Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora Mr Chair. It's my second time rising and yeah it is a challenge to listen. I want to come back to the Minister. My first question actually is a really simple one related to the Hon David Parker. He did ask you a question and I would really like to hear the answer of that. But I think it was around consensus. You know he obviously gave a really good history and a good story about how this came about but for us here in the Labour Party it would be nice to know—and I guess it follows up to Rachel Brooking's question around why we're doing this in urgency. So whether I could have an answer from the Minister yeah around how she could consider consensus on this.And secondly which I guess is totally related in terms of why it is an urgency—in Part 2 here as we look at the amendment to waste minimalisation calculation and payment a waste disposal levy I want to come back. I'm spending a lot of time reading the supplementary analysis report and there's a lot in here about the why—why Cabinet has made these choices. And I guess I need to know a bit of that process and understand. Obviously there has been some consultation. We can see here there has been some stakeholder views put in. But of course those stakeholders don't get to have the full experience of sitting in front of a select committee and putting in thoughtful submissions that we as the Environment Committee would have considered.In this analysis it talks about fiscal savings for the Budget. And I guess as we look at the calculation table it concerns me that they directly mention Budget savings to ensure that obviously they find some money somewhere else.And then I flick through—and there's lots of bits of paper here for me to rustle through. I guess when we look at the schedule of payments the document makes it really clear that that table is an increase. But the broadening of what the money is for means that there will be assumed consequences from it. And I want to just mention it talks on page 11 about to maintain the efficiency and effectiveness of the levy regime. And it does mention—it has the potential the way the bill has been drafted for the calculation of payment waste to be near on being a tax rather than a levy. And that's I guess where we want to understand. And we look at the Treasury guidelines—it talks about on page 13 guidelines for setting changes in the public sector and when it comes to levies. But in a way the levies may be more akin to attack. So I really want to make sure that this is a levy in terms of the schedule around the calculation of the payment and then come back to what the Hon David Parker asked around consensus.Because we want to be constructive and we want to make sure—as I said in the previous section of the legislation—you know that this is tight and right so that it works well. And then again supporting my senior colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking in terms of making sure—you know could we maybe consider that this is referred to a select committee and taken out of urgency in that.So again schedule 2 around the schedule the levy rates—how does that work? As said in this document there is the potential of it being closer to a tax than a levy. Are you confident you have that right? And then how do we work at building consensus? Thank you Mr Chair.