Minute Item Attachments of Papakura Local Board

Papakura Local Board

28 May 2025

Papakura Local Board feedback on the proposed Government amendments to the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and the Litter Act 1979

Relevant provisions in legislation and proposals for amendment	Consultation questions	Yes / No / Unsure	Local Board comment
Waste Minimisation Act Part 2: Product stewardship Amend the product stewardship provisions in the WMA to replace them with an extended producer responsibility (EPR) framework. Discontinue the role of central government in accrediting voluntary product stewardship schemes – organisations can still develop voluntary schemes if they wish to.	1. Do you support the proposal for a modern EPR framework? 2. Do you support discontinuing the government accreditation of voluntary product stewardship schemes? Please share any further thoughts or ideas on these proposals	Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure	The Papakura Local Board supports any legislative initiative that requires businesses and importers to be more cognisant of their responsibilities regarding packaging and the impacts on waste. Long-term, self-regulation regarding product stewardship doesn’t work therefore a government accreditation scheme should remain.
Waste Minimisation Act Part 3: Waste disposal levy Adjust the method for allocating funds from the waste disposal levy (the levy) to territorial authorities, to reduce the extremity of funding between very large and very small councils. The current population-based allocation approach would change to a combination of a base flat rate (20 per cent) and a population-based calculation (80 per cent). Widen the use of the levy money for territorial authorities to support a broader range of waste and environmental outcomes. Provide central government and territorial authorities with a decision-making framework for spending levy funds on environmental benefits and/or reduction of environmental harm. Remove the blanket levy exclusion for waste-to-energy technology and facilities, to ensure a level playing field for all types of final waste disposal. Amend the Minister’s required considerations and timeframe when reviewing the effectiveness of the levy. Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the existing levy provisions for: · levy waivers · levy exemptions · reuse of material at disposal facilities · stockpiling.	Distribution of levy funds 3. Do you support changing the distribution of levy funds to territorial authorities from a population-based calculation to a combination of a base flat rate (20 per cent) and a population-based calculation (80 per cent)? Please share any further thoughts or ideas on this proposal.	Yes / No / Unsure	This will assist the smaller councils, however, the Auckland region has issues with volume.
Scope of use of levy funds 4. Please indicate your support for changes that would permit territorial authorities to use the levy for: a. activities that promote or achieve waste minimisation, in accordance with and as set out in the territorial authorities’ Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. b. costs associated with managing emergency waste. c. activities that provide for the remediation of contaminated sites and vulnerable landfills. d. compliance, monitoring and enforcement of mismanaged waste. e. activities that reduce environmental harm or increase environmental benefits. Please share any further thoughts or ideas on this proposal.	Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure	Councils will need to ensure that they have adequate numbers of compliance officers to monitor and enforce mismanagement of waste.
5. Please share any suggestions for criteria that could form a decision-making framework for possible spending of the waste levy on environmental benefits and/or reduction of environmental harm.
	Further levy effectiveness considerations 6. Do you support removal of the current blanket exclusion from the levy for waste-to-energy facilities? 7. Do you agree that the Minister’s considerations for a review of the effectiveness of the waste levy should mirror the scope of the purpose of the WMA and the parameters for levy spend (once these are decided)? 8. Do you support changing the timeframe for review of the effectiveness of the waste levy from every three years to at least every five years? Please share any further thoughts or ideas on these proposals.	Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure	The exclusions should be considered on a case-by-case basis. A longer review period does not allow for responsiveness to the changing scope for which the levy could be used.
	Use of waivers 9. Do you support replacing the current levy-waiver requirement of ‘exceptional circumstances’, instead enabling the Secretary to waive the requirement for an operator to pay any amount of levy in specified circumstances? 10. Do you support limiting the waiver requirement to emergency event situations for which a state of national or local emergency has been declared under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 and biosecurity responses have been undertaken under Part 7 of the Biosecurity Act 1993? 11. Do you agree the waiver requirement for waste from the remediation of a contaminated site should specify any eligibility criteria that an application must meet? If so, please share any suggestions for eligibility criteria. Please share any further thoughts or ideas on these proposals.	Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure	The board agrees a certain threshold would need to be met but did not think it should be limited to national or local emergencies or biodiversity responses. The board supports the ability to have a waiver, however, the board would prefer to see suggested eligibility criteria for further feedback. For example, where a business goes into liquidation and the land is part of a treaty settlement the levy should be waived to assist with remediation of the land.
	Conditions and exemptions 12. Do you support requiring a Minister to consider specific criteria before recommending levy exemption regulations are made (instead of the current requirement that the Minister is satisfied ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist)? 13. Do you support applying a timeframe of a maximum of five years before levy exemptions via regulations must be reviewed or allowed to expire? 14. Do you agree that the Minister should be able to impose conditions on levy exemptions? Please share any further thoughts or ideas on these proposals.	Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure	The board believes an optimum timeframe would be three years, however, it is supportive of a timeframe of a maximum of five years. It is anticipated that the Minister would apply agreed principles that protect the environment for future generations.
	Reuse of material at disposal facilities 15. Do we need to clarify in legislation when the levy should be imposed on waste disposed of at a disposal facility, so that waste reuse on site is operationally necessary and reasonable? Please share any further thoughts or ideas on this proposal.	Yes / No / Unsure	The board would hope that this would optimise the resource recovery ethos.
