edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Smith Stuart; Halbert Shanan; Brownlee GerrySTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well thank you Mr Speaker. It seems to be a misapprehension across the other side of the House that one group of New Zealanders have a closer relationship to water than others. That is simply not true. This bill is a great bill and I look forward to it coming to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and I commend it to the House. Thank you.SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you. That is not a comment that I made in this House and I would like an apology.[Interruption]Stuart Smith: Speaking to the point of order.SPEAKER: No—everyone is going to go into this new concept of silence mode at the moment while we work this through. Firstly in his speech—which I was listening to because I listen to them all—he did not refer personally to you. He spoke of others who have a view and that's not unreasonable in debate.Shanan Halbert: As long as we're clear. Thank you.SPEAKER: I'm certainly clear and that's really all that matters. I call on Rachel Boyack—honourable Rachel Boyack.Rachel Boyack: Oh—thank you Mr Speaker. That was a nice—SPEAKER: No—apologies. Before we—no we'll start the clock again.
Luxton CameronCAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand and speak on behalf of this bill which is further progressing the Government's programme to get local water done well. It has to be said since it was brought up three waters which was going to create 10 entities—well I'm glad to see that's over. As someone from the mighty Tauranga region which has been paying for its water for some time and doing a good job of it—it just shows what can be done when a council is able to get its water under control and properly paid for. This new model is to be welcomed. I'm glad to see it. ACT supports this bill and I commend it to the House.
Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Reuben Davidson's tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing waste disposal levy" with "last track levy" is out of order as not being as serious amendment.The question is that clause 1 stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Rachel Boyack's tabled amendment to clause 2 replacing "1 July 2024" with "31 July 2024" be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that clause 2 stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Clause 2 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that clause 3 stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted."
Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. On this I would like to ask the Minister some questions around the commencement date. Specifically I know that previously we have discussed potential projects and all of those things. But one thing that we have not discussed is on page 3 of the supplementary analysis report on identification of savings which is around that this report that was being produced has not factored in the assessment of specific existing costs such as current initiatives that reduce environmental harm or increase environmental benefits that will fall within the broader purpose of clause 4 that we have discussed before.So my question to the Minister is: has she considered how these current projects that would be affected by the commencement date of 1 July and that fall into the broader scope of clause 4 will be either notified or the work has been done with them so that they are able to receive the funding and are able to receive the support from the shift of the funding in Budget lines within a one-month period? I think that is something we haven't touched on before.On top of that there is the discussion that I mentioned before on whether the administrative system has done that. But that has already been addressed so I won't ask that.So if this is something that the Minister could clarify and if it's something that has been considered that would be great. But if it's something that hasn't been considered I would just like to also throw the Green Party's support behind Rachel Boyack's Amendment Paper of shifting the commencement date just so that that way there is sufficient time for these current projects to get the funding and to get that balance that is needed. Thank you Madam Chair.
Abel Steve; Tuiono TeanauSTEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. Speaking to the title and commencement one thing that is clear and has been articulated by others—and I have a proposition that extends on some of the commentary that's been made—is that this is no longer merely a waste minimisation amendment bill. It's no longer—it is an amendment bill but it's no longer merely a waste minimisation waste disposal levy. Now there is a problem for the expectation of the public when they are paying levies and they stray into the tax territory is that what they're being told they've paid for is actually what they're being used for. I think it's been very clearly articulated in the debate so far that clearly the broadening of the categorisation to include other things is going beyond a waste minimisation levy.And so I propose this title to the Minister: I suggest it would be more correctly called the Financial Diversion of Waste Minimisation Levy to Mining and Dairy Waste Cleanup." It's a bit long so I'm actually going to—understood correctly it's the "Financial Diversion of the Waste Minimisation Levy to Mining and Dairy Waste Cleanup." Now that is technically what it's able to be used for under the definitions of what it can be used for so would it not Minister be more correct to give it a title that is fit for what it does? Well that's my question and I'll leave that with you Minister.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The sitting is suspended until 2 p.m.Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to. Part 2 agreed to.Schedule 1A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Kahurangi Carter's tabled amendment to replace Schedule 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 15Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Noes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.
