Dean Jacqui: Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill — Second Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16727] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to support the second reading of this Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill. I thank Nandor Tanczos for his kind words with regard to the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee and note that it is sad that Nicky Wagner who sat in on the committee on my behalf is not here tonight to take part in the debate. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Oh heartbroken! 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Well I am here so it is all right. The original bill has been substantially rewritten and most of the comments I make will relate to Supplementary Order Paper 150. The new bill is the result of two lengthy submission processes and I sat in on some of those meetings. Also the Regulations Review Committee reviewed the bill and suggested some technical changes to it. Many of the provisions that National originally opposed in this bill—things like the highly prescriptive requirements of compulsory waste plans which I could see from a mile off were going to be unworkable; detailed consumer information where again too much detail was required; and the complex and expensive bureaucratic layers of administration—have been omitted from the bill. It has to be said that the Supplementary Order Paper has generally been positively received by many members of the public. Of the 125 submitters only 8 percent opposed the Supplementary Order Paper 22 percent were in outright support of it and 61 supported it with some amendments. I have to say that when I was sitting on the Local Government and Environment Committee the committee generally viewed the process with a good deal of goodwill and had an honest working-together attitude which is something to be much encouraged sometimes I would have thought. 
There is much concern in the community of course about the management of waste and businesses are well aware of the high public expectations that are held in this area. A lot or work has been done on the Supplementary Order Paper and the unacceptable parts of the bill have been dumped. It is worth noting that voluntary product stewardship schemes already exist—for example Fisher and Paykel have such a scheme as of course part of the packaging accord. Business as a whole is keen to retain the voluntary nature of these product stewardship schemes. This is possible even for priority products as long as the schemes are effective and agreed targets are reached. There seems to be an acceptance of the need for a waste levy and at the rate set at $10 a tonne it will be a less than significant cost to individuals and businesses. Other countries have legislated for large mandatory increases. This bill allows for an increase to the levy following a review of its effectiveness and that can take place after 2 years. 
The community by and large and local government support this bill and in its new form even business is beginning to accept that its time has come. The purpose of the bill is to protect the environment from harm and to provide environmental social and economic benefits by encouraging more effective use of materials a reduction in waste and good careful disposal of waste. It is good to note that it aligns directly with National’s  
Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand 
. I know that members of the Government who closely read our blue-green vision policy document will only fall into agreement with me on that point. 
The bill contains several major issues. The first one is product stewardship and the bill provides accreditation and also regulatory processes to encourage and foster product stewardship schemes. These schemes will take responsibility for the environmental impacts of disposing of a product after its useful life. By that I mean the collection and disposal of used oil and things like safe disposal of electronic waste. Many of these schemes again already exist voluntarily but legislative backing will get rid of the free-rider problem. 
Another aspect is priority products. This aspect provides criteria for identifying priority products which include environmental harm from disposal. Public concern identified benefits from reuse recycling recovery or treatment of that product which means that the biggest problem products get dealt with first and an accredited product stewardship scheme must be developed for all priority products. Again business generally prefers voluntary options in this and these may be accredited if they meet accepted targets. 
I move on to the waste disposal levy. This enables a levy of $10 per tonne to be placed on all waste going to landfill. It is estimated that this will collect approximately $30 million per annum. The waste disposal levy is user-pays; it is a pricing mechanism used as an incentive to divert waste. It is seen as a fairer way to fund waste minimisation projects than the rather blunter tool of using local body rates. The revenue from this waste disposal levy will be split—50 percent to territorial local authorities on a per capita basis to be spent on waste minimisation projects as identified in their waste management and minimisation plans and the other 50 percent as a contestable fund to fund waste minimisation projects. 
I turn to the commentary on the bill under the heading “Waste Disposal Levy”. The select committee states: “We consider this lower figure adequate initially as it will take time for worthwhile schemes for waste reduction to attract funding through the levy fund.” I would have to take a bit of issue with that statement on behalf of the committee because actually there are a lot of worthwhile schemes already in existence in New Zealand. If I just turn to my own electorate in the South Island I tell members that the Waitaki Resource Recovery Park is leading the country in resource recovery. In fact it does not call it waste; it calls it a resource. That is the philosophy that underlies the work it does. It is supported wholeheartedly by the local and wider community to the extent that there is a group up in Kurow manned by volunteers who are also very passionate about resource recovery. There is also a number of waste-buster schemes in other parts of my electorate alone. It would be fair to say that these worthwhile schemes not only do not need time to get ready to apply for levy monies but in fact have been said to be leading this whole process. So if I disagree on any point it is that one. 
Another aspect is the Waste Advisory Board. The bill provides for the establishment of a Waste Advisory Board of four to eight members it specifies how those members are appointed and it deals with its operations. The board will provide guidance and independent expert advice to the ministry and to the Minister. 
Let us move on to territorial local authority responsibilities. The bill provides for the adoption by territorial local authorities of waste management and minimisation plans to promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation in their districts. Well that is all well and good but a number of territorial local authorities are also undertaking these plans. One concern I would have is that the provisions in this bill should it become law will require territorial local authorities to revisit those plans. Although I know local government in New Zealand is in support of this bill I would hate to think there was any unnecessary cost imposed on local authorities due to the requirement to develop yet another plan. That would be a reservation I have. Provision is made for public consultation in preparing these plans and in a sector that is well and truly consulted on an ongoing basis this will provide yet another opportunity for the public to well and truly have its say and get in behind waste minimisation. 
In conclusion National supports the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill in the name of Nandor Tanczos with a few reservations noting that the aims of the bill align with National’s blue-green policy on the environment and we are pleased that a number of amendments have been made to the bill that reflect National’s position. Thank you.