News
New focus on waste recovery: changes and what they may mean
When Nandor Tanczos' Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill was drawn from the ballot last year it was widely acknowledged that it was unlikely to survive as is.
The consensus was that the Labour-led Government was most likely to support it to select committee stage as a favour to the Greens, and to allow debate on the issues. However as the political momentum for addressing environmental concerns has grown over the last year, as has the likely survival of Nandor's Bill.
Last month the Local Government and Environment Select Committee announced that a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) would be produced to substantially amend the original Bill and produce a law not only with more easily achievable and quantifiable objectives, but also more palatable to business. Select committee members were particularly pleased with themselves that this was the result of a cross-party effort.
The original Bill has now been revoked and renamed the Waste Minimisation and Resource Recovery Bill and the Government has indicated that it is prepared to continue to lend its support as it advances its own sustainability policy agenda in promoting waste minimisation, a modest waste levy and a product stewardship scheme.
The select committee has been hearing submissions on the original Bill over the last year or so and its reporting date has been delayed several times. It is currently 31 October although with the notification of the SOP this is likely to be extended yet again.
While the original Bill was criticised for being overly ambitious, excessively detailed and prescriptive, the SOP has in contrast been received relatively warmly, if not cautiously, by most sectors. It contains the core elements of the original Bill in promoting waste minimisation and resource recovery, but improves their implementation and removes some more administrative features, such as the proposed creation of a new Waste Minimisation Authority. It does, however establish the Waste Advisory Board, with the sole purpose of advising the Minister for the Environment on waste minimisation or functions under the Bill.
The Extended Producer Responsibility scheme, which sought to ensure that producers were responsible for a product throughout its lifecycle, has been replaced with a Product Stewardship Scheme. The idea is to develop a list of 'priority products' using specific criteria eg a product that will cause significant environmental harm at the end of its life. Relevant stakeholders are then required to produce a scheme to manage the product's lifecycle. Voluntary product stewardship schemes can be developed for non-priority products. The scope for these schemes is so broad - such as expecting to result in reducing harm to the environment - that virtually any product could potentially qualify if it met the necessary criteria. While the New Zealand Packaging Council has indicated that voluntary rather than compulsory schemes are preferable, it is clear that the battle for allocating responsibility for product lifecycles is not over yet.
A key part that has survived the revised Bill is a waste levy, to be set initially at $10 per tonne but to be increased over time. The NZ Business Council for Sustainable Development (NZBCSD) has indicated that it supports the proposed levy and suggested that it should be increased to up to $30 per tonne over three years. The Secretary for the Environment (currently the Chief Executive Officer of the Ministry for the Environment) is to administer the levy and there are strict criteria for the use of the levy funds such as waste minimisation projects approved by the Minister for the Environment, and administrative costs. As well, territorial authorities will be paid a share of the levy (dependent on population) for their own waste management and minimisation activities. If they do not comply with strict criteria, the money may be withheld.
The levy's effectiveness is to be reviewed every five years. However overseas experience, particularly in the United Kingdom, has shown that an original waste levy comprising an active landfill tax of £7 per tonne in 1996 is now scheduled to increase to £32 per tonne in 2008, with an expected further increase of £8 per annum. The NZCSBD believes it is very important that the money collected from the levy is only spent on cost-effective projects and those that would not otherwise see the light of day in New Zealand. Given the restrictions on the use of the levy, and implications if they are not followed (i.e. it is withheld), the question arises as to how local government is expected to meet the cost of funding the other new obligations imposed by the Bill.
While the waste provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 will be moved to the new legislation, the administration and reporting requirements are more onerous. The proposed offences and penalties under the legislation remain - fines from $10,000 to $1000,000 per offence, and up to six months in jail. An infringement offence regime is proposed via bylaws, however the Secretary for the Environment also has the power to appoint enforcement officers to ensure compliance with regulations made under the Bill. The implications and logistics of a dual enforcement regime via both central and local government will have wide ramifications, particularly if the Ministry is now proposing to set up some form of enforcement unit within its ranks. There is clearly also the future potential for these powers to extend to areas beyond waste.
The Bill also requires better public reporting of waste data with an emphasis on information gathering and increased audit reporting.
While ultimately the opportunities for addressing waste concerns are promoted in the proposed amendments to the Bill, the obligations on local government continue to increase with no guarantee of increased resources to help meet them. While businesses are increasingly recognising the need to become more responsible for the sustainable management of their operations, it is still difficult to assess whether they are ready for the additional cost and administration that the Bill would bring, particularly if non-compliance leaves them vulnerable to the enforcement measures of both their local council and central government.
* The SOP is open for further submissions by original submitters only, with the select committee report due 31 October.