Abel SteveSTEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. Further to the points being made by my colleague Barbara Edmunds this is the sort of really useful conversation that I would have hoped would have happened at a select committee where we can talk about even our differences in interpretation on the progressive side of this Parliament. That's important. That's what a select committee does. So given that we're doing that all now I just want to note—at point [79] on page 16 of the supplementary analysis report—the current proposed levy will increase the cost to households on average by a whopping $5.10 per annum—$5.10 per annum. Now that is such a nominal increase and that's the current proposed $5 per tonne. In the cost of building a house—the million dollars or more that it will cost you to build a house at least; I mean my goodness hundreds of thousands of dollars millions of dollars to build a house—we're talking about a very nominal figure as you just articulated Minister of $43 and two-hundred-and-something dollars for the cost of the demolition. Now think about the value of increasing the levy on those demolition wastes. As you and I all know many of those houses that are being demolished are 1940s 1950s or 1960s weatherboard timber New Zealand houses—made of beautiful native timber often—with incredible recoverable materials like mataī floors and kauri floors. It is stuff that we rightly are not logging right now although I'm a bit concerned this Government might decide to come back to native forest logging at some point. Those things are valuable materials and timbers but if there is not a sufficient incentive for them to be properly recovered then they don't get recovered. If it's only going to cost 250 bucks to dump a whole house then why will industry find ways to recover those valuable materials. There is no away place for waste.So that's my question to the Minister: have you fully considered the huge benefits of increasing that levy? I'm not convinced you've given me an answer to that.I've got one further question which is to an earlier question. You have an assurance I believe that you would look at ensuring that municipal authorities—regional authorities—are able to use their component of the levy—50 percent of it—for remediation of existing landfill sites. I wonder given that you refused to change it in the previous part whether you could give us a verbal assurance that those—CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Please engage with the Chair not with the Minister.STEVE ABEL: Pardon me Chair. I wonder whether the Minister would give us a verbal assurance that municipal authorities and regional authorities will be able to use their component of the levy for remediating landfill sites which are dotted across this nation—old landfill sites toxic sites that are leaching waste into groundwater. Those authorities do the heavy lifting on keeping those sites cleaned and remediated. Will you give us that assurance Minister?
Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Mr Chair. It's much easier for us you just have the simple name and often we all call you Madam"!CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Quid pro quo!Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yeah exactly! So we're talking here about how Schedule 2 sets the levied rates. These are actually in regulation. They are being amended here in the primary legislation. It's not necessary but the regulation does run out at June 2025 so I understand the logic of putting it in the primary legislation. So that first column on the table is as per the current regulations; there's no change to that. Then we see it does go up.Given the speeches that we've had I wonder if the Minister has thought of adding different disposal facilities. We're not even calling them "disposal facilities" but considered levying say mine sites—that could be included here somehow. I know she just mentioned the Resource Management Act and conditions of that but of course that only applies to recently consented things or newly consented issues rather than older ones unless it's been reviewed.I also want to touch on—going from David Parker's point about social consensus—and I note that the Environmental Defence Society has a conference coming up and often there are conversations amongst members about these issues at those. I can't comment on a Bluegreens conference because I've never been to one of those. Noting the Greens' amendment here in the name of Kahurangi Carter that does really make these levies a lot bigger. Has there been much work into considering how much they should be raised by given that it's an amendment to regulations normally? Would the Minister commit to talking with other parties about what those levies should be via regulation? Is that something she might want to do?My last question is really: why is this bill here under Budget urgency? Is the only reason because the Government is going to rely on this fund for things that go well outside of waste? The legislation already goes via regulation to 30 June 2025. The supplementary analysis report talks of the extra $171 million generated over the next four years. I mean that is my question. Are we in urgency here on a Saturday lunchtime because the Government is relying on that $171 million or are there other ways to do this and could we in fact send this bill to a select committee have the discussion that we would have in the select committee? I know the levies are normally done in regulations but this is a useful discussion to have about what they should be where that social consensus is for them and I invite the Minister to make some comment and commitments."
