Blumsky Mark: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Blumsky Mark: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17587] 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 Yes as the previous speaker and current chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee alluded to we made a lot of compromises through the course of this process—which has taken quite a few years I think to be honest. But they were compromises that added value I am sure. Much to the displeasure of some of my colleagues maybe I have to say that I am a fan of the levy. I think the levy is a wonderful tool. It is a tool to make the waste minimisation process better because I think funding is needed to make sure that there are initiatives that are proactive and effective in dealing with the issues ahead. We do not have enough money in the big pot of things—there is not the money around. I am well aware and submitters made it quite clear to us when they came through the process that initiatives are out there that could be funded and it would actually make a difference if they could be funded. I think the levy would address that. 
While Nicky Wagner and Moana Mackey are discussing the word changes I want to raise an issue about the Supplementary Order Papers. In particular I will refer to Supplementary Order Paper 221 put forward by Nicky Wagner which talks about funding waste services through a waste levy and contains the phrase “must treat private enterprise”. I will explain where that came from. Quite simply the other day I was made aware of the magazine I am holding which is called  
LeafTurner 
. The industry has come a long way. The whole area of composting biodegrading and everything else has come a long way recently. We are now at the stage where there are magazines that focus just on composting. I thought gosh I would never have thought I would even have had a glance through this magazine but I was nosy because of the Waste Minimisation Bill so I started glancing at it. I noted that some pretty clever companies have been set up that are doing good work in the whole green waste recycling industry. 
One company in particular called Green Fingers caught my eye. It is a company that is doing some very significant business and making quite a difference in the area of waste. I wanted to know a bit more about what Green Fingers were doing so I rang and had a discussion with one of its directors just as I said to learn a bit more. I congratulated the company on its initiative and on the fact that it was doing some pretty good work in this whole area. I asked the director how he saw the future. He said: “Look our future’s pretty good apart from that bill that’s coming through the House because we have a concern.” I asked him what he was talking about. He said “Well what you’re doing with the levy by giving it to territorial authorities as well is you’re actually giving them the opportunity to set up in competition to us.” I asked what he meant by “set up in competition” with his company. He said that he was running a business where operators went to the back of the house to collect the green waste but that if a city council set it up it would have the green wheelie bins at the front of the gate and the bins would be free. He said that his company charged for its service because it comes to the back of the house it is quite proactive and makes sure the waste is looked after appropriately. 
The company was concerned that a council using its percentage of the levy would set up a new waste business in recycling that was in direct competition with it. I bought into that argument; I thought that it was not fair that our use of the levy would fund someone to knock out some other company in private business that is doing a bloody good job. So this amendment that Nicky Wagner has put before the Committee says quite bluntly that if a council does get a levy then the council should not use the levy to knock out some other company that is already doing the business in that area and doing it well. I am quite happy if a council sets up but because it is being subsidised using levies or ratepayers’ money it must give the same environment the same set of rules and the same advantages to that private enterprise as well. That would be fair and that is in fact what this amendment does. It sends a signal to local government that it should not bust out some company that has been doing a good job in this area just because a local government organisation thinks it can do it use it as a little earner and use the levy. That is not fair so it should not take that path and this amendment is quietly ensuring that it will not do that. I never thought about it through the process but after I read this little magazine and spoke to Green Fingers that company made me aware of the fact that it was nervous that a council might knock it out of business and I did not think that that was what we actually intended the whole amendment to do. 
I like the levy; I like the fact that there will be funds for innovation. I am very comfortable that local authorities will add half of the levy but the issue I have is that they cannot use it to displace others. They cannot use it as an extra and if they are using it for existing services they have to take some of that money off the rates bill. I am pleased however that there is a 2-year review. I think that $10 is too cheap. I think that $31 million divided by 2 does not leave enough in the fund. I believe there are some very significant projects in waste minimisation that can be put on stream but they will need some capital. That capital I think should be from the levy but the $15 million for the other half is not enough. I am a fan of seeing it going right up to $25 and that is why I am hoping that the 2-year review will look at that address the fact see a bloody big list of initiatives that will make a difference and make the call to increase the levy. There is not huge unanimity in caucus for that but I hope that that is where it goes because this will probably be my last chance to speak before they drag me off the stage. Thank you.