To: |
Local Government and Environment Committee
Bowen House, Parliament Buildings, WELLINGTON
|
From: |
Seagull Centre Trust & Thames Coastline Protection Society
PO Box 396
Broken Hill Road,
Thames
Contact person Clive Monds - Treasurer, Thames Coast Protection Society, Trustee, Seagull Centre Trust
[email protected]
|
Date: |
25th August 2006
|
Submission: |
To the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill, we wish to be heard on this submission.
|
About Us
Summary of Submission
Specific Respsonses
Part 2: Waste Minimisation Authority
Part 3: Waste Control Authorities
Part 4: Prohibition on disposal of materials
Part 5: Waste disposal levy
Part 6: Extended producer responsibility
Part 2: Waste Minimisation Authority
Part 2: Waste Minimisation Authority
The Thames Coast Protection Soc exists to; "work for the social, spiritual and physical well-being of the lands, waters and communities of the Thames Coast."
The Society has over 150 members and was incorporated in 1987 to oppose mining on the Thames Coast. Over the years we have been involved in numerous issues and projects. These include campaigning successfully against mining in the Coromandel Conservation Park behind us, making submissions to a range of local, regional and national plans and policies including the RMA, establishing a possum control programme and native plant nursery, negotiating with Transit over upgrades to the uniquely scenic Thames Coast Rd, and our more recent projects of sponsoring the establishment of the Seagull recycle shop at the Thames dump and working to establish a kiwi sanctuary on the Thames Coast.
In 2000 we were members of the District Council's zero waste sub-committee developing the Council's zero waste policy. Frustration at the lack of implementation of that policy was a driver in establishing the Seagull reuse shop.
The Seagull Centre Trust has been set up to support moves toward zero waste and retrieves reusable products from landfill.
We strongly support the general intent of the Bill. The proper management of wastes is critical to New Zealand's environment and economic future. However we believe the bill is too detailed and prescriptive in its approach in some areas.
We wish to be heard on this submission.
Top
- The Thames Coast Protection Society and Seagull Trust strongly support the intent of the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill.
- The Society and Trust strongly supports the creation of a Waste Minimisation Authority.
- The Society and Trust strongly supports the introduction of a waste levy. We believe in the "recycling" of the revenue generated back into waste minimisation activities, (hypothecation).
- The Society and Trust believe it is unnecessary to have a 'Waste Control Authority' provided a suitably empowered WMA has been established. Functions of a WCA could sit within territorial authorities.
- We do not agree with compulsory 'Organisational Waste Minimisation Plans'. These could be a requirement for any TA or organisation requesting funding from waste levy funds.
- We support the provision for "prohibition on disposal of materials". The amount of recyclable and/or hazardous products going to landfill is a national disgrace. Funding from the waste levy will need to be available for establishing infrastructure.
- The Society and trust strongly support the introduction of "Extended Product Responsibility" for the reasons just mentioned. E-waste must be a high priority reinforced by the huge volume of high value materials we see passing through our shop.
- We believe there should be section added specifically for Container Deposit Legislation.
Top
We agree with the functions of the Authority. Education and awareness of waste issues are essential to achieving compliance with regulatory measures that must provide a clear framework. It is essential that the WMA is given clear authority to advocate for its purposes.
Top
We do not believe that it is necessary to designate anew the role of territorial authorities. Provided there is an appropriately strong framework of an empowered WMA, and a revised and strengthened NZ Waste Strategy, the functions referred to in this section should be achievable through enhanced regulatory powers and functions.
Top
A prohibition on disposal is essential to force suppliers of such materials to institute recovery programmes. We are constantly amazed at the quantity of e-waste we intercept heading to landfill and that is only a small part of the e-waste! Given the hazardous and toxic substances plus valuable heavy metals in e-waste it is essential that such material be redirected into recycling and recovery programmes.
Robust EPR requirements are an essential complementary component of this measure.
An example of the sort of international scrutinity in the area of e-waste that is common overseas is available at: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up
Top
A levy should have been in place years ago. It is essential that funds so collected go to funding the WMA and TAs. In the first instance a large percentage of funds so collected should go to the WMA to assist in funding the shortfall in infrastructural requirements.
This is particularly required to assist with capital costs / funding to handle & process recovered resources in rural communities.
Access to funds should be contestable equitably across all parties.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in his recent report; Changing behaviour: Economic instruments in the management of waste, has provided a valuable analysis of such instruments and highlighted the inadequacies of the treatment of Eco-taxation in the 2001 Tax Review. The PCE report also highlighted the problems with MfE backing away from work on a waste levy in 2002 and their hopefully, past emphasis on voluntary programmes.
Top
As stated above, a robust EPR programme is an essential component of this Bill. It is depressing to see the volume of cheap Warehouse style electrical appliances with very short life-spans, non-repairable which head to landfill. They are cheap because the makers/retailers do not have to bear the environmental and landfill costs which the community currently has to pick up. While there are obvious candidates from vehicles, e-waste, appliances etc there also products such as oil, batteries etc as well as packaging and other burdensome products. The PCE, above, commented succinctly on these; In our view, producers of excess packaging and importers of end-of-life products should, through national taxation, bear the environmental costs they impose.
Top |
