Sosene Lemauga LydiaLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you Mr Speaker. It is a real pleasure to take a call on the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill. On this side of the House we've had contributions made by our colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking who has highlighted why we agree with some of what has been proposed by this Government. However it is far too broad.Part of the summary of initiatives that has been outlined—it has been very interesting because we are not going through a select committee process so the public does not get the opportunity to raise questions to raise concerns to really scrutinise what is before Aotearoa at this point.On this side of the House I want to explain in my contribution why we are opposed to this levy that has been hypothecated to be expanded because if you expand it too much you lose the focus of the waste-related and environmental activities that are really important. They are important issues to our community. We have a lot of young people a lot of rangatahi that are very concerned that this specific levy that will be for communities industries up and down the country—it is really important to have that specific focus.One of the things that I want to raise is the education on environmental activities. So I'm just going to highlight some of the activities that the levy was helping under this legislation introduced in 2008. Waste minimisation is part and parcel of a movement. We New Zealanders have to be (a) educated and (b) have to have strong legislation to guide communities to guide industry as to why we are going to look after Aotearoa. In terms of the activity we all have a responsibility to make sure that the whenua that we live in that we use every day—it is important that people get to have their say.So when I read through the supplementary analysis report I appreciate what has been highlighted under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008. It's really important that we have a focus on emissions from the remediation of contaminated sites. In my local rohe in South Auckland in Māngere because of activity that has been taken by early gardeners there has been a lot of contaminated soil that has been produced over time but also in the big housing developments and there has been a lot of work by the local Auckland Council in the local communities. Last year with the Auckland floods the community like other communities were up in arms that the remedial activity that had been taken by Auckland Council was not enough. It just wasn't enough and communities suffered a lot of harm in terms of losing everything that they'd had.I want to specifically focus on communities that have English as their second language—specifically for te reo specifically for Pasifika and even ethnic communities—where they understand that legislation is there because previous Governments have put that in however they don't understand completely the relationship of legislation to Auckland Council and to some of the activity. So some of our communities really suffered and lost everything. So I come back to the bill. If the funding is going to be too broad how then will communities like ours be able to participate be able to be educated about the environmental harm that will come our way? The impacts of that are not good when you're cutting funding from the environmental activities.So I really look forward to the committee of the whole House stage so that we are able as members on the ground in our local communities to ask the Minister specifically about her understanding about analysis and the modelling and specifically impacts. Because if you don't have the opportunity to have really good stakeholder consultation through a process that we are going through when you are producing legislation that the Government is so strongly focused on then that leaves out communities who could have benefited from well written well traversed legislation.I want to highlight a local situation in my local community that members will not be aware of. There was a particular policy by Auckland Council to do with drains—drains that are on everybody's road where the water just goes down the drains. We had a problem in our local community where one of our young rangatahi—and I know members are all looking at their phones because they don't want to listen—died in a drain because the drain was open. The lid of that specific drain was able to be lifted.I roll back to the legislation. It is important for the public to have their say so that members that are sitting around the table on that specific select committee or members of the Government of the day understand the different situations that occur if you don't have good environmental objectives if you don't have a clear process where the community can come along and be able to provide views of the different situations in their local communities.On this side of the House we are opposed. We are opposed to the definitions or the wider range being expanded because you need to have a specific focus and it needs to be clear to the public why good legislation that is put in by the Government of the day then goes to the territorial local authorities so that then communities can understand what these effects are and they could change their behaviour to do with helping with understanding environmental harm in local communities.So what I can say in terms of the modelling that I understood the information that has been provided in the analysis report it just does not go far enough and broadening the purposes of the levy where it is supposed to be spent it diminishes that link. It diminishes the link between those paying the levy and the outcomes—the specific outcomes—that are being funded by this levy.I cannot emphasise enough the importance of having very good environmental education because that explains to communities the cause and effect. It also helps communities on the ground in terms of the levy that is being proposed so that people understand the intent behind the policy and they can understand the problem that we are all trying to diagnose.So in terms of the investment of this levy there are contaminated sites that require remediation up and down the country. For specific councils like Auckland Council there was a specific focus on communities especially the communities that cannot afford some of the costs. This Government has made their announcement—in terms of the Budget there are just cuts everywhere. People are trying to manage their households and so their focus is not on environmental initiatives not if you're trying to get ahead not if you're worried about school lunches not if you're worried about your children getting to school and the increased cost of public transport.So I come back to this bill that is being proposed today and we absolutely oppose the broadening of the new legislation because it is important that the future of our rangatahi is really clear on environmental harm. It may influence the change of their behaviour to choose better careers a better education because they understand the actual problem. So I'm very pleased that I've been able to take a call on this matter. Thank you.