Mackey Moana: Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill — Second Reading 
Mackey Moana: Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16738] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill and although I am chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee I want to acknowledge Steve Chadwick who was the previous chair of the committee and who did the bulk of the work. I have come in at the end of that work and apparently have taken a lot of the credit for it which I do not deserve. But I want to acknowledge what a good bill this is and the work that the select committee did on it which was substantial when one looks at the bill as it was introduced and how it came out. It really was a very good process on the part of our select committee. 
I acknowledge all the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee. We worked very very hard to get this bill reported back to the House within the time frames because we knew how important this issue was and we did not want to delay it any further. So I made myself extremely popular when we had several extra meetings outside of our regular select committee times! I thank all the members from all parties who engaged proactively in that process. I acknowledge Nicky Wagner from the National Party who has a phenomenal amount of knowledge in this area and who was very constructive on that select committee. I acknowledge my colleague Marian Hobbs who was also very passionate about this issue and who contributed a lot to the development of this bill. That is not to take away credit from all the other members of the select committee. I know that it is always a danger when one acknowledges some people and does not mention others by name but all members contributed to this bill. 
But of course I want to pay particular tribute to Nandor Tanczos. It is fitting that this bill is something he will be remembered for in this Parliament as he leaves but at the same time it is very sad that he will be leaving us. I hope he can feel very proud of the work that was done on this bill and his contribution in this Parliament because it has been substantial. Who would have thought that an issue that was not seen as mainstream so many years ago would become very mainstream now and be embraced by not only so many parties in this House but also so many people across our communities? So I say congratulations to Nandor and I personally wish him all the best for the future. I am sure he will be very happy particularly with that gorgeous child of his. 
The Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill is a very good bill and I thought the Hon Dr Nick Smith made a very good point previously when he pointed out that provincial and rural communities often have done particularly good jobs at waste minimisation. I think of the Opotiki District Council. It has substantially reduced its waste yet the kind of perverse outcome of that often has been that it finds it very difficult to find an economic reason for landfills because it still has some waste that needs to go to landfill and it finds it very difficult without combining with huge numbers of other districts in shipping long distances to be able to meet those economies in a small community. I even think of my own home city of Gisborne which has significant issues with its landfills and which ships waste to Hamilton. I think this bill will provide economies that incentivise waste minimisation and I hope that will be beneficial particularly for those councils that have already made strides in this area. 
That brings me on perhaps prematurely to one area that was significant during our discussions and that was raised with us by submitters because we did go back out to submitters and asked them to come back again. I think it is important to acknowledge in the select committee process that we recognise that such a substantial change in the bill should go back out for people to resubmit on and we did rehear submissions on this bill. One of the things of course that was very difficult for a select committee to balance was where the waste levy money should go. Should it be 100 percent contestable should it be 100 percent territorial authority or should it be a mix—somewhere in the middle? That is not an easy balance for a select committee to come up with because there are very very strong arguments on both sides of that equation. 
For example as previously said we have many territorial authorities that have been ahead of the pack and that have done many very very good things above and beyond that which would be expected of them in their basic duties as a territorial authority. They might rightly ask why they should not be now able to go back and get some funding for a project that they have done above and beyond what every territorial authority has done but for which now they would be able to go out and apply for funding if they were not doing it already. We had to balance that against other interests that said that if we allow all that money to go to territorial authorities it will simply be a rates offset—basically they are doing it already they factored it in already they have done the costs already for their community and have decided it is worth it. So if they are given money out of this levy fund then basically they will now be using that to offset rates. That is not an easy balance for a select committee to come to. We took the middle road and 50 percent goes either way. I think that is appropriate. 
We certainly do not want to penalise a lot of those territorial authorities. A number of them are very small and rural they have been ahead of the charge and they may want to look at developing further on those programmes. At the same time we also recognise there are enormous opportunities out there within the private sector for developing waste minimisation. 
I am very pleased that the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill will get broad support across the House. When I was leaving my office I heard the speech made by Te Ururoa Flavell who said that this bill was being watered down. I think there is a reality that we have to accept with some of this legislation. I take the example of the per tonne levy on waste disposed in landfills—it was $25 in the original bill and is now down to $10. The Local Government and Environment Committee was concerned about illegal dumping. We need to be very very careful when we go into some of these areas that we incentivise behaviour that is good but do not make it far more attractive to engage in behaviour that is bad. This was another area that was not easy for the select committee to decide a way through but I think the introduction of a $10-a-tonne levy on waste disposal and landfills is a good middle road. Of course that levy can be reviewed at any time if that is deemed appropriate by the Government of the day. I certainly do not see it as watering down the legislation. 
In fact I think the entire select committee process was about aligning this legislation as much as possible with what was already happening so that we did not disadvantage people who were already doing very good things in this area. Also it was about making sure we did not introduce more and more layers of compliance for territorial authorities and the private sector. In looking at the role of territorial authorities it was very clear to me that there was a need for clarification of their role especially beyond what they carry out during their normal course of business. I believe that the bill achieves that. 
Part 7 establishes the Waste Advisory Board. Under Part 2 of the bill as introduced a Waste Minimisation Authority would have been established with a far more extensive role than that of the Waste Advisory Board. I think this strikes a very good balance in terms of what we are trying to achieve and in terms of not introducing more and more layers of compliance for people who are already working in a potentially very difficult area. The select committee had a tendency almost to put too much upon the Waste Advisory Board. We had to keep ourselves in check when considering the role of the board. It is very important that the board is independent. At the end of the day its role especially in advising the Minister on key issues will be crucial to the overall success of the legislation. 
I will touch on one other area—the product stewardship schemes. This is a very important area. Those of us on the Finance and Expenditure Committee looking at the emissions trading scheme know how important it is to have good product stewardship schemes in place especially in terms of refrigeration gases. Gases that are used in the refrigeration industry are quite devastating if they are released into the atmosphere. But if a proper product stewardship scheme is in place and gases are maintained those gases have no impact whatsoever. That is a very real example of how product stewardship schemes are incredibly important. Those gases are hugely more damaging to the environment than other well-known greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide. Their greenhouse gas impact is many many times more intense. If we can maintain those gases through good product stewardship schemes then we will be able to mitigate an awfully large cost to the New Zealand economy and to the world environment. 
The idea of making people aware of the exact cost of a product from cradle to grave—including the disposal of the product—is long overdue and was embraced by a large number of the business people who came to the select committee. They want to make their customers aware that the life of a product has not ended just because a customer has finished with it. Someone needs to pay for that cost and who should that be? It should probably be the person who has used the product for the entirety of its life. 
In finishing I thank the officials who worked on this bill. They did a fabulous job. They were always able to answer our questions and they met some very strict deadlines. I acknowledge the sponsor of the bill Nandor Tanczos and wish him all the best for the future. I hope this bill has a speedy passage through the House.