Copeland Gordon: Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill — First Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3583] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 When I discovered that Nandor Tanczos’ Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill had been drawn from the ballot I was pleased because I think everyone in this House would like to see waste in this country minimised. Like other nations we have made great efforts as a nation in recent years to get rid of waste to clean up our act and to clean up our rivers lakes and streams. Indeed in this Parliament as part of our confidence and supply agreement with the Labour-led Government we are addressing issues specifically around water quality and agrarian runoffs. So United Future as a party is strongly committed to the minimisation of waste. 
 In his usual helpful way Nandor was good enough to send me a memo that set out the provisions of this bill. He made seven points so I read through them one by one. The first one proposed the establishment of an energy efficiency and conservation authority dedicated to facilitating the move to a less wasteful society. I wrote alongside that “No”. New Zealand needs that like it needs a hole in the head. We already have too much bureaucracy in this country and United Future is not interested in creating another bureaucracy to tell people how to run their lives. The other note I made was that that was like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. 
The second point proposed that each of the territorial authorities would establish by law a waste control authority. Again I wrote “No” with much the same thinking—that that was really not a good process. The third point proposed a ban on materials going into landfills. I wrote “No” alongside that. We do not get rid of waste by banning it from landfills. If waste exists it needs to be dealt with in an appropriate way. Banning it will not actually solve anything. 
The fourth point proposed a landfill levy. I wrote alongside that point a sort of conditional “Yes”. I have no problem at all—and this is exactly the same point that Nick Smith made—in saying to local authorities that they should cost their landfill activities separately and accurately and recover that cost from their ratepayers on a levy basis so that there is an economic signal that says to people that they are taking up public resources in terms of waste. I am all for that but this bill does not do just that; it goes a bit further. In any event it is really the Government’s responsibility to look at the landfill levy proposal. I have said to a couple of people who have raised this issue with me to please make submissions to the Minister of Local Government about that. 
The next point proposed extending producer responsibility. Again at best I give that a question mark. I am not sure whether I like that idea either. The next point proposed organisational waste minimisation plans—every organisation was to adopt and implement a waste minimisation plan. Yeah right! Is a family an organisation? Are two people who are flatting together an organisation? Will every business every charity and every household in the country have to by law put together a waste minimisation plan? Alongside that one I put “Get real.” 
The next point proposed public procurement policies. It stated that we should have green procurement policies. I thought that this now was really about politics; it was about the Green brand. Why have green when this bill is in fact bright red? I would describe process in this bill as the Sovietisation of waste management. Really it is right in that category. This bill is bureaucratic and top-heavy and it proceeds—as unfortunately some of these bills do—on the assumption that somebody knows better than the average New Zealander how to control waste. 
I am all for public education around controlling waste. Wellington is a city of recyclers. Everybody does that very very well and it has made a huge difference. I mention incidentally that I was recently at Auckland University in a debate with Nandor and people raised the issue that the Auckland City Council will not give the university recycling bins. Why? The council says that the university does not pay any rates. That is madness and I take this opportunity to say that the Auckland City Council should get real. If we want people to recycle of course we need to provide them with the relevant bins and so on and so forth. 
I would also like to venture this suggestion to the House. To my knowledge commercial organisations are putting forward projects and so forth to utilise waste. Waste has a commercial value and I for one have much more confidence in addressing waste in that manner—recycling it and using it for electricity generation and those kinds of things—than I have in this immense bureaucratic Soviet-style legislation that United Future will oppose.