Dean Jacqui: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Dean Jacqui: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17598] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 It is interesting to speak on Part 4 of the Waste Minimisation Bill. There are several drivers for waste minimisation on the part of the community. It can be as simple as a desire to compost kitchen waste. It could be a desire to recycle bottles and glassware. It could be something as simple as a desire to on behalf of the community take responsibility for waste generated within that community. Those drivers are on the community’s side. As a result of that over the years a number of community groups have taken responsibility for waste on behalf of their communities. We should not underestimate the power of the communities that have taken those initiatives on board. Many of the constituency members of Parliament will be able to cite small communities within their electorates that have taken waste minimisation activities on board for a number of years. Those are their drivers. They are drivers to be responsible for our environment and to take charge of it. 
Local authorities on the other hand have maybe a slightly different driver. It is as simple as the fact that the landfill is filling up very quickly and the local authorities will have the responsibility of negotiating a new consent for a landfill which we understand is not an easy thing to do particularly under this Labour-led Government. So we have seen a number of changes in behaviour and a number of drivers for that change. For local authorities the spectre of a landfill filling up very quickly with a combination of clean fill dry fill green waste garden rubbish and domestic rubbish is a frightening prospect. Therefore it would be very true to say that the desire to become more efficient with waste management has the support of the wider community. It does not matter whether it is the small community of Opotiki which has been a leader in waste minimisation in New Zealand or another community that does not perhaps have that level of concern over waste minimisation. 
A number of colleagues have noted that some territorial authorities are lagging behind in this regard. One has to ask why that is. Is it because they do not care? I do not believe that communities and local authorities do not care. Maybe it is more a matter of not having the resources to undertake waste management provisions. Having said that I note that in Part 31 of the Local Government Act 1974 there are waste management provisions. I am assuming from memory—because it is a wee while since I was in local government—that every territorial local authority should have a waste management plan in action. So I am a little confused and I would be happy to hear comment from the member in the chair Russel Norman or even from the Local Government and Environment Committee chair Moana Mackey as to why a number of local authorities are lagging behind when Part 31 of the Local Government Act prescribes that each territorial local authority should have a waste management plan. I know that in the development of those plans there are always a number of submissions because there is always a high degree of community support for waste minimisation. 
I turn to Part 4 of the Waste Minimisation Bill which National supports with some misgivings. It is interesting to note that during the debate this evening one did not get the same line time after time from the National benches which is what one tends to get from the Labour benches. On the Labour benches one tends to get the same story again and again. One of the great things about the National benches is that we can have a rich diversity of views whilst still supporting a bill. We can be our own people yet stay within a position and in this case we are supporting the Waste Minimisation Bill. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to.