Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour): I have moments and I did last night where I have a pregnant pause because sometimes I am flabbergasted. This is a debating chamber and we're supposed to debate the elements of legislation that come through. And it's hard to respond when there's been little debate because there's not much said from the Government side. But the previous speaker who just resumed his seat feels like this is good environmental practice and law. But this legislation is actually around waste minimisation. That's what was on the tin when it was created in 2008. That's what it was there to do. And there's a real challenge as we look at this because it's doing things now that it wasn't intended to do. Yeah of course we agree we want to do everything we can to protect our environment but then the challenge is that they take money from the Ministry for the Environment. They take money away from protecting nature. They take money away from climate change. So they've got to find it somewhere else and so they extend this legislation. They make a huge chasm where they can dump all their rubbish and all their silly ideas into.Now this is a debating chamber and we need to be debating these issues. But again when it's 30-second 20-second calls it's hard to engage in a good debate. But thankfully this side of the House have been constructive and have brought good ideas and we look forward to implementing them in 2026.The original Act in 2008 was to promote and achieve waste minimisation—to promote and to achieve waste minimisation. That's it—a levy. And as the Hon David Parker mentioned in the committee stage this isn't about a levy; this is about a tax now because suddenly it broadens everything out. And it's not about waste minimisation; it is about finding dollars and cents to throw at the environment because they have purged and plundered.And when he spoke about that—I didn't get a chance in the committee stage to speak on the title but I had thought about some ideas of what it could have been what the title could have been on this bill. And one of them I had thought about was maybe it could have been the Waste Minimisation (It Looks Like a Tax; It Sounds Like a Tax; It Smells Like a Tax; It Takes Like a Tax; Let's Call it a Levy) Act". But obviously I didn't get that one through. I think it would have been good.And why I bring up that is because officials have actually talked about this. Officials have in one of the key documents talked about the fact that in accordance with Treasury guidelines for setting changes in the public sector in practice fees and levies might not fit into discreet categories and could be considered as being on a spectrum. And it goes on to say that in this way a levy might be more akin to a tax. This is a tax. It smells like a tax. It takes like a tax. It is a tax because initially of course you would have your construction waste. DEPUTY SPEAKER: No not "you".GLEN BENNETT: Someone would have—well I know where you live and I know that you're into—DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know where you live too.GLEN BENNETT: —home renovations Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before anyone gets upset about that we're almost neighbours; so don't worry about it.GLEN BENNETT: Thank you. It does sound a bit weird; I apologise.DIY projects—so you want to do a renovation. Someone wants to do a renovation in their kitchen. Someone wants to you know develop the sleep-out. And of course they have bits of leftover timber and whether they're treated or untreated they take them to the dump. They pay a levy because that money from the levy then goes to support initiatives that reduce waste. So now when somebody—it wouldn't be myself because I'm a horrific home improvement person; it would be someone like the Hon Duncan Webb probably would be renovating his ancient abode in Christchurch there. And he'll take his waste to the dump and he will pay a fee. He will pay a tax because that money won't go into waste minimisation; it could but it might end up in environmental projects.So of course we think that's great but it's not what the bill was about when it was created more than 15 years ago. So we really want to address—well I don't want to offend elephants—the issues in the room today. And the reason we're here in urgency the reason we are sitting here discussing this is because the Government cuts cuts cuts on all fronts when it comes to our environment on all fronts when it comes to climate change. They took money out on 30 June. They took a lot of money out—millions and millions of dollars—and so they need to make up for it somewhere else. So "Oh we've got this little wee bill over here that probably doesn't need to go through urgency because it probably doesn't meet the threshold but hey we'll just try it anyway." And here we are without the ability for infrastructure companies without the ability for construction companies without the ability for green waste companies without the ability for home DIYers to actually speak into this and talk about these levies talk about these fees talk about what they think this money should be used for. The narrow criteria was meaningful. The narrow criteria had a purpose around waste minimisation. And so here we are—here we are. For most New Zealanders it's 1 June. It's the first day of winter. But here we are on 30 May and it's cold and it's cold and it's depressing in here.So what was this for? So hopefully the Government MPs know what this was for. It was around things like curb-side collection. It was around things like the assets and infrastructure to ensure food and green waste that we still want to do. It was about organic waste - processing facilities. It was around resourcing for the recovery for infrastructure where they get rid of construction waste. It was around projects that must be directly diverted from landfills.And now some of that might happen but not all the time. Some of it might happen but it's going to be money's going to be sprinkled over here; money's going to be sprinkled over there; money's going to be sprinkled sprinkled everywhere. And it's not good.I also had done some thinking around the title because again I'm just unsure because the word "levy" is triggering and it is I know for all sides of the House. But I did have a look and have a think and I would have liked to have seen some ideas pass but unfortunately it didn't happen.Another idea I had was the "Waste Minimisation Fiscal Savings for Budget 2024 Act" but you know didn't quite meet the threshold. Then there was the "Waste Minimisation that Occurs Through the Life of a Product Act" which the Hon Penny Simmonds talked about. Then I talked about the "Waste Minimisation Finding Funds for Nature from this Act Because We Didn't Use It in the Other Acts" but that probably isn't going to work either. Then there was the "Waste Minimisation Wasted Wasted Acts" but that just sounded a little bit dodgy and some people were really struggling with that.But then I did have and I think this is important—and I think this is a serious one. I think this actually could have been the bill. Because as we know and as one of my colleagues said earlier the title is actually really important. When you go somewhere and you see a name on something you know what you're getting. James Meager: Here comes the standing ovations.GLEN BENNETT: Yeah I'm happy for a standing ovation. I'd really appreciate that because I think what we're doing is pushing on something because nature is not standing and ovating. Nature is not happy with what this Government is doing. And it was the "Waste Minimisation (Don't You Know That It's Toxic?) Act". I don't know. I was going to sing it but I thought it better not because I might put the House into disrepute.In closing I think we really need to consider what has gone on in the last three days—what has gone on—whether it is our environment and ignoring it whether it's our climate and ignoring it whatever it is. This Budget was terrible for the environment. It's an outrage; it's wrong. And you know what? When you look at 4000 fauna and flora that only are found in this country when you look at world regulations and world bodies mocking New Zealand for the way that we are treating our environment I am offended and it is wrong that we should allow cuts in some places and then sprinkles and nickels and dimes in others to feel like we're appeasing our environment to feel like we're appeasing our climate. I think we need to totally scrap this and start again. I think we need to consider what we're doing for the environment. I think we need to start again."