Davidson ReubenREUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you Madam Speaker for this opportunity to speak once again—in such a short space of time—on this bill. I did when I spoke earlier reference the fact that this morning when I was getting a coffee before coming into the House someone asked me at the place where we get coffee whether we were getting tired. At the time I said No we're just getting started." We're just getting started. Hon Member: You look tired.REUBEN DAVIDSON: A member across the House just shouted that I look tired. Obviously that member hasn't looked at the policy they're putting forward—that's tired. But then at lunch the person at lunch said "Now you must be getting tired." and I said "No we're just getting going." We are just getting going. Now I don't want to waste any time but I will make sure that I go slowly through this speech because there are so many points that I need to cover off in this last opportunity due to this rushed process. What I would say is that whilst this Government is wasting no time moving this bill through they are trashing the process—trashing the process. There are several issues to cover in this call and I'm going to struggle to fit it all in but I will do my best—I will do my best.I want to talk about the impacts on community and this will come up in a few parts of this speech because this process today has excluded community and we know that this bill and its effects will really affect our communities. I'm going to revisit one of the things that I spoke about in my earlier speech. The Minister said that it didn't really sit in the purview of this bill but I think that it's important that we revisit it because it's exactly what happens when communities are adversely affected by the impacts of waste facilities. This is our beautiful estuary environment in Christchurch East a stunning natural environment. It's home to the river the estuary and the ocean. It has native flora and fauna. Native and exotic bird species nest there. It's a beautiful beautiful place. But it's also home to an organics processing plant and there's been a long and ongoing issue with the smell that is generated by that organics processing plant. It's a really deeply offensive smell. It's very hard to live with and it has really affected local residents many of whom can't stay in their homes when that smell hits their houses at night. It's affected schools where kids can't leave their classroom to eat their lunch to play in their playground or to ride their bike or their scooter home. It's really affected communities.Just to give a sense of how deep that effect is I just wanted to read you the time line of the process that it took—Deputy Speaker (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just ask the member—I understand the gravity of that situation but I would like the link to come back to the waste minimisation—REUBEN DAVIDSON: It definitely will—it definitely will. It ties directly into my first amendment. But thank you very much for reminding me of that Madam Speaker. I think you will find it directly links to the amendment that I wasn't able to speak to at that stage of the bill this morning.20 January 2021 an abatement notice issued to the organics processing plant requiring that there be no offensive and objectionable odour beyond the boundary after 31 January 2022; 1 February 2022 Environment Canterbury issues notice of non-compliance to the organics processing plant; 2 June 2022 Environment Canterbury issued notice of non-compliance to the organics processing plant; 4 June another non-compliance notice; 31 August a formal investigation into odours across eight dates; 19 December another notice; 10 January a non-compliance notice; 15 January; 19 January; 26 January—and on it goes.Andy Foster: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The last time we were on a third reading we were instructed quite clearly by the Speaker to stick to the bill. He has gone a long long way from the bill and hasn't come anywhere near it for a very long time.Deputy Speaker (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you for that point of order. I am listening for the connection.Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Speaking to that point of order Madam Speaker. If I may this has cropped up before. Under urgency particularly Budget urgency where we haven't had an opportunity to study this and prepare a great deal in advance—Speaker's ruling 137/1 makes it quite clear that where a bill is passed through all stages under urgency there's a much wider approach than is normally the case and that's a ruling by Mr Mallard.Deputy Speaker (Barbara Kuriger): I do understand that Dr Webb. I would just like some linkage please. Thank you.REUBEN DAVIDSON: Absolutely Madam Speaker. Thank you Madam Speaker. The good news is that I can now move on to how that sequence of dates and that community activity links into the point I was wanting to raise about the first amendment. That first amendment was a suggestion to change—or a request to change; an amendment to change—two words and it's because words really matter.Now if you want an example of how much words matter here's a really good example. "You will get x"— Deputy Speaker (Barbara Kuriger): Not "you".REUBEN DAVIDSON: OK. Members—Deputy Speaker (Barbara Kuriger): We're really struggling today. Everyone's getting tired.REUBEN DAVIDSON: I was so sure I wasn't going to say it—so sure I wasn't going to say it. [Interruption]Deputy Speaker (Barbara Kuriger): OK. Let's give Mr Davidson a chance.REUBEN DAVIDSON: Thank you Madam Speaker. I'll get back to my example of how much words matter. Hon Member: Oh must you?REUBEN DAVIDSON: I must—I must. Here's how words matter. "Members are entitled to x."—members are entitled to x. Now how different is it when you say "Members are entitled to up to x." It's entirely different—entirely different. X becomes two different things when you add two words—"up to"—in front of it. The two words I want to talk about in my suggested amendment was the difference between—and I've got them here because I think it's really important that we focus on the detail of these. One of those words was "society"—society—and my amendment suggested changing it to "community". Now "society" can be defined as an organisation or club formed for a particular purpose or activity and the definition of "community" is the conditions of sharing or having certain attitudes and interests in common. So words do matter because there's quite a big difference between society and community. The sequence of dates—and the point that I was making with that sequence of dates—that wasn't a society; that was a community working together to challenge a council and to challenge a process that was taking place and was having a really detrimental effect on their community not on their society. Hence my request in my amendment to change that word because words do matter.Now the second amendment which was to change the title to being the "Waste Minimisation (Last-track Levy) Amendment Bill" was because it really is the mechanism of this bill now to be a very very very small safety net for some of the very very very big negative impacts that projects given permission by the fast-track bill will have on environments and on communities. So for those who don't remember the reference at the time I said "what's in the box should be what's on the box" but in fact what I should have said is "what's in the tin should be what's on the tin". So for anyone who got lost "in the tin; on the tin" not "in the box; on the box". So that was "what's in the tin should be what's on the tin". Hon Member: What about the bottle?REUBEN DAVIDSON: A member did suggest talking about the bottle. I think it's probably best that we don't talk about the bottle.What I did think would be important would be to talk about the reason that this bill has been pushed through in such haste and we know that's because the cuts that have been made in this Budget today 30 May are going to leave a really big shortfall in environmental spending. What's required is that the small amounts of existing revenue are then funnelled into other activities—so taken away from where they're currently hypothecated—and the scope of this bill is broadened out so they can be used in other places.What we're looking at here in this Budget is cuts to environment operating funding of close to $400 million. That's $400 million. That's a lot. It's a sixth of what landlords—mega landlords— got in tax cuts in this Budget but it's a huge huge and disgraceful amount of money to claw out of environmental spending and I can't imagine how anyone will sleep well tonight. I certainly hope they won't before midnight. Thank you Madam Speaker."