Waste Minimisation Bill

I will take just a brief call. Obviously there have been a few changes around the amendments since we last discussed the Waste Minimisation Bill. Around clause 2, which is the commencement clause, we have replaced Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Nicky Wagner—it has now been withdrawn, and I thank the member for that—with a new amendment, which I have tabled here tonight. It is a typed amendment that will deal with some of the problems that were identified by that member’s Supplementary Order Paper, and as well will make a small change around clause 39. I hope everyone has caught up with that one.

The second issue concerns the definition of “waste”. There has been very considerable discussion around the definition of “waste”, which was originally initiated by Supplementary Order Paper 219 in the name of Nicky Wagner. The definition would have created some real problems with regard to the legislation. After discussion amongst the Scrap Metal Recycling Association, the Government, the Minister’s office, and the officials of Local Government New Zealand and various other parties, we have now come up with a new Supplementary Order Paper 223 in my name, which I hope—which I am sure—will meet everyone’s concerns. I know that Local Government New Zealand still has some concerns about this Supplementary Order Paper, but I am hopeful that the ministry will actually use its powers to collect the information that it needs in order to get the information that local government needs.

So I would ask members to support those two amendments—that is, the new Supplementary Order Paper 223, and the amendment to clause 2, which relates to the commencement dates.

I rise to support the Waste Minimisation Bill. It has been a long journey, but we have finally got to Part 1. As members know, National voted against this bill at its first reading. We voted against it because we believed it was excessively detailed and overly prescriptive. We voted against it because it tended to focus on how things should be done, rather than the outcomes we needed to achieve. We were also concerned about excessive costs in terms of compliance and enforcements, and layers and layers of new bureaucracy. However, during the select committee process, the original bill was gutted. This Waste Minimisation Bill is completely and comprehensively reworked. National now supports the bill, particularly now that we have been through a rigorous process of considering Supplementary Order Papers, and because the bill’s provisions are now mostly reasonable and rational, and, more important, because it will be good for our environment.

New Zealanders are conscious that the disposal of waste, however carefully managed, does harm to our environment. Although modern landfills utilise new technologies to protect the receiving environment, we still need to minimise the volume of waste that we dispose of. Even transporting that waste is destructive and increases our carbon footprint. There are enormous benefits to gain from better utilising our waste stream: economic benefits from recovering valuable resources, social benefits from providing jobs, and cultural benefits from a cleaner and greener environment.

The Local Government and Environment Committee worked hard on the definitions required for this bill, and we got it right in most instances. There was a large amount of debate about the definition of waste, and it seemed very difficult to find a definition that was neither too wide nor too narrow. We finally decided on a definition that included not only anything that had been disposed of and discarded, which is probably what most people think of when they are describing waste, but also anything that was no longer required for its original purpose and which, but for commercial or other waste minimisation activities, would have been disposed of or discarded.

But on reflection, our definition included resources in the waste stream that could be reused, recycled, or recovered even if they had never entered the waste stream, and this proved to be a problem. Since the bill had been reported back we had representations from several organisations, including the Scrap Metal Recycling Association of New Zealand, organic and green waste collectors, and paper and plastic recyclers, highlighting unintended consequences of the original wider definition. They believed that the wider definition could actually create disincentives for recycling and could jeopardise New Zealand’s significant export of waste—or resources, depending on how we define it.

When we designed the Waste Minimisation Bill, we aimed to encourage the extraction of valuable commodities from the waste stream, but it seemed that the wider definition could have perverse effects, as it included material that was never intended for the waste stream. There had already been a court case over the ramifications of a wider definition of waste, because a recycler of paper, which should have been rewarded for minimising the waste stream, was actually disadvantaged under the wider definition. The recyclers were also concerned that the wider definition could unnecessarily increase administrative and compliance costs for recycling businesses, and could hinder the bill’s objective of encouraging waste minimisation activities. Furthermore, it was pointed out that any suggestion that recyclables such as scrap metal were considered waste by the New Zealand Government had the potential to influence importers from other countries, and New Zealand exports could have become subject to more rigorous import controls.

I came to the conclusion that unless we reworked the definition of “waste” in the bill, we could cause problems for the people and organisations that had been the most proactive in the minimisation of waste, and that had spearheaded the recovery of valuable resources from the waste stream. To minimise waste we need to attract businesses and operators to work in this area, not kick them in the shins when they have been proactive. I therefore proposed Supplementary Order Paper 219, which dealt with a narrow definition that excluded recyclables and recoverable resources. It would have solved the recyclers’ problem and ensured that those pioneer recyclers and resource-recovery businesses, such as the scrap-metal merchants, paper recyclers, and green-waste collectors were not disadvantaged, but it would have meant that the bill did not cover, and actually excluded, recyclables. That had further complications and ramifications in terms of how local government could fulfil its obligations in waste minimisation.

After the last member’s day, Russel Norman and I got together to work on a definition we thought would get an even better balance. Over the adjournment Russel Norman, with the help of the Ministry for the Environment and local government representatives, and I have come up with a compromise, which is Supplementary Order Paper 223, that I think everyone can live with. Therefore, I have withdrawn my Supplementary Order Paper 219 and support the new compromise definition, Supplementary Order Paper 223. I look forward to both the recyclers and local government getting on with the job. Thank you.

