wagner Nicky: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17601] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 Part 7 deals with the Waste Advisory Board. It provides for the establishment of this board which could have four to eight members including the chair. It lists the board’s functions and terms of reference and it also covers details of the terms of office fees and expenses. The board’s role is to provide advice on waste minimisation to the Minister for the Environment and the Minister is required to seek the board’s advice on a number of matters. These include the declaring of products as priority products the making of guidelines for the product stewardship schemes and the setting of criteria for the allocation of the contestable portion of the levy fund. These are all complex and difficult questions and ones that require advice from board members who perhaps have their feet in the commercial world as well as in legislation. The board is appointed by the Minister but anyone is able to nominate members for the Minister’s consideration. We are hopeful that the board will consist of four to eight well-skilled intelligent people who have experience in waste minimisation and the business of managing waste. Thank you.
Norman Russel William: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Norman Russel William: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17601] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call to thank Nicky Wagner for her amendment to clause 84(1)(b). That shows another example of cross-party cooperation and finding another way through. It is great that the Parliamentary Counsel Office was able to come up with a new version. The key thing about this part is that we do not know a lot of the information. That is one of the key things: we do not know a lot of the information about what resources we are throwing down the tip. That is one of the things we are trying to turn round. This does not seem like a big thing but if we do not know what we are throwing away we are not as likely to do anything to stop throwing it away. Currently we are pouring lots and lots of resources down a big hole in the ground which is then leeching and polluting our waterways whereas it would be much more sensible to find out and record what we are doing and to then divert it and use it again. This part is a really important part of the bill and I commend it to the House. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nicky Wagner to clause 84 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (b) of subclause (1) the words “(for example operators of disposal facilities or other facilities at which waste is received for reuse recycling recovery treatment or disposal)”. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 6 as amended agreed to.
Wagner Nicky: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Wagner Nicky: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17599] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 Part 6 is about reporting and audit. The Local Government and Environment Committee was aware that if we are to make any real progress in minimising waste we need more knowledge about our waste streams and what we can do with them. Part 6 details the reporting and information requirements. However because we are concerned about excessive rules and regulations in this area we required that before any regulations were put in place by the Minister the Minister had to consult both the Waste Advisory Board and any parties that would be affected. We hope that through that process they will be able to create a simple and effective system. 
Part 6 also details auditing requirements and we hope that this part will achieve a good balance and that we can improve the collection of national data without being excessively bureaucratic. I have an amendment to clause 84(1)(b). The amendment has been reworded to make it simpler and to remove any confusion. I hope that the Committee will support this amendment.
Wagner Nicky: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Wagner Nicky: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17599] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 This part of the bill details the offences and the proposed fines. It also provides for the establishment of enforcement officers and details their warrant and their officer powers. The original bill would have allowed some waste offences to carry a sentence of imprisonment but the select committee thought that that was perhaps a little bit excessive. However in this iteration fines do range from $5000 to $100000 so we are still serious about expecting good behaviour on waste. Part 5 also itemises the defences available to anyone prosecuted under the bill and they are in line with both the Local Government Act 2002 and the Resource Management Act 1991. National supports Part 5. 
Part 5 agreed to.
Parker David: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17598] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on Part 4. Part 3 as we heard deals with waste disposal levies associated with products that are disposed of at a disposal facility. Part 4 goes a lot wider than that. It does not deal just with things that have been disposed of at the disposal facility; it also deals with the plans that territorial authorities are required to have to promote the effective and efficient waste management of waste streams within their district. It states that they have to contribute to measures that reduce reuse recycle recover treat or dispose of waste. 
I thought I would give just one example of some fantastic existing work that is being done by a council the Christchurch City Council which is beginning to do some very innovative things in respect of its sewage waste stream. The sewage waste stream is dealt with in sewage oxidation ponds and those ponds are a source of algae. The algae that is grown in the ponds can be converted into bio-diesel and the council is becoming quite sophisticated in its approach to that. Indeed part of Christchurch’s landfill produces gas as a methane by-product of the landfill. The council has a gas-fired electricity generation facility close to its sewage treatment oxidation ponds and it is feeding the carbon dioxide from the generation facility into the sewage oxidation ponds so as to supplement the production of algae in the treatment of the sewage. That cleans up the water reduces the carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and increases the by-product of the algae that can be used to produce fuel. This legislation will enable the council to put in a bit of the money that it collects from its waste levy in order to bring that sort of wonderful new event forward.
Chadwick Steve: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17596] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this because it was a real stumbling block with the bill when it was introduced. We were creating here at the territorial authority levels these wonderful waste control authorities and we really did not need to do it because the territorial local authorities were doing it. That caused a real friction when we first went out and I am so pleased that this has been amended to be a much more enabling framework for local authorities. 