	Stockpiling controls 16. Do you support improvements to stockpiling controls by introducing tools such as: a. an approval system with limits and conditions. b. changes to the stockpile calculation process to track the throughput of materials. c. a stockpile volume threshold limit. d. improved data collection, record-keeping and reporting provisions, to increase transparency and traceability of material entering and leaving a site. e. defining/amending the terms ‘diverted material’, ‘accumulation’ and ‘stockpiling’ in the legislation? Please share any further thoughts or ideas on these proposals.	Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure
Various Parts of the Waste Minimisation Act: Clarifying the roles and responsibilities in the waste legislation Retain the current core role of the Ministry but add new responsibilities related to the proposed EPR framework. Improve the role of the New Zealand Customs Service (NZ Customs) to support existing regulated product stewardship and an EPR framework. For territorial authorities, clarify the minimum obligations for waste minimisation and improve the regulatory tools to ensure these are delivered. Enable the Waste Advisory Board to provide advice to the Minister or Ministry on its own initiative – consistent with an agreed strategic plan – and focus the Board’s mandate on strategic and/or overarching waste issues.	17. Do you support the proposed changes to the roles and responsibilities for: a. the Ministry for the Environment. b. the New Zealand Customs Service. c. territorial authorities? 18. Do you support a change in the Secretary for the Environment’s ability to retain levy payments to a territorial authority, from mandatory to discretionary? 19. Do you support enabling the Waste Advisory Board to provide advice at its discretion? Please share any further thoughts or ideas on these proposals.	Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure
Waste Minimisation Act Part 5: Modernising the compliance and data regime Introduce a fit-for-purpose compliance regime for the waste regulatory system to bring it into line with good practice already in use in other legislation. This will define the regulators’ and other organisations’ legislative obligations for monitoring and compliance activities. Implement an amended compliance monitoring and enforcement (CME) framework to improve on the littering and other mismanaged waste compliance currently provided for under the Litter Act. Enable regulators to share information for CME purposes.	20. Do you agree the regulator should have greater powers to receive data, including the ability to share with other regulators and the Ministry? 21. Do you support the proposed tiered approach to the compliance tools and sanctions? Please share any further thoughts or ideas on these proposals.	Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure
Litter Act: The effective enforcement and cost recovery of littering and other types of mismanaged waste Improve the existing regulatory framework to enable public authorities to better deter and address littering and other types of mismanaged waste. Integrate littering and other mismanaged waste into the broader waste management and minimisation regulatory system so the whole waste system is managed under one cohesive piece of legislation (including changes to the purpose of the legislation).	Scope of the legislation 22. Do you support integrating littering and other types of mismanaged waste into the same regulatory framework for waste management and minimisation? 23. Do you support enabling regulations for the collection of data on littering and dumping? 24. Do you support expanding the purpose of the WMA to include littering and other mismanaged waste in the new waste legislation? Please share any further thoughts or ideas on these proposals.	Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure
	Roles and responsibilities 25. Regarding public authorities, do you support: a. limiting the definition of ‘public authority’ as proposed. b. enabling public authorities (amended as proposed) to warrant Litter Control Officers or appoint Litter Wardens, to manage and enforce littering and other mismanaged waste offences? 26. Do you support removing the assignment of a statutory role for the promotion of litter control to any specific agency or organisation? 27. Do you support public authorities having a discretion whether they provide waste receptacles in public places but an obligation to empty those receptacles if they provide them? 28. Do you support removing the requirement for the Medical Officer of Health to be satisfied that litter receptacles are emptied promptly, efficiently and at regular and prescribed intervals 29. Do you agree that a local or public authority should: a. retain the ability to make grants to any organisation for the abatement or prevention of litter. b. be able to spend such sums of money as it thinks fit on any scheme or campaign for the abatement or prevention of litter. c. retain the ability to make bylaws to help reduce littering and dumping, if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the new legislation. d. retain the ability to deter, prevent, require timely clean-up and enforce waste escaping/being carried on to public or private land? 30. Do you support enabling all types of Litter Control Officers to apply different tiers of compliance tools, where they are authorised to act? 31. Do you agree that, in enforcing offences, Litter Control Officers should be able to: a. use vehicle registration and ownership details. b. use appropriate evidence-gathering, search and surveillance powers for vehicles that are implicated in serious dumping offences? Please share any further thoughts or ideas on these proposals.	Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure
	Compliance monitoring and enforcement framework 32. Do you support the proposed amendments to the compliance monitoring and enforcement framework for littering and other mismanaged waste offences? 33. Do you support lowering the threshold for evidence of a mismanaged waste offence, to allow for effective compliance monitoring and enforcement by Litter Control Officers? 34. Do you agree that public authorities should be able to be compensated by the offender if the mismanaged waste offence has caused significant environmental harm? Please share any further thoughts or ideas on these proposals.	Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure Yes / No / Unsure	Councils will need to ensure they have adequate numbers of compliance officers for enforcement. Cost recovery needs to be made easier for councils.
	Cost recovery for removal of waste and correction of damage 35. Do you agree that public authorities, regulators, or occupiers of private land where a littering offence is committed, should be able to recover reasonable costs associated with the removal of the litter/waste and/or the environmental harm caused from the offender? If not, please explain why and provide any suggested alternatives for covering these costs. Please share any further thoughts or ideas on these proposals.	Yes / No / Unsure
	If you have any further comments or thoughts on the proposed amendments that have not been captured in the previous questions, please share them here.

