Skip to main content.

North Shore public meeting

Wednesday 1 November

Waste policy

Hazardous waste management

  • The Hazard Waste Guidelines are taking too long. 
  • National Standards would provide national consistency on chemical storage, spill response, approved management and training for handlers, and storage of dangerous goods.
  • Standards (not guidelines) on hazardous waste are needed to create a level playing field.  Guidelines can be interpreted differently in different regions.
  • Standards are important for industry.  Training is needed on the handling of dangerous goods.  There are a limited number of certifiers.  More are needed to do spot checks for small operators.
  • Problems started when Territorial Authorities got out of the dangerous goods business.  ERMA has left a massive hole.
  • MfE needs to take part in spot inspections to understand levels of compliance.

Waste levy

  • Money from waste levies should be reused in the waste industry on waste minimisation schemes.
  • Forget about waste levies.  We need measures upstream.  Manufacturers and consumers need to address waste.  There is concern that a waste levy could lead to a perverse outcome as there may be no end markets for recycling products funded by a levy.
  • Levies do not change people’s behaviour if they only add an extra cost of a few dollars.
  • We need to recognise what we are trying to achieve and the key performance indicators.
  • Levy money should be put back into infrastructure into the start or end of the process.
  • The levy does not disadvantage existing business.
  • There was an argument for a Waste Authority to keep a close eye on retention of levy money.
  • Levy money could be used for capital to cover set up costs.  It should be prioritised to those that can make the most difference.

Waste minimisation

  • Waste minimisation cannot be piecemeal.  It needs to be prioritised.
  • What is MfEs future plan for waste minimisation?
  • How can we achieve zero waste?
  • Proper data needs to be collected on waste generation and disposal.
  • Better systems are needed to support innovation in waste minimisation.
  • People want national guidelines and standards for national consistency.
  • More proactive planning is needed for the future.
  • There is concern about packaging.  There is lots of stuff that could be recycled e.g. biowaste to gas, waste to energy.
  • Put an emphasis on reducing the amount of products produced.
  • There is a problem finding markets for end of use products – e.g. tyres, mercury from batteries.
  • Polystyrene should be banned.  It is not needed and is hard to dispose of.

Product stewardship

  • There is support for a voluntary system supported by regulation.
  • Voluntary systems work out in terms of cost for the people supplying.  We need to support the things that are most financially viable.

General comments

  • We need to prioritise major wastes and work on them.
  • There is a lack of support for innovative appropriate technologies.
  • There is a need for investment in innovative new industries and niche markets, for example burning tyres and turning them into charcoal
  • Industry loans and incentives could be used to help people get started.
  • It is difficult to find composting sites for green waste and kitchen waste.  Is it only way to deal with it?
  • There could be stand alone composting plants to produce bio gas.
  • The definitions in the Bill need a lot of work for it to work.  People will try and work their way around poor definitions.
  • Downstream costs need to be factored in to enable better decisions.  There are 700 million tyres worldwide and less than 5% recycled.
  • 2 million tyres – 328,000 barrels of oil, steel and carbon black $90/kg.  98% can be recycled with this technology 2% cannot.
  • Tyre Track has not been helpful.
  • We need to know who the right person is to talk to in government to discuss new innovation to manage waste.
  • Clean fills and managed fills are becoming defacto dumps.  Landfills are subject to scrutiny, clean fills also need to be.  Auckland Regional Council is good at looking after this but is under-resourced.  Can MfE look at it?

National environmental standards

Contaminated land

  • The National Environmental Standard (NES) needs to allow for site-specific assessments.  A clear methodology is required.
  • Environmental health numbers are needed in addition to human health numbers.
  • There are variations in the way different councils apply different guideline values.
  • It is important to develop a methodology of deriving guideline values for better consistency across council boundaries.
  • It is better to avoid contamination problems rather than treat them.

General comments

  • There are problems with development locally including sediment runoff into the harbour (especially coastal tidal flow areas) and building in areas which are sensitive and prone to flooding.  Rules are not consistently applied.
  • The cost for putting in sediment control and treatment systems is very high.
  • Cost-benefit analysis of investment needs to be long-term and include environmental effects.
  • Policy rules are inflexible.  They apply numbers and do not take into account site-specific aspects.
  • More education is needed for regulators.
  • Risk assessment methodology needs to be applied more.
  • Stakeholder involvement and community input is needed to agree on development rules.

Water

Water allocation and usage

  • Tradable water rights may work.  There are a number of social issues but tradable water rights turn water into a commodity.  The rural sector is likely to be against it.
  • Can the Sustainable Water Programme be effective in time given the rate of allocation?
  • The near irreversibility of increased use of tradable water means it must be very, very carefully thought through.  Other options need to be considered equally.

General comments

  • There is a desire for leadership around joining the dots between regional, city and district links and between freshwater community initiatives.  A national working party was suggested.
  • ARC has pro-active in stream monitoring – WaiCare.  Send data to a central database.
  • More free information should be provided to the public.
  • Roof runoff and runoff from impermeable surfaces was discussed.
  • The focus should be on behaviour change not just information provision.
  • Funding on a yearly basis limits the potential of community groups.

