Abel Steve; Bennett Glen; Simmonds PennySTEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you Mr Chair and thank you Minister for those answers. I just want to clarify and ask you a question on your comment around the cost of living in terms of the impact on people.For context the current municipal disposal rate is $60 per tonne the managed or controlled fill disposal rate is a mere $10 per tonne and the construction fill and demolition fill disposal rate is only $30 per tonne. So already municipal disposal is twice the cost to your average New Zealander than it is for construction and demolition fill. That is a massive let-off for industrial waste disposal. Industrial monofill waste generated from a single industrial process according to the supplementary analysis report does not get any levy at all and those can include toxic wastes potentially. Inert but highly contaminated soils and rubbles have only just received a levy of $10 as of July 2023.So right now we are making the average New Zealander pay more for their domestic waste disposal than we are industry by a significant margin. Our proposal in the amendment by Kahurangi Carter is not to increase any further than what you are proposing Minister the rate for municipal disposal from $60—and $5 a year on upwards. We are proposing a $20 increase per year on construction fill and managed or controlled fill. Now the crucial thing is and the question to you Minister is what analysis was done—CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Please engage through the Chair not directly with the Minister.STEVE ABEL: Pardon me Mr Chair. The question to the Minister is: what analysis was done on the impact on reduction in waste volumes by a higher threshold of levy? Was there analysis done on that?The core of that question matters because as we know in other jurisdictions when a levy reaches a certain level such as $150 or $160 a tonne it drives new efforts by industry to remove waste from landfill. That's when we start to get the actual waste minimisation effect. You don't get the waste minimisation effect if the levy is only going to be $70 by 2026 for construction and demolition waste significantly behind what's happening in Australia. A $20 per annum increase gets us closer to what we need to be doing to disincentivise waste going to landfill.The other thing to consider Minister in terms of the cost of living impact is that waste is a cost and a burden on our society. What is the extent of that cost and burden and how much more quickly can we drive it down by sending strong signals that we are disincentivising waste? If we don't send those strong signals we risk the waste problem being worse we don't get the infrastructural funding for making the change but what's more of course if the levy is effective as a Pigouvian disincentive tax the volume of money coming from the levy goes down.We want the income to Government from the levy to be decreasing because that is a sign the levy is working as a disincentive. What analysis was done on the levels at which we maximise that decrease in the volumes of waste going to landfill? Thank you.GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora Mr Chair. Actually I'm going to ask a question and I know there are rules and procedures around what Cabinet can and can't say but it's more about the process around the levy space. But I just want to correct the record because in my previous contribution actually I made a mistake and I want to just for the sake of Hansard who are doing a sterling job in capturing all of our amazing kōrero and others'. I did say that there had been stakeholder engagement but actually there hadn't been stakeholder engagement on this. In my brain I did quickly read it; so I just apologise for that. There was no stakeholder engagement on this legislation. I just wanted to clarify that.Coming back to the question around Cabinet processes and the increasing of the levies—so obviously we have been talking about that a lot and obviously you're a champion of the environment as Minister and I'm glad to hear as you just said about putting a bid in later in the year. But I'm just wanting I guess to get assurance from the committee in terms of—you obviously can't disclose the conversation but there was actually work done to get these numbers right because the numbers are obviously increasing and obviously it's really how that was calculated understanding that work. So my first question really is in terms of how the Minister led on that in formulating this legislation.I guess the reason I bring it up is because obviously in a usual situation in select committee I know that industry would have submitted in the hundreds and potentially thousands on this and they all would have had an opinion on their levy. They all would have had an opinion on where it's set and where it is. And so that's why I just want to understand from the Minister in terms of did she consult with others? How did they come up with these numbers? Or did they just spin a magic wheel in the Cabinet room? I don't know.Secondly around that—so getting to understand the levy—is the lead-in time and just where that fits in terms of again how the Minister for the Environment landed on that lead-in time as additional levy rates increase applies from 2025. In terms of the lead-in time I'm hoping and guessing officials had given advice on that. I know there's things obviously—because you can't just do them—well there's some things you can slam through overnight but other things you can't: when it comes to communications with the sector when it comes to systems change to get the computer settings right and those type of things. So in terms of that lead-in time is the Minister confident and had good advice to ensure that everything is lined up in terms of getting it right for that increase to apply from 2025?We've talked a lot about social licence in the committee stage. We've talked a lot about working across the aisle. We've talked a lot about how we bring people with us. And I guess again if this was just dumped into the inboxes of industry of those who are having to dispose of products what would it be for them just to suddenly have that Well this starts at this date."? But just to know that there is a clear I guess communication plan and that they feel that I guess you—and for most of us who have worked in the real world we set the date for where we want to be and then work our way back to make sure we have all our ducks in a line all our protected ducks all our waterways and riverways in a line and clean and green so that we can move along and care for those ducks and support those ducks and take photos of those ducks but make sure they're safe and protected. So that lead-in time—that we get it right.I assume that this is going to pass. I assume that suddenly magically the Leader of the House isn't going to come bowling in here and say "Actually stop. We're going to take it to select committee." I'm guessing that's not going to happen. So we just want to make sure—Hon Rachel Brooking: There's still time.GLEN BENNETT: There is still time—there is still time—but to make sure that there is a decent lead-in time so that the sector so that industry isn't blindsided yet again by another piece of legislation that's rammed through.So just the processes that the Minister championed; the lead-in time just to make sure we get this right because we actually want New Zealanders to do right by waste. And as I've said many a time we want to keep it tight and we want to get it right.Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Mr Chair thank you. I will answer the questions by the Green member Steve Abel and may at the same time answer—I think there might have been a question somewhere in the previous member Glen Bennett's discussion.The calculations yes were done around the impact of the changes around the construction sector based on the estimates of how much waste is produced during construction of a new build. The levy costs by the time of getting to 2027 would increase a home being built and an average size three-bedroom home by around $46 a house while the levy cost for disposal of materials from a typical house demolition would increase by about $206 for each demolition. I acknowledge these are modest but given that we are in a housing crisis we are very very mindful of not putting anything in the way of houses being built and in fact are trying very hard to reduce some of the compliance costs around that.With regard to why there is difference between the different classes of facility there is much greater ability for reuse and recycling of municipal waste and much less for the classes 3 and 4 the managed or controlled fill disposal facilities where lightly contaminated materials are going in and there is very little opportunity for recycling there. And similarly with the construction and demolition waste there is increasing infrastructure but certainly not as mature as the infrastructure that is there for dealing with municipal waste."