It was good to see how dearly they looked at waste management and waste minimisation. I do want to say that they did like the New Zealand waste strategy. They said they wanted to go faster on it but the variants around the country were simply amazing when we went out. Many of us had followed up with lots of other local authorities. It is great to see that the strategy is a bit more enabling now and there is much more flexibility. 
I am not sure about the amendment I heard the Opposition member Nicky Wagner propose because I have met many local authorities that are joining together anyway. They did not need the legislation. They were starting to work together. That is a classic example in Kawerau in my electorate where they are starting discussions with the Gisborne District Council Whakatane District Council Opotiki District Council and Rotorua District Council. We have had a couple of big meetings about this to see how we can have a central plant for minimisation of waste. What a great initiative! I do not think we need to enact legislation to make that happen. 
So I say “Well done!” on Part 4. It is so much better than it used to be and I like the guidance too. Every local authority said it needed some leadership from the centre and they wanted those standards that were aspirational for them to aspire to. They are great amendments.
Blumsky Mark: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Blumsky Mark: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17596] 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I want to make two comments in particular on Part 4. The first focus in my mind is that Part 4 places more emphasis on the 1974 legislation in respect of territorial authorities “encouraging and promoting waste minimisation”. Clauses 50 and 54 allow territorial authorities to contract or license operators “to collect reduce reuse recycle recover or dispose”. Both of the comments I have made have the local authority “encouraging promoting or contracting or allowing others”. I suppose I want to reiterate that this bill is not a mandate or a licence for local government to do it all themselves; it is to make sure that the outcome is the focus. It is not their job to think that they now have to go and do it all. That I suppose is my biggest concern. Just reiterating the words and the meanings behind Part 4 puts that into perspective in my mind and I hope in the minds of local authorities. 
I actually want to give a challenge to local authorities too. Through the submissions process and having gone out and about and looked at a lot of what was happening I came across some outstanding local authorities in this area. One area that comes to mind is Timaru where the local authority is doing an outstanding job. Then there are the community groups. There are some wonderful wonderful things happening. In particular I challenge local government to really address best practice to have a look at what is happening out there and if you like to benchmark themselves against the Timarus of this world and to say to themselves: “Maybe there is work being done in local government that is actually pretty smart. Why don’t we put it up there and aspire to achieve in that delivery mechanism or in the way they do it?” because there are some useless local authorities in this area and they need to be shot! 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Name them. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: No I will not because that is not fair. They know who they are. 
Hon Member 
: Wellington! 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: No it is not Wellington. Who said it was Wellington? Those local authorities really need to say to themselves that they are not doing a good enough job. The tide has turned. There is a real public momentum around the whole area of recycling and compost. A real wave is quite rightly running through and local authorities have to pick up the challenge. Some of them are outstanding; some of them need to buck up their ideas.
Wagner Nicky: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Wagner Nicky: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17594] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 Territorial authorities are already responsible for waste management and for promoting waste minimisation as part of their responsibilities for public health. This bill provides incentives for territorial authorities to encourage effective and efficient waste management and minimisation because in order to receive funding from the waste levy a territorial authority must either adopt a new waste management and minimisation plan or review its existing one. We made sure that we included in the bill the possibility for two or more territorial authorities to jointly prepare and adopt their waste management and minimisation plan. We believe that that is particularly important as during the select committee process we heard in the Local Government and Environment Committee from many councils that were working very well together and were getting valuable economies of scale for recycling their products and they were doing great waste minimisation work that perhaps would not have happened had they been working individually. 
Under the bill a territorial authority can undertake or contract for any waste management and minimisation services facilities or activities and they may sell any marketable product resulting from that activity or service. That probably takes into account things like green waste composting and the sale of that compost. But any proceeds from those sales must be used to implement the territorial authority’s waste management and minimisation plans. The territorial authority also has a large number of powers to make by-laws to deal with waste and it can contract or licence operators to collect reduce reuse recycle recover or dispose of waste. The final part of this bill also prescribes the relationship of this legislation with the Local Government Act 2002. 
I do have to say after reading all these rules and regulations I sympathise with my colleague Eric Roy because they do look excessively complex. However I do trust that common sense will prevail and that successful outcomes will be championed rather than slavish adherence to the rules.
Wagner Nicky: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Wagner Nicky: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17591] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to replace this Supplementary Order Paper with some new wording. I am pleased that we were able to come to some arrangement that could recognise the issues that some of the very early waste minimisation services were concerned about. 
This bill is definitely intended to encourage waste minimisation. It would be foolhardy and detrimental to slap around the people who have been doing this job. The wording is designed to make sure that the territorial authorities take into consideration the organisations that have already been doing this work and make sure that they are not disadvantaged. I thank members very much. It was good that we could get support from across the Committee.
