Blumsky Mark: Waste Minimisation Bill — Third Reading 
Blumsky Mark: Waste Minimisation Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:18838] 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 This is probably the last time I will officially stand and speak outside my valedictory speech and I feel very good about the fact that I am speaking in a very positive way about the Waste Minimisation Bill; it has been a very positive process. I acknowledge the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee—[ 
Interruption 
]—and I agree with Moana Mackey that it was good. We “did good” I feel. We were an example to Parliament and it is a pity that many of the others do not follow it—if I can be so bold. But this is not my valedictory speech so I will not go there. The process was good and as a committee we worked very well. Also the officials were brilliant. The advice we had from them through the transition was sharp and smart. All of them “did good”. They did us proud. So from that point of view I was impressed as well. 
It was nice to meet so many of the community through the whole submission process. I acknowledge the fact that the member John Carter was also on the committee—not that Mr Carter mentioned either me or you in his speech Madam Assistant Speaker but that is fine; we will pay him back later. Was it not wonderful though to meet the community as we did? We met wonderful people who were passionate about the environment about waste and the right way to handle it and about the fact that we would be stuffing up the environment if we were not careful. I was in awe of that community. It made me feel very humble actually to see how people in the community out there really do care get involved do the hard yards and get their hands really dirty in trying to right the wrongs. I also acknowledge that there are some businesses out there doing the same thing. We met quite a few in the business community who were also caring and working very hard to make a difference and to have an impact on the global issue of waste. 
This bill had its first reading on 14 June 2006 so it has taken its time to get here. It has not been a quick process. As those who have been listening have heard the bill is very different from what it was in 2006. It is good that we have stayed with it. Most people at the end of the day agreed with the objectives of the bill. People cared. And who would not? Waste is a problem. But waste is also an opportunity. I go back to quote Professor Storey at Victoria University who said that waste is an opportunity; it is just a “resource in the wrong place”. That is one of those quotes that will stay with me. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Like you. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: I will acknowledge that too! There were a lot of parts in the bill that were not so well liked and we heard that through the 316 submissions. So off it went back into the kitchen where there was a lot of cooking before it came out the other end in September last year and 125 submitters then had the chance to comment. I was reading Nandor’s second reading speech and he made a comment that I actually liked and noted. The new bill that came through to quote his words “keeps the bones of the original bill and alters the flesh.” It certainly did that. It was great to see that the community was very supportive and even business in its commentary through the submission process admitted that the time has come for something to be done. 
From my point of view on the things that were not changed I am a fan of the financial driver the levy; I think the levy is a good tool. The levy as members would have heard starts at $10 a tonne and will be reviewed in 2 years—that was a change we made in the select committee process—and then every 3 years. I personally agree with the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development which says that $30 is the fee that the levy should be hit at not $10. I think $30 will have an impact and it is an impact that we need. So from my point of view I am glad the review is there in 2 years and it is nice to see the review come along every 3 years. 
It was wonderful talking about the levy because all sides told us that they could spend it. My colleague John Carter covered that beautifully. We set it on a 50:50 split which I think was a fair way. Local government gets 50 percent of the levy and a contestable fund gets 50 percent of the levy. We saw through the select committee process that some territorial local authorities are doing wonderful work in this area. But there are some that should be ashamed of themselves and need to revisit their whole attitude towards waste and look to the better ones—and I will not mention them—for best practice and for an example of the way forward. 
I as I said was very pleased that the levy ended up being split and even more important that it can be spent only on waste minimisation initiatives and is not to be used for councils to put in the big pot and then diverted into other ways of spending. We need to be very careful in monitoring the review process so that the money allocated is spent for the right reasons by local bodies and is not used if you like to subsidise rates because that actually is not the purpose. It is to minimise waste. The levy will be used for research through the contestable fund. Those who want to do research can apply. Those who want to do capital projects can apply. We had through the submission process a number of rather significant businesses wanting to do big projects that felt that a start-up ability—a funding ability—would generate a lot more enthusiasm from their shareholders. There is also seed funding. At the select committee we saw some wonderful community initiatives that if they had some seed funding would grow; we must applaud those. 
One of the things we have to be careful of and I think Nicky Wagner mentioned it is that we cannot let local authorities use the levy to bump out the providers who are doing a good job. We talked about that a number of times. The levy is not there to bump out companies like Green Fingers that are doing a fantastic job. They are not to be bumped out by a local authority using a levy to subsidise competition in that area. 
I am a huge fan of the product stewardship that came through the bill. I think it makes the producers the importers the retailers the consumers and others take responsibility for the environmental effects of products. Hearing John Carter talk again about the container deposit I tell members that we came close very close to putting container deposit through the bill by name. There was certainly a lot of commentary from the business community about that for sure. I personally am a fan; I think it does make a difference and will make a difference. I hope the framework allows container deposit legislation to be brought in so that community groups will have a funding stream that is not often available. Kiwis want to see recycling and want to see practical measures to tackle the issue of waste. The recovery side of the process will enable that. There is an issue about recovery; we are not good at it. We will be better at it. This bill has enabled a focus on it. 
As I say to finish on it is nice to stand here having worked through something with a group of people I enjoyed working with to make a positive impact and I look forward over time to seeing waste being minimised.