Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I'm very happy to make a contribution to my colleague Scott Simpson's member's bill the Litter (Increased Infringement Fee) Amendment Bill. Can I be the first right here tonight in this House to nominate Clare Curran for mayor of Auckland. John Tamihere—I thought he was a nice bloke but we need a heavy hitter. We need someone with ideas someone with vision someone who can think outside the square. When Clare Curran got up tonight earlier and said Have the council thought about putting out more litter bins?" I just thought "On your bike Tamihere. This woman's got answers." I thought you were on to something. Then she followed that up with "Maybe we just need some more enforcement officers."—another gem. There will be mayors and councillors around the country perhaps from Waipā from Hamilton from Ashburton or from Auckland who came to submit on this bill who'll be smacking their heads thinking "Why on Earth didn't we think of that? This woman is a genius." Despite what Kieran McAnulty just got up and said about his trip to Taiwan where we don't need any rubbish bins at all—in fact it's quite the opposite. Those two really should get together and have a wee chat.And then her other gem: the Waste Minimisation Fund which she lauded as a wonderful scheme shortly after by the way she attacked us for not being good environmentalists forgetting that that was actually something that the National Government set up. But more importantly her great idea is to tax those people more who do the right thing in disposing of their rubbish and at the same time arguing against a bill that wants to properly punish those people who literally dump their rubbish—in fact literally dump on the beaches as Scott Simpson pointed out earlier tonight—tax good behaviour more and fine bad behaviour less. I can see why they made her a Minister—all the best ideas.She then went on to spend a large proportion of her speech on who has the best commitment to the environment as if this was some argument for voting down a bill that would increase fines for littering. "We are doing some other stuff in conservation."—she said—"This Government has a plan. We've got all the big ideas. It's about the big picture stuff." And yet how are those cameras on fishing boats coming along? How are those national parks coming along? How are those marine reserves coming along? How about the 15 percent decrease in the environment budget and doing nothing for fresh water—how about those? That's all big-picture stuff. They can't even bring themselves to vote for a little bill that does a lot. What they fail to understand is that this bill is a small part of a wider plan. We're not saying it is the magic bullet. Some academic might think that $1000 is out of proportion but it is not the minimum. It's a sliding scale. Councils around the country want this increase. They came to the select committee and they put in written submissions because they want this increase. Now Hamilton City Council in their submission is a really good example of this. The Hamilton City Council employs 19 staff who have duties for litter control. They developed a litter enforcement management policy which outlines the process for these infringements as well as the council's resolution as to how they should be applied. Now like most other councils they have a stepped sliding scale for infringements starting at $100 for something like a cigarette butt or a takeaway container or a drink container—anything under a litre—then 200 bucks for 1 to 20 litres of rubbish like a disposable nappy or a bag of household rubbish or something like what Deborah Russell held up earlier; $300 for something like a sofa; and $400 for dangerous litter of any quality in any place. The Hamilton City Council have a real and increasing problem. They told us a story of the 3 tonnes of rubbish they pulled out of an open drain recently. It cost them $1200 just to dispose of it let alone all the other costs. The Hamilton City Council put to our select committee that if we were to increase the fine to $1000 like they want they would be able to develop a new sliding scale that better reflects the severity of the littering activity. We are not on this side of the House arguing that if you flick a cigarette butt out of your car window you get a $1000 fine—like it sounds like they believe. It is a sliding scale like most councils have in place. Of course this council still have the ability to prosecute for really bad behaviour but this allows them a better bridge in between the infringement system and a prosecution. The Thames-Coromandel District Council also wrote a submission in support of the bill noting that $400 does not reasonably cover the costs of enforcement and removal. They were very supportive of the fine. As I say it gives them more of a bridge between prosecution and infringement. We know of—and we heard earlier from Scott Simpson—the terrible problem that we have on the beautiful Coromandel Peninsula that's often highlighted by the hard-working local MP Mr Scott Simpson. The Waipā District Council wrote a submission as well also—again—in support of having an increased fine to $1000 and they were calling for the further ability of councils to add rubbish removal fines on top of the fine without having to go to court. So they actually want more because it costs them so much money to remove the rubbish and for the enforcement officer's time. The Ashburton District Council wrote to our select committee in support of the bill. These are the people who work under the Act and they enforce the Act. Again they supported the bill. They supported having a sliding scale infringement structure to reflect the amount and quality of the litter dump similar to that of the Hamilton City Council. The last council I want to mention in this contribution is our largest city council—the Auckland Council—who in the year 2017-18 investigated 1644 complaints of littering and illegal dumping of rubbish. Again it is an increasing problem. The Auckland Council submission was interesting to me and I think we should take note of it because while they agreed that they wanted to be able to use an increase in a fine they also gave us some other ideas and while they were out of the scope of the bill I think we should take heed. They did talk about the difficulty of the evidence being able to be gathered and they asked us to consider in the future using a different level of evidence required for some kinds of dumping like a cigarette butt or a Coke can compared to say a trailer-load of commercial waste. That was an idea they had. They also put to us that maybe—at the moment it's very difficult for them even if they have a registration plate that's been called in. If someone chucks something out of a car window it is difficult for them to be able to figure out who was driving the car and who actually did it and they argued that we should perhaps in the future consider just fining the owner of the vehicle regardless to try and change behaviour. They put some good ideas to us and we will take those into consideration. But overall all of these councils agreed that an infringement system with a higher infringement at the top end was the best way to go and these are the guys on the ground. These are the people who are enforcing the law. When I was a kid growing up we had a really bad litter problem. I remember it driving along the roads and it was similar to now where you see rubbish along the side of the road. We had a hugely successful behaviour change campaign that many of us have fond memories of. It's worth noting at this point that this is in line with in 2017 the National Government announcing $300 million to stop littering—the "Do the right thing" initiative which was aimed at educating people. The then Minister Mr Nick Smith announced it at our Bluegreens forum. The Auckland Council also pointed out that a holistic approach to education was going to be part of the solution as well along with an increased fine. The argument put up by those on the other side of the House is that it's just all out of proportion. I would argue that $1000 for serious large and/or dangerous littering that doesn't quite meet the prosecution level on a sliding scale is absolutely in line with the public's expectation. Maybe not some academic but the country has had enough of people treating our countryside like a dump. Whether it's Deborah Russell's fishy neighbours or the people that Scott Simpson has had photographed on our beaches we have had it and $1000 for serious offending is a better bridge of that gap between a low fine and a prosecution. It is a small but vital part of the puzzle that every council who came to us and that we have spoken to wants and for Clare Curran to call this bill petty it shows how horribly out of touch this Government are with public sentiment. We have had it with roadside littering. We have had it with litter in our waterways—Hon Eugenie Sage: Why didn't you do something about it then? ERICA STANFORD: —that we have to go and clean up. We are—oh you. "Why don't you do something about it?" says Minister Sage. Well we are waiting on this side of the House for any legislation to do with litter. Have we had anything? Nothing at all. That Minister should concentrate on perhaps bringing something to the House along with something to do with the Kermadec marine sanctuary or maybe cameras on fishing boats. No—big silence from that side of the room because they are doing nothing. This greenest Government ever are a horrible failure. It's a little bill that has a big heart and it will make a big difference that the councils want. This petty Government—this greenest Government ever—cannot bring themselves to vote for it for purely idealistic reasons and that sucks. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Before I call the member to take the next call I just want to remind members that they are to use the correct titles when they are referring to members. There were two members referred to in that last speech which have an honourable title before their name and I know that the Speaker earlier today was commenting on that point. So I just want to remind people of respectful titles please."