What is mismanaged waste?
Mismanaged waste is waste that has ‘leaked’ or has the potential to leak (intentionally or not) from the formal waste management system into the environment (ie, the air, water or soil).
Expand scope to all types of mismanaged waste
We propose to amend the purpose of the WMA to ensure the legislation can be applied to a range of mismanaged waste scenarios.
Mismanaged waste can vary by volume, type and harm and could include:
- litter (smaller amounts and typically pieces of discarded packaging waste)
- dumped waste (larger volumes, most commonly construction and demolition waste deliberately discarded out of sight and often avoiding a levy)
- ‘escaped’ waste or waste that has the potential to escape (typically construction and demolition or packaging waste carried by wind or water from one site to another due to inappropriate management and storage).
We propose amending the penalty provisions to account for types of litter and waste that are particularly harmful to humans and the environment, such as:
- hazardous waste
- syringes
- broken glass
- invasive weeds and/or non-native species in dumped green waste.
Address data gaps for mismanaged waste
We propose to amend the purpose of the WMA so it includes reference to decreased littering and dumping. We also propose to extend the current provisions of the WMA for making regulations for collecting data and information, so these could apply to littering and dumping. If regulations were introduced, the data collected could be tonnages and/or volume of mismanaged waste cleaned up, the type of waste littered or dumped and the location (ie, public space or private property) of the litter and/or dumped waste.
Clarify roles and responsibilities for mismanaged waste
We propose limiting the definition of ‘public authority’ in the legislation to:
- territorial authorities
- the New Zealand Transport Agency
- bodies appointed under the Reserves Act 1977 to administer reserves
- any public authority determined through an Act or Order in Council for the purposes of the Litter Act.
Our proposal would involve carrying over all other LCOs appointed by virtue of their office (except traffic officers, because that office no longer exists). Refer to appendix 2 for a summary of these proposed changes. These ‘other LCOs’ would retain the same level of powers and duties as in their governing legislation, to ensure they do not gain additional, unnecessary waste CME powers.
We also propose carrying over the ability for every public authority (amended as proposed) to appoint Litter Wardens, as this is still useful for litter education and behaviour change. We recommend enabling public authorities to appoint the LCOs alone or jointly with another public authority, to ensure:
- clarity of roles and responsibilities
- cost savings where appropriate
- better CME and information sharing, to effectively deter and respond to littering and dumping of waste.
We propose removing the Litter Act provision naming KNZB as the body primarily responsible for the promotion of litter control. This responsibility is unusual for a non-statutory organisation.
Ensure mismanaged waste has effective deterrents and enforcement
We propose to amend the legislation to ensure effective enforcement of offences for mismanaged waste. The legislation should act as a deterrent to littering and levy avoidance, so the proposed amendments provide for:
- the ability for a LCO to enforce littering penalties at a lower evidence threshold due to the current difficulty in identifying the offender and offending
- prevention of litter that spills over or is blown over from private land on to public or private land and enforcement of associated offences
- the ability to require a person to clean up littered and/or dumped waste from public land, and to set a timeframe for fulfilling that requirement
- sufficient cost-recovery provisions for CME and clean-up
- potential compensation, if the littering and/or dumped waste causes environmental harm
- a suite of tools for CME, rather than prosecution only, including information sharing among regulators (see the section on Creating a modern, effective compliance regime).
Enforcing littering and dumping from vehicles
We propose extending the powers of LCOs so that, in enforcing offences, an LCO can:
- use vehicle registration and ownership details
- use appropriate and reasonable evidence-gathering, and search and surveillance powers for vehicles that are implicated in serious dumping offences.
The proposed changes will mean LCOs can more effectively enforce littering and the dumping of waste from vehicles.
Responsibilities for public litter receptacles
We propose amending the provisions for public litter receptacles to be discretionary (rather than mandatory), so that territorial authorities have flexibility around use and placement of bins. The changes will not specify the type of litter receptacles territorial authorities should provide, but we do propose broadening the terms used to allow for any type of waste receptacle (eg, recycling, glass only, composting).
