Wagner Nicky: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Wagner Nicky: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17604] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise again to support the Waste Minimisation Bill. As members know National voted against the bill at the first reading because it was excessively detailed and overly prescriptive but now that it has been gutted and reworked we support the bill because its provisions are mostly reasonable and rational and most important will be good for the environment. New Zealanders are conscious that disposal of waste however carefully managed harms the environment. Although modern landfills utilise new technologies to protect the receiving environment we still need to minimise the volume of waste we dispose of. Even transporting waste is destructive and increases our carbon footprint. We are also aware that there are benefits to utilising our waste stream better. There are economic benefits from recovering valuable resources social benefits from providing jobs and the cultural benefits of a cleaner and greener environment. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee worked hard on the definitions required for this bill and we got it right in most instances. There was a large amount of debate about the definition of waste. It seemed very difficult to find a definition that was neither too wide nor too narrow. We finally decided on a definition that included not only anything that had been disposed of or discarded—what most people probably think of when they are describing waste—but also anything that was no longer required for its original purpose and but for commercial or other waste minimisation activities would have been disposed of or discarded. But on reflection our definition included resources in the waste stream that could be reused recycled or recovered even if they had never entered the waste stream and this proved to be a problem. Since the bill has been reported back we have had representation from several organisations highlighting unintended consequences of the original wider definition. They believed that the wider definition would actually create disincentives for recycling and could jeopardise New Zealand’s significant export of waste resources. 
When we designed the Waste Minimisation Bill we designed it to encourage the extraction of valuable commodities from the waste stream. But this wider definition could have a perverse effect as it includes materials that were never intended for the waste stream. There has already been a court case over the ramifications of the wider definition of waste: a recycler of paper who should have been rewarded for minimising the waste stream was actually disadvantaged by the wider definition. The company Carter Holt Harvey successfully challenged the wider definition in the Court of Appeal on 26 September 2007. The Court of Appeal decision says: “We prefer the definition proposed by Carter Holt. The test of whether a former owner has abandoned material does we think accord with common usage and common sense. It also provides a clear and practical way of distinguishing between what is  
waste 
 and what is not.” The decision goes on to say: “the word  
waste 
 … does not include material that is no longer wanted by its owner and which but for commercial or other initiatives to recycle it would be discarded;”. National and many of the other parties in this House agree with the Court of Appeal. My Supplementary Order Paper 219 reiterates that waste “means anything that has been disposed of or discarded.” and removes the clause that would include recyclables and other recovered materials. 
The recyclers are also concerned that the wider definition could unnecessarily increase administrative and compliance costs for recycling businesses and could hinder the bill’s objectives of encouraging waste minimisation activities. Furthermore any suggestion that recyclables such as scrap metal are considered waste by the New Zealand Government has the potential to influence importers from other countries and New Zealand exports may become subject to more rigorous import controls. I believe that unless we rework the definition of waste in this bill we will cause problems for the very people who have been proactive in the minimisation of waste and have spearheaded the recovery of valuable resources from the waste stream. We want to attract businesses and operators to work in this area not kick them in the shins when they have been proactive. I seek the support of the House for this Supplementary Order Paper which I believe will solve the problem. Thank you.