Relevant provisions in legislation and proposals for amendment

Consultation questions

Yes / No / Unsure

Local Board comment

Waste Minimisation Act Part 2: Product stewardship

Amend the product stewardship provisions in the WMA to replace them with an extended producer responsibility (EPR) framework. Discontinue the role of central government in accrediting voluntary product stewardship schemes – organisations can still develop voluntary schemes if they wish to.

1. Do you support the proposal for a modern EPR framework?

2. Do you support discontinuing the government accreditation of voluntary product stewardship schemes?

Please share any further thoughts or ideas on these proposals

Yes / No / Unsure

The Papakura Local Board supports any legislative initiative that requires businesses and importers to be more cognisant of their responsibilities regarding packaging and the impacts on waste.

Long-term, self-regulation regarding product stewardship doesn’t work therefore a government accreditation scheme should remain.

Waste Minimisation Act Part 3: Waste disposal levy

Adjust the method for allocating funds from the waste disposal levy (the levy) to territorial authorities, to reduce the extremity of funding between very large and very small councils.

The current population-based allocation approach would change to a combination of a base flat rate (20 per cent) and a population-based calculation (80 per cent).

Widen the use of the levy money for territorial authorities to support a broader range of waste and environmental outcomes.

Provide central government and territorial authorities with a decision-making framework for spending levy funds on environmental benefits and/or reduction of environmental harm.

Remove the blanket levy exclusion for waste-to-energy technology and facilities, to ensure a level playing field for all types of final waste disposal. Amend the Minister’s required considerations and timeframe when reviewing the effectiveness of the levy.

Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the existing levy provisions for:

· levy waivers

· levy exemptions

· reuse of material at disposal facilities

· stockpiling.

Distribution of levy funds

3. Do you support changing the distribution of levy funds to territorial authorities from a population-based calculation to a combination of a base flat rate (20 per cent) and a population-based calculation (80 per cent)?

Please share any further thoughts or ideas on this proposal.

Yes / No / Unsure

This will assist the smaller councils, however, the Auckland region has issues with volume.

