Muller Todd; Mallard TrevorTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Well well well. For the last 10 minutes—well actually no not for the last 10 minutes; for eight minutes of the last 10 minutes Deborah Russell tried her I'm going to be reasonable" and then in the last 120 seconds the oxygen changed and suddenly we just went "poof" and something else appeared in front of our screens.Now what I find absolutely remarkable as I begin my comments on the Litter (Increased Infringement Fee) Amendment Bill second reading is when you listen to the conversation that at least for the first eight minutes we were blessed with Deborah Russell was stepping through the various examples that she finds in her electorate of rubbish of litter of community concern and of frustration. She then talked to the select committee process that we had where we had the city councils—five of them—speak strongly in favour of the fact that they needed more teeth in terms of the infringement penalty that's at stake. But then right at the last minute she then says "But you know what $1000 is too much and I'm convinced by some academic who made a pitch right at the end of the submission." Well I'm sorry you're either for the environment or you're not Deborah. You're either for actually listening to your community or not. You can't give a speech for eight minutes talking about the size of the problem talking about the fact that your community want action and talking about the fact that from a Government perspective you listen and then finally at the last hurdle say "I'm sorry but we think $1000 is too much."Well that's a fail from my perspective. It's a complete fail because if you actually look—which I'm sure you did because we had to pore through the detail of this legislation—you would see that actually what is proposed by my learned colleague from the Coromandel is not a minimum and maximum of a thousand dollars but a regime that is graduated up to a thousand dollars depending on the judgments that we would hope would sit in the city councils. It's not that we have come up with this change out of thin air and suggested that actually let's push this on to a reluctant community; let's push this on to a reluctant council. This is not a minimum thousand dollars; this is giving them the opportunity to graduate up to that if the severity of the litter meets that fee.When you look at the various pictures—and I'm sure even though I can't draw you into the debate Mr Speaker you'll be delighted that I'm the first speaker without a picture—that have been provided thus far you can see the need for a graduated response because one of those pictures that Deborah Russell showed was litter of a smaller amount. One of the pictures seemed to be slightly more confronting and of course Mr Simpson takes the cake in terms of an example of littering that was at the defecation end of the scale.The whole point here is that we're providing the opportunity for our territorial authorities to be able to apply a regime which none of us have said that we have a major problem with that has the ability to scale up to a thousand-dollar fine. Every one of us knows that this stuff is challenging—well I would hope so. We haven't yet heard from New Zealand First; I'm very much looking forward to their contribution on litter. That will be very insightful—an autobiography perhaps. And I'm particularly looking forward to the Green Party. It makes me think on the basis that we have a sense here that their contribution may well be one of rejecting this small but meaningful change—it makes me reflect on that little saying that on small hinges large doors swing because this—Darroch Ball: Oh.TODD MULLER: Well yes quite good isn't it Darroch Ball? Let me just repeat that for you: on small hinges large doors swing. At one breath people will say "Oh look the National Party"—or Scott Simpson a fine member for Coromandel reflecting his community's concerns. Maximum litter up to $400—lifting that to up to a thousand dollars. Look it's not a massive change in the context of the environmental issues that we reflect on in this House but it is a symbol of intent. It is a symbol of saying well actually we hear the community concern and we're going to do something.But I suspect very shortly we're going to hear as we've just heard from the Labour Party—that when push comes to shove they're just all rhetoric; they won't actually do anything. We're going to hear very similar from the Green Party where they will talk about the importance of dealing and prioritising our environment. They will talk no doubt about the challenges that our urban environment but also rural—but particularly the built environment—has with respect to litter pressure. When there is an opportunity right now right here today to make a statement to make a small step in the right direction that is aligned with their philosophy they will say no largely out of spite because they cannot be seen to be supporting Scott Simpson from Coromandel even if it's the right thing to do even if it is a small step in the right direction because actually you know we would rather be ideological on a position like this as opposed to practical. Here is an opportunity to make a difference—a small difference but a difference none the less—and they will turn down the opportunity because it's much better to get very very high-ambition speeches but when the opportunity is put in front of them to actually make a difference right here they will turn the opportunity down.What a shame that is because as we have seen this is supported by our territorial authorities local government. They came to the Environment Committee and said "Actually on balance this is a good step forward." We acknowledge that they didn't say "Look there are no issues around managing litter." They said they were supportive and they want it to happen. The Labour Party might know somebody by the name of Phil Goff. He is very supportive—Hon Scott Simpson: He's independent apparently.TODD MULLER: Yeah apparently he is independent—yes. So that mayor has signalled that he is quite comfortable with this direction and supports it; four other councils do. So I just ask the members opposite to reflect on how small-minded they are with respect to this response. The argument that we just heard that actually you know from a sort of academic perspective this isn't parity I have debunked. It is up to a thousand; it's not a minimum of a thousand. This is a small signal to assist in changing the behaviour.I just want to reinforce how disappointed my community will be on this—Hon Scott Simpson: And mine.TODD MULLER: And yours yes. I've mentioned yours a couple of times; it's time to talk about mine. In Papamoa—fantastic part of the community; you should all come. I know Kiri you occasionally drive through on your way through to the East Coast. But Papamoa—fantastic community beautiful beaches—[Bell rung] That felt like it had just a little half a second too long that bell. Didn't you feel that listening? But anyway when we walk along Papamoa Beach—and I have been with my community for litter clean-up sessions. We have been there—Kiritapu Allan: Oh god.TODD MULLER: No it's not you know—Hon Scott Simpson: Hard-working local member.TODD MULLER: I was yes and I've got the pictures to prove it. We did a whole morning cleaning up I took two out of my three children—and you know how that works. Well it did spread the load to be fair. But what the three of us decided—my two children and myself—when we finished the morning's work cleaning up the litter was: why do people do this? There's got to be a way of making people who do this pay. In fact my youngest daughter said to me "Why is it that all this stuff's there?" as we walked through the dunes and cleaned up Papamoa on behalf of the wider community—and there's a huge community effort; it wasn't just the Muller family doing this. When your young children turn to you and say "Why do people do this Dad? Why isn't there greater penalty? What is the impact Dad if people drop this here?" I said that clearly the people who do this don't value their surrounding environment like we do and so many other people do and the families of Papamoa do. But I also believe as part of that answer we should say that we had the opportunity to make it slightly more painful for those who do this bad stuff in our community to actually pay the price. I think—in fact I know—that the people of Papamoa Beach who are listening to this will be very disappointed in the New Zealand First Labour and Greens failure to actually do something in the space of environment this afternoon. Thank you.SPEAKER: Before I call Clare Curran I will remind Mr Muller that when he refers to members from the other side he doesn't just use their first names. That was why he got a slightly longer bell immediately after."