Skip to main content.

3 Key elements and work priorities

Most submitters agreed with the ideal key elements of a comprehensive policy framework. Submissions also showed a strong level of support for the proposed priorities of the work programme opportunities. All of the proposed high-priority opportunities were especially strongly supported.

Key elements

Discussion point 1

Are these the ideal key elements for a New Zealand contaminated land framework?

Of the 27 submitters (44%) who responded to this discussion point, almost all (24) agreed with the elements identified in Table 1 of the discussion paper. Three submitters partially agreed, suggesting additional key elements or mostly minor modifications to the elements.

Table 2: Response to key elements, by submitter ID

Key elements Submitter ID

Agreed with key elements

4, 8, 9, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 60

Partially agreed, with modifications

29, 58, 61

Priorities

Discussion point 3

Are the priorities that have been assigned to each opportunity appropriate? If not, what are more appropriate priorities?

Forty-six submitters (74%) responded to this discussion point. Table 3 shows the degree of alignment to the suggested Ministry for the Environment priorities.

Table 3: Submitter and Ministry priorities for identified opportunities for change

Opportunities Ministry priority Submitter priority
High Medium Low

Produce nationally consistent methods for deriving health-based soil contaminant levels

High

37

0

0

Produce a standard (for human health) that defines management actions

High

32

1

2

Increase the size of or modify the Fund

High

27

1

3

Provide added certainty with a standard

High

26

0

1

Produce guidance on the management of contaminated land information

Medium

1

25

1

Establish a collection of national information on contaminated land

Medium

4

24

3

Require tracking of contaminated soil and waste using WasteTRACK

Medium

4

23

4

Investigate options for addressing liability barriers

Medium

12

19

1

Provide guidance on how agencies establish working relationships

Medium

11

15

0

Provide new guidance

Low

2

1

22

Review and revise existing guidance

Low

6

0

22

Investigate establishing a scheme of accredited auditors

Low

4

2

21

Investigate training for practitioners

Low

6

5

19

Produce a standard (ecological) that defines management actions

Low

11

3

18

Produce nationally consistent methods for deriving ecologically-based soil contaminant levels

Low

15

6

14

Note: Dark-shaded cells with bold numbers indicate the highest number of submitters.

Submitter responses generally showed a strong level of consensus with the Ministry-assigned priorities. All proposed high-priority opportunities were very strongly supported.

Four proposed initiatives showed a weaker alignment:

  • produce nationally consistent methods for deriving ecologically-based soil contaminant levels – submitters were split between those who agreed with the Ministry and gave this initiative a low priority (14) and those who considered it a high priority (15)

  • produce a standard (ecological) that defines management actions – a significant number (11) of submitters considered this opportunity to be a high priority in contrast to the majority of submitters (18), who agreed with the suggested low priority

  • provide guidance on how agencies establish working relationships – although the majority of respondents (15) agreed with the medium priority given, a significant number (11) considered this initiative more urgent

  • investigate options for addressing liability barriers – although the majority of respondents (12) agreed with the medium priority given, a significant number (19) considered this initiative more urgent than stated.

[ Previous | Next ]