Brooking Rachel; Simmonds PennyHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Madam Chair. I'll just start with reminding the Minister of a couple of my questions that haven't been answered.One was in relation to the contamination fund—that was my first one. Then just on this piece that we've just been discussing again I've put up an amendment to make that nexus towards waste. I've heard the Minister say that the circular economy is very wide so there should be wide-ranging issues that the money can be spent on. So perhaps you'd be interested in amendments rather than caused by waste" around environmental problems that "are related to the circular economy" or something to that effect if that is the purpose of this legislation—that it doesn't expand to my fertiliser point. That's the issue: the fertiliser at the moment is still included in paragraph (ii). If it should be the whole life cycle of a product that can have many lives then I'm sure there is some wording that could achieve that in an amendment to (ii).But in terms of new material I am moving now to section 5 which is the interpretation clause and just a very small question here. I noticed that the definition of "contaminant" is the same as that which is found in the Resource Management Act; whereas a few words down we get to "hazardous substance" and that just refers to the definition in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. I have no comments on either of those definitions. It's just: why that inconsistency where one refers to the relevant other statute and one uses the words from the other relevant statute? Simple question. So that's on section 5.So I'll move through now to some other clauses as well and note that the transitional and savings provisions are in Schedule 1. So if we move to Schedule 1 this has some dates for the criteria and it's the earlier of the Minister notifying criteria or 1 January 2025. I'm just wondering about this because the criteria are not mandatory. So has the Schedule been drafted with the idea that there will definitely be some criteria? Because then it's possible that this will come into effect on 1 January 2025 without criteria found in section 38. So that's another small question that that Minister might be able to answer as well.Another question going back to my Amendment Papers—and this is one that I haven't discussed yet. Well the first one also amends clause 9 because we have that repetition of "environmental harm or increase environmental benefits". So I've proposed that the "increase environmental benefits" comes off and that's replaced with "caused by waste". So "funding activities that reduce environmental harm caused by waste". But as I've just proposed to the Minister if she would prefer a reference to circular economy or something along those lines then that would work as well. Again there we have this repetition of the funding of local authorities—and the Minister's confirmed that that is from the central government fund not the local government half.Then we have we have a reference to the wider functions and duties of the ministry including hazardous substances and we've had a conversation as well about that. But my question is why there's no reference here to the remediation of contaminated sites. Is that because it's coming from some other fund or is there a reason for that? So I have put up an amendment that would provide that so in clause 9 to add a new paragraph (vii) funding activities that provide for the remediation of contaminated sites. I don't know how the architecture of the legislation is working in that regard and if that's a helpful suggestion or not.Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair and I apologise. I did overlook the question around the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund and my apologies for that. Yes you're correct: the fund will close as a separate appropriation and instead it will be funded from the levy at a much higher levy. I have indicated that I intend to see this as a priority: funding the remediation of contaminated and vulnerable sites.In terms of the criteria for funding contaminated sites we'll be drawing on the criteria from the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund and seeking further input from the Waste Advisory Board. So certainly there's nothing lost there. In fact there is going to be a gain of greater access to a greater level of funding."