Simmonds PennyHon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Mr Chair and I thank the Hon David Parker who gave us the history lesson on the levy as it came in from back in 2009. Can I just say there were discussions with the Green Party prior to the amendment bill coming into the House regarding the appropriate levy rates. It would have been very difficult to have come to a consensus given the extreme increases that they wanted to see in what is a very difficult financial time for businesses particularly and households.Can I just reflect on the member Glen Bennett who just sat down and his allergic reaction to the notion of savings. The financial situation this Government has been left in—certainly it was a very responsible thing for us to do to look for savings to reduce Government spending. We do not shy away from the fact that the requirement for this to go through urgency is to enable this to take effect by the start of the next financial year to achieve some of those savings. The increase in the levy is modest to reflect what we believe businesses and households can cope with at this time. The member may not have been here—sorry may not have heard the discussion around the levy. The levy is still a levy. It retains a link between those paying the levy and the outcomes being funded.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Kahurangi Carter's tabled amendment to clause 4 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking's tabled amendments to clauses 4 and 9 replacing or increase environmental benefits" with "caused by waste" be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Reuben Davidson's tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing "society" with "community" be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking's tabled amendments to Part 1 changing the scope of activities funded by the waste disposal levy to include remediation of contaminated sites be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Steve Abel's tabled amendments to clauses 9 and 10 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 stand part.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Part 1 agreed to."
Abel SteveSTEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I appreciate it. I got an email late last night from—James Meager: From the Labour Party?STEVE ABEL: It didn't happen to be but from a gentleman who is in the environmental advocacy space a guy by the name of Barry Weeber who works for ECO. Now in lieu of a select committee—its not a very long email but he makes some very good recommendations—given he won't have any right nor any member of the public will have any right to submit on this I though it might be useful for the Minister to ask some of the questions that he puts. I just happen to realise when I opened the Parliament website and found the waste minimisation bill is going through Parliament. I can't fathom why this bill has to go through all stages under urgency. I agree with the comments"—and I won't repeat them because we've canvassed them about the waste levy activities that reduce environmental harm being too broad. He says "All these go way beyond the reason that the waste levy was established." He also makes a very specific point on section 38A "the use of the word "may" (2) should be "shall" in both places. It is also a bit rich"—he goes on—"not levying current mining operations for cleaning up contaminated mine waste sites." That is a question for the Minister. It has been asked but it has not been answered. Is it not more appropriate? Why should those dumping construction and demolition fill be paying for mine waste clean-up? That's a question for the Minister. Why are those who are creating tailings dams—cyanide-laden tailings dams not being charged a levy for clean-up of contaminated mine waste? That is another question for the Minister. He concludes with "I hope you have some success to change this." And my final question is: are there amendments that the Minister will seriously consider or has a decision been made by the coalition Government that they will not accept any amendments on this waste minimisation bill. Thank you."
McAnulty Kieran; Simmonds PennyHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I appreciate that. This is the first opportunity I've had to make a call on this and actually in all honesty I wasn't intending to. But then I heard the Minister's response regarding the definition of an emergency and I thought that it's important that we dive into this. So I'm not going to ask the same question albeit the same topic that has been touched on once previously but this is directly in response to the answer that the Minister gave. Camilla Belich asked about the definition of emergency" and the Minister responded by saying that it is as is defined in the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. Now as the committee knows there was an emergency management bill going through the House and at the time the National Party did not express any opposition at all to the updated definition that was provided in that Act. Now we might be wondering why this is important. Well there's one difference in the definition between that provided in the 2002 Act and the definition proposed in the 2023 bill—and it's quite a significant difference. It includes the addition of "pandemic" to the definition of "emergency". Now if we are to proceed with this using the definition as provided in the Act in 2002 which will exclude a pandemic given what this country's been through during COVID if we have another pandemic under the current definition proposed in this bill a pandemic will not qualify under the definition of "emergency". Now I think that's quite serious. I would like the Minister to respond as to whether she would be willing either through an amendment under our name or simply to do so herself to simply include "pandemic" in the definition of "emergency". What we don't want is for another pandemic to come along given all the lessons that we as a country learnt through COVID and all the changes to bills and Acts that have been made and regulation to account for a future pandemic and then everything in this bill cannot be triggered because it doesn't include it in the definition of "emergency". It's a genuine request and I'd really like to hear what the Minister has to say about that.Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): It is very deliberate that "emergency" is being given the same meaning as in section 4 of the Civil Defence (Emergency Management) Act 2002. The volume and the significant risks to human and environmental health from waste that is created from a flood or an earthquake I would suggest is very different from waste created from a pandemic."
