Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to take my first call in relation to the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill. I want to specifically look at a particular part of the bill that's been touched on very briefly by my colleague Rachel Brooking and I want to expand on that more as one of my roles is to be the Labour Party's spokesperson on emergency management. A certain section of this bill is focused on emergency management and dealing with waste as a result of emergencies. So I wanted to if I could take the Minister for the Environment back to the definition of emergency" in Part 1 which we're currently on which is the same as what is currently in the primary piece of legislation the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. Now I have checked that in advance of asking the Minister my question on this issue and the definition of "emergency" essentially in that primary piece of legislation is very wide. Essentially if you if you go through the definition it's basically anything that happens whether natural or otherwise that results in a situation that can't be managed without the involvement of emergency services—so an extremely wide definition. I wanted to ask the Minister if that was intentional or if it just was consistency within the Act—if she did in fact want the scope to be widened so much to either be just consistent or so that the levy could be used in a wider sense.The other question I wanted to ask was back to another part of new section 38A inserted in the primary legislation by clause 11 of the bill which I don't think we have touched on which is paragraph (b) of section 38A(3). This is the criteria that the Minister will use and must look at before considering the criteria for funding: management of emergency waste or repair or the replacement of waste management and minimisation infrastructure. Now one section that we haven't touched on is the section on what other matters the Minister may consider relevant to that. So there is a list there that the Minister must consider but then the paragraph (b) of section 38A(3) there essentially means that Minister can look at anything that the Minister may think is relevant. So I wanted to know: what are those other things that might be relevant to justify the inclusion of such a wide clause? Was that purposeful in the sense that the Minister wanted to think widely? She's made some comments in relation to other sections—but not I think this section; but I'm willing to be corrected on that—that she wanted to obviously have a have a wider criteria. But it seems very open there and I just wanted to know: has she received any specific advice about the types of other things that may be considered when the Minister sets that criteria? Because this is a criteria that can be set once this legislation is passed by the Minister alone. I think it's important to have some clarity on that before moving forward.Also I'm not sure if we've touched that much on Schedule 1 which I understand is part of this debate on Part 1. I think that it's important for the Minister really to look at these transitional provisions and just say you know for example why was the date of 1 January 2025 considered as part of that schedule? Was that because of any particular reason or did it just happen to be decided that next year was a good time to start it? Did she consider introducing the particular schedule provisions earlier or not? It's a question I have and I don't think we've touched on that schedule."