Mallard Trevor: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17610] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I want to make my speech in two parts—the first as Minister for the Environment. I think it will then be appropriate to take that hat off and speak as the member for Hutt South. There are a few technical things I would like to check with the member in charge of the bill or possibly with the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee because I am somewhat of a perfectionist and I want to make sure we do have things right in these matters. 
The first question I have is whether the definition in clause 5 of “Secretary” which means the Secretary for the Environment under section 29 of the Environment Act must necessarily be the same person who is appointed under the State Sector Act by the State Services Commissioner as the chief executive of that organisation. I just want to make sure that in making these changes we are not doing anything that would in any way contradict the State Sector Act and the very important processes that we have for the appointment of chief executives under that Act. It is something that as a Minister formerly responsible for that area I took quite seriously. There are a lot of i’s to dot and t’s to cross in this area and I want to make sure that we are not by anything within this legislation interfering in that matter. 
In a similar way I want to ensure that the member in charge of the bill or the chair of the select committee is familiar with the relevant provisions in the Health Act. In clause 5 there is a definition of “Medical Officer of Health” that is cross-referenced to the definition of “Medical Officer of Health” in the Health Act. The definition in the Health Act includes a reference to “any medical practitioner acting under the direction of the Medical Officer of Health”. What I am not sure about is whether in fact the ability to delegate in that way and possibly even the ability to sub-delegate is appropriate for this bill. Clearly it is necessary for the emergency use of a lot of the powers of the Medical Officer of Health which I have recently become quite familiar with. But I am not sure that the sub-delegation powers and in fact the delegation powers are appropriate for this particular legislation. Therefore I would like to check that it is something that has been properly considered. 
Possibly more important though is the reference in clause 5 to the definition of “nuisance” which is to have the same meaning as in section 29 of the Health Act 1956. I am relatively clear in my opinion that there are parts of the definition of “nuisance” for the purpose of the Health Act 1956 that are entirely inappropriate for waste minimisation legislation. For example section 29(f) of the Health Act deals with overcrowding that is “likely to be injurious” to occupants of workplaces or residential areas. I am not sure that that particular part of that definition is appropriate for this definition. Therefore I ask the member whether that is the case. 
In a very similar way the key part of section 29(i) of the Health Act goes to lighting and to the nuisance caused by having a lack of proper lighting in workplaces. There might be a relevance to do with waste minimisation legislation but I am at a loss at the moment as to work out what it might be. The question around section 29(k) in the Health Act relating to parts of carcasses could well be relevant but I think it would be worth working that provision through. 
Mark Blumsky 
: Are you moving a Supplementary Order Paper? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I think there is a possibility if there is not sufficient explanation on this for a Supplementary Order Paper to be put forward to pick out the relevant points of section 29 of the Health Act of 1956. 
Mark Blumsky 
: Is it on the Table? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. If there are satisfactory answers from either the chair of the select committee or others who have been involved or the member in charge of the bill or possibly officials over the next month or so before this bill comes up again then I think it could well be appropriate for it to be looked at. 
The question is also whether this does apply in fact to streets roads or rights of way as per section 29(o) of the Act. It occurs to me that it is pretty unlikely that premises related to the Waste Minimisation Bill would be situated on streets on roads or on rights of way but again some might be and if that was in fact the case it would be inappropriate. 
Another question is whether the funnels of ships or the chimneys of private dwelling houses are in fact relevant in relation to this particular clause—clause 5 the interpretation clause of the Waste Minimisation Bill which we are currently considering. Chimneys including the funnels of ships and the chimneys of private dwelling houses are included in the Health Act. There is reference to them in paragraph (m) of section 29 “Nuisances defined for the purposes of this Act”. 
So those are issues at a minimum that I think should be discussed. The member in charge of the bill might want to give us his views on the definition of “priority products”. I know that they were dealt with in clause 7 but the definition and the prioritising of the priority products is something I had substantial discussions on with his predecessor Nandor Tanczos. Whether we have a long list or a short list of priorities is important and I would be interested in the member’s opinion as to whether the interpretation of “priority product” is something that is important in that matter. 
I would now like to make clear that I am now taking off my “Minister for the Environment hat” although any of the comments I have just made could well have been made by any member in the Committee and did not require any special briefing. I now put on my “member for Hutt South hat”. I will talk a little about the effect of poor recycling and poor attempts at waste minimisation and about the dirty dirty antics of Exide Technologies Ltd in dumping very badly under-treated waste in the landfill at Wainuiomata causing an enormous stink for a period of months and leakage into the Wainuiomata stream which is alleged to have killed off a large number of very important trout. There were a lot of complaints and certainly some allegations from fishers who have fished the Wainuiomata stream at a point below the Wainuiomata tip. 
I commend the Wellington Regional Council for the work it has done in tightening up the conditions around the Exide plant but I also make it clear that twice already there have been prosecutions for breaching those conditions. I want to make it clear that I think that people involved in prosecutions need to be more prepared to prosecute individuals as well as companies. 
There was a case of that in the Waikato recently where someone who after repeated warnings burnt plastic and ended up with a jail sentence. That is appropriate. If there are gross breaches of the Resource Management Act then individuals as well as companies should be prosecuted. Companies like Exide a large international company just take the $50000 fine as part of doing business but if their individual managers ended up with a criminal record for the repeated breaches as well as the company having a record then— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come to report progress. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill with amendment and progress on the Waste Minimisation Bill. 
Report adopted.