Simmonds PennyHon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Relating to that and also the question from the Hon David Parker—just noting that already in the rest of the Act there is wider scope than solid wase for example the declaration of refrigeration gasses as a priority product. So we just need to be very careful that what you are asking for in terms of narrowing down doesn't actually conflict what is already within the rest of the Act.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I'm just going to take a very short call here because it does relate to what the Minister just said. The Minister was talking about the clause that we've spoken a lot about which is the activities that reduce environmental harms and talking about she said—I think these are your words Minister; apologies if they're not quite right—that occur through the life of a product. The point was being made again that waste has many lives. So I would really implore the Minister to consider an amendment—doesn't have to be the one that I put up being caused by waste—that it could be then activities that reduce environmental harm related to the life of a product" to use the Minister's words. So very short call. If this is what the Minister means then we should say it in the legislation and that would make a lot of us a lot more comfortable about these changes. Thank you."
Simmonds PennyHon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Mr Chair. Moving back to the questions from the Hon Rachel Brooking around her concern about whose management the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill is talking about in clause 11 which inserts section 38A(2)(c)—and that then relates to the question that has just been asked by the member sitting down Camilla Belich—the subsection there is the identification in relation to an emergency of things that are emergency waste and whose management will be funded." The management is referring to the emergency waste and the reason why the definition of "emergency" in here has the same meaning as in section 4 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act is that we are intending specifically that the levy can be used for waste that is created in an emergency situation—a flood an earthquake—where the disposal of that waste needs to occur quickly given the impact that it can have on human health and the environment."
Meager James; Kuriger BarbaraJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm going to go to the Hon Rachel Brooking. I believe a lot of this conversation is becoming exhausted and we are really looking for specific questions that are new.
Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Schedule
VoteSchedule CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We come to the Schedule now and the Schedule has no debate. But the question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to the Schedule to replace 1 July 2024" with "1 January 2025" throughout be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Schedule be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Schedule agreed to. Bill to be reported without amendment."
Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 5
Butterick Mike; Pugh MaureenMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I'm not taking the closure motion. There's still quite a bit of new material coming through. I call the Hon Rachel Brooking.
Simmonds PennyHon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair. I will answer some of the questions that have come through with regard to the bad-smelling Organics Processing Plant in Christchurch. That is certainly an example of where other legislation is applicable; not this amendment that we are discussing at the moment.To the member who has just sat down Celia Wade-Brown if I could remind her that the previous Government had no addition to the levy from 2025 onwards. This amendment is in fact increasing the levy and increasing the amount of money that will come in. I think you made a comment about removing funding; it's not removing funding it's increasing the funding. I realised that in the discussion that we had a little earlier you may not have heard around how the Government intends to identify what the envelope of funding will be for each of the uses that it can be used for in the legislation.In terms of the amount of funding that's going to be available and the expansion of the use of funding we also discussed earlier that widening the purpose of the funding is quite normal in other jurisdictions. That is being done in South Australia in NSW and in Ireland. And of course we talked about the environmental impacts of any resource that we use right through from the extraction of that resource to the manufacturing to the use to the disposal. There are environmental impacts that occur along that range of use. Therefore taking the levy at the disposal end of it it is entirely appropriate to then use that to address some of the environmental impacts that occur through its life cycle. Thank you.
Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 4
Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm still on clause 4 and on that subparagraph (ii) that the Minister was just talking about. It's been interesting in her answers to Dr Duncan Webb and the answer we've just had on that nexus between waste and general environment being to do with a circular economy. I think that that's the sort of concept that I heard the Minister talking about and I'm very pleased to hear our Minister for the Environment talking about that and would hope that she will move with the responsibility for reducing waste legislation as well—a little plea there.But the Minister was just saying other jurisdictions have got that this waste levy going to general environmental harm and she was there making some examples about the whole-of-life issue which I agree with. However there are things that are not to do with waste—say fertiliser running into a river causing some pollution of the river. That's not to do with waste; that is a separate issue. So that is why I have got a tabled amendment to amend both clause 4—that subparagraph (ii) that we're talking about which is the activities that reduce environmental harm—and clause 9 because the words are repeated there.At the moment it reads activities that reduce environmental harm or increase environmental benefits" which is very wide and includes my fertiliser example and the example of coalmines and landfills and those sorts of things. That's already covered by projects that provide for the remediation of contaminated sites at subparagraph (v). No problem with subparagraph (v); it's just this breadth at subparagraph (ii).So I've suggested rather than have the "or increase environmental benefits" to replace that with "caused by waste". So subparagraph (ii) would read "activities that reduce environmental harm caused by waste" and that provides the nexus. So I would be interested in the Minister's comments on that given her acceptance of the circular economy and that waste can lead its own life after it becomes waste that goes on for many years and creates all sorts of environmental problems and of course we want to move to a circular economy whereby we're not actually creating waste. That is the long-term goal in that we're thinking of the whole life cycle of a product. I also note that the Greens have a proposed amendment which is similar and that would be that they just add in activities relating to waste is the change there—that "reduce environmental harm or increase environmental benefits". So the question for the Minister really is given her commitment to a circular economy and the examples that she's given that relate to wider environmental benefits that still have some relationship to waste why can we not amend subparagraph (ii) to be explicit about that nexus?"
Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 3
Simmonds PennyHon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair. I will answer some of the questions that have been coming through. I just want to re-emphasise that the waste minimisation levy does not usurp any of the existing liabilities within the Resource Management Act and other relevant legislation that perhaps Steve Abel might have been inferring; that the levy would be used to clean up waste of existing operating industries where there might already be other legislation that covers their activities.Also in terms of the price elasticity I'm very aware that the peak amount of waste that was being generated was 2018 and with the more substantial increases in price that came in from 2019 we are seeing a slight reduction in waste per head of population. So obviously as the price goes up there is some incentive to create less waste. It's not perhaps the amounts that we are putting in. We are having to have that fine balance between ensuring that there is some incentive to reduce waste being mindful of the cost of living crisis that we are in and being sure that we have sufficient infrastructure there for other means such as reuse recycling.Your comments about the number of entities that aren't getting funded: of course this is a contestable fund and there's a very robust process that is gone through so I won't comment on individual applications that may not have gone through. But also I would note that Cabinet have asked that Ministry for the Environment officials work to establish what might be an appropriate envelope of funding for each of the uses. So very clearly we are going to look at ring-fencing for each of the uses that are within the Act.
Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 2
Kuriger Barbara; Brown SimeonClause 2 CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members we now come to clause 2. This is the debate on clause 2 Commencement". The question is that clause 2 stand part.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Thank you for the opportunity to talk about the commencement clause. The commencement clause says: "This Act comes into force on 1 July 2024."; that is the start of the next financial year. That is the reason why that is the start of this Act."
Simmonds PennyHon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair. I will answer the questions that have come through from the Hon Rachel Brooking. First of all she is correct that the purpose of clause 4 amending section 3 of the principal Act is relating only to Government levy proportion not to the local authority 50 percent.With regard to the comma and whether other intentions were there with the hazardous substances: no the responsibilities extend to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.I just also want to touch on the points that both the Hon Rachel Brooking spoke to and also the Hon Duncan Webb in terms of the broadening out of the waste levy. Of course use of resources is a whole of lifespan of those resources. There are many impacts on the environment through from the extraction point through to the use and manufacturing and then final disposal and therefore the ability to put a levy on at that disposal end gives that flexibility to be able to address some of the environmental impacts that occur through the lifetime of that product. So the waste levy still will be a levy. Widening the purposes of how the levy can be spent still retains that link to the various environmental impacts that go on through the life cycle of a product. Just to give further reassurance I can point the members to South Australia and New South Wales and also examples in Ireland where in fact they recognise exactly this and use their waste disposal levy for wider environmental impact and issues because of that very notion of that whole-of-life cycle from extraction through to disposal.
Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — Third Reading
Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee—Part 5
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.SPEAKER: This bill is set down for committee immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill. Thank you.
Nimon KatieKATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Look I don't want to waste any more time so I'm going to minimise my contribution and commend this bill to the House.
Campbell HamishDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Thank you Mr Speaker and good morning. It's great to be speaking on the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill. After all that rubbish we've just heard from the previous member Reuben Davidson it's quite ironic that we're talking about waste minimisation. I think most people watching from home can't believe that the Opposition would actually argue against spending on environmental projects and outcomes and I use that word outcomes" very specifically because that's what we're going to be doing. I commend this bill to the House."
Butterick Mike; Brownlee GerryMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Good morning Mr Speaker. We're all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed on this side of the House today and we're very excited about getting the environment and the country back on track. It's a great bill. I commend it to the House.SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call on Reuben Davidson.
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): What a surreal world we live in when we hear Green Party members arguing against investment and prudent action in terms of the environment. It's a surreal world. This is a very practical pragmatic piece of legislation and I support it and commend it to the House.
Brownlee Gerry; Trask LauraTHURSDAY 30 MAY 2024(continued on Saturday 1 June 2024)WASTE MINIMISATION (WASTE DISPOSAL LEVY) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed.SPEAKER: The House is resumed. We are on the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill. We are on the fourth call and I call Laura Trask.LAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm pretty excited to take a call on the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill. A little bit of a story: my great friends Jodene Turner and Owen Conlon had a baby on 30 May—which happens to be the same day that we're here; bit of a Groundhog Day—named Stevie Conlon. They live in place called Mandeville—and Matt Doocey you're in the House; I'm pretty excited to see you. Why this is important is Mandeville's in Waimakariri really close to Christchurch. It's on the Waimak" River and just up the road there's a town called Oxford—SPEAKER: This is all fascinating—LAURA TRASK: It's definitely about the bill.SPEAKER: —but are you going to tell us now that they've decided to name the baby "Matthew"?LAURA TRASK: No. They called the baby Stevie and she was a girl. So just down the road is Oxford and if you know Oxford well—and Matt Doocey probably knows this issue—there's a quarry there that they've been trying to convert into landfill for quite some time with quite a lot of public opposition. It's not yet consented and we don't know what that outcome will be but this levy is really important because you see this quarry sits in a landscape buffer zone so it's on the side of some of really critical waterways that head straight back down the river and into the Kaipoi area. So it's a really important area and this levy here will actually ensure that we have these environmental protections in place.So I stand by this bill and I commend it to the House—and congratulations to the Conlons."
Foster Andy; Brownlee GerryANDY FOSTER (NZ First): It's great to be here this morning. Look listening carefully to the debate last night it was very very clear that there is strong agreement across the House about most of the bill. There is strong agreement around the ability to be able to use the levy for emergency management purposes. There is strong agreement around the issues around contaminated landfills and remediation of those. The only area of disagreement seems to be that about whether the levy can be used for wider environmental projects. And I ask the other side of the House to think about that because those are exactly the kinds of great projects that Kahurangi Carter was actually talking about—for those kinds of things to be able to be supported by the levy.She also referred to over $2 billion in infrastructural deficits in 2020. I'd just like you to think about what the assumptions behind those numbers might be what might be the quality of investment which is involved there and what might be already funded. Because just because there's a deficit back then doesn't mean it's not been funded already and somebody's going to go and do it.I think there is also a general agreement around increasing the levy although I would note for that side that a lot of that will fall on the least well off which seems to be in conflict with some of the other things that you've said over the last little while. The last thing I wanted to say before sitting down is that I'd like particularly the Labour Party to remember the policy bonfire at the beginning of last year and what went on that policy bonfire. I have to say at the time I was very very disappointed to see to see that there was a deferral of work on a container return scheme that would see small refunds for returning containers. That would have taken a lot of product out of the waste stream got it reused. It is a shame that that was done and I hope that's something that comes back. But I would like the other side of the House to think about that so that they are not preaching from quite such a high pulpit at us.I commend this bill to the House.SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Tangi Utikere.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.SPEAKER: This bill is set down for committee stage immediately—sorry for second reading immediately. Sorry just helping the House; it's a long weekend. I also note that we're doing a waste minimisation bill which might have made a good reason to move on. This bill is set down for second reading immediately.
