Abel Steve; Simmonds PennySTEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I would like to ask the Minister for the Environment about this expansion of the scope of the use of the waste levy which includes former mining and industrial sites. This is a very important piece of work that we absolutely agree has to be done. It's essential that we work out how to decontaminate those sites. Our position I think is that it shouldn't come out of a waste levy. But my question is: what is the shortfall in terms of the moneys necessary to properly deal with those contaminated mining and industrial sites? What is the shortfall that is trying to be met there? If we understand the dollar value of that we begin to understand how much of the waste levy will be used for doing things other than dealing with waste.The other thing I want to ask about is that there is a problem with the allocation of this money to cleaning up not just historic sites—there's no mention of it being for only historic contamination—it also says that it will be used for catchment remediation: works and funding to support the management of New Zealand lakes rivers streams groundwater and wetlands." Now that is good work. We support that work. But catchment remediation may include mitigating the impacts from contaminants that are coming from an active industry right now the obvious one being nitrate contamination from dairy cow urine which is turning rural people's drinking water carcinogenic. It's possible through this wording and the definition of contaminants in section 5 that this money from the waste levy could be used to clean up the mess created by a billion-dollar industry that is operating right now in New Zealand and the obvious question the public would have is: why are you charging me for waste minimisation and then using that money to clean up a mess made by the dairy industry or made by the coal mining industry? That's my question to the Minister.There's an obvious solution here to this broadening of the definition. It's simply to add in an amendment. In clause 4 we replace section 3(2)(a)(ii) on page 2 with the words "activities relating to waste that reduce environmental harm or increase environmental benefits". That is a proposed and tabled amendment so that rather than being simply activities that reduce environmental harm or increase environmental benefits we make sure that it's activities relating to waste. I want to say that we support a waste levy—it is a good thing—but for us to grow the pool of money necessary to deal with reducing our waste it needs to be spent on that; it needs to be spent on waste. No argument with the need to decontaminate sites no argument with the need to remediate water but the industries more closely associated with the harms caused by contamination of water or mining waste should be paying for the cost of that not the public and not the construction industry for example.I would like to ask the Minister how logically or in principle do you think it is fair that the construction industry should be paying for cleaning up mass acid mine drainage from the coal industry? How is that in the mind of the Minister a fair allocation of the levy which as my colleague points out once it's so broad that it's not doing what it says on the tin is a tax. It's a broad tax on the public including those of us who put our rubbish at the front gate. It's a broad tax on the public to pay for cleaning up the mess of industries that are wealthy enough to made to pay to clean up their own mess. Thank you.Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair. I'll respond to the member's questions. Of course the member will know that there are a number of historic contaminated and vulnerable sites right across the country. The ministry is working closely with local authorities in terms of ensuring there is an assessment tool to be able to prioritise those sites so that we can certainly work through them together—local authority and central government working through them together—and this levy will of course provide the opportunities for central government to assist with that particularly around the ability to waive the levy fee.I know that one of the small South Island local authorities noted to me recently that this remediation work that they were intending to do in two of their sites—around a tenth of the cost was actually the levy. So it will certainly enable the central government proportion of the levy to be used but also the ability to waive the levy fees from the local authority and so reduce some of that burden on the local authorities for it. But we are definitely talking about a large number of these sites right across the country.With regard to catchments of course the issue across different catchments is different. It may be sediment it may be nitrates it may be E. coli. I am surprised that the member might argue not to use the levy to address some of those issues because the source is often very difficult to establish. And also again I would have expected the member to be fully cognisant of the fact that any resource that we use—any resource from the extraction of that resource through the manufacturing of it through the use of it through the disposal of it—has an impact on our environment all the way through. And therefore putting the levy at the end at the disposal end and then using that levy to address issues that occur for the environment all the way through the use of that resource is a very sensible thing to do and a thing that as I mentioned before is being done by other jurisdictions—South Australia New South Wales Ireland. So we're not reinventing something here; it's being done elsewhere."