Smith Nick: Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Nick: Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16734] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 National is supporting this Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill after opposing it quite vigorously at its first reading. I acknowledge Nandor Tanczos and also Mike Ward who was the original sponsor of the bill. The concern National had about the original waste minimisation bill was that it created a very large bureaucracy—a bureaucracy that involved every business and organisation in New Zealand developing a waste plan that waste plan having to be approved by a territorial authority as being consistent with its own district plan that district plan having to be consistent with regional plans and then that regional plan having to be consistent with national plans. That whole plethora of plans took a very regulated approach to the challenge around waste and National believes that it would have added more waste and more paperwork than the waste reduction it would have achieved. 
I have to say that out of all the select committees I have worked on working on the Local Government and Environment Committee on this bill has been a pleasure. There has been a genuine process of engagement with respective parties trying to do something of good in this area of waste management and a willingness on the part of all parties to do a bit of compromising in order to try to come up with something that is workable. 
In 2006 National published  
A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand 
 and the approach we took in that document was that the real key to getting good decisions around waste was accurate price signals. You see for years councils have effectively subsidised waste. Councils have said that they do not want people dumping rubbish on the roadside or at the beach so they rate all constituents and whether or not they are good recyclers they are all forced to pay for the council landfill. National is of the view that that approach is flawed and does not actually provide the encouragement and the economic incentive for people to take a more responsible approach to the environment. It will not surprise members to hear that National is a party that is cautious of new levies new taxes and new ways of putting charges on people so they may be asking why the National Party is supporting a waste levy. Well I will tell members why very simply: National supports user-pays. We also support “polluter pays”—that is well-targeted taxes. Rather than base payments for local authority’s waste services on the size of a section or the value of a property which is the way it works at the moment we believe that it is fairer to charge people for their waste services based on the amount of waste they produce. 
Peter Brown 
: Poll tax. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I heard the New Zealand First member speaking earlier. New Zealand First members said that their worry was that if we were to charge people properly for their waste then they would only dump it irresponsibly. I have to say to New Zealand First that that has been the approach taken by councils for decades in using ratepayer funds to subsidise landfills. It is a flawed approach. It is an approach that effectively subsidises environmental degradation and subsidises the waste stream. What is good about this bill is that it says the user pays—those who produce more waste should pay more. 
It is National’s view that a really exciting revolution is taking place out there in waste services. If members were to go out there even to very small communities they would be surprised at the number of innovative businesses that are finding new ways of using the waste stream for quite productive purposes. A further concern for National has been that with that sort of innovation occurring among New Zealanders without Government interference we do not want a waste minimisation bill that will either provide a disincentive or get in the way of councils and small businesses doing the right thing about waste. We are satisfied that with the way this bill has been structured it will not be a discouragement to those who are innovators. In fact our view is that we want to make sure that the waste levy is used for genuine recycling without discriminating against private enterprise providers as compared with public or community providers of recycling and reusing waste services. 
I also endorse the concept in this bill of extended producer responsibility. We all know that whether we use a cellphone a car or a whole number of products we would be able to recycle so much more if the original designer and engineer had thought about how we might be able to recycle the natural resources contained in that product. Again I have to say that I have been quite impressed that there is an increasing awareness by companies of the need to recycle particular things. I like the idea that a number of cell phone companies provide a free service to take back cell phones and to reuse the natural resources within them to manufacture the next generation. I think we have a way to go with car manufacturing to make sure we can design cars in such a way that we maximise recycling. In the extended producer responsibility provisions of this bill there is the framework within which we will be able to encourage more of that approach. It is true that National is cautious about regulation in this area as it can sometimes incur more costs than the benefits that are achieved by it. We will be watching closely the way in which those particular provisions are administered because they do need to stack up to a cost-benefit test and some of the changes we were able to achieve in the bill ensure there are some checks on those who in their enthusiasm for recycling go beyond the boundaries of what is economic. 
New Zealanders—including interestingly those in our most rural communities—have often been the leaders in the area of recycling and kerbside collection services. We need to be careful that in passing such legislation we do not override those very good initiatives that have been taken by many councils. That is why National in response to submissions from councils and from Local Government New Zealand wanted a less regulated waste-control authority—one that would not be able to dictate to communities as to how they do stuff. We actually support—I can use a very green phrase—an “organic approach” where that sort of community innovation is encouraged and not some sort of central dictate that will have central government telling communities how they can best advance the cause of increasing recycling and reducing the waste stream. 
In conclusion National’s support for this bill shows that as an Opposition—where legislation is done properly through the select committee process where its sponsor is open to changes and to working with other political parties—National is prepared to back innovative and progressive environmental legislation. Although I accept that emissions trading and climate change is a more challenging issue I say to this Parliament that if more of the approach that was adopted around this bill was adopted in respect of that legislation we would be closer to getting a solution and the sort of cross-party dialogue and support that will give longevity to these sorts of measures. This bill is a step in the right direction. New Zealanders want to see real practical measures to tackle the issue of waste. They want to see more recycling. It is National’s view that this bill will try to facilitate that. I say again that it is the economic provisions in this bill that will encourage enterprise and the taking of a polluter-pays approach that will provide the greatest gains for the environment and a step forward in the way in which New Zealand manages solid waste.