Foster AndyANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Mr Speaker it's great to see such enthusiasm right across the House for waste minimisation for looking after our waste properly and minimising waste. I'm passionate about recycling passionate about waste minimisation myself. Look I just want to talk about this the waste levy. The waste levy has been around for about 15 years—it's hypothecated to waste—and what we've seen is it's been steadily increasing over a period of time so that there is a stronger and stronger incentive to minimise waste and the charge is also gone not only for class 1 landfills but now also across class 2 3 and 4 landfills. What this bill is all about is flexibility because I've seen quite a number—in local government—of proposals which have got funding. Some of them are absolutely brilliant but some of them are not. I think there is the danger sometimes of having this free money sitting there that has got to be spent somewhere and sometimes it's not actually particularly brilliantly spent. And I can see some mystification on the other side there but I can point to you Mr Abel—some of the projects which have been funded you look at that and go That is not a good spend of money." As a country we need to make sure that the money we spend anywhere is really well spent.Look this bill does two things. One it continues to increase the amount of cost that is imposed on people who are creating waste and disposing of waste—that is a good thing; it keeps that incentive becoming greater and greater to minimise waste. But the second thing it does which is really important is it gives more flexibility around how that waste levy is used: it's about allowing us to do more clean-ups of contaminated sites; it's about allowing us to respond to emergencies and we heard the example of the Franz Josef one; and also about wider environmental programmes. So it's useful flexibility.I think it does two other things. One is it means that some costs which are currently paid by the Crown will then come from this levy so it's saving money. Secondly it means that there is going to be greater competition for that waste levy and that means I think that we will end up with higher-quality spending because some of the lower-quality things will drop off there. So I think this is a very sensible approach and I commend the bill to the House."
Campbell HamishDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Thank you Mr Speaker. It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill. It's great to talk about waste minimisation because this is a Budget which is cleaning up the mess of the previous Government so it's very apt that we're talking about waste management.One of the previous contributions talked about the C" word but they didn't use the "C" word which is "common sense". I think it's only common sense that we spend some of this levy and allow the ministry to undertake its functions and duties and exercise its powers in relation to waste management and to minimisation of hazardous substances. That's just common sense. And some of the other measures that the money can be spent on including repairing damage caused by emergency—it is why I think this is a great bill and I commend it to the House."
Butterick MikeMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): This is a great bill that aligns with our aspirations to get great environmental outcomes. I commend it to the House.
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I listened carefully to the contribution of the Minister who I thought put forward a very cogent argument for a prudent practical approach to the waste minimisation levy and how it could be more flexibly spent in a way that advances the National Party's blue-green principles that we've held dear for nearly 30 years. So on that basis I can support this bill wholeheartedly and I do so with enthusiasm.
Kuriger Barbara; Pugh MaureenHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Madam Speaker—[Interruption] can we have quiet while we're reporting please—the committee has considered the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Webb Duncan; Kuriger BarbaraHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Point of order! I'm sorry if I anticipated you but were we going to get to the Amendment Paper on that schedule?CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): There's an Amendment Paper still on my sheet here. Thank you.
Kuriger Barbara; Brown SimeonClause 5 Schedule 1 amendedCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members we come to clause 5. This is the debate on clause 5 Schedule 1 amended" and the Schedule. The question is that clause 5 stand part.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): This is a schedule which just makes it very very very clear that the change from 10 percent to 14 percent only applies to fines which are recovered and imposed "on or after 1 July 2024". The 10 percent figure "continues to apply to an amount of a fine recovered— (a) on or after 1 July … (b) [but] in respect of a fine imposed before 1 July". So effectively if a council is fining someone today but of course it may take some time for that fine to go through the system because that fine was based on a date before 1 July it'll be based at 10 percent. If that fine is issued on or after 1 July then it will be 14 percent. So this is effectively a subsequent amendment to ensure that there is no retrospectivity based on the date of the fine—a very sensible and sound change. I commend it to the House."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 5 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Clause 5 agreed to.