Wagner Nicky: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Wagner Nicky: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17585] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 As members will have gathered from some of the comments of my colleagues the imposition of a waste disposal levy was a hot topic in our caucus. It was also top of mind during submission time at the Local Government and Environment Committee. But we eventually decided that if we considered a user-pays fee and an economic instrument designed to encourage waste minimisation it would be useful—the benefits would outweigh the costs. We wanted to reward people and companies for minimising their waste and penalise those who did not make the effort. As everyone is always looking for the cheaper way individuals businesses and organisations that make an effort to minimise their waste can save money. 
We are very aware that many of the present collection systems and payment methods for waste collection do not identify or reward people who manage their waste effectively. In the domestic situation people often pay the same amount whether they are conscientious waste minimisers or profligate with their waste. We hope that systems can be developed in the long term that recognise and reward people who put effort into waste minimisation. 
We were also keen to find a way to finance capital expenditure for waste minimisation projects. At present most of those projects are paid for by the ratepayer via local government and again everyone pays the same regardless of his or her waste behaviour. Proceeds from this waste levy will be split fifty-fifty between territorial authorities—on a population basis—and a centralised contestable fund for waste minimisation projects. The cost of administrating that fund and the Waste Advisory Board will come from the portion that goes to the contestable fund. 
Territorial authorities can spend levy money only to promote or achieve waste minimisation in accordance with their waste management and minimisation plans. That was a really important ring-fencing of the money. Many people who made submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee were nervous about the waste levy but were much happier if they thought it would be applied only to waste minimisation projects. 
My Supplementary Order Paper 221 includes a third criteria for territorial authorities which requires the territorial authority when funding waste services through the waste levy to treat private enterprise council-controlled organisations and their own in-house operations on an equal basis. This deals with an issue raised by waste service operators which were concerned that councils could use the levy to subsidise council services that might unfairly undercut private enterprise and those who have been early adopters and have proactively embraced waste minimisation. I do not think those operators deserve that. It would be wasteful and certainly not desirable to use the levy to create unnecessary new organisations. It would be far more logical for a territorial authority to have a contract with existing waste service operators whoever they are as long as their operations are cost-effective. 
Once we got through the philosophy of the waste levy the debate then turned to the dollar amount. It has been set at $10 a tonne for every tonne of waste that is disposed at a disposal facility. Originally as Steve Chadwick mentioned we were considering $25 a tonne on the basis that that amount would make people change their behaviour quickly and more significantly but finally we decided considering ever-increasing living costs that that amount would be excessive and that we would begin at $10. 
We were also concerned—and this is the issue Jacqui Dean raised earlier—that too big a jump in the waste levy could lead to more illegal dumping or fly dumping which would be bad for the environment. A levy at $10 a tonne will collect $30 million a year and that will be enough hopefully to see some new innovative and successful waste minimisation projects. The amount of the levy will be reviewed by the Minister within 2 years of the legislation’s commencement and every 3 years after that. 
I also have another Supplementary Order Paper on this part of the bill. Supplementary Order Paper 220 concerns the timing of a deposit in clause 24(3). This was really designed to ensure that waste was not deposited just to avoid paying a levy. When we discussed this in the select committee we felt that 3 months would cover this issue but since then we have had submissions from recyclers who say that often it takes them longer than 3 months to aggregate amounts of waste material before it can be transported. Those recyclers were concerned that they may be caught under this clause. 
Supplementary Order Paper 220 alters the time from 3 months to 6 months in order to give that flexibility. There had been some discussion about altering it to 12 months but we were concerned that might mean people might fly dump temporarily and we felt that 6 months should give them flexibility. The original clause was put in when we were alerted during the select committee process to the issue where some organisations actually stockpile recyclable materials that can be processed at a future time. We felt it was reasonable for them to do that but not unreasonable for them to apply to the Minister when they needed an extended length of time. 
I seek the support of the Committee on both my amendments which are set out on Supplementary Order Paper 221 and Supplementary Order Paper 220. Thank you.