Court Simon; Parker DavidSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Just further to the questions of contaminated land and I'd just like to acknowledge the efforts of the Minister in assisting with the negotiation of the removal of hazardous materials from Mataura back to Tīwai-Bluff aluminium smelter because that is an example of where it is necessary for a Government to show leadership where we have an orphan site or an organisation that thought they could do the right thing with harmful materials but has not been able to succeed. But Minister I just want to ask for your consideration. Isn't the issue of contaminated land primarily a matter for private property owners unless the contamination is actually affecting a waterway which is a common asset or the ability of a neighbour to enjoy their land? Because Minister in my experience working in the contaminated land sector the hazards associated with past industrial and commercial activity whether they've been manufacturing steel components or concrete building houses or even painting houses that once had lead paint on them and where the preparation for repainting involves stripping and sanding and you end up with lead in the soil—that contamination is typically not a risk to anybody unless the soil is disturbed and people are exposed to contaminants by breathing in dusts for example such as asbestos or lead. So Minister if land contamination is primarily a risk to the landowner then shouldn't it be simply something for the landowner to manage? Because contamination if it's significant will reduce the value of that land. For example I'm aware of land developments where the price has been discounted when it comes to transacting the land because the land developer will need to spend a significant amount of money on cleaning up contamination before they can change the land use say from commercial or industrial to residential. So there's a lot of information here Minister on subpart 4 about classification of contaminated land and of course the polluter pays principle which ACT absolutely agrees with Minister. But the landowner's obligations are to identify to regional council when land is contaminated and to provide information about whether that contamination exceeds an environmental limit and so on. But it doesn't say what's to happen next because of course one of the problems we have now is that simply collecting information about natural and physical hazards is never enough. Someone will always have to act on it. And Minister it's not clear what that action might be from a regional council. So if you could clarify that also your interpretation or I guess give us a bit of context and background on the relative issues between the private property owner having the contamination versus the public risk if the land is not being disturbed and the contaminants are not being released. Minister I also want you to just give us your interpretation of how significant contaminated land sites in clause 422 might work under this legislation because it's not just orphan sites that are significant contaminated land sites. New Zealand also has hundreds of closed landfills sites where we willingly knowingly intentionally placed harmful substances general refuse municipal waste collected from households agricultural waste and chemicals all kinds of manufacturing wastes in communities around New Zealand in areas that are subject to erosion from coastal processes or river processes on sites which may well be now surrounded or even have had residential developments built over them Minister. There's significant contaminated land sites like closed landfills. Minister when it comes to paying for it and time frames if you could give us some clarity about once these sites are identified whether there is an opportunity to clean them up who should pay. And Minister given you also have the responsibility for the waste levy under the Ministry for the Environment's overall programme of work would you be able to indicate whether the waste levy collected from disposing waste at landfills now which is heading up towards $60 a tonne or more could be applied as a fund to provide funding and financing for cleaning up of the significant contaminated land sites. Minister.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Chair. Look the member understands these issues are complicated. I understand that he understands the complication. I agree with his general proposition that you're more worried about contaminated land if the contamination is going to flow from that land into a water body or into the air or into an adjacent piece of land. But some of these provisions also note that if the land use changes you've got to be pretty careful it's contaminated. It might be OK to run a lead acid battery manufacturing plant on a piece of land that's industrial but if it's become contaminated and you were to convert that into a residential subdivision then of course the lead poisoning that could occur to people living in the housing that is built on that subdivided land could be significant and there's a public policy interest against that happening and so that's why provisions like clause 421 provide duties on territorial authorities when considering consent applications to subdivide contaminated land.In respect of the issue as to the waste levy yes we're actually giving consideration to that. I think where that will end is in that in respect of municipal sites where really central government probably had responsibility for the original site. I'm certainly open to the idea that the Waste Minimisation Fund should be able to be accessed to help remediate those sites. I think that's a practical and sensible thing to do.In respect of private sites that are owned by private bodies who have polluted their land I'm not sure that the public purse should be going to that.