Xu-Nan Lawrence; Simmonds PennyDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. Firstly if I may it would be great for the Minister for the Environment to answer my previous questions—that would be great. On that note one of the things I noticed the Minister previously mentioned is that there has been no forecasted increase in the levy which is one of the reasons that this was introduced as it is laid out in Schedule 2 here. I would just like to say I think that regardless of who would have been in Government maybe we would have seen a similar amendment bill coming through that potentially would have increased the levy and potentially increased the levy at the rate that my colleagues Steve Abel and Kahurangi Carter's amendments have indicated.The two questions I have for the Minister relating to Schedule 2 and this section——tying to this is the first one around levy avoidance. I want to draw people's attention to the to the supplementary analysis report and again bring attention to the importance that we see a supplementary analysis report in lieu of a regulatory impact report because of the fact that this bill is going into urgency and there simply wasn't enough time to put together a regulatory impact report. So on paragraph 88—sorry paragraph 71 here it talks about the projected levy revenue that we will be seeing as a part of this increase in the levy across all three—sorry all four classes. But what we see in paragraphs 88 and 89 is that an increase in levy rate may result in levy avoidance behaviour and particularly around being inappropriately disposed of a landfill with lower levy rates. Now taking into consideration the other possibility you have put on the table in terms of amendments to the paper and to the levy rate what sort of mitigation strategy has the Minister considered at this stage to reduce the chances of levy avoidance; and is levy avoidance currently factored into the projected revenue rate that we see in paragraph 71 of the supplementary analysis report? So that's my first question.My second question is around the community cost with the increase in levy and particularly the municipal disposal facility class 1. So on page 3 of the supplementary analysis report we see the limitation and constraint on this analysis—in particular I point to the section on the impact. So under the impact section it says that the analysis included limited assessment of the impact of levy rates increase on certain population groups such as the average household and in particular the potential risk of unintended consequences and perverse outcomes could not be examined. So I would like to know from the Minister: what sort of strategy does the Minister have when it comes to the community impact of increasing the levy of the municipal disposal facility class 1? This is in addition to what we also see in a paragraphs 63 and 66 which also speak of the fact that this proposal has not been subject to external engagement or consultation and the sector would likely have a range of views of amendment on the levy setting.So I think these two questions are really really important for the Minister to clarify. The first one being: what is the Minister's strategy around levy avoidance which could be a result of this particularly when people will dispose of waste at a lower-tiered facility in order to get a lower rate and has that been factored into the projected revenue? The second one is: what sort of impact assessment or analysis—beyond the supplementary analysis report—has been done on the community cost and particularly the household cost with the increase to the municipal disposal facility class 1?Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Mr Chair. In answer to the questions that have been put regarding avoidance there is additional reporting that comes in on 1 July this year. So some of that will address it. Also I would remind the member that I have a legislative bid in—for later in the year—for wider reform of the waste legislation. We particularly look at some of those avoidance matters—around things like fly tipping and things like that. So along with that avoidance I've given the assurance to the Hon Rachel Brooking that that would be the appropriate time to look at the local authority scope as well. So there is some additional reporting coming in in July this year which will help to mitigate—but an opportunity to put more mitigation in as we look at that wider reform of the waste legislation. I am trying to remember—oh the impact. I think I commented on either my first or second reading speech that the amount per family was around about $5.07 per annum once the municipal rate got up to the full $75 per tonne in year 2027. So a modest increase and a modest impact on an average family.