Tanczos Nandor: Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill — Second Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16725] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill be now read a second time 
. It is 2 years and 4 days since this bill had its first reading but that is not a record. The Criminal Procedure Bill has been languishing for twice as long. But this bill has not been like Sleeping Beauty waiting for the National Party kiss of life. 
In my first reading speech I said I looked forward to engaging with other political parties with the public and with different sectoral groups to make this bill as effective practicable and achievable as possible and that has been the strategy. After the bill passed its first reading I went on a Zero Heroes waste tour to get out and talk to people surfing the bow wave of change in resource recovery as well as some who might better be described as barnacles on the bum of change. The general response was positive as much for the opportunity to talk about waste as about the bill itself. Generally most people agreed with the bill’s objectives and liked some parts of it. Few people liked all of it and everyone disagreed about what the good bits were. 
There were notable exceptions to that positive response. The New Plymouth Chamber of Commerce refused even to meet me because apparently it had nothing to learn and it seems extraordinary to me that apparent grown-ups would prefer ignorance to knowledge. But in any case I met with many businesses from Foxton Fizz to Coca-Cola Amatil. I met with councils and recyclers with the aim of explaining what the bill does and encouraging people to have their say. I particularly acknowledge those organisations and people that connected me into their networks—in particular the Community Recycling Network various council waste forums—especially in Auckland Wellington and the Waikato—the Packaging Council the Waste Management Institute of New Zealand (wasteMINZ) and the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development. I especially acknowledge Rob Fenwick whose recognition in the honours list I think is well deserved. I also thank Laura Palmer for taking me around recycling operations so that I could grasp the practical realities of recycling and resource recovery. 
As a result of the 316 submissions on the bill I along with Quentin Duthie and Chris Teo-Sherrell negotiated a Supplementary Order Paper with a succession of Ministers for the Environment. David Benson-Pope David Parker and Trevor Mallard have all had a hand in it which means of course that the Green Party can take all the credit for the good bits and blame the Ministers for the bad bits—because how would anyone know? That Supplementary Order Paper was introduced to the select committee in September last year. It went out for a second round of consultation and 125 submissions were received. 
The Supplementary Order Paper makes significant amendments but in essence it keeps the bones of the original bill and alters the flesh. It retains the financial driver of the original bill—the levy on waste going to landfill. It is a blunt attempt at a pigovian tax to internalise environmental externalities. The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development suggested that it would take a levy of around $30 a tonne to do that. The bill starts at $10 a tonne with a review after 2 years and then reviews at least every 3 years and there is a widespread expectation that the levy will rise to around $30. The fund generated by the levy will be split 50:50 between local authorities and a national contestable fund. It can be spent only on waste minimisation initiatives and there are powers to withhold funds from councils if the money is being diverted to other things. This money will help to make recycling more available through research seed funding capital investment and the like and also fund better public information about how to recycle because New Zealanders want to recycle. 
Supplementary Order Paper 150 renames “extended producer responsibility” as “product stewardship” which implies a more shared responsibility. Like the original bill it makes it mandatory to participate in product stewardship—at least for some products—but it allows industry to design the scheme to meet set targets because that is how compliance costs are reduced. Under the Supplementary Order Paper the Minister will designate a list of priority products that require product stewardship. That list will be subject to public consultation but might include things like e-waste compact fluorescent light bulbs waste oil agricultural chemicals and things like that. The bill offers a range of regulatory mechanisms to underpin any scheme such as front-end levies mandatory take-back schemes or the ban of certain items from landfills. The idea of product stewardship is not just to increase recycling but to drive design change to reduce the amount of waste being produced in the first place. 
The Supplementary Order Paper changes the Waste Minimisation Authority to a Waste Advisory Board. Its functions are more limited than those in the original bill but it will give independent advice to the Minister on things like the deciding of priority products guidelines for product stewardship schemes the setting of regulations for product stewardship schemes a review of the landfill levy and criteria for allocating the contestable fund. 
Finally the Supplementary Order Paper removes provisions around mandatory waste minimisation plans public procurement and the setting up of waste control authorities but provides for greater data collection. 
The result of all those changes that have been adopted by the Local Government and Environment Committee plus the further amendments that the committee made means that this bill which passed its first reading with 68 votes to 51 now has almost unanimous support across the House. I thank the Ministry for the Environment and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment for their excellent advice to the committee and I especially thank the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee who heard two rounds of submissions and grappled with very difficult and complex issues. The experience of the Hon Marian Hobbs as Minister for the Environment was invaluable in sifting the bull from the crap. Mark Blumsky brought a wealth of experience in local government. Nicky Wagner approached the issues with intelligence and enthusiasm. Steve Chadwick and later Moana Mackey chaired the committee with skill and John Carter had a road to Damascus experience and almost convinced us to rename the bill the “Resource Recovery Bill”. But I told Mr Carter that he would have to watch his language if he wanted to join the Green Party. 
The committee looked at container deposit legislation but was not in a position to resolve it despite very strong submissions from people like Warren Snow and the Problem Gambling Foundation. I wrote to the Minister for the Environment Trevor Mallard suggesting that the Waste Advisory Board might look at container deposit legislation. He responded that the Ministry for the Environment might commission an independent analysis of container deposit legislation and that that could usefully be reviewed by the Waste Advisory Board. I thank him for that. 
In addition since the select committee reported a number of concerns have been raised. Some of them were adequately dealt with at the committee. Some of them are those of submitters who did not win their battles at the select committee stage and want to come back for another go. But there are some issues that do need further work and thought and it may be that we will require some more Supplementary Order Papers at the Committee stage. I want to assure submitters and people who have made those points that although I will not be the member in the chair during the Committee stage of this bill—I will be leaving Parliament next week—I intend to remain involved in the development of the bill. 
I have always said that the bill needed amending from Mike Ward’s original proposal. That is no criticism of him; it is the nature of members’ bills. Although the outcome would have looked a little different had it only been up to me the reality is that it was not. This is the result of negotiation and compromise. Even so if passed this will be the most significant waste legislation this Parliament has enacted. It is not a magic bullet. It is not the single solution to our waste problem. This bill is about providing opportunities and a framework within which individuals communities business and the public sector can make a difference by getting involved in the public consultation and by making use of the opportunities that the bill provides. I am strongly of the belief that this bill will be a major step forward and I am very proud to have brought it this far.