Archived publication
This publication is no longer current or has been superseded.
7. Discussion
The second part of the workshop focussed on identifying the design elements that could assist in ensuring a waste levy did not create the unintended consequences. The following points were noted in the discussion:
- Exemptions for recyclers were seen as a way of avoiding increased costs associated with disposal, although many noted that exemption systems were open to abuse and were expensive to administer.
- The criteria for a fund would require extensive scrutiny in development and a recommendation was made to follow the example of other successful funds such as Transfund.
- Territorial authority spending should be limited to items prescribed in council waste management plans, with scrutiny from a national agency with the power to resolve conflicts between private business and territorial authorities. An alternative suggestion was to make 100% of the levy fund contestable.
- The central agency involved in administration of levy funds would require skills and experience commensurate with the waste industry and national priorities for waste reduction.
- The effects of illegal dumping would require stronger compliance regimes than are available. Levy funds were seen as essential for covering costs associated with compliance, enforcement and potentially disposal levies for illegally dumped waste collected by councils.
- Landfill operators may require assistance to standardise weighbridge equipment and measuring systems to make a levy system fair and equitable. There may be requirements to regulate weighbridge systems and fund initial acquisition.
- To ensure New Zealand businesses are not disadvantaged by waste levies that are not paid by importing competitors, a national levy would need to be complimented by product stewardship legislation that passed costs on to the manufacturers of waste packaging and redundant consumer goods.