Norman Russel William: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Norman Russel William: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17590] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It has been great for me to listen to all of the members here talking about this bill. Obviously as a new MP I was not on the Local Government and Environment Committee and it is just fantastic to hear about the level of cooperation and agreement. 
The idea of a levy is twofold. It is to create a price signal which is absolutely essential. We need a price signal in order to direct behaviour if you like and having a price signal is a key part of doing that. I think that a key aspect for those people who are enamoured of market tools is of course putting in the right kind of market signals so I think that is why the levy is really important. 
The other side of the levy is that it creates a fund that people can then apply to and use to get involved in waste minimisation activities. As was discussed earlier one of the things that councils with low rating bases will be able to do is apply to the contestable fund to access some of that money in order to provide them with some support in dealing with the waste they are facing. 
In the spirit of cooperation around this issue I am also withdrawing the 12 months amendment that the Greens had put forward and I tell the Committee that we will just go with the 6 months amendment. We are very happy to go with that as a compromise between the 3 months that is in the bill and the 12 months that we put forward. I think that is a really useful compromise. I hope that we can also find some compromise words on clause 30 as well. That would be great as part of the cooperation that has emerged over this bill. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: A new spirit. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: Yeah!
Carter John: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Carter John: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17591] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to make just one point before Nicky Wagner speaks about her amendment. I want to respond to the comment made by the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee Moana Mackey about debate between National members. At least there is some innovation ideas and differences amongst us! At least we can work together within that unlike members on the other side of the House who all have to sing from the same song sheet and who are not allowed to have any ideas to have any imagination or to think for themselves. They get a script from “herself upstairs” saying that this is what they are to say today. Well at least we can come in here and show our individuality at the same time as showing Parliament and this country that we are prepared and in a condition to be able to govern because we can think for ourselves and will get on with the job.
Mackey Moana: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17591] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I want to step up to respond to that. This has certainly been a very interesting debate. I said in one of my first calls that the spirit of cooperation in this Committee tonight is quite phenomenal and that we all seem to be on the same page—except it now appears for the National Party caucus. We jumped from “Red” Mark Blumsky to John “Have I got another Building Act story for you” Carter in the space of about 10 minutes. Eric Roy did not seem to realise until about the last 20 seconds of his speech that his party was voting for the bill. After giving a devastating withering speech on the Waste Minimisation Bill he humbly sat down and said that National thinks it is a really good idea. It is good to see that there is still some inconsistency in this Parliament. The people who are out there listening can rest assured that we have not all had a big “Kumbaya” love-in here tonight—there is still debate going on here in this House; it is just a pity that it is all within the National Party. 
I know that it is not my place to do it so I hope Nicky Wagner will perhaps take a call on the rewording of her Supplementary Order Paper—it is her Supplementary Order Paper and it is not my place to take a call on its rewording. I think we might have been able to come up with some words because the Committee’s concern tonight is the same concern the Local Government and Environment Committee had—obviously we did not address it nearly as thoroughly as perhaps we could have. The concern is that we certainly do not want territorial authorities knocking out innovative independent private enterprise when it comes to waste minimisation. That is not to say that we think territorial authorities will do that but we know that that is a concern. To do that would be contrary once again to everything that this bill stands for. We do not want to create a monopoly. 
At the same time we need to recognise—and I think we have with the 50 percent split—that this is a core area for our territorial authorities and we do expect them to be leaders in this area. Some of them already have been and it would seem patently unfair to penalise them even though they can apply to the contestable fund as well. It was a matter of getting a balance—I agree in hindsight that when we went through the bill in the select committee we maybe did not address this enough. I am not sure whether Nicky Wagner has the wording now and is able to discuss it but I would like to pass over to her. I congratulate her on putting forward this amendment.
Soper Lesley: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Soper Lesley: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17590] 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 It will not surprise members at all that I rather disagree with what the previous speaker John Carter had to say about bureaucracy and extra costs. In fact it is very interesting to see that he and the National speaker who spoke before him had quite a divergence of opinion. 
I will start my short contribution by greeting the South Coast Environment Centre in Riverton which is in my electoral area and the Invercargill Environment Centre Te Whenua Awhi. They have been waiting eagerly for this bill to be passed for some time. During one of the few times I served on the Local Government and Environment Committee some of the Southland people made a submission. It was good to hear their attitude because they said that this was a very eagerly awaited bill as some of my colleagues who spoke earlier have also said. In the time I was on that select committee there was certainly a great deal of discussion. 
