|
Embedding
a long-term, strategic approach to reducing waste
|
|
11)
Do you think the
new legislation should require the government to have a waste strategy and
periodically update it? (pages 45 – 46)
|
The board
believe there should be a requirement for all tiers of government to take a
long-term and co-ordinated view on waste.
The
legislation should require the government to have a waste strategy and
periodically update it.
|
|
12)
How often should
a strategy be reviewed? (pages 46 - 47)
|
The board
believe the strategy should be reviewed every 3 – 6 years and be
aligned to the local government long-term plan cycle.
|
|
13)
How strongly
should the strategy (and supporting action and investment plans) influence
local authority plans and actions? (pages 47 – 48)
|
The board
believes strategy should give clear direction from central
government.
Any
additional requirements placed on local authorities to administer the new
legislative requirements should come with the commensurate central
government funding.
|
|
14)
What public
reporting on waste by central and local government would you like to see?
(page 47)
|
The board
agrees central government should be required to report:
·
at an overall level on progress,
including against the specific targets it has set for the country
·
generally on waste data
·
on the use of levy revenue.
The board
agrees that local authorities should support this by reporting on progress
against the same measures and on their use of levy funds, as well as
reporting from relevant parts of the waste management industry.
|
|
15)
Do you agree with
the suggested functions for central government agencies? (page 48)
|
The board
agrees with the suggested functions for central government agencies.
|
|
16)
What central
agencies would you like to see carry out these functions? (page 48)
|
The board
believe that the best fit to carry out the functions is with the Ministry
for the Environment. The risk with splitting the functions across
agencies could lead to a disjointed less focused approach.
|
|
17)
How should
independent, expert advice on waste be provided to the government? (pages
48 -49)
|
The board
can see the benefit of having a Waste Advisory Board that could provide
independent expertise and advice in developing future waste strategy and
action and investment plans, product bans, assessing significant investment
and funding proposals to the minister or ministry or to separate bodies for
different functions.
|
|
18)
How could the
legislation provide for Māori participation in the new advice and
decision making systems for waste?
(page 49)
|
The board
agree it is imperative to provide for Māori participation in the new
advice and decision making systems for waste.
The board is
mindful of the capacity issues for Māori to engage at all levels of
government, however, the opportunity should be created.
The board
believe it is a discussion with Māori as to how best this works for
them.
|
|
19)
What are your
views on local government roles in the waste system, in particular the
balance between local and regional? Who should be responsible for planning,
service delivery, regulatory activities like licensing, and enforcement of
the different obligations created? (pages 49 – 50)
|
The board
does not have a view on this question as Auckland Council is a unitary
authority, therefore the separation of regional and local is a moot point.
|
|
Putting
responsibility at the heart of the new system
|
|
20)
Do you see
benefit in adapting the United Kingdom’s duty-of-care model for
Aotearoa New Zealand’s waste legislation, supported by appropriate
offences and penalties? (pages 51 – 52)
|
The board
agrees that the duty-of-care approach will encourage a change in attitudes
and mindsets.
|
|
21)
Do you support
strengthening obligations around litter by creating an individual
‘duty of care’ to dispose of waste appropriately?
|
The board
supports strengthening obligations around litter by creating an individual
‘duty-of-care’ to dispose of waste appropriately.
|
|
22)
What else could
we do so that litter is taken more seriously as a form of pollution?
|
The board
believes illegal dumping or fly-tipping should be made a criminal offence.
|
|
23)
Do you support a
nationwide licensing regime for the waste sector? (pages 53 – 54)
|
The board
supports a nationwide licensing regime for the waste sector.
|
|
24)
Should the new
legislation include a power to require a tracing system to be developed for
some or all types of waste? (pages 54 – 55)
|
The board
supports the new legislations including a power to require a tracing system
to be development for waste.
Overall,
make it easy for people to engage and dispose of waste in all its forms
appropriately.
|
|
25)
What aspects of
the proposals for regulating the waste sector could be extended to apply to
hazardous waste? (page 55)
|
The board
believes there should be a requirement for local collection points for
hazardous waste with associated communication plans so the general public
know what is hazardous waste, where to take it and when. This
includes the disposal of e-waste. Convenience and education will be
key to higher levels of compliance.
|
|
Improving
legislative support for product stewardship schemes
|
|
26)
Should the new
legislation keep an option for accreditation of voluntary product
stewardship schemes?
(pages 57 – 58)
|
The board
supports the new legislation keeping an option for accreditation of
voluntary product stewardship schemes.
|
|
27)
How could the
accreditation process for new product stewardship schemes be strengthened?
