Parker David: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17592] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I rise to talk in respect of Part 3. This is as other speakers have already signalled an important part of the bill in that it provides the mechanism by which the bill essentially works. It is through this part that money will be levied on those who are disposing of waste at landfills and money will be divided between councils and the Crown. The part that goes to the Crown—and indeed some of the money that goes to councils—will be used in order to recycle some of these waste streams that are currently going to waste but that with better coordination and a little bit of money spent could be recycled and reused. 
If there was ever a time in our history when it was obvious that we needed to take better care of the recycling of products and product streams in our environment then it is right now. Around the world oil prices are going very high iron ore prices are far higher than they have ever been in history copper prices are very high and zinc prices and the prices of all semi-precious metals have gone up substantially in price. That indicates that we have shortages of resources. We are putting increasing pressure on the resources of our planet. There is a burgeoning population around the world and people in developing countries are aspiring to the sorts of lifestyles that we in developed countries are used to and as a consequence we are putting more pressure on our natural resources. 
Not only are those natural resources increasing in price but the more of those natural resources that we drag out of the ground and mines the more environmental effect we are causing as a consequence of the mining. Mining can be conducted responsibly and its environmental effect minimised but some environmental effect cannot be avoided. There is always an environmental effect caused by mining. Similarly an environmental effect is caused by the use of the energy that smelts metals and turns them from ores into the solid metals we use in the products that we are trying through this legislation to recycle better or to reuse by separating them from the waste stream. Part 3 gives effect to this ambition. 
The levy provided for in the bill will be split and there has been quite a bit of debate as to whether all of that levy ought to go to central government with central government deciding where that money is to be spent. I know that the Local Government and Environment Committee heard views for and against that—that the levy should all go to central government that it should all go to local government or that perhaps it should be split between the two. I for one am quite comfortable with the position that the select committee took and that Russell Normal supports which is that there is a division of this money between local authorities and central government so that between them they can put this money to good use to start recovering more of the waste stream. 
Nicky Wagner has raised a particular concern and so have some others about not cutting across existing businesses that are recovering resource from what would otherwise be dumped. The first point I will make there is that of course if businesses get this material before it gets to the dump it will actually not attract the waste levy. The material will not be a waste stream so that part of the process is not a concern to me. As I understand it scrap-metal dealers and those sorts of recipients of product actually get material outside the dump process—or the landfill process as we are inclined to call it now—so they will not be detrimentally affected by this legislation. Indeed their own businesses are likely to be enhanced because there will be additional recovery perhaps at the landfill that would not otherwise have occurred. That will presumably improve the economics of their business because they will be able to bid for that material from the landfill or a landfill operator such as the council and perhaps it is more likely that they will have additional material to recycle and put through their business thereby improving its profitability which would be a good thing. That would of course also increase the amount of recycling. 
In terms of the rate of the levy again I say there has been some talk and I know that some in the National Party have frequently said that $10 per tonne is too much. They think that $10 per tonne is an unnecessary impost and that the sum ought to be far lower. In fact some within the National Party think the charge ought to be nothing. I think that $10 per tonne is a fair figure to start at and I congratulate the promoter of this bill on coming to that moderate view because I think it is a very moderate view. Members can argue that Mr Blumsky is right—that it should be a higher figure. I am one who thinks that when this levy comes around for review in a couple of years’ time councils people generally and central government will be comfortable that this is money well spent and they may well look at raising it. 
But the $10 per tonne is of course absolutely necessary. A tonne of rubbish is a lot. I take my own stuff to the landfill periodically from home and my load of rubbish going to the local landfill is mainly garden clippings that are well recyclable. With my modest contributions to the landfill it would take me many years to actually reach a tonne of rubbish so to have my family paying $10 for many years does not feel too much of an impost to me. I understand that if this is applied to a municipal rubbish collection at a levy of $10 a tonne and I have in earlier times seen that the impost on an individual plastic rubbish bag is I think 5c or 10c a bag—it was something like that—it is really not going to break the bank. Given the good that will come of it and given the consequence that we will start recovering some things like the toxic waste streams we have in computers and the like then from my point of view this is money very well spent. 
The next point I will make is in respect of the efficacy of this part of the legislation. It relies upon having a proper and broad definition of waste. I know that the definition of “waste” is not part of Part 3 we are now debating but the term “waste” is used throughout Part 3 so in order to make sense of this part we have to go back to the definition section and read what is within the definition of waste. Again I have heard it suggested by some that the definition of waste ought to be severely limited so as to effectively take out of the definition much of what we want to be recycled. I think that if there are people who have given that point of view to the select committee or if there are politicians of that view in this Chamber then they are severely misguided. If politicians from the other side of this Committee who were pretending to support the bill would none the less like to see the definition of waste amended—so as to restrict its ambit and render it far less effective—they would be wrong. It is important that we have economies of scale that we have the opportunity to recycle all that is valuable and that we have the opportunity to recycle and concentrate waste streams of things that are damaging to the environment unless we take better care of them. 
I would include in that definition something that is currently a little bit controversial which is the compact fluorescent light bulbs about which there has been a lot in the newspapers recently. There are people who are concerned that these light bulbs contain mercury and they do. They contain very small amounts of mercury—about one-twentieth of the mercury that was in the old strip light fittings that we had in schools for 50 years. None the less they do have some mercury and it would be better if that mercury could be recovered through a concentrated waste stream. Well this legislation provides the mechanism for the cure of that particular problem. We could in the future say that we need to have a system for recovery of those compact fluorescents so that that very small risk is further moderated through the appropriate collection and concentration of that waste stream and the sending of it somewhere so that we can recover the glass recover the mercury and reuse them. I think this is a very good part of the bill. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 220 in the name of Nicky Wagner to clause 24(3) be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nicky Wagner to clause 30 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(2)When making a decision in relation to funding any matter to which subsection (1) applies the territorial authority must consider the effects that the decision may have on any existing waste minimisation services facilities and activities (whether provided by the territorial authority or otherwise). 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.