Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. I've just got two related but I think quite narrow questions. Obviously the crux of our opposition to this bill is in clause 4 there—the fact that the fund can be used on activities that reduce environmental harm or increase environmental benefits—this general purpose which doesn't have any link to waste. My question is really quite precise: given the purpose of the Waste Minimisation Act overall is it the Minister's intention that when those funds are spent there will be some connection with waste in some way? I've read the disclosure statement and the analysis that the department's done and it seems in that analysis that there is expected to be at least some connection with perhaps an adverse reaction as a result of waste or a mitigation as a result of waste but perhaps not quite as constrained as in the other parts of that clause.If the answer to that is no then I guess my question then is: did the Minister talk to the Minister for Regulation about that? Because a charge which is able to be used for general purposes not connected with the activity levied is actually a tax because it goes for a more general purpose of Government and that cuts right across principles of good regulation and good lawmaking. The Legislation Design and Advisory Committee in chapter 17 of its guidance makes very clear the distinction between a fee where you pay for a service; a levy where you pay an amount related usually to an industry or a general regulation of activity like ACC levies or producer board levies or things like that where there is a direct connection between what's going on and what the money is spent on; and a tax where you take money off citizens in one way or another and you can then just spend it in a way which is unrelated to the activity which generated that revenue.Now I know the Minister for Regulation is keen on good regulatory design—he's just getting funded for his bizarre new ministry his vanity project—but I'm hopeful that you've had a conversation with him and that he has reviewed this. Because I am concerned that it—and the document talks about needing to find more money to pay for stuff and that's fine in the waste space. I can absolutely accept that in the waste space. My friend Glen Bennett talked about contamination and historical problems and I can understand the need to look at ways to minimise waste new recycling the kind of regulation there. But the sort of general let's save the whitebait" or the kiwi or the kākā or whatever it might be—there just doesn't seem to be any causal connection. But it does fit within the general and generic environment.Now on this side of the House we absolutely support protecting the environment and we support the proper use of Government funds to do that and that fund has to come from the public. But to have a waste minimisation fund—and we accept that a little we can expand that and talk about a bit more than just waste minimisation; it's waste management as well and mitigation of waste harm. That's what this bill should be doing. But a generic extension to anything to do with the environment seems to be an overreach. So is that overreach real or will there be because it sits within this principal Act a necessary connection between waste and expenditure? And if not was the Minister for Regulation savvy to the imposition of what appears therefore to be a tax?"