We propose to retain the provisions in the Litter Act that:
- enable public authorities to require the occupier of land or premises to provide and maintain litter receptacles, where it can be shown that litter is attributable to that land or premises
- if the occupier fails to comply with a public authority’s request to provide a suitable litter receptable, the authority may install one and recover the cost of doing so from the occupier.
We propose removing the term ‘excessive’ from section 9(3) of the Litter Act, to demonstrate zero tolerance for littering or dumping waste.
We propose to keep the legislative obligation for every public authority to make appropriate provision for emptying litter receptacles in public places. However, we propose to remove the requirement for the Medical Officer of Health to be satisfied that litter receptacles are emptied promptly, efficiently and at regular and prescribed intervals. Medical Officers will still be able to use powers in the Health Act 1956 relating to sanitary works.
Some of the current Litter Act powers for public authorities are proposed to be retained without amendment, such as the ability to make grants for litter prevention and to make bylaws for littering and dumping abatement. We seek your feedback on these.
CME for escaped waste
Windblown waste, particularly from construction sites, creates a littering problem. We are keen to know about the barriers you may face using the current Litter Act provisions to manage ‘escaped waste’ to determine how best to address this in the waste amendments.
A fit-for-purpose infringement regime for mismanaged waste
We need an improved compliance framework for regulators responsible for dealing with mismanaged waste. Table 3 outlines suggested infringement levels for our proposed framework for mismanaged waste compliance. We are particularly interested in feedback from current LCOs warranted under the Litter Act on the appropriateness of the levels in this proposal. Later in the process, we will develop a final version of this proposed framework.
Table 3: Draft infringement levels for proposed mismanaged waste compliance framework
|
Mismanaged waste graduated response
|
Explanation of infringement level
|
|
|
Prosecution
Most severe offending with significant risk of harm
|
- Large-scale offending, either cumulatively across many sites by the same person or located at one site
- Likely to involve large-scale hazardous waste causing long-lasting and/or permanent environmental damage and harmful to human health
- Environmental remediation is expensive and/or difficult
- Repeat offences by the same person
- Likely to involve the use of a vehicle to dump the waste.
|
|
| |
|
Level 3 infringement
High-level offending, or dumping of small- to mid-scale hazardous waste
Up to maximum of infringement fee
|
- Large-scale or high-harm illegal dumping
- Large quantities (eg, volume more than one typical rubbish bag)
- Small- to mid-scale hazardous waste causing harm to the environment or human health
- Clean-up is expensive and/or difficult
- Likely to involve the use of a vehicle to dump the waste.
|
|
| |
|
Level 2 infringement
Mid-range offending where most severe penalties may not be appropriate
Infringement fee
|
- One-off dumping of waste, first offence
- No evidence of levy avoidance behaviour
- Does not involve hazardous waste
- May include repeat offences
- May include the use of a vehicle to dump the waste
|
|
|
Level 1 infringement
Low-level disciplinary interventions such as formal warnings and small infringements, that are designed for minor offending
Infringement fee
|
- Escalation where cautionary tools have not been an effective deterrent for the following:
- Throwing/discarding small-scale litter (eg, cigarette butts, vapes, takeaway wrappers, beverage containers):
- out of vehicles
- into or onto a public place
- into or onto private property without the owner’s permission
- First offences for escaped waste* that escapes from the site of disposal to public land, or to private property without the owner’s permission
- Environmental harm is temporary and easily remedied and/or cleaned up
- Harm to human health is minimal
|
|
|
Cautionary tools
Warnings and educational approaches
|
- Throwing/discarding small-scale litter (eg, cigarette ends, vapes, takeaway wrappers, beverage containers):
- out of vehicles
- into or onto a public place
- into or onto private property without the owner’s permission
- First offences for escaped waste* that escapes from the site of disposal to public land, or to private property without the owner’s permission
- Environmental harm is temporary and easily remedied and/or cleaned up
- Harm to human health is minimal
|
|
* Waste that has not been stored appropriately (ie, in a suitable leak-proof container with a lid or other form of covering to prevent lightweight waste escaping in the wind or excessive waterflow).