Scope of use of levy funds

4. Please indicate your support for changes that would permit territorial authorities to use the levy for:

a. activities that promote or achieve waste minimisation, in accordance with and as set out in the territorial authorities’ Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

b. costs associated with managing emergency waste.

c. activities that provide for the remediation of contaminated sites and vulnerable landfills.

d. compliance, monitoring and enforcement of mismanaged waste.

e. activities that reduce environmental harm or increase environmental benefits.

Please share any further thoughts or ideas on this proposal.

Yes / No / Unsure

Councils will need to ensure that they have adequate numbers of compliance officers to monitor and enforce mismanagement of waste.

5. Please share any suggestions for criteria that could form a decision-making framework for possible spending of the waste levy on environmental benefits and/or reduction of environmental harm.

Further levy effectiveness considerations

6. Do you support removal of the current blanket exclusion from the levy for waste-to-energy facilities?

7. Do you agree that the Minister’s considerations for a review of the effectiveness of the waste levy should mirror the scope of the purpose of the WMA and the parameters for levy spend (once these are decided)?

8. Do you support changing the timeframe for review of the effectiveness of the waste levy from every three years to at least every five years?

Please share any further thoughts or ideas on these proposals.

Yes / No / Unsure

The exclusions should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

A longer review period does not allow for responsiveness to the changing scope for which the levy could be used.

Use of waivers

9. Do you support replacing the current levy-waiver requirement of ‘exceptional circumstances’, instead enabling the Secretary to waive the requirement for an operator to pay any amount of levy in specified circumstances?

10. Do you support limiting the waiver requirement to emergency event situations for which a state of national or local emergency has been declared under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 and biosecurity responses have been undertaken under Part 7 of the Biosecurity Act 1993?

11. Do you agree the waiver requirement for waste from the remediation of a contaminated site should specify any eligibility criteria that an application must meet? If so, please share any suggestions for eligibility criteria.

Please share any further thoughts or ideas on these proposals.

Yes / No / Unsure

The board agrees a certain threshold would need to be met but did not think it should be limited to national or local emergencies or biodiversity responses.

The board supports the ability to have a waiver, however, the board would prefer to see suggested eligibility criteria for further feedback. For example, where a business goes into liquidation and the land is part of a treaty settlement the levy should be waived to assist with remediation of the land.

Conditions and exemptions

12. Do you support requiring a Minister to consider specific criteria before recommending levy exemption regulations are made (instead of the current requirement that the Minister is satisfied ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist)?

13. Do you support applying a timeframe of a maximum of five years before levy exemptions via regulations must be reviewed or allowed to expire?

14. Do you agree that the Minister should be able to impose conditions on levy exemptions?

Please share any further thoughts or ideas on these proposals.

Yes / No / Unsure

The board believes an optimum timeframe would be three years, however, it is supportive of a timeframe of a maximum of five years.

It is anticipated that the Minister would apply agreed principles that protect the environment for future generations.

Reuse of material at disposal facilities

15. Do we need to clarify in legislation when the levy should be imposed on waste disposed of at a disposal facility, so that waste reuse on site is operationally necessary and reasonable?

Please share any further thoughts or ideas on this proposal.

Yes / No / Unsure

The board would hope that this would optimise the resource recovery ethos.

Stockpiling controls

16. Do you support improvements to stockpiling controls by introducing tools such as:

a. an approval system with limits and conditions.

b. changes to the stockpile calculation process to track the throughput of materials.

c. a stockpile volume threshold limit.

d. improved data collection, record-keeping and reporting provisions, to increase transparency and traceability of material entering and leaving a site.

e. defining/amending the terms ‘diverted material’, ‘accumulation’ and ‘stockpiling’ in the legislation?

Please share any further thoughts or ideas on these proposals.

Yes / No / Unsure

Various Parts of the Waste Minimisation Act: Clarifying the roles and responsibilities in the waste legislation

Retain the current core role of the Ministry but add new responsibilities related to the proposed EPR framework.

Improve the role of the New Zealand Customs Service (NZ Customs) to support existing regulated product stewardship and an EPR framework.

For territorial authorities, clarify the minimum obligations for waste minimisation and improve the regulatory tools to ensure these are delivered.

Enable the Waste Advisory Board to provide advice to the Minister or Ministry on its own initiative – consistent with an agreed strategic plan – and focus the Board’s mandate on strategic and/or overarching waste issues.

17. Do you support the proposed changes to the roles and responsibilities for:

a. the Ministry for the Environment.

b. the New Zealand Customs Service.

c. territorial authorities?

