Tuiono Teanau; Brooking RachelClauses 1 to 3 CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members we now come to the debate on clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3 Title" "Commencement" and "Principal Act".Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Mr Chair. Talking to the title—this is the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill—and given the Minister's discussions and what we have heard is in the supplementary analysis report and why this bill is here in Budget urgency I'm suggesting that this title should be amended to "This Act is the Waste Minimisation (Pay for Environmental Cuts) Amendment Act 2024." I would be interested in the Minister's comments on that.Of course this all goes back to the wider point that we've been discussing today about the extension of what the levy can be spent on. That extension is for all the environmental things. The Minister has talked in a number of speeches about how important it is to think in terms of a circular economy and how important it is to think of the long life of a product and the many lives their product can have so of course it could be amended to something like "Activities that Reduce Environmental Harm Related to the Life of a Product".If that was the case then my suggested amendment to the title would not be needed because indeed it would still be about waste but this bill has gone well beyond waste and the Minister has shown no interest in making an amendment that would fix that problem. It would be a very simple problem to fix. So until that happens this bill needs to be renamed. I would be interested again in hearing from the Minister about why it is that this nexus between waste and whatever the spending is on needs to remain.I mean another suggested change could be because that nexus is not there and we heard from the Hon Barbara Edmonds and earlier on we heard from the Hon Dr Duncan Webb as well about the importance of a levy having a nexus before it becomes a tax. So another suggestion is of course that "This Act is the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Tax) Amendment Act." because until there is the nexus it isn't the levy and it's going well beyond any consensus that has been in this waste minimisation space. It's a consensus that I've been very pleased about and have hoped to continue with the Minister with all the parties in Parliament because it really does seem like a no-brainer but instead this Budget is choosing to reduce environmental spending with the 7.5 percent cuts across the board. We know as well with climate change that there are cuts there to all of the mitigation measures. We know that there are cuts to the Department of Conservation. Presumably with this widening of the objective spending could be provided to groups doing things. And we know that this Budget has been good for ferrets—it has been good for ferrets because everything's been cut. So who's going to prosper when we don't have the Jobs for Nature doing pest management? It's going to be the ferrets—other mustelids as well; not restricting it to ferrets.Andy Foster: Stick to the bill.Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I've been challenged here to stick to the bill. I'm totally sticking to the bill because that is the point—this bill is supposed to be about waste and waste minimisation. We accept that that goes further than just thinking about what is being taken to a waste facility that we should be looking at landfills and old landfills. We can be looking at what happens in emergency circumstances—that's a proper thing to be doing. If that was the case and there was still that nexus with waste then "This Act is the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Act."—that is the proper title for the Act but at the moment it is increased too far. It is overreaching and that name needs to change so either in the brackets "Pay for Environmental Cuts" or in the brackets "Pay for Waste Disposal Tax". Thank you."