Climate change

General comments

  • MfE should look at the true cost of cars through to the end of life.  This is the issue, not the disposal of computers.  The cost of disposal should be transferred back to the car owner.
  • Pacific steel need an RMA consent for burning tyres, which they will not get as the RMA looks at things in “boxes”, though tyres can be burnt safely.
  • We need to have some decisions, no more sitting on the fence
  • Voluntary initiatives do not work, regulation is needed.
  • Regulation and a variable carbon tax need to be brought in.
  • There is a lot more talk about ecological footprints.
  • There is frustration that there has been talk for five years and no real policy.
  • There is a lack of integration between policies and interagency work.  Interconnections are needed between all government and councils work.
  • National vision, leadership and direction are needed.
  • New Zealand is a “frog in the water” while it is heating up.
  • MfE’s thirteen work streams are wonderful but the public are past that and want action.
  • The Auckland public does not know how savage the air quality National Environmental Standards are, especially for new business.  Regional councils are not empowered to manage air emissions.  It is cheap to run a car so it is not in MfE’s “in tray”.  Economic instruments have the greatest impact on changing individual behaviour.  There are so many cars in the country – how is this balanced against air quality?
  • Initiatives such as tyre track are good, but they do not solve the issue or address the urgency with climate change.

Adaptation and mitigation

  • Concrete mitigation is needed, not adaptation.  It is timely to do it now. 
  • Mitigation needs to come at the forefront.
  • It is time for MfE to lead on mitigation and put in place a carbon tax, especially now as the public wants to see some leadership.
  • Why are we building on bad land and near the sea?  Who pays?
  • If you make the facts known, then people will make good decisions, e.g. not to buy property by the sea.
  • The RMA was expected to deal with allocation of costs, for example for water and air but we’re fearful of this and gone array. 
  • “Pricing trees” is good, e.g. trading nitrogen at Lake Taupo.  We have skirted around the issue since 1991 and should have been further down the track by now.
  • There is a significant sense of frustration with the government.  A national approach is needed to address climate change.

Education and information

  • The movie An Inconvenient Truth has raised awareness of climate change.
  • MfE should produce some tools to assess the ecological footprint of individuals and households as people recognise there is a problem but do not know what to do about it.
  • There are a number of tools already in existence.  These should be put on the MfE website.
  • Communications is important.  The media should be used.
  • New Zealand citizens are receptive to information on climate change.  There should be no more analysis and internal workstreams.

General interest

General comments

  • Biodiesel, tallow and palm oil are currently not economically viable fuel alternatives as they are higher than the going price. 
  • People are keen on the environment but do not want to pay extra to be environmentally friendly e.g. organic fruit.
  • In New Zealand we talk too much about where we are and not enough about where we want to be.  Sustainability should be biggest policy objective.  The vision should be tempered by an awareness of the consequences of actions.
  • Stronger leadership is needed from the Government.
  • An indicator of “throughput” is needed – not GDP.
  • Legislation against non-biodegradable waste should be introduced to reduce consumption.
  • What are we doing about landfills?  Does the public know that we are running out of space?
  • There is increased absorption of assorted toxic chemicals in humans.  What will increase in the future e.g. bird flu, BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy)?  Are we prepared for these new emerging diseases? 
  • If all of New Zealand farming moved to organic processes it would be more economic.  In the UK there is not enough organic produce to meet demand.  Getting people to buy organic produce is difficult because of the price. 
  • In Rodney, land use is changing.  Big farms are being split up into lifestyle blocks, which are actually better because they are less labour intensive, and result in less pollution of waterways.
  • Inorganic rubbish collection means that people buy more stuff.  It is difficult to be organic because past practices have contaminated the land earlier and keeping it ‘clean’ and ‘green’ is very difficult.
  • Encourage people to make submissions on the 1080 reassessment.  Americans have eradicated possums.
  • New Zealand’s big selling point to the world is our environment.
  • LIM reports should include an energy efficiency rating.  This would encourage people to invest in improving the energy efficiency of their homes. 
  • Publicity is needed on how to make houses more sustainable.  Subsidies should be available to improve the energy efficiency and sustainability of older houses.  Subsidies for solar power should be investigated.  Energy efficiency star-ratings are used in the UK and have proven very popular.  People can be educated on how to become more energy efficient.
  • Energy efficient housing is important to improving health.
  • Some of the products used to insulate houses are emitting nasty chemicals.
  • Sustainable insulation like wool should be promoted.  Wool and environmentally friendly paints are becoming more popular and affordable.  Double glazing is getting cheaper.  In the South Island it is compulsory.
  • Retro-fitting and maintaining old cars is economic.
  • New Zealand’s past history of chemical use affects organics and our export market. 

Last updated: 11 May 2007