18. Do you support a change in the Secretary for the Environment’s ability to retain levy payments to a territorial authority, from mandatory to discretionary?

19. Do you support enabling the Waste Advisory Board to provide advice at its discretion?

Please share any further thoughts or ideas on these proposals.

Yes / No / Unsure

Waste Minimisation Act Part 5: Modernising the compliance and data regime

Introduce a fit-for-purpose compliance regime for the waste regulatory system to bring it into line with good practice already in use in other legislation. This will define the regulators’ and other organisations’ legislative obligations for monitoring and compliance activities.

Implement an amended compliance monitoring and enforcement (CME) framework to improve on the littering and other mismanaged waste compliance currently provided for under the Litter Act.

Enable regulators to share information for CME purposes.

20. Do you agree the regulator should have greater powers to receive data, including the ability to share with other regulators and the Ministry?

21. Do you support the proposed tiered approach to the compliance tools and sanctions?

Please share any further thoughts or ideas on these proposals.

Yes / No / Unsure

Litter Act: The effective enforcement and cost recovery of littering and other types of mismanaged waste

Improve the existing regulatory framework to enable public authorities to better deter and address littering and other types of mismanaged waste.

Integrate littering and other mismanaged waste into the broader waste management and minimisation regulatory system so the whole waste system is managed under one cohesive piece of legislation (including changes to the purpose of the legislation).

Scope of the legislation

22. Do you support integrating littering and other types of mismanaged waste into the same regulatory framework for waste management and minimisation?

23. Do you support enabling regulations for the collection of data on littering and dumping?

24. Do you support expanding the purpose of the WMA to include littering and other mismanaged waste in the new waste legislation?

Please share any further thoughts or ideas on these proposals.

Yes / No / Unsure

Roles and responsibilities

25. Regarding public authorities, do you support:

a. limiting the definition of ‘public authority’ as proposed.

b. enabling public authorities (amended as proposed) to warrant Litter Control Officers or appoint Litter Wardens, to manage and enforce littering and other mismanaged waste offences?

26. Do you support removing the assignment of a statutory role for the promotion of litter control to any specific agency or organisation?

27. Do you support public authorities having a discretion whether they provide waste receptacles in public places but an obligation to empty those receptacles if they provide them?

28. Do you support removing the requirement for the Medical Officer of Health to be satisfied that litter receptacles are emptied promptly, efficiently and at regular and prescribed intervals

29. Do you agree that a local or public authority should:

a. retain the ability to make grants to any organisation for the abatement or prevention of litter.

b. be able to spend such sums of money as it thinks fit on any scheme or campaign for the abatement or prevention of litter.

c. retain the ability to make bylaws to help reduce littering and dumping, if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the new legislation.

d. retain the ability to deter, prevent, require timely clean-up and enforce waste escaping/being carried on to public or private land?

30. Do you support enabling all types of Litter Control Officers to apply different tiers of compliance tools, where they are authorised to act?

31. Do you agree that, in enforcing offences, Litter Control Officers should be able to:

a. use vehicle registration and ownership details.

b. use appropriate evidence-gathering, search and surveillance powers for vehicles that are implicated in serious dumping offences?

Please share any further thoughts or ideas on these proposals.

Yes / No / Unsure

Compliance monitoring and enforcement framework

32. Do you support the proposed amendments to the compliance monitoring and enforcement framework for littering and other mismanaged waste offences?

33. Do you support lowering the threshold for evidence of a mismanaged waste offence, to allow for effective compliance monitoring and enforcement by Litter Control Officers?

34. Do you agree that public authorities should be able to be compensated by the offender if the mismanaged waste offence has caused significant environmental harm?

Please share any further thoughts or ideas on these proposals.

Yes / No / Unsure

Councils will need to ensure they have adequate numbers of compliance officers for enforcement.

Cost recovery needs to be made easier for councils.

Cost recovery for removal of waste and correction of damage

35. Do you agree that public authorities, regulators, or occupiers of private land where a littering offence is committed, should be able to recover reasonable costs associated with the removal of the litter/waste and/or the environmental harm caused from the offender?

If not, please explain why and provide any suggested alternatives for covering these costs.

Please share any further thoughts or ideas on these proposals.

Yes / No / Unsure

If you have any further comments or thoughts on the proposed amendments that have not been captured in the previous questions, please share them here.