There were two rounds of extensive public consultation on this bill. So to reassure the previous speaker I say that there has indeed been a great deal of public input and discussion about the question of having a levy and its uses. A wide variety of groups submitted to the committee—over 300 I believe—with many of them talking about the sorts of initiatives needing funding that my people in the south talked about for which this levy will be very useful. 
As my colleagues have said there was a lot of discussion in the select committee about the level of the funding. At the time I was on the committee the $25 levy was being discussed but it certainly seems to me that settling on a balance of a $10 levy is a very sensible decision for the select committee to have made in building up that fund. Having the fifty-fifty split will mean that the levy can be used productively by territorial authorities and others. 
After the short time I spent on the committee I can say only that I am very pleased to see us at this point with this bill. It has my support and the support of the many people in my community who have talked to me about it and I have been very pleased to take a short call on it. Thank you.
Jones Dail: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17581] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will support the Waste Minimisation Bill. The legislation is a tribute to Nandor Tanczos. It is a shame that Nandor is not here to take part in the debate but I expect he might be listening. He was always great to work with. 
This is very useful legislation. Way way back in about 1979 Venn Young talked about putting a levy on Coca-Cola bottles and suchlike and getting a refund on them as is done in many countries. Some way of dealing with waste is long overdue in New Zealand. This bill is to be commended and New Zealand First supports it.
Dean Jacqui: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Dean Jacqui: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17579] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I will take a short call this time. I had several concerns about Part 3 and the waste disposal levy. My second misgiving is that perhaps there may be some nature of competition between local groups within a community be it large or small. In particular there may well be competition between the local authority the territorial authority and the community groups that are competing for this finite level of waste disposal levy moneys. I am not sure about this and again I would be interested in an explanation. I am still waiting for an explanation from the member in the chair Russel Norman as to whether he considers that the occurrence of fly dumping will increase because of the imposition of a waste disposal levy. I would very much like his view on that. 
I go back to my second concern which is about competition. Let us take the scenario of a territorial authority that has the community behind it is very committed to waste recycling and can see an opportunity in this legislation—and so it should—and then makes an application to the Waste Advisory Board for some of the funding for a waste minimisation programme. That is wonderful; it is laudable on behalf of the local authority. But there may also be a community group within that local authority—it does not have to be in the same town but it is in the same local authority—that would very much like to do the same thing. The concern I have—and I would like the member’s advice on this—is that we would now have communities working against each other. Surely that was not the intention in this bill. 
If this is an unintended consequence of Part 3 which creates the waste disposal levy I would like some discussion on it and I would like an explanation. I do need to say I was not part of the select committee discussion on this so I would genuinely like an explanation of those two matters. I would like to know whether fly dumping would be increased because of the waste levy at landfill—or disposal facilities as we call them now—and whether there would be some competition within the same or similar communities for that waste disposal levy funding.
Norman Russel William: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Norman Russel William: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17578] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I wanted to speak just briefly to clause 24 and to an amendment that is in part a response to an amendment put forward by Nicky Wagner. In clause 24 there is an exemption from the levy if one does not store the waste material for more than 3 months. It is quite a sensible exemption but both of us and a number of other people are of the view that 3 months is too short. The member Nicky has moved an amendment to make that time period 6 months and the Green Party is proposing to make it 12 months. 
Jacqui Dean 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member’s name is Nicky Wagner not Nicky. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: My apologies. We are suggesting that in clause 24(3) we change 3 months to 12 months. We think there is no reason why that time frame cannot be extended. 
Dail Jones 
: Has the amendment been tabled? 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: It has. We agree with the general intention of that member’s amendment to change it from 3 months to 12 months because it leaves more flexibility for those people who are dealing with recycling. 
I spent some of the day on the phone speaking with the original author of this bill Nandor Tanczos and looking at all the amendments that have been put forward. We are getting a little bit more up to speed from the former Green MP about the different amendments. 
Hon Member 
: He’s nice and relaxed. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: Yes he is very nice and relaxed; he is back at home now up in the Waikato. Nandor was very much of the view that the amendment was sensible and that it would be good to extend that period to 12 months. So we will be suggesting 12 months instead of the proposed 6 months.
Norman Russel William: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Norman Russel William: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17571] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Under Standing Order 298(1)(c) I am seeking to postpone consideration of Part 1 until after Part 7. Part 1 will still be considered but it will be considered last for the reason that we are in dialogue about an amendment moved by the member’s colleague and our views on whether we support that amendment. I meant to talk to Mr Guy earlier but he was on the phone. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: For the information of the rest of the Committee it is the right of the mover of the legislation to order that. Therefore we have accepted that Part 1 will be considered after Part 7.
Hobbs Marian: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17570] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I understand there is no debate on that question. Therefore we are to consider Part 2.