(page 58)
|
The board
supports the proposed improvements to the accreditation process for product
stewardship schemes.
|
|
28)
How else could we
improve the regulatory framework for product stewardship? (pages 59 –
60)
|
The board
believes the product stewardship scheme monitoring, reporting and
enforcement regulations should be strengthened to provide formal tools for
schemes that are not performing well.
|
|
Enhancing
regulatory tools to encourage change
|
|
29)
What improvements
could be made to the existing regulatory powers under section 23 of the
Waste Management Act 2008? (page 61 - 62)
|
The board
agrees that relying on voluntary action is unlikely to see transformation
to a circular economy or meet emission reduction targets.
|
|
30)
What new
regulatory powers for products and materials would be useful to help
Aotearoa move towards a circular economy? (page 62 - 63)
|
The board
does not have a formal view on this question.
|
|
31)
Would you like to
see a right to return packaging to the relevant business? (page 64 - 65)
|
The board
believes a right to return packaging to the relevant business approach
would be a powerful tool to encourage businesses to take a take on board
product stewardship and potentially drive innovation in a circular economy.
|
|
32)
Would you like to
see more legal requirements to support products lasting longer and being
able to be repaired? (pages 66 – 67)
|
The board
supports more legal requirements to support products lasting longer and
being able to be repaired. Investment will be required to ensure
there is a workforce with the required skillsets to make this a reality.
|
|
33)
Is there a need
to strengthen or make better use of import and export controls to support
waste minimisation and circular economy goals? For example, should we look
at ways to prohibit exports of materials like low-value plastics? (pages 67
– 68)
|
The board
believes the import and export controls should be strengthened to support
waste minimisation and the circular economy goals. Aotearoa should
not be exporting low value plastics.
|
|
Ensuring the
waste levy is used to best effect
|
|
34)
What types of
activities should potentially be subject to a levy? Should the levy be able
to be imposed on final disposal activities other than landfills (such as
waste to energy facilities)? (pages 69 - 70)
|
The board
believes the levy should be applied with the principle to encourage
activities that support a circular economy. Those activities not
supporting the circular economy should be charged a higher levy.
|
|
35)
What factors
should be considered when setting levy rates? (pages 69 – 70)
|
The board
believes there should be a requirement for consideration of the overall
effectiveness of the waste minimisation measures and the contribution to a
circular economy when setting levy rates.
|
|
36)
How could the
rules on collection and payment of the waste levy be improved? (page 70)
|
The board
agrees that the new legislation should also take into account management of
stockpiling materials, reuse of materials on site at disposal facilities,
waivers and exemptions.
|
|
37)
What should waste
levy revenue be able to be spent on? (pages 71 – 72)
|
The board
agrees with the broader scope proposed for what the waste levy can be used
for.
|
|
38)
How should waste
levy revenue be allocated to best reflect the roles and responsibilities of
the different layers of government in relation to waste, and to maximise
effectiveness? (pages 72 – 73)
|
The board
supports an adjustment to the population-based formula for the waste levy
that takes into account:
·
visitor populations
·
the area, size and distance to
high-population centres, to reflect the higher waste-related costs incurred
by some territorial authorities
or
·
a fixed base amount, combined
with a ‘top up’ proportional amount using one of the options
above. For example, 5 per cent of each territorial authority’s total
share of revenue could be allocated equally, with the remaining 95 per cent
allocated on a population basis.
|
|
39)
How should waste
levy revenue be allocated between territorial authorities? (pages 72 - 73)
|
The board
does not have a formal view on this question.
|
|
Improving
compliance, monitoring and enforcement
|
|
40)
Which elements of
compliance, monitoring and enforcement should be the responsibility of
which parts of government (central government, regional councils,
territorial authorities) under new waste legislation? (pages 75 – 76)
|
The board
does not have a formal view on this question.
|
|
41)
The need for
enforcement work will increase under the new legislation. How should it be
funded? (pages 76 – 77)
|
The board
agrees that wherever the functions site, they need to be adequately
resourced. The scope for use of the waste levy fund should be
expanded to encourage a circular economy.
|
|
42)
What expanded
investigation powers, offences and penalties do you think should be
included in new waste legislation?
|
The board
supports a legislative change that makes illegal dumping a criminal
offence.
|
|
43)
What regulatory
or other changes do you think would help better manage inappropriate
disposal of materials (that is, littering and fly-tipping)?
|
The board believes
that there is a need to provide a range of options for disposing of waste
that recognises the diversity of needs between households. These could
include: access to local recycling centres; periodically placing skips or
bins in neighbourhoods to allow for disposal of inorganic waste without the
need to make a booking or place limitations on the amount of waste that can
be collected (similar to the ‘Neat Streets’ programme); or
other services.
The board is a strong advocate for local resource
recovery centres and recycling facilities.
|