Firstly, I commend the work that Nicky Wagner has been doing in ensuring that the Waste Minimisation Bill is workable legislation. I want to reflect on Part 1 in the initial bill. If we look through the bill we can see that every single clause in the original Part 1 has been deleted and we have, effectively, ended up with a completely new bill. The reason for that was that the original bill was a bureaucratic monster. One of the problems with the left is that every time they come to an environmental issue, in their view more and more red tape and regulation are automatically the answer. The original bill proposed that every single small business, club, and council—every single one of New Zealand’s 287,000 businesses—would have to have a waste management plan, and that waste management plan would have to be approved by the local council. If members think the Resource Management Act is bad at dealing with about a one-hundredth of the number of approvals, then they would know that that would have been just awful. We have argued consistently that although there is a legitimate issue around waste, the original bill by the Greens was a disaster zone, and we rightly dubbed it the “Waste Increase Bill” for the amount of paperwork that it would have driven.

The second stage, post select committee—where Nicky Wagner has been doing a great job—is about recognising that a whole lot of very good recycling work is already going on out there in the community, and the last thing this Parliament needs to do is to pass a statute that penalises those people who have been doing the right thing. Yesterday on the steps of Parliament we saw a protest from those who recycle metals. This is an industry with no Government regulation. It is made up of good old Kiwi entrepreneurs who have gone out and created a recycling industry around metals. This bill would have made it harder for them. I say good on Nicky Wagner for standing up for the New Zealand entrepreneurs and getting bureaucracy off their backs when they are doing the right environmental thing.

💬 Moana Mackey: So it’s all the National Party’s idea.

The chair of the committee says this is all the National Party’s idea. Well, hang on a moment. Moana Mackey chaired the select committee, which passed the bill as it was. If she did her job properly, why were the metal recyclers protesting on the steps of Parliament?

💬 Moana Mackey: You’re on the select committee. Why didn’t you do your job properly?

Oh, is it not strange! Labour members want what I think Mr Peters calls the trinkets of office. They want all the trinkets and gizmos of office, but when it actually comes to their legislation, they will not accept responsibility. You see, it is a bit like the Electoral Finance Act—it is not the Government’s fault; it is Parliament’s fault that the Electoral Finance Act is an awful mess. And now we are getting the same sorts of dodgy excuses from the chair of the select committee. The truth is—and Moana Mackey knows it—that this clause was fixed only as a consequence of the initiative of Nicky Wagner. If it were not for Nicky Wagner—and I think Russel Norman would have the generosity to acknowledge this—we would not have this solution. It has been Nicky Wagner’s initiative that has seen a sensible solution to this issue of the definition of waste.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Mai Chen’s, actually. Mai Chen drafted it, not Nicky Wagner.

I have to say that it was Nicky Wagner who first took the initiative. But I have to ask where the Minister for the Environment has been.

💬 John Carter: Who?

The Minister for the Environment. He is the one who gets the ministerial house, the ministerial car, and the ministerial salary for getting environment legislation right. But, no, the responsibility falls on Nicky Wagner to come to the rescue of Kiwi private enterprises that have been doing the right thing and that risked being penalised by this bill were it not for the sensible amendment.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to follow the comments made by my colleague Nick Smith, and I also add my congratulations to Nicky Wagner on the very good work she has done on this legislation. There is no question that the bill would be the poorer if it were not for Nicky’s involvement. I also say that the bill would be the poorer if it were not for the National Party’s input, as well.

I do concede that the select committee members worked well together. That is the first point I want to make. When we first started off—and I have said this before—people like me, in black bush singlets from the back of Hokianga, thought this was all a lot of nonsense. But as we became more focused we began to understand that an issue here not only needed to be addressed but deserved the attention of Parliament. So, for example, Nicky Wagner and I took a trip to Southern Australia to have a look at the system that people have in that part of this world. I must say I certainly came away with a much clearer idea of what needed to happen in this legislation. I know that Nicky also came away with a wider view, I suspect, than she had had when she went there. It certainly was a wonderful opportunity to learn.

Points have been made already that this bill has been changed to ensure that the entrepreneurs we have—such as the gentlemen whom I know are listening and looking on—are the very people this bill will now allow the opportunity to move forward. That is a good thing. But I also add this point to the comments that have already been made: this legislation is about us as a Parliament recognising that this is not only about waste but also about a resource. That is an important point for us to keep re-emphasising. Waste is only waste if people do not understand that it can be recycled and reused, so this Parliament has a huge leadership responsibility in that regard, to make sure there is an understanding that this bill is about using the resources we have in our country rather than wasting them. Parliament needed to take a lead, and we have made a step forward in that regard with this legislation.

As my colleague Nick Smith has said, the legislation is also to support those who are already involved in the industry. There are many people, many small businesses, and some bigger ones involved in the whole issue of recycling and waste minimisation, and we did not want in any way to impinge on their ability to continue doing those things that they are doing so well for our nation.

I guess the third thing that is important with this legislation, and with the way it is drafted and crafted, is that it allows us now to ensure that the public also understand that they have a wider responsibility. They must start learning that if we as a nation are to move forward, we must use the resource and the opportunities that we have. Where hitherto we have looked to chuck opportunities in the bin, so to speak, we should now be making all those opportunities count. This part, and this amendment we have before us, are all about that. They are about ensuring that the nation, the operators, and all those people involved, including local authorities, take up the responsibility they have in regard to waste minimisation, and ensure that they allow the whole system to work correctly. In that regard, this bill gives this country that opportunity.

The select committee is to be commended. The members of the select committee who worked with this bill have certainly changed it significantly. The member in charge of the bill would now concede that point, just as the member who was previously in charge of it, Nandor Tanczos, certainly recognised it. I understand that the person who first introduced the bill from the Green Party would also concede that the bill is far better for the work that has been put into it by the parliamentarians and the officials involved.

I move, That the question be now put.